Destination Branding: Does Uganda have a Tourism Brand?

By Tukamushaba Kurobuza Eddy

Lecturer Makerere University Business School

PhD Candidate in Destination branding

I would like to refer to the article that appeared on October 16, 2008 in The New Vision page 48 titled “Drop Gifted by Nature Brand” by Paul Tentana. I do not particularly agree with the view that Uganda has a tourism brand! The problem I see from this article that the refers to “Gifted by nature”, “The pearl of Africa” as tourism brands. I would like to agree with Mr. James Bahinguza, the Tourism Uganda Manager who was quoted as saying “Gifted by nature is not selling anywhere and giving a reason that every country is gifted by nature in one way or another!

Whereas I agree with him on that point, he also seems to suggest that “The Pearl of Africa” would be the best tourism brand for Uganda!

Let me first appreciate all individuals who came up with these ideas, but I think we are getting this wrong when we continually use these concepts as tourism brands. In my view, they are good to be used as a basis to brand Uganda as a tourist destination not brands as they are being portrayed. This means there is still a lot to be done by Tourism Uganda charged with the responsibility of marketing Uganda as a tourist destination.

As a Scholar, allow me to share my ideas towards getting a better brand name for Uganda’s tourism industry.

Let’s first imagine France without fashion, Germany without automotive excellence, and Japan without consumer electronics. The argument here is that the image we have of another country says a lot about how we view it as a tourist destination, as a place to invest or as a source of consumer goods and services. In the same way as a company brand, a place’s reputation needs to be built on qualities that are positive, attractive, unique, sustainable and relevant to many consumers.

As with any brand, nations as well as destinations have individual fingerprints that are unique. From language to skin colour, to music and art style, to customs and religion, no two places are exactly alike, and this uniqueness gives power to a place brand.

Most places have long felt a need to differentiate themselves from one another, to assert their individuality in pursuit of various economic, political or socio-psychological objectives.

The conscious attempt of governments to shape a specifically designed place identity and promote it to identified markets (whether external or internal) is almost as old as civic government itself. The acts of communication that a place can perform include; the products that it exports; the way it promotes itself for trade, tourism, inward investment and inward recruitment; the way it behaves in acts of domestic and foreign policy; and the ways in which these acts are communicated.

In essence, a place branding consists of developing an image and communicating it based on the positive values and perceptions of the place. The core values of a place brand can affect everything from positioning to differentiation of the place’s many products and services.

Today, a range of consumer brands deliberately promote their place of origin to benefit from associations and equity grounded in their provenance to achieve competitive advantage.

Country or place brands are by no means simple to build. Unlike product branding, place branding is seldom under the control of a central authority and it involves multiple stakeholders, often with competing interests. People may learn about any place (country, region or city) in school, from media sources, from purchases, from trips or from contact with citizens or former residents. News coverage and popular cultural entertainment such as films, television programs and literature can provide substantial information about a place. These can alter an area’s image dramatically, even in a short period of time. For these reasons brand strategists have to exploit such avenues towards creating a winning tourism brand for Uganda.

As for any brand, image and associations are at the core of a place brand. Due to challenges in management of the image, Formation process of places, a basic question to be asked in place branding is therefore the need to initiate co-operative umbrella branding programs to promote Uganda as a tourist destination. This strategy has worked (i.e. India), while for others it has failed and it needs concerted effort by all tourism stakeholders.

India is a story of success, because it has emerged in the last years in terms of perceptions in a different way from how it was perceived a decade ago. It was spirituality and poverty; now it is software and highly educated people.

Knowing what Uganda is famous for would be a beginning point. For example “A home of mountain Gorillas”! which would be appealing to a targeted market.

Lastly, similar to a company brand, a place branding strategy must be based on a clearly defined vision, which is firmly rooted in the existing policies, resources, capabilities, motivations and perceptions of the place. It is essential for the stakeholders of the place to create and share this vision, and work jointly towards determining how it will be achieved.

I believe Ugandans know better their country and together with our partners we can brand Uganda and start enjoying the full benefits from the tourism industry.

BRUSSELS AIR, AIR UGANDA SIGN PACT

By Baluku Geoffrey

Kampala, Uganda

An interline agreement was on Monday 6^th October 2008 signed between Air Uganda and Brussels Airlines. This now makes it possible for the two carriers to accept each others tickets for services on the Juba – Brussels and Entebbe – Nairobi routes.

Air Uganda chief executive Peter de Waal and Brussels Airlines country manager Pierre Declerk hailed the agreement as a break through for their respective airlines. Declerk went on to say that “this was the beginning of a fruitful cooperation which will enable their customers to easily connect from Nairobi or Entebbe to other European destinations” thereby making Brussels airlines the first European airline to enter a regional partnership with Air Uganda.

Declerk further noted that the special prorate agreement would allow both carriers to offer attractive fares on the same electronic ticket as with one bill, the safety of the cargo was assured and that despite the generous baggage allowance that Brussels offers, clients will still be allowed to forward their shipments more easily between the two airlines.

Gorilla Permit Monopoly Affecting Uganda's Tourism Industry

By Baluku Geoffrey

Kampala, Uganda

A public out cry continues over the illegalities and monopolization of gorilla permits. The endangered Mountain Gorillas; are believed to share 98.4% of their genes with humans. Out of an estimated 720 mountain gorillas left in the world, 340 are found in the jungles of Bwindi Forest which is said to have slightly over 32 groups / families of gorillas.

Of the over 32 groups of gorillas, only four (4) have so far been habituated for tourism and these include Mubare, Bitukura, Habiyanja, Rushegura which has since changed base to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Nkuringo which is the current subject of debate. Mubare, Habiyanja are at the Buhoma side and are easily accessed through Kanungu while Bitukura is in Ruhija and the Nkuringo family of gorillas though still in Bwindi Forest is easily accessed through Kisoro district. One new other group is expected to be open for tourism very soon.

It is important to note that over 70% of the revenues from tourism come from Gorilla trekking. This continuous flow of tourists to go Gorilla trekking has been through a concerted effort from various players in the industry that include tour operators, hoteliers to mention but a few.

However, Uganda Wildlife Authority (UWA) who are expected to be the custodians of all National parks in Uganda encouraged some individuals to come up with a company with whom they could do private business. The company later came to be known as NCDF. According to the articles and memorandum of association, the company comprised of around 23 people who were all meant to have accented to the articles. On perusing through NCDF’s articles and memorandum of association, several irregularities are noted.

UWA and NCDF entered into a dubious agreement that enabled them to also acquire land with funding from USAID through Prime West. The over US$800,000 that was used to pay for land (buffer zone) in an area that is not that much needs to also be investigated. It should be noted that the lease hold for the land co owned between NCDF and UWA is on plot 5, Nteko Nkuringo Block 121 which copy is now being kept at the Executive Director (UWA’s) office in Kampala.

This top secret deal was started on 30^th August 2004 when UWA signed a memorandum of understanding with NCDF that included exclusive rights to gorilla permit sale. NCDF later entered another agreement with The Uganda Safari Company (TUSC). However, the owner of TUSC - Jonathan Wright was a member of the UWA board till 2005. Questions related to a conflict of interest have been raised and the public feels several Acts were breeched. A similar scenario happened in 2001, when Mr. Zahid Alarm who was a member of the UWA board at the time tried to support a tender for investors (his friends) to manage treks on Mt. Rwenzori. It is on record that Mr. Jonathan Wright clearly said that was a conflict of interest (Ref Monitor Newspaper 17^th July 2001).

Also around 1995 UWA tried to do the same by allocating 50% of the total number of gorilla permits available per day to Abercrombie & Kent (A & K). A & K also had similar proposals of putting up a lodge in the name of “conservation” to which the stakeholders rejected. The A & K gorilla permit monopoly was cancelled though the lodge (Gorilla Forest Camp) was still built and is being well run even with no condition such as tagging of gorilla permits.

This arrangement between UWA, NCDF & TUSC continues to raise more questions and is likely to escalate into a full blown conflict.

It is a known fact that gorilla permits are not only scarce but they are also competitive. Thus giving the exclusive right of the permit sale to one lodge and more so one tour operator is a vice that should be challenged.

Let it be clear that we concerned stakeholders are NOT against the lodge but against the issue of monopolization of the gorilla permits and more so pegging them to one lodge.

Monopolies create distortions and should not be welcomed in liberalized economies like Uganda. There is need to engage in normal competitive business that is in line with governments’ policy. Several people and companies including foreign and local have invested heavily in the areas of Bwindi despite not getting such preferential treatment. Is the UWA, NCDF and TUSC alliance that special?

The new lodge is also said to have received a grant of US$250,000 from Prime West as contribution for building. There is no further justification for other “gifts” in the name of gorilla permits.

There have been petitions from the parishes of Nteko & Rubuguri that make up Nkuringo. More petitions have been raised by the people of Muko that nears Rubuguri; Kisoro district leadership, hoteliers in Kisoro, Ugandan Tour Operators Association, church leaders and several other stake holders have all petitioned government questioning the rationale of such a deal.

From a survey carried out in Kisoro (where the Nkuringo group is easily accessed) it was realized that more than 85% of the tourists who stay in Kisoro hotels and lodges were linked to a gorilla permit. Thus the allocation of 6 permits (75% of the available permits to the TUSC and NCDF has led to a decline of around 80% of their bookings which also applies to tour operators. Industry players feel this is very unfair as it gives the opportunity to one lodge and more so one tour operator to receive and handle guests.

The arrangement between UWA, NCDF and TUSC entitles them to sell guaranteed gorilla safari departures on any day, week and month for the entire period the agreement is in place. They also do not have gorilla permit risk since they do not deposit any money on permits and there fore do not suffer cancellation charges as is stipulated in UWA’s booking guidelines for 2008.

The private operator is now also at liberty to decide whom they can sell the permits to and will most likely lead to favoritism and discrimination. What makes this whole arrangement more questionable is that there are clauses which state that everything should be kept in “secret” considering that even the “community” in question did not have a lawyer to represent their interests.

Through consultation with a few other lawyers, it has also been realized that the agreement between Flora & Fauna International and UWA in regard to purchase of land in Nteko parish specifically provides that the law applicable shall be the contract law of United Kingdom yet the subject matter of the contract is in Uganda. What is even more disturbing is that one of the “beneficiaries” was air lifted for agreement signing between NCDF & TUSC in Nairobi.

The law of Uganda is very clear on how to deal with communities. The structures of the local council (LC System) have to be used. However, UWA and IGCP opted not use the normal system but rather encouraged a few individuals to come up with a company instead of a trustee. This company (NCDF) was later realized to be limited by guarantee and comprised of around 23 people with some forgeries being noticed in the MOA. Considering that the community is made up of over 33,000 people with many of them against NCDF because of its loop holes, is reason enough to cancel this dubious deal.

According to UWA, their aim was to help the “community” get returns from the losses caused by the gorillas. It is argued that the gorillas had a home range of 25km² parts of which was outside the park boundary on community land. The issue of why the gorillas used to move to community land (taking in mind that this very land was paid for thus being the buffer zone) is a subject for further debate. The most evident cause is that the canopy in the forest is high while the gorillas want to eat from lush secondary grass. The solution for this is to carry out controlled cutting of some of the trees in the forest so as to create feeding ground for the gorillas. UWA does this in other parks where they carry out controlled burning in the parks so as to enable growth of new vegetation that is suitable for the wild animals.

They have also branded NCDF as a “community” project. On the contrary it is not as has been highlighted in several petitions.

Mapesa, the Executive Director of UWA always has always argued that the community was to get 6 permits though the money from the permit sale would go back to UWA. This is what one of the tribes in Uganda refer to as “Byoya Byanswa” or “hot air”. In actual sense the benefits would come from the accommodation side where an eco lodge was mooted hence becoming a contradiction in terminus. It now becomes evident that some people were pushing for their own selfish interests as there is no business plan to justify this whole deal.

According to the current arrangement NCDF will be getting US$30 per bed night from the US$450 TUSC charges per bed night taking in mind that NCDF are said to be the “rightful” owners of the lodge. Who is fooling who? If NCDF are truly the right owners of the lodge then they should be the ones to pay TUSC management fees of say 15% of the profit earned.

Normally the local council can help protect its people from such crime or robbery. Those who claim the project was “good” for the community chose to leave them out in the planning and implementation stages. All they do is package the deal as a “conservation and community” issue despite the fact that it is being used to enrich a single investor – crazy way to do business.

The local government Act 1997 clause 50 sub section d and f stipulates that the parish or village executive committee shall over see the implementation of policies and decisions made by its council and shall serve as the communication channel between the Government, District or higher local council and people in the area. It also goes on to note that the local councils will generally monitor projects and other activities undertaken by Government (UWA in this case), local Governments, and Non Governmental Organizations in their area. What happened – UWA dealt with a private company that seems to have been created illegally?

Part IV of the basic Public Procurement and disposal principles clause 45 is clear when it says that all procurement and disposal shall be conducted in a manner which promotes transparency, accountability and fairness. The secrecy involved and lack of business focus for industry players clearly shows that the PPDA ACT 2003 was breached.

Section 12 of the Uganda Wildlife Act gives local councils the right to appoint a committee to advise UWA on wildlife management. Part III of the wildlife Act Cap 200 under subsection 13 clause 3 and 4 also states that the Executive Director shall publish in a daily newspaper and in any other appropriate forms of media a notice of his or her intention to prepare a management plan and invite suggestions from all interested parties of what matters should be in the plan. It should be noted that the secrecy involved in this whole deal even made UWA not to consult industry players on the proposed monopolization of gorilla permits. The Uganda Wildlife Act Cap 200 goes on to say that the Executive Director shall request the district council within whose area the wildlife protected area falls in whole or in part to forward to him or her within a reasonable time, which time shall not be less than 21 days any proposals for inclusion in the plan. Considering the several petitions raised by Kisoro district council, just goes on to show that there secrecy in regard to gorilla permit privatization was not agreed upon.

It is important to note that the Association of Uganda Tour Operators at its sitting on 8^th April 2008 (in the presence of Mel Gormley - Past chairman AUTO and the Ministry of Tourism Trade and Industry staff) a committee was chosen from members present to investigate this whole saga . The members present agreed in principle to co opt other stakeholders with whom a investigations were conducted and findings presented through a report that was later adopted by the membership as their position. The committee was not supposed to delve so much in the several documents but to raise areas of concern and come up with a stand point for AUTO which was done.

During the investigation, an opportunity to travel to Kisoro was made possible. UWA which was represented at one of the Kisoro district council meetings by Mrs. Eunice Mahoro Duli acknowledged that they had blundered and were looking for a way forward. From the Kisoro district council deliberations, it was realized that over 90 % of the councilors were of the view that the arrangement between TUSC and NCDF not only be CANCELLED but were also of the opinion that the IGG investigate UWA’s dealings. The district speaker with advice from the Chief Administrative Officer proposed that they first handle the issue through the line Ministry prior to contacting the IGG’s office. It was then that the Prime Minister and Minister of Tourism were petitioned not only by the Kisoro District Council but also by the Association of Uganda Tour Operators and other stakeholders including actual Nkuringo Community members and not those masquerading to be their representatives.

For more information on the publics concerns visit

http://www.petitiontime.com/ViewPetition.aspx?key=nkurigorilla

HOTEL DES MILLE COLLINES SECURES $5MILLION

By Baluku Geoffrey
Kigali, Rwanda

Hôtel des Mille Collines, one of the up market hotels in Kigali, Rwanda has secured $5million for renovation of its facilities and also to give it a new face lift. The amount of money got from the International Finance Corporation (IFC) will be re paid in a period of ten years.

Mr. Jean de Dieu Mbarushimana, the director of Administration and Finance at the hotel, said they would close shop in the first three weeks of October for demolition period to take place, and then re open towards the end of October.

According to Mbarushimana, PIRARD, a Rwandan construction company won the tender to refurbish the hotel. It is anticipated that after renovation, the hotel will get new interior facilities and also change its outlook.

Mikcor Investment Holdings owns 89% shares in the hotel. These were purchased from Sabena, a Belgium flight company in 2005 to the tune of $3.4million.