Burying The Hatchet: Tourism law

Idioms and colloquialisms cross cultures and languages. "To bury the hatchet" originates from America, and it found its way into common usage thanks to the tomahawk of the Iroquois Indians being literally buried as a gesture of the ending of hostilities.

The Spanish also bury the hatchet, though being Spanish, they do it in a different language: "enterrar el hacha". The hacha has been buried by the tourism sector, which had been at war over proposals contained in the regional government's draft tourism law. The war had been waged between the hotels and the so-called complementary offer sector, most notably the restaurants and entertainment/nightclub providers, and the burying of the hatchet is intended to demonstrate a united front in the tourism sector, albeit that the complementary offer is still decidedly hacked off with the tourism minister Carlos Delgado. Hacked off it may be, but hacking him to pieces is no longer an option, if it ever was.

What had agitated the complementary offer in particular was the fact that hotels might, under the new law, have ended up becoming "total" hotels, offering pretty much everything that is available outside their walls or grounds, to the competitive disadvantage of the wider tourism sector, be it restaurant, disco or whatever.

The hatchet buried, the peace pipe is due to be passed around at future pow-wows between the hotels and the complementary offer as they form their alliance against (or is it with?) the Great White Chief, namely Delgado. Against or with is a good question to pose, as the the fact is that the hotels will probably still end up being "total" hotels, if they so wish. There seems to be have some acceptance by the hotels that the "secondary activities" that the law would permit have to be limited so as not to cause unfair competition. But how limited might limited be? For how long will this ending of hostilities last? You wouldn't bank on the ceasefire being broken, and broken quite quickly, by the hotels.

It is not as if the hotels have previously shown that they are that well-disposed to accommodating the complementary sector by limiting what could be described as unfair competition. There have certainly been noises from the hoteliers that are far more conciliatory, but the history of the all-inclusive does not act as a great example for a future, more co-operative approach.

The complementary offer has been keen to press for standards of quality when it comes to all-inclusives. This may sound like the restaurants and the other components of the complementary offer are like turkeys in North American forests voting for Christmases of the Iroquois hoteliers with their axes, but the acceptance of the need for greater standards is about all the complementary offer has in its defences. By pressing for greater quality, it hopes that some hotels will be unable to comply with standards and so have to abandon all-inclusive.

The hotels are said to be broadly in agreement with this, but for it to stick would require more than just a broad agreement. It would need to be in black and white with many an i dotted and t crossed and enshrined in law. The draft tourism law is currently mute on the subject. Redrafting in order to embrace this quality standard would take forever. It is hugely doubtful whether it could even be drafted as law. But if it weren't, then how could it ever be made to stick? Moreover, standards that are currently meant to be met seem to have typically been given the ok by tourism ministry inspectors when it is highly questionable as to whether they have been met.

It may be in the hotels' best interests for there to be high quality standards, but there are the interests of others, i.e. different classes of tourists and of course the tour operators. The latter also want the highest of standards, but tourism comes in all shapes and sizes with all sorts of sizes of wallet. To insist on standards of quality that would be beyond some hotels runs the risk of putting these hotels out of business.

The government is determined to raise quality as a means of raising tourism competitiveness. This is laudable, but the practicality is another issue. I can think of hotels that would seriously struggle to be able to meet standards of service that might be contemplated. Ultimately, the hoteliers, as a group, will defend its members, regardless of what peace accords are arrived at with the complementary offer. The hatchet may have been buried, but it can just as easily be dug up again.


Any comments to andrew@thealcudiaguide.com please.