Tourism, before the pandemic, was Peru’s third economic force, after mining and agro-export. This activity represented 4% of the country’s GDP, with revenues of almost $5.2 billion and, most importantly, generated more than 1.3 million direct and indirect jobs.
All the success story was lost during the health crisis. We know that one of the most affected sectors, if not the most affected, is tourism. Closed borders and limited internal movement of people meant that inbound and domestic tourism simply did not develop. Additionally, it is estimated that 800,000 people have lost their jobs in the tourism sector in our country, and families’ economies have been severely affected by business closures or bankruptcies, salary reductions, financial strain, among other factors.
To date, we have restarted domestic travel, and our international borders have partially opened, with land border crossings still closed. However, initial movements are due to people returning to their respective regions, not for business, and certainly not for tourism, which we understand is the right approach until the health emergency is fully under control.
What can we do in the meantime? First, design a national strategy for reactivating domestic tourism that considers all necessary biosecurity measures so that this important economic force of the country can gradually be reactivated. First and foremost, we must contain the infection and progress with vaccination in the main tourist destinations; if this cannot be achieved, they should not be available as travel points.
In those destinations where infections have been contained and vaccination programs have progressed, our sector authorities should prepare what I have termed solidarity packages: a basic tourism package that, in agreement with travel agencies, hotels, restaurants, transport companies, guides, museums, artisans, among others, offers promotional and accessible rates. If we were to add to this initiative the possibility of having a solidarity travel voucher granted by the state, covering a percentage of the trip’s price, for example, 30%, it would be a significant first step.
From my point of view, it is safer and more effective to generate economic movement for various tourism actors regularly than to provide economic aid to a few for short periods of time. Considering that tourism generates direct income in the regions where it occurs, indirectly benefiting other economic sectors of society, it is important to plan and promote the reactivation of this industry.
I fervently believe that it is possible for tourism authorities and representatives of the private sector, as well as stakeholders in society, to agree and see that taking these actions is viable for the benefit of Peruvian tourism.
