sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ecotourism, Slum tourism

UNIVERSITEIT GENT

FACULTEIT POLITIEKE EN SOCIALE WETENSCHAPPEN

From Poverty to Pro-poor Tourism: Opportunities and Difficulties of Tourism in with regard to Poverty Reduction.

Wetenschappelijke verhandeling

aantal woorden: 22723

De Geest Glenn

MASTERPROEF POLITIEKE WETENSCHAPPEN afstudeerrichting INTERNATIONALE POLITIEK

PROMOTOR: PROF. DR. Anne Walraet COMMISSARIS: Tomas Van Acker COMMISSARIS: Marieke Krijnen

ACADEMIEJAAR 2013 – 2014

Abstract

Arguably the most controversial recent development in is the rise of so- called . This paper aims to contribute to the growing academic debate on this subject. It is a case study of the tourism sector in the slum of Mumbai, . All data was collected during a period of empirical field work in Dharavi spanning October and November of 2013. The research is embedded in the broader debate on pro-poor tourism (PPT) and aims at exploring if tourism in this particular case offers opportunities for poverty reduction. In analyzing how the sector is organized, the focus is mainly on the activities of the two main slum tour providers in the area, Reality Tours and and Be The Local Tours and . It is examined to which extent both companies implement and contribute to pro- poor strategies. Further, ample attention is paid to the findings and experiences of slum residents themselves, an aspect of the debate which has often been neglected. Their opinions were gathered through a series of interviews, which I conducted with the help of local student-translators. It will be shown that, although tourism in Dharavi has undeniably produced some pro-poor benefits, there are still significant challenges to address and obstacles to overcome if PPT is to be implemented effectively.

Samenvatting

De laatste decennia hebben zich grote ontwikkelingen in het internationaal toerisme voor gedaan. Eén van de meest opvallende en controversiële trends is slum toerisme, bestaande uit begeleide excursies door achtergestelde buurten, voornamelijk in steden van het Globale Zuiden. De ethische kwesties rond deze vorm van toerisme worden heftig bediscussieerd. De meest interessante vraag is misschien wel of dit soort toerisme economische en andere voordelen kan bieden voor de lokale armen. Deze masterscriptie wil een bijdrage leveren aan het academische debat rond slum toerisme, met name door dit in verband te brengen met het idee van pro-poor tourism (PPT). PPT focust op het verschaffen van netto voordelen uit toerisme aan de lokale armen. Concreet wordt dus onderzocht of slumtoerisme mogelijkheden biedt voor armoedebestrijding.

Dit gebeurd aan de hand van een case studie over slum toerisme in de sloppenwijk Dharavi van Mumbai, India. Hiervoor voerde ik eigen veldonderzoek in de periode van oktober tot november 2013. Op basis van participatieve observatie en interviews met alle belangrijke actoren wordt eerst een overzicht gegeven van de organisatie van de toeristische sector in Dharavi. Hierbij is aandacht voor de verschillende spelers en hun relatieve bijdragen en tekortkomingen voor pro-poor ontwikkeling. Daarna wordt veel aandacht besteed aan de ervaringen en opinies van de lokale bevolking zelf, een onderdeel dat in veel studies tot dusver nog wel eens werd genegeerd. Om deze gegevens te verzamelen, voerde ik een reeks van meer dan 60 interviews met lokale bewoners, met de ondersteuning van plaatselijke tolken.

De conclusie luidt dat toerisme zeker enkele pro-poor voordelen biedt, maar dat er vooralsnog belangrijke uitdagingen en belemmeringen zijn die een effectieve implementatie van PPT in de weg staan. Directe, financiële baten zijn vooral weggelegd voor een select groepje van werknemers. Indirecte baten, zoals verbeterde toegang tot onderwijs en gezondheidszorg, zijn wijder verspreid. Er moet echter ook gewezen worden op enkele negatieve gevolgen van toerisme.

Table of contents

Introduction Study design 1 Research questions and structure 2 Method 4

Background and theoretical framework

1. The problem of the and the need to address it 5 2. Slum tourism: origins and current appearances 7 3. Research on slum tourism: the state of the academic debate 9 4. Pro-poor tourism 14 4.1. The case for PPT 14 4.2. Pro-poor tourism strategies 16 4.3. Key factors and stakeholders of PPT 17 4.4. Measuring actual impact on the poor 19

Case study: slum tourism in Dharavi

1. Dharavi 20 2. The Dharavi tours 23 2.1. Slum tour providers 23 2.1.1. Reality Tours and Travel 23 2.1.2. Be The Local Tours and Travels 25 2.1.3. Mohammed’s Dharavi Slum Tours 26 2.1.4. Maverick tours 27 2.2. Opportunities and constraints for pro-poor development 28 2.2.1. in the tourism sector 28 2.2.2. Other earning opportunities 30 2.2.3. Non-economic and indirect benefits of tourism 32 2.2.4. Addressing social and cultural impacts 34

2.3. Escalating competition? The ‘80%-controversy’ 36 2.4. The role of the public sector 38 3. Analysis of interviews with Dharavi residents 40 3.1. Method and position of the researcher 40 3.2. General feelings about slum tourism: a ‘trouble spot’ 42 3.3. Understanding of tourism motives 45 3.4. The benefits of tourism 50

Conclusions Economic benefits of tourism 52 Non-economic benefits and impact 54 Final conclusion: measuring actual impact on the poor 56

References

1. Literature 58 2. Internet sources 60

From Poverty Tourism to Pro-poor Tourism: Opportunities and Difficulties of Slum Tourism in Mumbai with regard to Poverty Reduction.

Introduction

Study design The last decades have seen major developments in international tourism. As a counter to more traditional, mainstream forms of tourism, some tourists have expressed a desire for new ways to experience a foreign country. This has given rise to alternative forms of tourism such as , and volunteer travel. One of the most remarkable trends is the growing market for so-called poverty tourism or ‘poorism’. This manifests itself mainly in the form of slum tours, which are now being offered in a number of major cities across the globe, primarily in countries of the Global South. These tours are organized to urban slums or other deprived areas, where mostly Western tourists are introduced to the daily life of the poor. These trips are supposed to offer visitors the opportunity to experience a foreign country in a more ‘realistic’ and ‘meaningful’ way.

Freire-Medeiros (2009; 2011) has called this phenomenon the of poverty. Karl Marx once wrote that within capitalism everything can be reduced to commodities, except for poverty, which has no exchange value. Nonetheless, it appears that poverty has now become a consumer product (Frenzel & Koens 2012: 199). This development has predictably sparked a debate. Despite the growing popularity of the slum tours, they have been met with criticism and controversy. Opponents reject them as voyeuristic and exploitative, making money out of the display of poverty while visited communities gain little in return. Critics see slum tourism as an obscene form of entertainment (Weiner 2008; Saint- Upéry 2010). Proponents in turn point to positive aspects of slum tourism: They argue that it improves the image of impoverished areas and their residents, and provides tourists with a better understanding of the world. As such, slum tourism would increase empathy and social awareness. Furthermore, supporters argue that slum tourism aids the local economy and might even be a legitimate way to fight poverty (Tourism Concern, n.d.).

1

This discussion was first conducted in a growing number of press articles before finding its way to the academic world. Much attention has gone to the question if this kind of tourism is morally justifiable. Apart from this philosophical issue, slum tourism raises numerous other questions: How is the sector organized and who are the stakeholders? How do tour operators present the slums to their customers? How do both tourists and the local population experience the tours? And who actually benefits from this new development in tourism? Arguably the most interesting aspect of the discussion is if this kind of tourism could, in particular cases, be a force for positive change. To the point, the question is if slum tourism could, directly or indirectly, contribute to poverty reduction. If so, this would alleviate some of the ethical concerns on the slum tours. In this respect, a link can be established with the debate on pro-poor tourism (PPT), whose core idea is to use tourism as a tool for pro-poor development and poverty alleviation. PPT is tourism that results in net benefits for the local poor. This includes both economic benefits, such as employment and business opportunities, and other gains, like strengthened livelihood capacities and collective benefits.

In short, the aim of this dissertation is to examine if poverty tourism can also be pro-poor tourism, that is to say: if it can bring real and lasting benefits to the visited areas. This will be done by means of a specific case study, namely on slum tourism in the Dharavi area of Mumbai, India.

Research questions and structure First, I will briefly discuss ‘the slum’ and the historical roots and contemporary forms of slum tourism. Next, the current state of academic research on slum tourism will be explored, focusing on major trends and identifying some gaps in the literature. It will be indicated how this study positions itself within this discussion and how it aims to address those gaps. Subsequently, I will take up the debate on pro-poor tourism. The case will be made in favor of PPT, but there will also be room for some critical reflections. Next, common PPT strategies, stakeholders and impacts will be identified. These will be considered as benchmarks, which will give us the means to properly evaluate the pro-poor aspects and potential of the case study. Once the theoretical framework is established, I will turn to the actual case study on slum tourism in Dharavi.

2

India is one of the emerging economies in the world and is starting to assert itself on a global scale. Long a recipient of foreign aid, India has in the last decade been increasingly dismissive towards Western donors and has even started to grant foreign assistance itself. At the same time, India is still home to tens of millions of poor, and the government has as of yet not been capable of bringing about drastic domestic change. The contrast and widening gap between rich and poor is arguably nowhere as glaring as in Mumbai. In the financial capital of India, more than half of the population struggles with substandard living conditions. Since 2006, guided tours have been conducted through the most famous of Mumbai’s slums: Dharavi. In 2012, Reality Tours and Travel (RTT) – Mumbai’s dominant slum – was the overall winner of the Virgin Holidays Responsible Tourism Awards and won the category ‘Best for poverty reduction’. RTT seems to be considered an example of responsible tourism and is thus an ideal starting point for my research. However, literature on slum tourism in Mumbai has up to this point focused almost exclusively on RTT. My intent is to expand the scope and pay equal attention to other ways in which tourists visit Dharavi. I will provide an analysis of the slum tours and compare the business structures, activities and methods of the different tour providers: Who are the major competitors, what are their main differences and how do they compete? How are the slum tours organized, what is shown on the tours and why? Thus, the first part of the case study will provide a thorough analysis of the tourism sector in Dharavi, with a focus on opportunities for the local poor therein. Employment and other earning opportunities will be discussed, as well as the impact of existing development programs funded with tourism profits. There must also be attention for the ways in which tour operators prevent or address negative on the area, which is connected to the ethical concerns on slum tourism. Finally, I will comment on the role of the public sector in slum tourism.

The second part of the case study will focus entirely on the experiences of slum residents with tourism. This has been identified as a weakness of slum tourism research: Up to this point, the voices of local residents have often been ignored. As a result, important questions remain unanswered. In this study, the intention was to make the input of slum residents an integral part of the analysis. Their overall opinions on tourism, their knowledge of the tourism sector and their views on (possible) benefits from tourism, will all be assessed. Ultimately, all accumulated findings will be compared systematically to the previously established theoretical benchmarks. Based on this, a final conclusion can be drawn on the pro-poor possibilities and deficits of slum tourism in Dharavi, while offering options for PPT in the

3 future. This study does not make ethical evaluations on the question if slum tours should exist, but instead hopes to provide an objective analysis of the way in which these tours are currently conducted, with a focus on opportunities for the local poor and the difficulties they encounter to reap the benefits of tourism. Rather than outright reject the slum tours on moral grounds, I would explore if these are or could be conducted in a responsible manner and offer suggestions in that direction.

Method To accomplish the research objectives, I first conducted a review of the relevant literature on slum tourism and on pro-poor tourism. With the latter, I focused on identifying indicators which could be used to evaluate the case study. For that case study, I collected all data during a period of empirical field work in Dharavi spanning October and November of 2013. The first technique used was participatory observation: Initially posing as an average tourist, I took part in Dharavi tours with as many different providers, both formal and informal, as I could find. Thereafter, I informed the slum tour providers of my research intentions and conducted interviews with all key players within the sector. With some of them, I later maintained contact via e-mail to answer some additional questions. Next, I conducted a series of short, semi-structured interviews with over 60 local residents who were not directly affiliated with the tourism sector. Their views and opinions on a number of aspects of tourism were polled. To account for language barriers with the slum residents I received the support of local student-guides who acted as my translators. In order to get an overall image, the collected responses were later grouped according to similarity and will be presented in charts. The different methods will be discussed in greater detail at the appropriate times within this study.

4

Background and theoretical framework

1. The problem of the slums and the need to address it There is no general, widely recognized definition of a slum. The term can refer to highly diverse living areas in different parts of the world, each with their own unique history and political, economic and social background. ‘The slum’ can thus take on multiple forms. What is considered a slum depends at least partially on the context: What is regarded as a slum in one country or city, may be quite ordinary living conditions in another. Even at the local level, within a metropolitan area, slum areas may differ sharply in terms of appearance and living conditions. Therefore, slums are simply too complex, varied and volatile to be encompassed by one conclusive definition. Various national and local governments, statistics offices and other institutions use different definitions, depending on specific contexts (UN- 2003: 10-11).

Although it is near impossible to find a comprehensive definition, one can distinguish a number of characteristics of slum areas. According to the United Nations Human Settlement Programme (2003: 11-12), features that are generally associated with slums include a lack of basic amenities (water, electricity, , etc.), substandard and illegal lodging, overpopulation and lack of living space, unsanitary living conditions and unsafe environments, and uncertain tenure (illegal and informal settlements). To be considered a slum, a settlement also needs to have a certain magnitude, largely depending on criteria used by local and national governments. Although poverty and the slum are closely tied and mutually reinforcing, poverty is more correctly seen as cause and effect of bad living conditions, rather than an inherent feature of the slums. The relation between the two is not exclusive: There are relatively wealthy people living in slum areas, while conversely in most cities many poor people are living outside of the slums. To be classified as a slum area, a settlement must possess multiple, but not necessarily all of these features. Not all slum dwellers thus suffer from the same degree of deprivation.

Following these criteria, nearly one billion people worldwide live in slums, mainly in – but certainly not limited to – countries of the so-called Third World. Asia and Africa dominate the picture, with 80% of all slum dwellers between them. Moreover, it is forecasted that without effective action, the global number of slum dwellers will continue to grow exponentially, up

5 to two billion people by 2030. Globally, poverty is shifting from rural to urban areas, largely due to the influx of migrants who escape the countryside and settle on the edge of major cities in search of more opportunities – a process referred to as of poverty (UN- Habitat, v, 13-16).

The slum issue is therefore cause for concern in the international community. One of the Millennium Development Goals (2000) is “to have achieved a significant improvement in the lives of at least 100 million slum dwellers by 2020”. This by taking measures with regard to housing, urban poverty and unemployment, and access to basic provisions. In the past, governments and donors too often reasoned that the provision of improved lodging and services, through so-called slum upgrading, would solve the problem of the slums. The underlying causes of the living conditions, in particular poverty, were not (directly) addressed. UN-Habitat therefore now focuses on direct poverty alleviation and livelihood support for the urban poor, including informal economic activities. They want to improve the efficiency of policy measures by directly involving the poor themselves (UN-Habitat 2003). The United Nations has called this strategy a success, with the target being met well in advance of the 2020 deadline (UN 2012). However, while the overall share of urban slum residents as a percentage of world population has decreased, their absolute number has in fact continued to rise. Thus, many challenges remain.

In light of this renewed strategy, tourism has been cited as a potential platform for poverty reduction. This was reflected as early as 2002 in the ST-EP initiative launched by the World Tourism Organization (UNTWO). ST-EP ( Eliminating Poverty) strives to unlock opportunities in tourism for the local poor (http://step.unwto.org/). This fits in seamlessly with the ideas of pro-poor tourism, which will be discussed in greater detail further on.

6

2. Slum tourism: origins and current appearances Although it has developed rapidly over the last years and has only quite recently been brought to attention in mainstream media and the academic world, slum tourism is not a new phenomenon. The curiosity for and interest in the slum is as old as the slum itself (Steinbrink 2012: 6). In nineteenth century England, members of the upper class went ‘slumming’ in the backstreets of London, either as a pastime or out of philanthropic considerations. This form of entertainment spilled over to the , where underprivileged neighbourhoods of New York and Chicago were visited and exposed to the city’s upper and middle classes. However, around the turn of the century the practice went out of style.

Although slum tourism originated in the West, the more recent manifestations have appeared primarily in countries of the Global South. Slum tourism re-emerged first in . As early as the 1980s, NGO’s and local residents organized township tours to make white policy makers aware of the poor living conditions of black people in the segregated and marginalized neighbourhoods. These tours soon became popular with what Dondolo (2002) called “struggle junkies”, political tourists who were interested in the fight against . Since the end of Apartheid, with South Africa no longer isolated and mainstream tourism growing exponentially, so too has township tourism grown dramatically in all its major cities, up to an estimated 800,000 visitors annually (Frenzel, Koens & Steinbrink 2012: 4). Nowadays a visit to the townships is one of the main attractions offered by several of South Africa’s major tour operators. The sector receives government support and is seen by policy makers as an important potential source of economic income (Frenzel & Koens 2012: 208-209). The second important destination of slum tourism are the favelas of Rio de Janeiro in . Tourism emerged here after the 1992 Earth Summit, when due to the massive interest of UN- delegates tour operators began offering favela tours. Estimates now speak of more than 50,000 tourists per annum, most of which visit the Rocinha . More recently slum tourism has spread through various local initiatives to other locations in the Global South: Mumbai in India, Nairobi in , Cairo in Egypt (Ashwa’iyyatt tourism), Mazatlán in , Jakarta in Indonesia, Kingston in Jamaica, Bangkok in Thailand, multiple Chinese cities (urban villages) and some in the United States (Frenzel et al. 2012: 5-8).

7

From a particular niche in a few specific locations, slum tourism has evolved into a global phenomenon that now appears on five different continents. Just like the slums themselves, slum tourism takes on many different shapes and forms. Steinbrink (2012: 19) links the current manifestations of slum tourism and the global spread of the phenomenon to the globalization of the world in general and tourism in particular, and thus calls this a period of “global slumming”. Slum tourism mainly takes place in major cities, in locations where other, more traditional tourism activities are also being offered. Noteworthy is that it primarily appears in so-called emerging economies, such as Brazil, India, China and South Africa (BRICS).

In many of those locations, pioneers of renewed slum tourism were who Frenzel et al. (2012: 4) have called “professional and altruistic slummers”: journalists, academics, social reformers and political activists. They form the image of the slums that is spread in the West, through pictures, film and reports. In that way, they contribute to the production of the slum as a tourist sight. Slum tour operators benefit from the globalization of tourism and the growing concern with issues of the Global South in the world press. Popular culture also heavily influenced the influx of tourists in the last decade: films such as Cidade de Deus (Rio’s favelas), The Constant Gardener (Nairobi’s Kibera slum) and (Mumbai’s Dharavi slum) romanticise slum life and tickle the imagination. The decisive move towards offering slum tours was made by enterprising individuals and small-scale local companies or NGOs. Only at a later stage do major, internationally orientated travel agencies enter the market. This has been especially the case in South-Africa and Brazil; in other locations, slum tourism started more recently and is still at an earlier phase.1

1 Bangkok (Thailand) is the exception to this rule: here the reputed tour operator Asian Trail dominated the market from the outset and was not preceded by smaller-scale initiatives.

8

3. Research on slum tourism: the state of the academic debate Parallel to the bloom of slum tourism, there is a growing academic interest in the phenomenon. The last few years have seen a noticeable increase in the number of publications on this topic. The fact that slum tourism is a rather young area of research has both benefits and drawbacks. On the one hand the scope of the literature is still manageable, on the other hand a clear line has yet to be formed and research tends to go in all directions. Fabian Frenzel and Ko Koens, who together with Bianca Freire-Medeiros might yet be seen as the leading voices on this subject, offered a survey of the current state of research and pointed out gaps and possibilities for future analysis. According to them, research in this field has thus far been undisciplined, in the sense that the subject has been approached from various scientific disciplines and multiple theoretical angles (Frenzel & Koens 2012: 198). Most contributions are case studies. Research long focused primarily on township and favela . Recently, other locations are getting more attention, as was evident at the recent Destination Slum conference in Potsdam (May 2014), the second international conference on slum tourism.

The moral ambiguity of slum tourism has been the focus of the majority of press releases on the matter, and that ethical issue is a major aspect of the academic debate as well. In brief, the issue is whether it is morally acceptable for privileged tourists to visit underprivileged areas, with the purpose of experiencing how the less fortunate live (Outterson, Powys White & Selinger 2011: 2). Critics find it voyeuristic and an obscene form of entertainment; some have gone as far as to compare it to a human zoo (Saint-Upéry 2010). Tour operators are aware of such criticism, but of course paint a more upbeat picture. Their aim is, they state, to break negative stereotypes, promote social awareness and stimulate the local economy. To put their claims to power, most of them stress their ties with local development projects they support, financially and otherwise. The extent of this support, however, is often far from clear. Interviews with tourists confirm that tourism enterprises indeed succeed, at least to some extent, in changing the image of poverty. Rolfes (2010), for example, notes that many tourists adjusted their image of the slum and its inhabitants in a positive sense after their visit. Regarding the impact of slum tourism on the local economy, most researchers are more pessimistic. Several studies on the sector in South Africa, for example, reveal there are as of yet major obstacles to overcome before the local population can actually benefit from tourism (Rogerson 2004; Scheyvens 2007). Due to lack of market access and frequent power abuse,

9 only a limited group reaps the benefits; even for them, this often does not imply a fulltime income (Koens 2012).

An interesting question is how tourists deal with the ethical issue. It is striking that many of them tend to ignore this issue altogether. When their expectations are gauged, it shows that poverty is the main feature tourists associate with the slums. If we assume tourists want to see what they expect to see, we might logically deduce poverty to be the major pull factor of tourism. Still, few explicitly admit they have come to see poverty – probably because they themselves perceive this curiosity as morally problematic (Frenzel & Koens 2012: 199). As the reason for their visit, tourists more often cite the fact that they hope to see ‘everyday life’ and to get a more ‘authentic’ experience. According to Frenzel (cited in McGuinness 2012) it comes down to a curiosity about ‘the other’, a desire to see something new and different, something that moreover is often associated with insecurity and is therefore exciting. In this respect, Steinbrink (cited in McGuinness 2012) speaks of ‘social bungee-jumping’: visitors leap into the life of the poor, but have the safety cable of the tour operator to pull them back up. Meschkank (2010: 56) relates slum tourism to the need to present oneself as ‘better’, “a brave and serious traveller in contrast to a foolish and superficial tourist”. These motives seem self-centred, but Frenzel (cited in McGuinness 2012) notes that other tourists are likewise driven by a desire to acquire a broader and thus more complete picture of the country, in order to understand it, and thus give more meaning to their trip. That a portion of tourists does indeed struggle with the moral dilemma is evident from several newspaper articles, blog posts and my own personal conversations with visitors of Dharavi.

All authors acknowledge the ethical concerns regarding slum tourism. In an attempt to solve those problems, some of them offer tips for responsible slum tourism. Koens (cited in McGuinness 2012) states that both proponents and opponents are often too generalizing in their arguments. He seeks a balance by arguing that slum tourism may very well benefit local communities, provide residents with income and even give them a certain pride, if only when the tours are conducted in a respectful manner. An example is to not take pictures of people who are not directly involved with the tour organization. Koens (blog post, March 31, 2011) also favours direct contact between tourists and locals, to give the latter the opportunity to tell their own story and thus debunk stereotypes. Unfortunately this direct contact is often lacking, due to strict time schedules, language barriers and even a not infrequent lack of desire among tourists themselves to have a meaningful conversation. Outterson et al. (2011) argue tourists

10 should only participate in poverty tourism if there is a mutually beneficial transaction. This should be a partnership with mutual consent; the visited community should be compensated fairly. At the same time, they acknowledge the difficulties travellers might have in judging if a certain tour meets these criteria, given they do not have easy access to the locals’ perspective. Booyens (2010) finally points to the role of local authorities in the development of responsible tourism options.

Strongly associated with the ethical issue is the question of representation and interpretation of the slum. Tour operators and guides have an important role as intermediaries, who interpret the slum and form it into a narrative for the tourists (Frenzel & Koens 2012: 199). The tours claim to portray the ‘reality’ of slum life (reality tourism), as opposed to the ‘fictional’ – and presumably more negative – image that is prevalent in the West. In fact, each reproduction is of course always subjective, conditional and dubious; a construction of reality (Dyson 2012). Tourism businesses naturally want to make a profit and benefit from bringing their customers an appealing story. For this, they are highly dependent on visual aspects. They search for strong images that accentuate both negative and positive aspects of slum life. An example is when tourists are consciously being led past a dumping ground (shocking), before visiting a school (heart-warming). Slum tour providers help visitors to construct their own experience as more authentic, morally superior and more valuable than that of other (‘mainstream’) tourists (Frenzel & Koens 2012: 200). In most cases tourists will accept the story that is presented to them without question as ‘authentic’ and ‘realistic’. Goossens (2011: 6) argues that for the visitors, the experience of the slum tour becomes a symbolic signifier of all poverty and inequality in the world. A complex reality is thus reduced to a more easily consumable product. Additionally, she cautions that poverty might come to be seen as a cultural difference instead of an economical one, thus reducing the need for a political-economical solution. Stereotypes such as that of the ‘cohesive community’ or ‘poor but happy’ provide a feel good effect, which reduce the tourists’ feelings of guilt about their own privileges. In this way, the tours might contribute to the “de-problematization and de-politicization” of poverty, rather than to raising awareness (Goossens 2011: 11).

Also addressed in academic literature, albeit to a lesser extent, is the link between slum tourism and the issue of poverty reduction. Since the 1970s, there has been optimism in some circles about tourism as a tool for local . It is from this perspective, for example, that the South African government has been supporting and promoting township

11 tourism for the last two decades. However, for almost an equally long time period, empirical research has raised doubts about this optimism. By now it is obvious that slum tourism in no way automatically ensures benefits for the poor and hence is not necessarily a good option for development (Booyens 2010). This of course does not entail that it cannot have positive effects and should be completely dismissed. It simply means that adjustments should be considered that benefit the poor, which in turn would make tourism more responsible and justifiable. This discussion can be situated within the broader debate on pro-poor tourism. Frenzel and Koens (2012: 201) have argued that researchers on slum tourism might have an interest in following this debate, and could very well contribute to it as well.

As current gaps in the state of research and opportunities for further investigation, Frenzel and Koens (2012: 208-210) first note a better understanding of the way in which the tourism chain is organized. This includes the role of transnational brokers, the relation between bigger (international) travel agencies and smaller local players, and how various local enterprises (handicraft, accommodation, catering and ) respond to tourism. Ko Koens (2012) himself has touched upon this in his research on , South Africa. His findings illustrate the complexity of the subject, and how difficult it is for microenterprises to obtain a place in this chain. A second, and arguably the most important gap in the research is the position of local inhabitants. Research has thus far been conducted primarily from the perspective of travel agencies and tourists, while the feelings and reactions of slum residents on the tourism activities have largely been ignored. This is likely mainly for practical reasons. Language and cultural differences make contact with local residents far less convenient than with tourists, who in most cases share similar (Western) backgrounds with most researchers. As a result, important questions remain unanswered: How do slum residents experience tourism? How do they feel about the way their living environment is presented? In which ways do or could they obtain advantages from the advent of tourism and which disadvantages do they suffer? What little information there is on this topic suggests that with locals too there are supporters and opponents, and that the overwhelming majority of them do not find easy access to tourism benefits (Rogerson 2004 and Koens 2012, among others).

My own contribution to this debate follows the tradition of a case study. It focuses less on the ethics of slum tourism per se, but rather on the way slum tourism is currently being conducted in one particular location. In order to transcend the descriptive level and deliver a socially relevant contribution, and following the recommendations of Frenzel and Koens (2012), this

12 study is imbedded within the debate on pro-poor tourism. The organization of the tourism sector is examined, with a focus on opportunities for the local poor. And an important gap in slum tourism research is addressed by making the experiences of slum residents an integral part of the analysis.

13

4. Pro-poor tourism

4.1. The case for PPT Pro-poor tourism (PPT) is defined as tourism that generates net benefits for the poor. This includes economic as well as social, environmental and cultural gains (Ashley, Goodwin & Roe 2001: 2). Supporters of PPT want to employ international tourism as a development tool, to contribute to poverty alleviation in the developing world. The underlying idea is that, on the one hand, long-term sustainable poverty reduction requires pro-poor growth. On the other, tourism is an important and fast growing sector in many countries of the Global South and can contribute significantly to . Thus it is believed that, if a concerted effort is made, tourism could contribute to pro-poor development and could thus be used to alleviate poverty in deprived communities (Ashley et al. 2001: 48). The potential of rapidly growing international tourism to aid in poverty alleviation was first noted in the 1970s and was initially endorsed by the World Bank. Fading into the background in the 1980s and most of the 1990s, the idea of tourism-based poverty reduction resurfaced and was brought to attention by the Earth Council’s Agenda 21 (1996), which was subsequently adopted by the United Nations (1999). The Millennium Development Goals of 2000 further endorsed tourism’s role in poverty reduction (Harrison 2008: 851-852) and was followed by the launch of UNTWO’s ST-EP initiative. Around the same time, the movement for pro-poor tourism emerged in earnest.

The tourism sector indeed has some characteristics which make it particularly suitable for pro- poor strategies: It is labour-intensive, offers possibilities for small-scale initiatives, provides opportunities for the informal sector and vulnerable groups such as women and migrants, and is in many cases based on the natural and cultural capital of the poor (Chock, Macbeth & Warren 2001). PPT-initiatives can not only generate income for the poor, they can also provide collective gains for the community, which could be invested in infrastructure, education, health care, etc. Other positive effects may be skills development; improved access to information, infrastructure, credit and markets; and the strengthening of communal organizations. Less tangible changes have also been noted, such as increased pride and optimism, and increased participation in decision making (Ashley et al. 2001).

14

PPT is not limited or tied to any one development theory or model, a specific method, nor to any tourism niche (Harrison 2008: 855-858). It is a holistic approach characterized by a focus on providing net benefits for the poor and can be encapsulated by a set of principles: participation, focus on livelihood, distribution (of benefits and costs), flexibility and commercial realism (Ashley et al. 2001: 2). The intent of PPT is not to create new tourism products and expand the field, but to unlock opportunities for the poor within the current scope of tourism. Although PPT might apply to any form of travel and is not opposed to mainstream tourism, it seems clear that slum tourism is ideally suited for PPT-initiatives, since in this case it is the living environment of the poor itself that is the subject. The poor are thus directly involved and should, at least in theory, be able to get easier access to the benefits of tourism. Indeed, most case studies of PPT have focused on small-scale, community-based tourism activities.

PPT has received its fair share of criticism. Criticasters naturally do not deny the importance of poverty reduction, but they question if PPT is the right strategy. Firstly, according to Chock et al. (2001), there is insufficient evidence to support the claim that tourism can provide considerable improvements for the poor. It is true PPT-initiatives have thus far had little impact on a national level. This is because projects are mostly small-scale, site-specific and/or at the early stages of implementation (Ashley et al. 2001: ix). However, at the local level, PPT can have considerable impact. Secondly, Hall (2007: 4) argues that it is still the wealthy who benefit the most from tourism. He joins Solomon in calling for a complete revision of tourism practices, in order to “guarantee it is just, participative, and geared to authentic advancement” (cited in Hall 2007: 4). PPT-proponents do not deny the validity of these points, but choose to focus on bringing about direct, measurable change while accepting the limitations of the international system (Harrison 2008: 855-858). It is accepted that non-poor may also benefit from tourism, even to a disproportionally large extent. As has been previously stated, the focus is on net benefits rather than their relative distribution. As long as the poor benefit as well, initiatives might be considered pro-poor. It is thus a pragmatic approach that focuses on feasible goals. Likewise, PPT is not anti-capitalist, but strives to find opportunities for the poor within existing capitalist markets. For it to be successful, PPT needs to be integrated into wider tourism systems.

15

In spite of criticism, Ashley et al. (2001: 41) argue that case studies have revealed PPT- strategies do provide opportunities and benefits to certain individuals and communities. Even if gains are small in absolute terms (on a national scale) or relative terms (in comparison to the profits made by more powerful actors), PPT can be invaluable for those involved, playing an important role in livelihood security and poverty reduction. Employment can provide a way out of poverty, and small earnings an additional income as part of a survival strategy. Many more still are affected by non-financial livelihood benefits, which are hard to quantify, but can reduce the vulnerability of the poor.

4.2. Pro-poor tourism strategies There is no blueprint for PPT; location-specific circumstances dictate to a large extent which steps are possible and efficient in order to reach pro-poor goals. In other words, strategies must always be adapted to local realities. However, in order to conduct a case study, it is necessary to identify some specific criteria of PPT. From a number of earlier case studies, Ashley et al. (2001) have identified common PPT-strategies. These shall be, as far as possible, used in this work as benchmarks to evaluate to what extent slum tourism in Mumbai is or could be consistent with PPT.

According to Ashley et al. (2001: 11-17), PPT-strategies focus on the following core areas: . Expanding economic benefits for the poor o Business opportunities Developing small complementary tourism enterprises, particularly in the informal sector. Examples are craft initiatives, cultural displays or enterprises that supply the tourism industry itself. Obstacles such as lack of market opportunities and investment capital must be addressed. o Employment opportunities Tourism is labour-intensive and can provide semi-skilled and unskilled jobs for the local poor, including for vulnerable groups such as women and migrants. Both regular jobs and casual earning opportunities should be unlocked. o Collective benefits Collective community income, through equity stakes or community payments, can be used for needs that would not otherwise be met. To be effectively managed, strong, accountable and transparent community organizations are needed.

16

. Addressing non-economic impacts o Livelihood benefits Capacity building, training and empowerment; transfer of skills and knowledge. Increased participation and access to assets can reduce vulnerability. o Mitigating environmental impacts of tourism Tourism can lead to displacement of the poor from their land or degradation of natural resources on which they depend. o Tackling social and cultural impacts of tourism Tourists’ behaviour might be regarded as cultural intrusion. . Developing pro-poor policies and process reform o Building a more supportive policy and planning framework Promoting participatory planning and increasing communication with the government, lobbying for supportive policies and legislation and for investments in infrastructural development. o Promoting participation The poor are often excluded from decision-making processes, making it very unlikely their priorities will be reflected. They should be made stakeholders instead of passive recipients. o Bringing the private sector into pro-poor partnerships Ideally there should be a tripartite partnership between company, community and government.

4.3. Key factors and stakeholders of PPT Additionally, Ashley et al. (2001: vii, 28-36) identified a number of critical issues that facilitate or constrain PPT: . Access of the poor to the market Factors such as the strength of economic elites, the physical location and social constraints can hinder poor people’s access to the market. . Commercial viability Ensuring and sustaining commercial viability is critical. PPT should be a long-term investment. Continued importance of active , establishing links with international tour operators and securing government support.

17

. Policy framework Government attitude and commitment can be crucial. At the minimum there needs to be a policy environment that facilitates PPT. . Implementation challenges. These include: o Skills and capacity gap: lack of business skills and understanding of tourism. o Cost of PPT for private companies: additional funds from tourists, NGOs or donors might be needed. o Managing expectations: unrealistic expectations may cause enthusiasm to wane quickly. o Maximizing collaboration between stakeholders.

A diversity of actors must be involved for PPT-strategies to be implemented effectively. Following Ashley et al. (2001: 43-44), the key stakeholders are: . Private sector Private tourism enterprises can employ a number of pro-poor strategies. They can establish business partnerships with local residents or whole communities and maximize the use of local suppliers and staff. They can share or develop infrastructure, key equipment or services and help boost understanding of the tourism industry among the poor, governments and NGOs. They can also collect donations from tourists. . Government There is much that only governments can do – in terms of policies, regulations and coordination. “While many interventions and actions can take place outside of the sphere of responsibility of the state, they cannot be fully effective without a strong commitment and involvement of government in the area of policy”, say Ashley et al. (2001: 33). . The poor The poor are involved as individual producers, employees, casual labourers, and operators of micro and small enterprises. The community as a whole can be an actor through strong and representative community organizations, which negotiate a community stake, manage collective assets or income and participate in decision-making. . Civil society Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) can act as an intermediary and explore options for linkages between different stakeholders.

18

. Donors Donors can, through strategic donations, ensure pro-poor possibilities in a specific area are fully assessed. They can promote PPT within the international agenda.

4.4. Measuring actual impact on the poor As Ashley et al. (2001: 18) put it, “success is not measured in terms of intentions but in terms of actual reductions in poverty”. To measure the actual impact on the poor, the following factors should be reviewed (Ashley et al. 2001: 18-27): . Financial impact: all local earnings, including regular wages, casual earnings and collective income for the community. . Livelihood impact: all non-economic benefits and impacts, such as: o Human capital: enhanced skills, improved access to education and health. o Physical capital: improvements in infrastructure (roads, water, tools). o Financial capital: access to credit, loans and investments. o Social capital: strengthening of community institutions, enhanced cohesion and sense of purpose. Conversely, tourism might also lead to intra-community tensions over community funds, inequitable power balances or problems in collective management of resources and enterprises. o : tourism can provide incentives for conservation activities. o Access to information: increased communication and external contact. o Policy context: attitude change at policy level, recognition of the poor as stakeholders, spread of more participatory approaches. o New market opportunities and livelihood options: contact between the community and tour operators generates ideas and opportunities. o Cultural values: tourism is seen as valuing and encouraging local cultural assets, knowledge and skills. On the downside, there may be cultural intrusion and excessive commodification. o Optimism, pride and participation: contribute to a sense of empowerment. o Exposure to risk and exploitation: tourism is notoriously fickle and seasonal. Overdependence can exacerbate the vulnerability of the poor.

19

Case study: slum tourism in Dharavi

1. Dharavi Up to the late 19th century, the area of present-day Dharavi was predominantly marshland inhabited by Koli fishermen (Jacobsen 2007). In the 1880s the British colonial rulers, concerned about epidemics in an already densely populated Bombay, pushed polluting industries and Indian natives out of the main peninsula and to the edge of the city (Nijman 2010). Different communities of tanners and potters moved into Dharavi, soon joined by rural migrants from Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and other parts of India. Without spatial planning or major investments in infrastructure, living quarters and small-scale factories grew at random, without provision for sanitation, drains, drinking water, roads, or other basic services. By the time of India’s independence, Dharavi was the country’s largest slum. Dharavi later gained notoriety as one of the major slum areas in the world. The area is about 225 hectares in size and the number of inhabitants has been estimated to be anywhere from 300,000 to more than one million people. As a result, Dharavi has one of the highest population densities in the world (Nijman 2010: 8). Today, although it is still marketed as such, Dharavi may in fact not even be the biggest slum in the Mumbai metropolitan area anymore. The city is rapidly expanding, nearly doubling its population since the early 1990s, and has enormous problems with regard to substandard living conditions: An estimated 60% of its approximately 20 million residents lives in slums (Jain 2010). Davis (2006: 23) therefore has called Mumbai “the global capital of slum dwelling”. The shanty towns at the edge of the city have continued to grow at an exponential rate and according to some sources may already have surpassed Dharavi in size (Lewis 2011).

Two factors make Dharavi unlike any other slum in India, and quite possibly the world. First is its unique location at the heart of the economic capital of India. As Bombay/Mumbai continued to grow to the north, the city surrounded Dharavi. What was once the edge of the city lies now at its centre. The second aspect, directly linked to its location, is Dharavi’s thriving economy. The slum is home to thousands of small-scale and household enterprises, chiefly engaged in textile, leather, pottery and . The estimated annual turnover is up to 500 million euro per annum. Dharavi thus contributes greatly to the city’s (informal) economy and its products often find their way abroad. Dharavi therefore continues to attract rural poor looking for economic opportunities. Many work a few months in the factories –

20 where they receive board and lodging – before returning home, while others stay. Its central location, between Mumbai’s two major suburban railway lines and adjacent to the Bandra Kurla business complex, and its comparatively low rental rates explain its appeal as a residential area to many in the urban working class. However, its location also prevents the Dharavi slum from expanding further horizontally; so now it starts to do so vertically.

Due to the relative economic prosperity, Dharavi is certainly not the poorest of slums: Nearly all houses now have electricity and, at least for a few hours a day, tap water – (payable) basic services provided by the government. TV and mobile phones are widespread. Contrary to popular belief, crime rates are low: The sheer amount of people living closely together enhances social control. Dharavi has its own shops, schools, and even a fire brigade and police station. It is in effect a city within a city, and has been dubbed Mumbai’s shadow city (Jacobsen 2007). Nonetheless, living conditions are still very much substandard: lack of living space, bad infrastructure, unsafe and unhealthy work conditions, and a severe lack of sanitary facilities – one toilet for every 1440 people – lead to serious public health concerns. Epidemics and other disasters such as fire and flood are quite common. Because of its location and size, both private investors and government officials are keen to redevelop the area in order to pursue business opportunities. Since 1997, there have been multiple plans to redevelop Dharavi. This has been a long and arduous process. The current plan calls for the population to be relocated to apartment blocks, which would take up two-thirds of the area. The remaining one-third would be used for economic exploitation, as compensation for private investors. This would give the government more control over the area and the chance to improve sanitation, but would also facilitate registration and thus revenue from taxes. The plans have been met with significant local opposition. Some of the grievances are the limited living space provided per resident and the fact that only those families who have lived in the area since before the turn of the century would be relocated. Many residents also fear losing their businesses in the process of resettlement.

The first wave of tourists came to Dharavi in 2006. Since then, their number has grown every year. The hype surrounding the major motion picture Slumdog Millionaire (2008), partly shot in Dharavi, contributed considerably to the growing stream of visitors. Accurate figures are not available, but a reasonable estimate – based on conversations with tour operators – would put their number today at around 20,000 per year, and growing. This makes Dharavi the third largest destination of slum tourism in the world, although the numbers do not (yet) compare to

21 those recorded in township tourism in South Africa and favela tourism in Rio de Janeiro. As the demand increased, more and more providers joined the market, both formal companies and more informal players. Their activities will be discussed in the next chapter.

22

2. The Dharavi tours

In this chapter, we will take a closer look at the supply side of slum tourism. In October 2013, I took part in seven Dharavi tours with six different guides representing five different providers, initially posing as an ordinary tourist, to ensure I would get a representative experience rather than an atypical treatment. This participative observation was thereafter followed by a series of interviews: I informed the slum tour providers of my research intentions and interviewed all key players within the sector, either informally or following a prepared questionnaire, depending on the (possible) setting. In some cases this was further supplemented with personal e-mail correspondence. Based on the information I gathered, an overview is provided below of the different ways in which tourists visit Dharavi. An image will also be formed of a ‘typical’ Dharavi tour. After the activities of the different tour providers have been outlined, it will be discussed in what ways their policies correspond with and diverge from previously mentioned pro-poor tourism strategies. In this, the focus will mainly be on the two biggest tour companies. Attention will be paid to the way in which these operators are currently competing, which may potentially cause problems in the future. Finally, the role of the government – previously identified as an important (potential) stakeholder in PPT – will be discussed.

2.1. Slum tour providers The Dharavi tours can be divided into two categories. The first comprises the formal tours, offered by legitimate tourism businesses. This implies these are licensed firms, who pay taxes. The majority of tourists goes on a with one of two formal providers which currently dominate the market. The second category are the informal tours, offered by unlicensed freelance guides. These can be further subdivided between tours offered by Dharavi residents and those conducted by outsiders. To my knowledge, only one Dharavi resident currently offers slum tours as a freelance guide on a regular basis. The outsiders, which van Winssen (2012: 7) has dubbed ‘maverick tours’, are more numerous.

2.1.1. Reality Tours and Travel Pioneers of slum tourism in Dharavi were the Englishman Chris Way and his Indian associate Khrisna Pujari. Inspired by favela tourism in Rio de Janeiro, they founded their company Reality Tours and Travel (RTT) in 2005 and conducted their first tours in 2006. Since then, the number of visitors has risen steadily each year, up to nearly 14,000 in 2013 (C. Way,

23 personal communication (p.c.), Jan. 27, 2014). This makes RTT the largest provider of Dharavi tours, by a relatively wide margin. The company’s approach is disclosed in its name: It aims to show the ‘real’ Dharavi. The stated objective is to show the positive side of the slums and break down negative stereotypes about its residents (http://www.realitytoursandtravel.com). RTT set up a community centre in Dharavi in 2007 to provide English lessons and computer classes. In 2009, Way and Pujari started their own non- profit organization, Reality Gives (formerly Reality Cares). RTT has since committed itself to donate 80% of profits to their sister NGO, which provides educational programs for children of Dharavi, and supports a number of micro-enterprises and community initiatives in the area. In 2012, RTT was the overall winner of the Virgin Holidays Responsible Tourism Awards and won the category ‘Best for poverty reduction’. The jury praised “its fully integrated approach to realizing the social purpose of using tourism to raise awareness of the reality of slum life, good and bad, and to raise money from its business and its customers to assist the community in Dharavi to develop. It has developed a form of responsible tourism that deserves to be adapted and replicated elsewhere” (Responsible Tourism Awards, 2012). The company thus has an excellent international reputation. Over time, RTT has diversified its offer to include other tours in Mumbai and beyond as well, but the Dharavi tour is still its major draw, accounting for 85% of turnover (C. Way & K. Pujari, p.c., Nov. 4, 2013).2 Currently the company is expanding into Delhi, where it plans to offer a similar slum tour (C. Way, p.c., Jan. 27, 2014).

RTT’s Dharavi tour focuses on the cottage industries and small scale enterprises of Dharavi to showcase the entrepreneurship and creativity of its residents. Tours are conducted according to demand; in peak season (October – February) RTT caters to multiple groups of tourists a day, divided over two daily shifts (morning and afternoon). Tourists are gathered at the Mahim train station near the entrance to Dharavi, where they are split up into small groups and each group is assigned a guide. Once a group is formed, its guide will take it to the footbridge over the railroad tracks, which forms the border between Mahim and the western side of Dharavi. From the bridge the tourists get their first view of Dharavi, while the guide provides information on the size and scope of the slum and its inhabitants. Before they go further, the company’s no-photo policy is explained: Out of respect for the residents, it is not allowed to take pictures. Additionally, tourists are ensured that Dharavi is a safe place, but

2 This share is diminishing because of the larger increase in demand for its other tours.

24 asked to stay close and not get in the way of people working. The first part of the tour leads through the industrial area, where multiple workshops are visited to show the diverse economic activities taking place. The different procedures of recycling are addressed, followed by quick visits to a bakery, a soap-making workshop and a textile dyer. The group also passes an open sewer which is identified as the location of a scene from Slumdog Millionaire.

Next the group enters a residential area which consists of a network of very narrow alleys. The guide asks his customers to stay close and keep walking as he moves quickly through the dark maze, the tourists following in single file, dipping their head to not hit the electrical wires hanging overhead. The fact that most houses are only separated from the street by a curtain gives tourists the opportunity to peek – with some diffidence or not – into the single- room dwellings. Once the group sees daylight again and leaves the narrow path onto an open area, it is immediately confronted with the sight of a dumping site next to one of the communal toilet blocks. The tour continues through the ‘nicer’ part of Dharavi, where the streets are wider and cleaner. This is a mixed industrial, commercial and residential zone. Here additional industries can be seen, such as leather tanning and the women’s cooperative papadum-making (Ashayen area). In between, the group halts at a local supermarket to offer tourists the opportunity to buy refreshments. The next stop is a house rented by RTT, with the purpose of showing what is available in a typical house and how small the living area is. The walls are decorated with pictures of Dharavi, and the opportunity is seized to remind tourists they will be able to buy photos at the end of the tour. Next, the Reality Gives Community Centre is visited and the group passes a school before entering Kumbharwada, Dharavi’s pottery village. The tour ends at RTT’s office, where visitors fill out evaluation forms and , ranging from postcards to t-shirts and bags, are on offer.

2.1.2. Be The Local Tours and Travels Over the years, RTT has had to deal with various ‘separatist’ organizations. Several of their former employees – guides from the Dharavi area themselves – decided to start their own company. Some initiatives have been short-lived: Thomas Tours India (TTI) was set up by a dissident employee of RTT in 2011. Besides slum tours, Thomas offered tours and packages in Mumbai and . However, in the course of 2013 Thomas seems to have discontinued his offer. He could not be reached by e-mail or phone and none of his former competitors seem to know his current whereabouts. Recently the website for TTI went offline as well.

25

By far the most successful initiative has been that of Fahim Vora and Tauseef Siddiqui, who set up Be The Local Tours and Travels (BTL) in 2010. Fahim is a former employee of RTT, who after a falling out regarding the company’s policy left to set up his own project. BTL distinguishes itself by emphasizing its local character: all staff members are youths living in Dharavi. The sizeable cost of higher education is often a too heavy burden for Dharavi families. BTL’s aim is to help local students earn an income and gain valuable skills. The approach to slum tourism is the same as that of RTT: To dispel the myth that poverty is due to laziness and instead demonstrate the entrepreneurship of the hardworking poor. “If visitors are expecting extreme poverty and despair based on movie depictions, they will be disappointed. In fact this tour actively breaks stereotypical depictions of the slum” (http://www.bethelocaltoursandtravels.com). Just like RTT, BTL does not allow photography. The route through Dharavi is also very similar: As with RTT, the group starts off from Mahim station and makes its way through the industrial area and the first residential area with the narrow alleys, ending up at the dump. Afterwards, the route deviates, but the experience is largely the same, the only exception being that no NGO is visited.

For now, BTL is surely the smaller competitor. Fahim Vora (p.c., Oct. 23, 2014) estimates that BTL receives about 30% of RTT’s tourism share. BTL is however becoming more professional. It is ever more present in travel guide books and is also starting to diversify its offer. A very recent addition is the Dharavi Foodie Tour, which allows tourists to become a chef in a local’s house. This will presumably allow residents and visitors to interact more directly and provide a more meaningful experience. In addition, BTL has started tours of Mumbai and its surroundings, as well as a car rental service. BTL has from its inception been mentored by Deepa Krishnan, owner of Magic Tours of India. It is a close relationship, with Mrs. Krishnan offering both advice and support in a number of ways. Until recently, Mumbai Magic (an affiliate of Magic Tours) offered a Dharavi tour under its own name, but using BTL’s guides and allowing almost all profits to go to BTL.

2.1.3. Mohammed’s Dharavi Slum Tours Mohammed Sadique is a Dharavi native who offers his services as a freelance guide. He is a university student and is close friends with the clique of BTL, but works solely for his own account. BTL does cover him if he gets in trouble with the authorities, since he is not officially licensed to act as a . Mohammed’s route is, again, very similar to that of RTT and BTL – although he does offer some unique experiences: He takes tourists on a

26 rooftop visit in the industrial area, where they can see the drying plastic on the roofs, and he ends the tour with a visit to his own house, where he offers chai (tea) in the company of family and/or friends. Being from Dharavi, he has extensive knowledge of the area. The quality of the experience for tourists is therefore up to par with that of the formal tour providers.

2.1.4. Maverick tours ‘Maverick tour’ is an umbrella term for all tours conducted by unlicensed Dharavi outsiders. These are professional or non-professional freelance guides who do not live in Dharavi, but bring tourists there.

Firstly, there are (semi-)professional guides who roam the streets of Colaba – the tourist centre of Mumbai – and invite travellers on a tour through the city, which in some cases involves a trip to Dharavi. The experience on this kind of tour obviously depends in large part on the guide. Therefore, I can only draw from experience. In my case, I got to see a completely different part of the residential area, which is not frequented by the tour operators. This visit demonstrated the impact of tourism in an indirect way: Along the main route, people are used to see tourists. They therefore tend to ignore them or stare at them with blank faces. Since people in other parts of Dharavi are far less used to tourism, they are more curious and far more enthusiastic. On this maverick tour, I had ample opportunity to communicate directly with the residents. On the formal tours, in contrast, there is hardly ever room for spontaneous encounters and conversations. Here, the guide is the narrator and tourists passively consume the provided information, while the residents are mostly background figures, part of the décor. Direct interaction between tourists and locals is virtually eliminated. On the flip side, facts and figures provided by the maverick guide were often wildly inaccurate and the main industrial area – the most integral part of the formal tours – was not featured. Like most outsiders, my guide allowed to take pictures and even encouraged this. In addition, he displayed some questionable and irresponsible behaviour, which could possibly put tourists at risk.

Secondly, although I did not take part in this myself, it is known that there are taxi drivers who offer tours to Dharavi by car. Of course, visiting the area in this way is very different from a walking tour. For one thing, the car can only stay on the main roads. As one can gather from my earlier description of a walking tour in Dharavi, staying on the main roads would

27 considerably limit the experience. The main residential and industrial areas of Dharavi cannot be reached by car – the alleys are simply to narrow. While tourists might feel comfortable to just sit back and relax, from the perceived safety of the car any contact with the area is eliminated. As van Winssen has shown, the permanent separation created between the tourist and his surroundings actually enhances the image of the slum as an unsafe place. As one tourist explained: “They told me that I could get out of the car just for a quick look and should go back in the car immediately. While we were driving, he asked me to keep the window closed. This made me feel uncomfortable and almost gave me the feeling that we were doing something illegal.” This is in sharp contrast to the experience of a tourist that took the walking tour: “The place is very different from what I expected […] I actually felt more safe there then I do in other parts of Mumbai” (van Winssen 2012: 10-11).

Lastly, tourists may make Indian friends who are not regular guides. van Winssen (2012: 23- 24) has described such an experience, wherein the visitors “were just walking the main streets without [making] comments that went beyond the obvious.” Moreover, when one of them took photographs and got into an argument about this with a local, “the [friends] just walked off and waited a bit further down the street”. Here, as with the other maverick guides, there is an obvious lack of guidance and proper information.

2.2. Opportunities and constraints for pro-poor development

Based on the organization of the tourism sector detailed above, some intermediate conclusions can be drawn on the economic opportunities and other benefits available to the local poor, as well as the negative impacts of tourism. The perspective of the slum tour providers will further on be supplemented with that of the slum residents themselves.

2.2.1. Employment in the tourism sector RTT currently employs about fifteen professional guides – some of them half-time or seasonal – and a half dozen other members of staff, three of which are non-Indian. Guides make between 9,000 and 14,000 Rs. per month (C. Way & K. Pujari, p.c., Nov. 4, 2013). This is consistent with other entry-level salaries in Mumbai and might be a nice additional income for a family, but would be insufficient to support a household on its own. Therefore, all guides are young and mostly still living at home, and staff turnover seems to be quite high. Only one or two guides are from Dharavi itself, but the company stresses that all are of humble

28 backgrounds. Pujari has therefore called RTT “an empowerment program for young people who cannot find jobs” (Zaidi 2012). Although this might well be the case, the fact that RTT has moved away from using local guides can still be considered a negative development. Way (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013) freely admits that RTT has shied away from hiring Dharavi natives in recent years because of the fact that some of their former employees – “guys who we invested in” – have moved on to set up competing companies. From a business standpoint, it is understandable that they want to avoid this situation.

BTL’s founders have indeed benefitted from their training and work experience with RTT as well as from their local ties to set up their own company. BTL employs about 10 student- guides, who are assigned tours according to their availability and own preferences. They are paid 200 Rs. per tour, which they consider to be fair money.3 As Salman (p.c., Oct. 31, 2013) explained, other student jobs would require them to work more hours for the same wage, while they would have to travel away from their own neighbourhood as well. Around 90% of Dharavi children go to school. Free or very cheap education is provided for by the government. The problem is pursuing a higher (college or university) education, when prices rise astronomically. Only the top students are able to secure scholarships. Because the cost is too high for most families to afford, there are a lot of high school dropouts. By offering local students a sustainable income to support and continue their education, the job as guide can indirectly be seen as a vehicle for social mobility.

To the informal tour providers, the Dharavi tours provide more occasional earnings. For Mohammed Sadique (p.c., Oct. 25 & 27, 2013), his earnings are a welcome addition to his family’s income and give him the opportunity to help fund his education, but they are not sufficient to call it a full-time job. Although he receives customers on a fairly regular basis, even in peak season he does not have tours every day. He still relies mostly on word of mouth and some marketing via Facebook, and remains relatively hard to find. For Dharavi outsiders, the earnings are scarcer still. To them it is a supplementary income, as part of a survival strategy of livelihood diversification.

Opportunities within the tourism industry are not available to everyone. A first condition is of course to have excellent English language skills in order to communicate with foreign

3 The amount may vary somewhat depending on the size of the group.

29 tourists. Jobs with BTL are only open to full-time students from the Dharavi area. In addition, BTL is basically a group of long-time friends. It would be hard for someone without a prior connection to the members to acquire a job. This demonstrates the importance of social network in finding economic opportunities. When assessing the personnel in the slum tourism sector, it is obvious that there are serious gender constraints as well. All informal guides are male, just like all staff members of BTL. Being a guide is considered a man’s job, as Tauseef (p.c., Oct. 21, 2013) explained: “Perhaps some girls could do it, but you have to walk around a lot in the heat”, suggesting women would be averse to doing this. RTT has long employed at least one woman in its supporting staff. In addition, I had the fortune to be part of the inaugural tour of the first female guide in Dharavi. RTT thus breaks through the barrier for women.

2.2.2. Other earning opportunities The lack of response to tourism from local entrepreneurs and service providers is striking. Nowhere along the main touristic route do local vendors actively address visitors to buy their goods, as is common at nearly every other in India. This is in stark contrast to the situation in South African townships and in Rio de Janeiro’s Rocinha favela, where a whole range of enterprises, from street vendors to small-scale transport services, and B&Bs, have developed in the margins of the tours to cater specifically to tourists. The only visible sign of local merchants responding to tourism in Dharavi was outside of one particular leather workshop, where handbags and belts are stalled out in a glass display. From conversations with guides I gathered that these are indeed meant for tourists. Although no one from my groups purchased here, I was told it does happen with some frequency. In other spots which seem ideal for selling, such as in Dharavi’s pottery village, I found no trace of this, nor did I see anyone offer other services.

When I questioned the tour operators about this and asked if they would be interested in forming partnerships with local businesses, the responses were lukewarm at best. Deepa Krishnan (p.c., Oct. 21, 2013), mentor to BTL, expects that the market will respond organically and people will find opportunities on their own. She is a strong supporter of bottom-up, grassroots initiatives. She mentioned someone offering hygienic food or setting up a clean toilet along the route as potential business opportunities. However, since in eight years time no such initiatives have sprouted, it seems that the market is incapable of responding organically. Way and Pujari (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013) also expect there to be more vendors

30 providing food or souvenirs in the future. While Pujari brushed off the possibility of creating partnerships, Way was not so quick to dismiss it. He did explain they would have to be very careful to ensure that this is done in an ethical way. Their main concern is to not create friction by favouring certain enterprises. This is also the reason why none of the tour providers compensate the local businesses or factories they visit. They don’t want this to become a habit. When locals object to bringing foreigners, they will simply take their customers to another factory or shop. However, all providers also argue that the visited businesses do not ask for compensation anyway. According to Fahim Vora (p.c., Oct. 22, 2013), local business men have asked for orders, but only in bulk.

Certainly a factor in the major actors’ hesitance to promote other tourism initiatives is a genuine concern for the impact of large-scale tourism on the area. For Deepa Krishnan, it is hard to draw the line. She feels like tourism has its merits, but does not want to put too much pressure on Dharavi. Vora likewise does not want to see his area become “another Colaba” and wants to keep tourism small-scale. To Chris Way, “Dharavi is not a place to buy things, but to see.” None of the actors want to change the nature of Dharavi and make it another major tourist attraction, which is certainly justifiable.

Still, opportunities could be explored to develop local partnerships and promote sensible initiatives. For instance, earlier it was mentioned that RTT offers souvenirs at the end of the tour. It is poignant that none of these are locally made. While the craftsmanship is certainly available within Dharavi itself, bags, postcards and other merchandise are manufactured in other parts of Mumbai. “I love Dharavi” t-shirts are, ironically, imported from northern India (C. Way, p.c., May 15, 2014). Secondly, RTT-employees have actually advised tourists against buying goods at the earlier mentioned leather store. Krishna Pujari (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013) argues that it is their responsibility to warn tourists that the goods are overpriced. However, the company has a responsibility to the community as well. Therefore I would argue that local shop owners have every right to set the price and make the most out of it. The goods are of high quality, prices are still far lower than tourists are used to pay in their home countries and as anywhere in India there is ample opportunity to haggle. Ultimately, the laws of supply and demand will do their work. That the topic of providing business opportunities to other local enterprises has been given little thought, is evident from the following anecdote: For years, RTT has been stopping at the same local supermarket to allow tourists to buy refreshments. In this way, RTT has long directed customers to this particular store. However, this is

31 unintentional – there has never been any arrangement between RTT and the shop keeper. The shop is just conveniently located along the route. If RTT and other providers would think this through and spread their groups around, they would be able to provide additional income opportunities to a number of shopkeepers. Up to this point none of the providers has expressed a clear interest in opening up this kind of economic opportunities for other businesses in Dharavi.

2.2.3. Non-economic and indirect benefits of tourism In 2009, Way and Pujari founded Reality Cares, which was later renamed Reality Gives. The NGO is based in the Ashayen area of Dharavi, where it operates a community centre. Reality Gives is funded through RTT, which donates 80% of profits from its tours and 100% of profits from sales of merchandise. Additionally, Reality Gives asks for both monetary and in- kind (equipment) donations on its website (http://www.realitygives.org).

On that website, Reality Gives notes as its key achievements so far: . “Health and environment: Educated and consulted the mothers of 87 children about the determinants of malnutrition. . Education: 13 trained local women taught more than 500 students in English using child- centred and interactive teaching methods. . Livelihood: Empowered 400 students between 16 and 30 by providing training in English, computer and soft skills.”

Reality Gives runs a number of programs: . Youth Empowerment Program (YEP): a 3½ month course run at the Community Centre, consisting of English, computer and soft skill lessons, which are free of charge; a deposit to assure attendance is reimbursed upon successful completion of the program. . English Language Support for school children (3-6 years old), in collaboration with the Royal City School. Additionally, they have run their own kindergarten in the Kumbharwada area of Dharavi, providing tuition for 130 children in the last 3 years. . Ashayen Community Centre: as well as the YEP, the community centre hosts evening computer classes – which teach basic skills such as use of Microsoft Windows and Office – a library and community engagement programs like drama, dance and art classes, movie screenings and opportunities to play games.

32

. Reality Gives also runs a cricket team and a girls football team, in cooperation with Project Front Foot and YUMA respectively.

In addition, Reality Gives financially and logistically supports a number of small-scale projects in the area, most notably an acupuncture clinic (Barefoot Acupuncturists), a program for hearing impaired children (CORP) and a health foundation focusing on malnutrition (FMCH).

All in all, it is clear the programs concentrate on teaching valuable skills which youths can utilize to continue their education and/or get better jobs, and ultimately improve their quality of life. English and computer skills are extremely valuable assets in a modern economy, while group activities like sports and games can provide children with important soft skills as well. In addition, Reality Gives has improved access to health care. By funding these programs, RTT has – through Reality Gives – responded to local needs and certainly made an important positive contribution to a considerable number of beneficiaries. One flaw is that as of yet there are no accurate figures available for the amount of people that directly benefit from Reality Gives’ activities on a regular basis. The numbers mentioned earlier are actually out of date and incomplete. This makes it hard to accurately measure and follow up on the impact of these programs, in order to make adjustments where necessary. Chris Way (p.c., Jan. 26, 2014) acknowledged this problem and hoped to put an overview together by May 2014. However, he was not able to provide this before the deadline of this dissertation. In addition, the yearly report for Reality Gives is also late.

Whereas RTT strongly emphasizes the relationship with its sister NGO Reality Gives, BTL does not want to be known as an NGO, but strictly as a (for-profit) company. BTL does intent to support one NGO with 50% of profits from the sale of t-shirts. However, this initiative is solely based on personal relations: The NGO’s owner is Vora’s former teacher and personal friend, and he wants to repay her in this way (F. Vora, p.c., Oct. 23, 2013). In addition, several guides and tour providers have noted an increase in charity and volunteer work in the Dharavi area, attributing it to increased exposure. This is hard to measure, however.

On a personal level, non-economic benefits of tourism have been noted as well. Besides offering them a sustainable income to support their education, Fahim Vora (p.c., Oct. 22, 2013) argues that working with international tourists boosts the guides’ self-esteem and self-

33 confidence: “I myself have become way more confident; it broadens the mind.” For all guides I talked to, financial incentives were clearly the main reason to become a guide, but they did note other positive outcomes. Salman sees the tours as part of his personal development (van Winssen 2012: 16-18). He calls the tours a mutual learning process. From the different questions tourists ask him, he gains a new perspective on things which are normal to him. According to Irshaad, being a tour guide teaches him about Western culture and life, but makes him reflect on his own life as well. Shekar adds: “Working with tourists has definitely changed my mind. I became more free. You know how Indian society is, but now I am more free.” van Winssen therefore has called the tours a process of intercultural exchange. This broadening of the mind can also be seen as a kind of skills development.

2.2.4. Addressing social and cultural impacts Tourism undeniably and unavoidably has an impact on the visited community/ies. Mitigating this impact and making sure that negative effects do not outweigh benefits, is an important task for tour operators if they want to conduct their activities in a responsible manner. All formal providers deal with the ethical issues of slum tourism in a similar way. On the Dharavi tours that were until recently conducted under the name of Mumbai Magic, the tourists received a letter from Deepa Krishnan on this matter. She argues that, in any case, there is no avoiding the poor in Mumbai. According to her, there is an image of two Mumbais, one of wealth and one of misery, and the aim of the tours is to show a third side: that of the hard- working poor. Other tour companies likewise point to their intent to improve the image of the slums. By informing the locals of these intentions they avoid negative responses to tourism activities, claim representatives of both BTL and RTT (a claim that will be tested extensively in the next chapter, when the opinions of slum residents themselves are assessed).

Way and Pujari (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013) further mentioned the fact that they deliberately keep groups small and invest profits back into the community as strategies for addressing the impact of tourism. The point about using small groups is an interesting one. RTT is actually somewhat victim to its own success. On busy days, the amount of tourists gathering near Mahim station can make it almost feel like mass tourism. RTT tries to limit each group to a maximum of six tourists, and while this is certainly the right idea, all groups follow the same route, which makes it hard to avoid each other. It is not uncommon that two groups need to pass each other in a narrow alley, or that several groups end up at the same spot at the same time, blocking the way for workers or passersby. That this can occasionally get somewhat

34 crowded is certainly noticeable when compared to the experience with smaller tour providers. Several tourists expressed to me the feeling that they were in the way at times, which is consistent with my own experience. RTT may benefit by trying to diversify the route or taking a little more time between each group. BTL and other, informal providers struggle less with this problem, although this is more a reflection of relative customer demand than of any intentional policy.

As we have seen, with the maverick guides the quality of tour is in most cases lacking, which is detrimental to both tourists and the host community. The industrial area of Dharavi was in all cases ignored. The formal tour companies, as well as local resident Mohammed Sadique, have a clear purpose of changing the perception of Dharavi. Their strongest asset in negating the image of the slum as a place of misery, laziness and crime, is to demonstrate and emphasize the entrepreneurial spirit and productivity of the hardworking poor. The maverick guides are often inexperienced in tourism and their activities fit solely into a survival strategy without any broader purpose. By ignoring the industrial activity, any potential for a deeper meaning of the tour is lost. In addition, we have seen that these maverick guides usually take less measures to protect both residents and tourists, for instance by allowing photography. Indeed, while the formal providers have a no-photo policy, many maverick guides – like my own – actively encourage tourists to take pictures. My guide’s view was that people, especially children, often want to have their picture taken, and to forbid this is to treat them like they are dangerous (T.A. Bradley, p.c., Oct. 16, 2013). Of course it is too one-sided to claim that everyone in Dharavi is opposed to photography. I heard several groups of children implore tourists to take their picture. Likewise, I spoke to a group of Muslim men who assured me there was no problem: “What can be offensive about taking a picture of a person?” However, in the same breath they added: “We’d just rather you don’t take pictures of the women.” This anecdote demonstrates that there certainly are sensitivities and how hard it is to clearly define these. Tourists cannot be expected to always correctly assess if it is acceptable to take a picture. Therefore it is wiser to ban photography altogether. Guides have a responsibility to both the tourists and the community to avoid possible irritation and tension. Maverick guides often lack that sense of responsibility and, because of a lack of experience, are less capable to properly assess situations. As one of the employees of BTL (p.c., Oct. 23, 2013) so eloquently put it: “It is a zoo for them, but a house for us. They are not liable to you and to the community; we are, because we live here.”

35

2.3. Escalating competition? The ‘80%-controversy’ Although lauded internationally, Reality Tours and Travel is not devoid of local critics. On the contrary, all other tourism actors seem to share a dislike for RTT. This stems at least in part from RTT’s dominant position in the sector. Most competitors believe, and this idea is shared by other people in Dharavi with a good enough understanding of the tourism sector to have an informed opinion, that RTT’s tagline of donating 80% of profit to its sister NGO is untrue. Fahim Vora claims that, while still an employee of RTT, he checked the numbers and found that profits were much higher. He confronted Way and Pujari and this falling out led to him starting his own company. Other guides for BTL, as well as freelancer Mohammed Sadique – who was present at a physical altercation between Vora and Pujari – follow this narrative.4 Similar ideas have been uttered by my maverick guide and some Dharavi residents, namely a number of local students (none of which were affiliated with BTL) and one factory owner. Most of these people did not have tangible arguments other than the fact that they simply found it to be impossible.. Most striking is that one guide who at this point is still employed by RTT expressed similar doubts. After an initial conversation, he refrained from further comment and asked not to be named, for fear of losing his job.

To investigate these allegations is not a simple task. Part of the reason why RTT is commended internationally is the fact that the company is reputed to be very transparent in its profit allocation. On its webpage, audited accounts are provided, detailing the company’s yearly revenue and expenses (http://www.realitytoursandtravel.com/transparency.html). However, in the last few years RTT has been less diligent: the most recent numbers date back to March 2011. Like with the numbers for Reality Gives, Chris Way hoped to set this straight by May 2014, but was unable to do so in time. Therefore we must for now rely solely on older data and other sources. An (admittedly cursory) assessment of the available accounts by a qualified accountant has proven no irregularities. I also contacted all local projects with which Reality Gives has partnerships; none of them had anything other than praise for the NGO and its sister company (p.c., Feb. 17-19, 2013).

4 Sadique is noticeably afraid to express any opinion on RTT and even to wander too close to RTT’s office or the Reality Gives Community Centre; the reason likely being that he does not have a license and wants to stay under the radar.

36

Nonetheless, the perception is there. The most plausible explanation is that this is due to a combination of envy and suspicion for the large, ‘outsider’ company, and the result of a misconception. My hypothesis is that there is a misunderstanding of what exactly that 80% comprises. Many sceptics explained their thinking by stating that "if anybody gets 100 Rs., he will not give 80 Rs. away”. What those people do not seem to fully understand, is that RTT does not (claim to) donate 80% of the generated income – which could be rightfully dismissed as absurd – but 80% of net profit after payment of all expenses, including (reasonable) salaries. According to RTT’s own website, this amounts to 25-35% of total turnover. This, of course, sounds far more reasonable. According to the data currently available on the website, the expenditure on social projects fell short of the stated goal in the initial years (2006-2009).5 This is somewhat to be expected, as the company was still finding its ground and not profitable yet. Reality Gives was only formed in August 2009. Subsequently the expenses picked up, making the total amount spent on social projects over the period of January 2006 to March 2011 27.3% of total turnover.6 According to the webpage, this means that up to March 2011 effectively 100% of profits after tax went to community projects. RTT adds that all of that has been administered to frontline services.

To really verify this would require a thorough, professional analysis of the accounts, and even then some peculiarities may stand in the way of clear conclusions. RTT seems to hedge itself somewhat, for example by stating: “With regards to our policy of donating 80% of profits, there are some years where our cash flow is less as we have to invest in fixed assets and pay for deposits on lease agreements etc. This means that our accounting profit is significantly higher than money available for that year.” A second example is: “The figures are complicated because up to 31 March 2011, most of the expenses for the community projects went through the accounts of Reality Tours and Travel and not our sister NGO Reality Gives. This will change in subsequent years.” However, for now, from the available information and from my own experience, RTT certainly deserves the benefit of the doubt. Other than second- hand, unverifiable allegations and assumptions, there is no evidence to support the claim that RTT is not genuine. To quell all doubts however, RTT would do well to update their transparency page as soon as possible.

5 0 in 2006-2007; 22.5% in 2007-2008; 11.3% in 2008-2009. 6 29.1% in 2009-2010; 34.9% in 2010-2011.

37

At this point in time, the casual tourist will notice nothing of the competition between BTL and RTT. In the event that start times for both tours coincide, tourists who have booked with BTL will kindly be directed to the right group by RTT’s guides, and vice versa. When meeting another group within the slum, some guides are clearly familiar with each other and interact quite amicably. However, having spent time with and interviewed employees and owners of both companies, it is obvious that there is bad blood between RTT and BTL. They generally try to ignore each other’s existence. However, both Fahim Vora of BTL (p.c., Oct. 23, 2013) and Krishna Pujari of RTT (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013) said to me that within their personal circle of friends there had been talk of disrupting the other company’s activities, but both had cautioned their friends not to do so. In addition, Chris Way (p.c., Oct. 23, 2013) indicated that he feared that former guides might cause problems. This has the potential to evolve into a dangerous situation, both for the local communities and tourists.

2.4. The role of the public sector Up to this point, the role of government bodies has not yet been covered. In South Africa, the government has been supporting tourism enterprises that offer services in the townships for over a decade. Tourism is seen as a potential lever for local economic development, slum upgrading and black empowerment. More recently, the same trend of public interventions in the sector is noticeable in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In both cases, early reluctance and scepticism about the tours was overcome (Frenzel & Koens 2012: 208-209). That same scepticism still reigns with authorities in Mumbai. This is easy to understand: slum tourism, after all, creates a paradoxical situation, in which the gains of tourism are more than welcome, but the propagated image of the city is less than desirable (Dovey & King 2012). Frenzel and Koens suspect heavy criticism might be typical for the early stages of slum tourism activity in all locations.

For a long time, Mumbai’s authorities did not interfere with the sector, although they always disapproved of it. All major actors agreed that the local government discourages slum tourism. Way and Pujari (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013) stated that their company had some initial problems, but what they are doing is not illegal. When asked if the government should play a more active – supporting – role in the sector, the opinions were similar. Deepa Krishnan is a liberal minded business women and “likes the idea of local people doing what has to be done” (p.c., Oct. 21, 2013). According to her, “any interference, even well-meant, would probably

38 turn out bad because the government is so incapable. The best alternative is to leave it to the market, but often those with the most muscle benefit from this.” She’s afraid bigger competitors like RTT will ultimately push out local initiatives like BTL. Fahim Vora (p.c., Oct. 22, 2013) stated that in a perfect world, the government should support local projects. “But at this point, the government is so badly managed... In any case, they will try to do things on their terms and I don’t want that.” Way and Pujari (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013) also expressed a lack of confidence in the government: “We’d rather they stay away.”

However, quite suddenly the authorities have started to play a more active role in the sector. There has already been alluded to the fact that Krishnan’s Mumbai Magic until recently organized its own Dharavi tour, with the support of BTL’s guides. Now Mrs. Krishnan has been asked by the tourism department to discontinue the tour.7 This is significant, but for now it only affects Mumbai Magic: It is the only guided tour company in Mumbai officially approved by the Ministry of Tourism and allowed to use the Incredible India logo (D. Krishnan, p.c., Apr. 25, 2014). To retain this, it had no other option but to oblige. Other providers are not bound by this, and in the case of RTT and BTL, are legitimate companies. Nevertheless, a more active government role is surely something to keep an eye on. It is still to be seen to what extent the elections of 2014, in which opposition party BJP is heading for victory, has an impact on tourism policy – although it is unlikely that there would be a complete reversal towards government support for slum tourism.

7 Meanwhile, BTL’s guides are still trained and used for some of Mumbai Magic’s other tours. The partnership thus continues.

39

3. Analysis of interviews with Dharavi residents

3.1. Method and position of the researcher The position of the local population has been somewhat neglected and almost reduced to an afterthought in many studies on slum tourism, which often focus on the tourists’ perspective. In this study, the intention was to make the experiences of slum residents an integral part of the analysis. To gauge the residents’ feelings concerning tourism in Dharavi, I conducted a series of semi-structured interviews along the route followed by the majority of tourists. These interviews consisted of a set of four to five questions seeking short, quantifiable answers on a select number of topics. The interviews were deliberately kept concise, as to not hinder respondents in their daily activities and encourage their participation; circumstances – factors such as time constraints, knowledge level and language skills – typically did not allow for longer, in-depth interviews.

To account for language barriers between myself and the slum residents, the majority of which did not speak sufficient English, I received the support of local student-guides, who acted as translators. Over the course of four half-day sessions (October 30 - November 1) and with the help of four different translators, I conducted over 80 interviews. Unfortunately, my experiences with the first translator immediately proved the potential limitations of this approach. For one, the language barrier made it hard to verify if the translator accurately reproduced the respondents’ sentiments. Second, and tied to the first point, is the fact that the translators were employed in the tourism industry and may therefore have benefitted in some cases by altering the respondent’s answers. The first translator was freelance guide Mohammed Sadique, who I had hired and recommended to other travellers on several occasions; he was interested in my research and very willing to help. It soon became obvious though that he steered interviews in his preferred direction: He would select the respondents and refuse to approach certain others, while turning a nod or a two word response into long monologues of his own. Thus, all respondents seemed – as he presented it – entirely pleased with tourism in Dharavi. Almost all interviews conducted with his help had to eventually be discarded. To prevent this situation, it would have been ideal to work with neutral translators who were in no way involved with the tourism sector. The problem was that people were needed that both knew the area very well and had the language skills to act as a translator; this specific skill set almost automatically led to the student-guides. Luckily, however, this

40 problem did not present itself with the other translators. All three of them were students who, at least occasionally, guide for Be The Local. We discussed the problems I had with my first translator and good arrangements were made. I am confident they reproduced the respondents’ answers accurately.

One of the issues we discussed, was my own position as a researcher. As van Winssen (2012: 8) has noted, the slum tourism researcher is effectively his own subject: a slum tourist. Even when he does not see himself in that role, invariably he is categorized as such by slum residents. It is telling that not only guides but even some people who were not affiliated with the tourism sector would say they had answered questions from many researchers. Mumbai has been called the global capital of slumming and Dharavi has become a hotspot for research on all aspects of slum life. Researchers and tourists alike come often, look around and ask questions about life in Dharavi. Whether this is for scientific or other reasons makes no tangible difference to the residents. The fact that I myself was seen as a tourist could potentially impact the residents’ willingness to express negative feelings regarding tourism. Therefore, the translators were instructed to start each interview by explaining my research purposes, imploring the interviewee to speak freely and guaranteeing him/her anonymity. Salman, the translator with whom I conducted the most interviews, proved keenly aware of this potential problem. Whenever we sensed a subject seemed somewhat reluctant, he would press on for honest answers. In all, this made for a great collaboration. Nevertheless, in some cases the attitude or body language of the interviewees was more telling than their answers.

Ultimately I was left with what I feel is an appropriate sample of 62 interviewees. The respondents are distributed over different age groups and occupations. Men are somewhat overrepresented (51 to 11) – because of cultural reasons it was difficult to convince my guides to approach Muslim women. The questions were used as a guideline for the conversation, more than a strict questionnaire. Not all respondents answered every question, while some gave multiple answers to the same question. In order to get an overall picture and draw conclusions, similar answers were grouped together and are presented in tables below.

41

3.2. General feelings about slum tourism: a ‘trouble spot’

Table 1. How do you feel about tourism in Dharavi? Respondents Percentage Positive 34 55% sense of pride 9 entertainment 8 tourists are guests 3 exchange of ideas 2 Neutral 19 31% Negative 9 14% tourists take pictures (invasion of privacy) 7 sense of shame 5 lack of communication, language barrier 3 inappropriate clothing 1 tourists get in the way 1 Total 62 100%

When probed for general thoughts on tourism in Dharavi, more than half of the respondents expressed mostly positive feelings towards tourists. . Nine people expressed a sense of pride, be it in their work, their community or country. They appreciate tourists take an interest in their craft, they feel tourists will represent Dharavi to the outside world, or they are proud tourists “take precious time and money to come to India”. . Eight persons mentioned they like looking at foreigners. They see the tourists as a form of entertainment, a pastime. One of them explained that he cannot afford to go on , but he can look at different people who pass by. Another said it sometimes feels “like Hollywood girls coming by”. Critics have often called slum tourism voyeuristic. While this may or may not be accurate, it is important to realize residents gaze upon the tourists as well, often to their own amusement. . Three people explained that tourists are guests, and that “guests should be treated like gods”. This is a common sentiment in India.

42

. Two men, both obviously having received higher education and interacting directly with me in English, explicitly mentioned the exchange of ideas. While tourists get information about Dharavi, they expect the new ideas the foreigners bring with them will help the country to develop.

About a third of the respondents took a neutral stance, meaning they did not really care either way. They weren’t particularly excited about nor opposed to slum tourism.

This means that 14% had predominantly negative emotions regarding tourism. Most members of this group gave multiple reasons. Additionally, several people who felt mostly positive about tourism still shared some negative remarks: . Seven people complained of a lack of respect or invasion of privacy in one way or another. Six of them explicitly expressed irritation that tourists take pictures, and some suspected they would make money off of this as well. This is noteworthy, since most tour operators forbid people from taking photographs. This demonstrates that either tourists do not heed these rules or the number of tourists visiting Dharavi with maverick guides – who in most cases do allow pictures – is significant enough to cause irritation. . Five people expressed a sense of shame. Two of them were actually predominantly positive about tourism, but did feel somewhat embarrassed. The first said “tourists are high class” and the contrast sometimes makes him feel poor. The other liked looking at tourists but was aware this might make them feel uncomfortable, which in turn made him feel the same. This shows residents are aware of the unequal relationship with the tourists. The contrast with the wealthy tourists made them reflect negatively on their own situation. . Three men cited a lack of communication, mainly because of the language barrier. One of them, an elderly man operating a shredder, explained that he is curious and would like to talk to tourists. He feels like he could give better, more detailed information about the production process than the guides. He elegantly compared the guides’ and his own knowledge to a patient going to a chemist rather than a doctor. This shows the man is not opposed to tourism per se, but is unhappy with the way it is conducted. Cultural exchange has been noted as a strong point of slum tourism, but the limited direct interaction between tourists and residents makes reciprocal exchange difficult. . Other answers included the fact that tourists get in the way of work or might dress inappropriately.

43

From this it could be concluded that only a small (although not insignificant) percentage of the inhabitants is genuinely opposed to tourism, at least in the way it is being conducted at the moment, and that the tourism activities are generally accepted. After all, the large majority of respondents either liked the tourists coming to Dharavi or at least did not mind their presence. However, perhaps more telling than this overall picture was the spatial divide of the opinions. The typical Dharavi tour can be split up roughly into four parts. The first part would be the industrial area visited at the start of the tour. The second is the residential area comprising the network of narrow alleys and the open area with the dump. Next there is a mixed commercial/residential zone, and finally the pottery district. It is noteworthy that most positive responses were recorded in the first and fourth zone, while all interviewees in the second part where decidedly negative. Upon entering the alleys, I immediately sensed unease with my translator. It was noticeably harder to approach people here and questions were mostly met with indifference. Near the dumping ground we approached a group of men, who vehemently argued their points while a large group of silent supporters gathered around us. For the first and only time I was in Dharavi, the mood became tense and hostile. The men accused tourists of taking pictures through windows and of dressing inappropriately (“those girls with their miniskirts”). They could not understand why tourists would come there and in no uncertain terms questioned the ethics of slum tourism: “This is a slum, do you like what you see?” They further indicated to have received no benefits at all from tourism in their neighbourhood. Another person in this district seemed particularly well-informed on tourism in Dharavi. According to him, only a small part – what he called “the end” – of Dharavi benefitted from RTT’s charitable activities. He felt like “the centre” of the slum should be handled first, instead of “a corner”.

It later became clear this area is a well-known ‘trouble spot’ to the guides and tour companies. Indeed, guides always ask their group to move through the alleys quickly. Krishna Pujari, co- founder of RTT, acknowledged they are aware of the sensitivities in this district (p.c., Nov. 4, 2013). According to him, the residents have been invited to join RTT’s programs at the Reality Gives Community Centre, to no avail. “Whenever we do a program, we tell [people] everywhere around the route. But they don’t want to come, they say it is too far. They want us to [set up programs] in their own area, but we can’t do it everywhere. Opportunities will not come to you, you need to reach for it.” The conflicting perceptions of tourism in the different of Dharavi could be explained as follows: For the workers in the industrial area, commercial zone and pottery district, the tourists are often a welcome diversion. Their arrival

44 breaks the long day at work. In this way, the tourists themselves are a source of entertainment. The workers gaze upon the Westerners as much, if not more, as vice versa. Additionally, the workers often take a sense of pride in their craft, especially when the guide offers an explanation and/or tourists take an interest. Secondly, the residential zones displayed in the third part of the tour are relatively neat and comparatively more prosperous. In fact, many tourists have indicated they do not even feel like this district is a slum. It looks very similar to many living quarters in southern India. This explains why less negative remarks have come out of this area. The area with the narrow alleys and dumping ground, by contrast, is undoubtedly the poorest district of Dharavi visited on the tour. The single room dwellings stand close together and are often only separated by a curtain from the very narrow streets, giving the tourists every opportunity to look inside and offering the residents little privacy. Moreover, having a pile of garbage in their backyard, so to speak, does not evoke feelings of pride. Considering wealthy Westerners gaze upon their misfortune daily and these people have gotten nothing in return, their frustration is clearly understandable. On the other hand, the tour providers feel the area cannot be avoided since it is an integral part of the tour to show the living conditions in this part of Dharavi.

3.3. Understanding of tourism motives Next the residents’ understanding of tourism motives was assessed. There are two sides to this topic: On the one hand, the reasons tourists have to take part in the slum tour, on the other the intentions of the slum tour providers.

From extensive surveys of tourists in Dharavi, Bob Ma (2010) concluded that cultural curiosity is their primary motivation for taking the tour. Tourists are curious to see a different way of life; additionally, there is a desire for ‘authentic’ and ‘realistic’ experiences. But what exactly are they curious about? Meschkank (2010) noted that when tourists participating in the Dharavi tour are asked what they expect to see, the most common answer is poverty. It thus follows that, if we assume tourists want to see what they expect to see, curiosity for poverty is an important motive to go on the tour – even if most visitors would not say it with so many words. As Meschkank (2010: 48) noted: “Accordingly, several tourists express moral doubts and a certain sense of guilt in anticipation of sightseeing poverty and misery, and the accompanying implicit accusations of and exploitation. However, they justify their decision to participate in a slum tour by stating the desire to experience the ‘real life’ of the city they are visiting.” Taking this into account, I asked the residents what they thought

45 tourists want to see in Dharavi. I especially wanted to know if residents are aware tourists are attracted by their poverty, and if so, how this made them feel. This of course relates to the ethical concerns on slum tourism.

Table 2. Why do you think tourists come to Dharavi? Responses Percentage Economic activity 12 21% Experience something new; see a different lifestyle, culture, … 13 23% No idea, nothing to see 13 23% Poverty 7 13% Other responses 11 20% Total 56 100%

What stands out here is the great variety of answers: . A quarter of the respondents, predictably mostly people working in the industrial area, answered that tourists come to learn about the economic activity. While this is not the main pull factor for tourists, this is correct in the sense that the tour operators aim to showcase the productivity and that this is the main takeaway from the tour for most tourists. . A second quarter gave responses that were consistent with what was identified by Ma: “They are on and want to see the lifestyle and culture of India. They want to experience or observe something new.” . A third quarter could think of no good reason why tourists would come to Dharavi. In fact, several of them reversed the roles and started asking me questions about the tourists’ intentions. . Seven people said tourists came to see poverty, the slum or dirtiness. To one person this was not an issue: “It is not a problem. We are poor, that is just reality.” However, all others did feel bothered by it. . There was a range of other responses, some of which were very thoughtful: “to see the architecture/buildings” (3), “for research purposes” (2), “to see scenes from the movie [Slumdog Millionaire]” (2), “to do business” (1) or simply “to get to know us” (1). Other ideas were more farfetched: One person believed the foreigners would settle in Dharavi once the redevelopment plan was completed. Another felt they were looking around in

46

preparation of an invasion, to take over India once more. My translator explained to me this kind of colonial thinking is still prevalent with the elder generation.

The main conclusion is that a significant part of the population (about 25%) has no idea or a very unlikely opinion of why tourists visit Dharavi. Additionally, I have found that many of them would like to understand this better. Only a relatively small part of the respondents explicitly identified poverty as a major draw for tourism. Of course, the fact that they did not mention it specifically does not guarantee they are not aware of this, at least on a subconscious level. This is still somewhat unclear.

We now turn to the second part of this topic, namely the intentions and approach of tourism operators. Focusing on the two major companies, for whom the tours are more than just a survival strategy, their stated objective is basically the same. As has been said before, they intent to break down negative stereotypes of the slums. RTT’s major selling point, in distinguishing itself from its competitors, is that it promises to have “real social impact on the Dharavi community” by investing in development projects (company website). Conversely, representatives of BTL emphasize the fact that they are ‘Dharavi natives’, as opposed to the ‘outsiders’ of Reality Tours. Because they have lived in Dharavi their whole life, they claim to know the area and its residents far better (“the others have only book knowledge”), and suggest they would be more accepted by those residents as well. The slum residents were asked if they know which different guides or companies come by, and/or if they noticed any difference between them. The aim was to see if residents could identify and distinguish between different providers and had some kind of understanding of what they stand for. Additionally, I wanted to know if the inhabitants had any preference and whether the affiliation of the guides impacted their feelings towards the tourists.

47

Table 3. Which different guides or companies come here; Do you notice or know of any differences between them? Responses Percentage No difference 29 66% Superficial differences (group size, language skills) 6 14% Tour guide is a friend 4 9% Mentions company name(s) 5 11% Total 44 100%

The result was that to an overwhelming majority of interviewees this was not a factor: . Two-thirds of the respondents did not notice any difference whatsoever between different guides or groups of tourists. . Six only mentioned superficial differences, mainly pertaining to the size of the groups. This might indicate a distinction between RTT, which usually has more customers, and other providers. But this is also highly variable from day to day, and in any case respondents did not express a preference for either smaller or bigger groups. . Four respondents said that one or more of the tour guides were friends, and thus they like them better. When asked if they knew for which company these guided, the respondents had no answer, nor did all of them know if the particular guide lived in Dharavi. Their feelings were mostly based on the fact that they were familiar with the guide and/or the guide called attention to their particular activity. This pertains to the pride local craftsmen take in their work. . Only five interviewees mentioned one of the companies’ names; two of them lived less than 20 meters from that company’s headquarters. One mentioned three companies (only one by name) but he added they all do the same things and did not notice any differences. A factory owner said Krishna Pujari of RTT had told him what they were doing when the tours started in 2006. He did not think highly of the company, since he did not believe their claim of investing 80% of profits in the community. One other worker knew of BTL and the fact that they work with student-guides. He approved of this and felt other companies should not come to Dharavi.

Although the owners of both RTT and BTL stated that they informed the local residents about their intentions, it is clear that the high majority of slum residents does not know about the

48 different tourism companies, much less what they stand for. They do not distinguish between guides from different companies and/or freelance guides. The guides’ origins (from Dharavi or not) and affiliation or the companies’ policies currently do not factor into the feelings of Dharavi residents towards tourism. I asked half a dozen people if they would prefer local guides to outsiders, to which the majority (4) answered affirmative (although to the others this did not matter). Likewise I asked a handful of people how they would respond to community projects set up by the tourism companies; they all felt like this would be a positive development. This clearly indicates both companies might benefit by informing the residents more about their activities.

Finally, since almost none of the respondents had even mentioned RTT or Reality Gives in the conversations, I specifically questioned people living and/or working in the immediate vicinity of the Reality Gives Community Centre about their knowledge of the NGO’s activities. All of these interviews were conducted within a radius of 50 metres around the Centre.

Table 4. Do you know about the Reality Gives Community Centre and their activities? Responses Percentage Very familiar 4 24% Somewhat familiar 4 24% No 9 52% Total 17 100%

It is rather surprising that even the majority of this group did not have a clear understanding of the NGO’s activities. . Four respondents were familiar with Reality Gives. Three of them were women belonging to the same community and sitting together making papadum; they explained their children visited the Community Centre and received free classes in dance, football and drama. The fourth was a child, who presumably also visited the Centre. . Four people indicated at first glance that they did not know what I was referring to, but after some consideration and consultation they did have a faint image. One of them explained that he had seen tourists go there and that it was frequented by children, but only those of “one specific community”.

49

. More than half of the respondents claimed to have never heard of it. Two of them stood at the foot of the stairs leading to the Centre (located on the first floor). When I pointed this out, they responded that they never went upstairs.

These results are concerning. Even within the immediate vicinity of its Community Centre, RTT’s projects are not well-known. Additionally, there seems to be a sense – previously noted in the ‘trouble spot’ as well – that these projects are reserved for only a small part of the residents.

3.4. The benefits of tourism This topic is directly connected to the pro-poor aspects of slum tourism in Dharavi. Pro-poor tourism comprises all benefits for the poor. The question was thus if residents feel they or their community gain anything from tourism.

Table 5. Do you feel like tourism brings any benefits for you personally or for the community? Responses Percentage Yes, to me personally 4 8% Yes, to the community 7 14% Only the tourism industry 5 10% No / Don’t know 34 68% Total 50 100%

. Only four people indicated that they have benefitted directly from tourism. Three were manufacturers who occasionally sold products to tourists – fabrics, leather articles and pottery, respectively. However, the impact of this must not be overstated: all of them usually handle in bulk (big orders); the occasional purchase from tourists is not a major source of income. One other man noted an intangible benefit: he gained pride. It is likely that others would agree with him, given that nine respondents mentioned a sense of pride earlier in the conversation (see table 1). However, it must be noted that almost all respondents seem to have approached this particular question with only material benefits in mind.

50

. Seven people felt the community benefitted from tourism. Three – namely the women making papadum mentioned earlier – talked about the actions of Reality Gives, two others suggested that tourists might buy things in the shops. Another notable response was that local people would adopt Western clothing styles. . Five were of the opinion that only those affiliated with the tourism industry benefitted, although again it was obvious that most of them have no clear idea who the stakeholders are: “Indian people”, “the guides”, “the tourism department” and “the government” were all named. . The overwhelming majority answered negatively. This group can be divided into three subcategories: o The first and largest group (20) felt strongly that no one in Dharavi benefitted from tourism and could not see how they would. “NGOs don’t come” and “donations disappear into the pockets of corrupt people” were some of the sentiments uttered. They were either bitter or resigned about this. o The second group (4) had expectations of tourism, but had not seen those met (yet): They expressed hope that tourists would inform the government about the living conditions and that this would bring redevelopment. Up to now they had been disappointed in the results. o The third group (10) finally indicated that they had not received any benefits, but immediately added that they did not need this. This illustrates a sense of pride and independence. “No harm if no benefit, we are happy with what we have and don’t need to be paid”.

It is clear that most slum residents do not receive any significant (financial) benefits from tourism in their neighbourhood. The ones who do gain some benefit, do not depend on tourism as a main or even significant source of income. Only those directly involved with the tourism sector might receive considerable financial gains. While some people are certainly bitter about this, it must also be acknowledged that a significant part of the population does not expect anything from tourists. Additionally, it must again be concluded that most residents have no knowledge of or access to – at least in their perception – any community projects financed by tourism.

51

Conclusions

In order to draw conclusions from all accumulated findings, we revert to strategies and key factors and actors of pro-poor tourism previously identified in the theoretical framework. It will be shown how the tourism sector currently corresponds with and diverges from PPT- strategies, while pointing out possibilities for improving the pro-poor aspects of tourism.

Economic benefits of tourism . Employment opportunities Reality Tours and Travel, the dominant tour operator in the Dharavi area, is currently not promoting local employment. However, although local employees are generally preferred in PPT-theory (Ashley et al. 2001), RTT does aim at attracting employees from humble backgrounds. Wages are consistent with other entry-level salaries in Mumbai and the job seems to be mainly valuable as an initial work experience. On the contrary, Be The Local Tours and Travels only offers jobs to local full-time students, allowing them to earn a sustainable income to support and continue their education. For informal guides, both native and maverick, tourism can provide casual earning opportunities, which reduce their financial vulnerability.

Several restrictions on job opportunities have been noted. Regular wage earners are relatively skilled (fluent in English) and educated, although they can still be classified as poor. Second, personal connections are vital – especially in the case of BTL – to gain access to the tourism industry, demonstrating the importance of social network. In addition, although RTT has recently employed the first female guide in Dharavi, gender constraints remain very real.

. Business opportunities Several of RTT’s former employees have, with varying degrees of success, taken matters into own hands and grabbed business opportunities made available by their training and work experience with RTT, as well as their own local ties. Only BTL has been and continuous to be a long-term success. Notable is the complete lack of complementary tourism enterprises in the Dharavi area. Neither of the major tour operators has expressed a real interest in establishing partnerships with local businesses or investing in initiatives aimed at tourism. There is some concern to overcomplicate matters and cause friction by favoring certain enterprises over

52 others. On the other hand, it must also be noted that local entrepreneurs, service providers an traders have seemed to express little interest in pursuing opportunities in tourism. The fact that they have, according to Fahim Vora of BTL, only inquired after orders in bulk signifies that they are not interested in the relatively small earning opportunities in the tourism sector. The unique feature of the Dharavi slum is its economic productivity and most businesses might arguably gain more from concentrating on export.

None of this must stand in the way of exploring opportunities for sensible initiatives and partnerships, preferably in favor of the most vulnerable of local enterprises. This topic has up to now been given too little thought and there certainly is untapped potential. For instance, it is deplorable that the souvenirs sold by RTT are not locally made, while local craftsmen are abundant (notably in pottery, leather and the textile industry). First, providing the local residents with a better understanding of the tourism sector and tourist needs and preferences might open up opportunities, such as catering, craft initiatives, cultural displays or enterprises that supply the tourism industry itself. In a second stage, initiatives may require input to develop skills, marketing links, and commercial expertise (Ashley et al. 2001: 16). This is a task that has been undertaken by Deepa Krishnan of Magic Tours of India in favor of BTL, with great success. Moreover, this could arguably be done without raising costs for tour companies. Thirdly, supply side measures would have to be combined with measures to expand the demand for the products and services. Tour operators should therefore channel their own clients to local enterprises (Ashley et al. 2001: 13, 17). BTL’s newest addition of a ‘Foodie Tour’, wherein tourists get to cook with the locals, might be a step in this direction, depending on how exactly this is brought into practice.

. Collective community income These seem to be very limited, if not non-existent. There are no systems of revenue sharing or community payments in place. Tour operators are not dependent on community organizations to conduct their activities; they can offer their tours without directly involving the locals. The local communities are currently not actors at a whole. It is unclear if strong community organizations exist that could take up this role. Possibilities to generate a considerable income are limited to a small group of those who are directly involved with the tourism industry. Ashley et al. (2001: 1, 27) have suggested that, although the numbers employed may be low and jobs may be concentrated among the more skilled, the spread of earnings throughout a community – by supporting relatives and re-spending locally – can make tourism significant

53 to local, not just individual, poverty reduction. However, although the impact might certainly extent to the household level, I have found little evidence of a so-called trickledown effect to the wider community. Freire-Medeiros (2009) has previously come to a similar conclusion in research on Rocinha, Brazil. Tourism might actually perpetuate inequality instead of reducing it.

Non-economic benefits and impact . Livelihood benefits On an individual level, guides benefit from skills development. They gain vocational training, and improve their English and confidence, all of which might ultimately help them find better job opportunities. As such, the function of guide might be considered a vehicle for social mobility. It must be added that it concerns youngsters who are in most cases relatively highly educated and who already have the language skills necessary to communicate with tourists. Their English and confidence might improve further, but it has to be reasonably high already before starting the job.

RTT has made a strong, long-term commitment to local projects in the fields of education and health care through its own NGO Reality Gives. The benefits of this are more widespread. Their programs focus on teaching valuable skills (English, computer, soft skills) to school children, which will arguably help them gain easier access to higher education and/or the job market, and in turn could have a major impact on their quality of life. The real impact of these programs needs to be evaluated over a considerable time period.

. Addressing social and cultural impacts of tourism Both major tour companies point to their intent to improve the image of the slums and to their no-photo policy. Further, the fact that they deliberately keep groups small was also noted. The maverick guides typically do not take measures to mitigate negative impacts of tourism, and therefore cause local friction. Case in point is that photography was still identified as a major problem by multiple residents. While the tours have been called voyeuristic, it is important to realize this goes both ways: The residents are often just as interested in the tourists. The difference lies in the fact that tourists can independently decide whether to take part in a tour, while for residents this is not a choice. It has been shown that residents are aware of this unequal relationship.

54

While overall the majority of slum residents has no major problems with tourism, there are still some grievances to be addressed. There is evidence to support the claim that both RTT and BTL could benefit from investing in spreading information on their intentions and activities, in particular by promoting their respective community projects and employment of local student-guides. Although both companies claim to have informed the residents before, it is clear that the latter’s understanding of tourism motives and actions is low. Spreading information and addressing some misconceptions may quell certain negative sentiments and could even increase commercial viability by enhancing local support and thus what Ashley and Haysom (2006) have called ‘social license to operate’.

One issue that most certainly has to be addressed is that of the previously identified ‘trouble spot’ along the route. Here, poverty is most glaring and privacy issues are a major concern. A debate between the residents and tour companies is needed, where one group can voice its grievances and the other can explain its intentions. Ideally this would not be a one-off thing, but a continuous process. In this way, a solution for the privacy issues must be found, while possibly also opening up opportunities and providing access to benefits of tourism. Finally, it must be pointed out that the snappy rivalry and increasing competition between RTT and BTL may in the near future cause intra-communal tensions to increase and eventually boil over. There has already been talk in some circles of disrupting the competitor’s activities, which would be detrimental to both local residents and international tourists.

Pro-poor policies and process reform If we consider possibilities for policy reform on the level of the private sector, we must first point to the fact that neither of the tourism companies has local partnerships or a regular consultation system in place. Local residents were presumably consulted at the start of the activities, but this is certainly not a continuous process. They are therefore mostly excluded from decision-making processes. To give voice to concerns of the poor, there is a need for increased communication and participatory planning. RTT’s approach could arguable be called philanthropic, one of corporate responsibility. Without denying the considerable contributions of charitable support, Ashley and Haysom (2006) have proposed a change towards a different way of doing business by integrating pro-poor approaches into the corporate culture. This would entail switching from a model whereby communities are mere recipients of donated benefits from tourism, to one of community empowerment by offering them a stake in the enterprise and actively involving them with the projects (Ashley et al.

55

2001:8). Practical constraints, most notably the size of the population, might stand in the way of this. As BTL continues to grow, it should also look to incorporate pro-poor strategies into its business approach, in order to help its community develop.

However, the fundamental void situates itself on the level of the public sector. In order for it to make business sense for tour companies to fully invest in PPT-approaches, they would have to receive full support from the public sector. A strong commitment and involvement of government in the area of policy is needed for PPT-interventions to be fully effective. The local government has however been reluctant to accept slum tourism. Indeed, one of the tour companies, Mumbai Magic, has recently been asked to discontinue its Dharavi tours. At this point, there are no (effective) constraints for other providers. Securing government support would be a major step and would provide more room for PPT-initiatives. Tourism companies could try to lobby their case, but the chances of success seem slim. In any case, as long as their activities are not interrupted, tour operators would rather avoid this. In order to reach its full potential, both private sector and public sector would have to make a full commitment to PPT. And independent NGO could arguably play the part of lobbyist and act as an intermediary between different stakeholders to explore and establish linkages.

Final conclusion: measuring actual impact on the poor Although tourism in Dharavi has undeniably produced some pro-poor benefits, there are still significant challenges to address and obstacles to overcome if PPT is to be implemented effectively.

In any case, tourism might simply be too small of a niche to provide significant financial impact and bring real economic benefits for the bulk of the residents. It does not seem appropriate to considerably stimulate the growth of the tourism sector; since increased pressure on the area would arguable cause more harm than good, it is best kept small-scale. Tourism will therefore, of course, not solve the problems of the slum. Although the financial impact of tourism is not felt on a community level, it can have a considerable impact on an individual level. For a select few, it might indeed be a vehicle for socio-economic mobility and a way out of poverty; for some others it provides critical gap-filling income as part of a survival strategy. By maximizing the use of local suppliers and staff, by developing and exploring business partnerships with small complementary tourism enterprises, and by simply

56 boosting understanding of the tourism industry, more opportunities could be opened up. There certainly is untapped potential for local supply of services and products.

Many more are affected by non-financial livelihood benefits, which are hard to quantify, but can reduce the vulnerability of the poor. Skills development has been noted within the tourism industry, while community projects funded by tourism profits have improved access to education and health for a large number of people. However, the livelihood impact of tourism is certainly not unequivocally positive. The exchange of ideas has been cited as a strong point of tourism, but this applies only to those who are able to interact directly with the foreigners. Limited interaction, because of language barriers and other constraints, often impedes mutual exchange. Stimulating more direct interaction between residents and tourists in an effort to create more balanced intercultural interactions would be a positive development. When considering the social impact of tourism, it is notable that tourism can both stimulate feelings of pride for some and evoke a sense of shame for others. Where one finds himself within this spectrum depends in part on personal traits, but is also tied to relative levels of poverty. We have seen that more measures should be taken to protect the most vulnerable. Perhaps most concerning is the effect unchecked competition and rivalry between the two main competitors in tourism could soon have on intra-community tensions.

57

References

1. Literature  Ashley, C., Goodwin, H. and Roe, D. (2001). Pro-poor tourism strategies: Making tourism work for the poor. A review of experience. Nottingham: Russell Press.  Ashley, C. and Haysom, G. (2006). From philantrophy to a different way of doing business: Strategies and challenges in integrating pro-poor approaches into tourism business. Development Southern Africa, 23(2), 265-280.  Booyens, I. (2010). Rethinking township tourism: Towards responsible tourism development in South African townships. Development Southern Africa, 27(2), 273-287.  Chock, S., Macbeth, J. and Warren, C. (2001). Tourism as a tool for poverty alleviation: A critical analysis of ‘pro-poor tourism’ and implications for . In C. Hall (Ed.), Pro-poor tourism: Who benefits? Perspectives on tourism and poverty reduction (pp. 34- 55). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.  Davis, M. (2012). Planet of slums. London: Verso.  Dondolo, L. (2002). The construction of public history and tourism destinations in Cape Town’s townships: A study of routes, sites and heritage. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape.  Dovey, K. and King, R. (2012). Informal urbanism and the taste for slum. Tourism Geographies, 14(2), 254-274.  Dyson, P. (2012). Slum tourism: Representing and interpreting ‘reality’ in Dharavi, Mumbai. Tourism Geographies, 14(2), 275-293.  Freire-Medeiros, B. (2009). The favela and its touristic transits. Geoforum, 40(4), 580- 588.  Freire-Medeiros, B. (2011). ‘I went to the city of god’: Gringos, guns and the touristic favela. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies, 20(1), 21-34.  Frenzel, F. and Koens, K. (2012). Slum tourism: Developments in a young field of interdisciplinary tourism research. Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 14(2), 195-212.  Frenzel, F., Koens, K. and Steinbrink, M. (2012). Development and globalization of a new trend in tourism. In F. Frenzel, K. Koens and M. Steinbrink (Eds.), Slum Tourism: Poverty, Power and Ethics (pp. 1-17). Oxford: Routledge.

58

 Goossens, L. (2011). Dagtrippers in de sloppenwijk: De integratie van armoede in de toeristische markt. Unpublished paper, Ghent, Political Sciences Department.  Hall, C.M. (2007). Editorial. Pro-poor tourism: Do ‘tourism exchanges benefit primarily the countries of the South’? In C.M. Hall (Ed.), Pro-poor tourism: Who benefits? Perspectives on tourism and poverty reduction (pp. 1-8). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.  Harrison, D. (2008). Pro-poor Tourism: A critique. Third World Quarterly, 29(5), 851- 868.  Koens, K. (2012). Competition, cooperation and collaboration. Business relations and power in township tourism. In F. Frenzel, K. Koens & M. Steinbrink (Eds.), Slum Tourism: Poverty, Power and Ethics (pp. 87-96). Oxford: Routledge.  Ma, B. (2010). A trip into the controversy: A study of slum tourism travel motivations. Scholarly Commons, University of Pennsylvania, Undergraduate Humanities Forum 2009-2010.  Meschkank, J. (2010). Investigations into slum tourism in Mumbai: Poverty Tourism and the tensions between different constructions of reality. GeoJournal, 76(1), 7-62.  Nijman, J. (2010). A study of space in Mumbai’s slums. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 101(11), 4-17.  Outterson, K., Powys White, K. and Selinger, E. (2011). Poverty Tourism and the problem of consent. Journal of Global Ethics, 7(3), 1-26.  Rogerson, C.M. (2004). Urban tourism and small tourism enterprise development in Johannesburg: The case of township tourism. GeoJournal, 60(1), 249-257.  Rolfes, M. (2010). Poverty Tourism: Theoretical reflections and empirical findings regarding an extraordinary form of tourism, GeoJournal, 60(1), 421-442.  Scheyvens, R. (2007). Exploring the tourism-poverty nexus. In C. Hall (Ed.), Pro-poor Tourism: Who benefits? Perspectives on Tourism and Poverty Reduction (pp. 121-144). Clevedon: Channel View Publications.  Steinbrink, M. (2012). We did the slum! – Urban poverty tourism in historical perspective. Tourism Geographies: An International Journal of Tourism Space, Place and Environment, 14(2), 1-22.  UN-Habitat (2003). The challenge of slums. Global report on human settlements. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.

59

 van Winssen, I. (2012). Cultural brokers. Host-tourist encounters in slum tourism in Mumbai. Unpublished paper, University of Amsterdam, Contemporary Asian Studies Department.

2. Internet sources  Be The Local Tours and Travels: http://www.bethelocaltoursandtravels.com.  Jacobsen, M. (2007, May). Dharavi – Mumbai’s shadow city. Retrieved from http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/05/dharavi-mumbai-slum/jacobson-text.  Jain, B. (2010, October 10). 62% of Mumbai lives in slums: Census. Retrieved from http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/mumbai/62-of-mumbai-lives-in-slums- census/article1-614027.aspx.  Koens, K. (2011, March 31). The danger of single story [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.slumtourism.net.  Lewis, C. (2011, July 6). Dharavi in Mumbai is no longer Asia’s largest slum. Retrieved from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Dharavi-in-Mumbai-is-no-longer-Asias- largest-slum/articleshow/9119450.cms.  McGuinness, R. (2012). Slum tourism: A cynical cash cow or a helping hand to those in poverty? Retrieved from http://metro.co.uk/2012/07/10/slum-tourism-a-cynical-cash-cow- or-a-helping-hand-to-those-in-poverty-493097/.  Reality Gives: http://www.realitygives.org.  Reality Tours and Travel: http://www.realityoursandtravel.com.  Responsible Tourism (2012). 2012 responsible tourism awards winners. Retrieved from http://www.responsibletravel.com/awards/winners/2012.htm.  Saint-Upéry, M. (2010, October 21). Left at the crossroads: Ogling the poor. Retrieved from http://en.ria.ru/columnists/20101021/161035393.html.  Tourism Concern (n.d.). Slum/Poverty/Favela tourism. Retrieved from http://www.tourismconcern.org.uk/slum-tourism.html.  UN, 2012. Goal 7: Ensure environmental sustainability. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/environ.shtml.  Weiner, E. (2008, March 9). Slum visits: Tourism or voyeurism? Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/travel/09heads.html?pagewanted=al&_r=1&.  Zaidi, A. (2012). Slumgawk millionaires. Retrieved from http://www.sunday- guardian.com/artbeat/sluwgawk-millionaires.

60