SO what’s the future of the proposed Tourism Public–Private Partnership, which has been talked about for five years? Not much, if the recent report of the Economic Affairs Scrutiny Panel is anything to go by.

They say that the joint public–private approach to marketing the Island’s second-most important industry shouldn’t go ahead until even more work is put into it. It rather illustrates how Jersey makes very rough going out of something that should be relatively simple.

To my mind, the PPP is now dead in the water unless the Economic Development department and the Jersey Hospitality Association prove remarkably determined to press ahead regardless of the flaws highlighted by the Scrutiny panel. I just don’t see that the advantages are clear enough to overcome the obstacles.

The industry and EDD have rather tied themselves up in knots over the details of a PPP, and there doesn’t seem to be clear thinking on either side. Yet the issue is pretty simple.

The tourism industry is struggling to maintain its market share against other more successful destinations. This is due to a number of factors, and the report repeats the well-worn arguments about cheaper foreign travel being readily available, so the average British family can go further afield and won’t be interested in coming to tiny Jersey, which is on their doorstep.

Well if that reflects the attitude of the industry (and it certainly does reflect the attitude of some of the experts heard by the panel), we might as well shut up shop now and forget about tourism.

It is blindingly obvious that the mass British tourism market changed many years ago and that Jersey could no longer be considered one of the most popular destinations for the Brits. But it’s been in that position for 20 or 30 years. Jersey’s tourism industry has survived, if not exactly prospered, by concentrating on smaller niche markets.

There isn’t much future in competing head-on with Spain, France, Turkey, the United States or wherever, but there is a future in attracting individuals and groups who would actually enjoy coming to a small island with its own history and heritage, where you don’t have to worry about the hassle of international travel and where damage to the environment from the short trip is limited.

There won’t be tens of millions of potential customers, but there will certainly be a significant number, and we only have to attract a very small proportion of them to produce a successful tourism industry. I’m ignoring opportunities in other markets, such as France and Germany, but then so do many people in the industry.

Having established that there is a market, the only question is how to communicate to potential customers and persuade them to come to the Island. That is where the PPP is supposed to come in. According to supporters, bringing together the commercial expertise available in the industry and the money available from the States will produce better results than we are achieving at the moment.

Well to begin with, we have to distinguish between marketing and selling. There is as much, if not more, marketing expertise in the tourism department as there is in the industry. They are just not focused on filling hotel beds or promoting individual attractions, because that’s not their job. Their job is to market the Island as a whole, and that will need to be done whether there is a PPP or not.

The commercial expertise required to capitalise on the interest generated by the Tourism department could be more readily available in the industry. In fact, isn’t there a role here for the Jersey Hospitality Association? Don’t they need to do more marketing for their members themselves, rather than relying on EDD all of the time?

Even under the PPP, the industry is going to have to provide more of the marketing funds required, although I suspect that many members didn’t expect this to be the case, and that’s why they were so supportive of a PPP. They thought that the States would hand over the Tourism budget and let the industry get on with it. Following the Scrutiny hearings, they should now appreciate that the States are not going to simply provide taxpayers’ money without having a say in how it is spent.

So I’m not sure whether creating a PPP helps much with the two major problems facing the tourism industry. The most important is providing sufficient funds so that the Island can reach the many niche customers who would enjoy a holiday in Jersey. That’s more than just advertising – it’s also about worthwhile events, good transport links and generally ensuring a good holiday experience. How much of that will the PPP be doing?

The PPP will certainly not mean more money coming from the States, particularly in the current climate, unless EDD suddenly decides to give it the priority it deserves. It will also not necessarily mean more money coming from the industry itself, so we have all the costs of setting up a PPP and no new money. JHA members could decide to increase their contribution, but there’s nothing to stop them doing that now. After all, some of them believe that all the commercial expertise exists in the industry, not in EDD, so why do they need a partnership?

The second problem, of course, is ensuring the available resources are well spent. A PPP would undoubtedly achieve this, particularly if it had a dynamic and focused chairman, but so would any number of other types of working groups, co-operatives or ad hoc arrangements.

It’s easy for the Scrutiny panel to pick holes in the PPP proposal, as I have done myself. However, that doesn’t get us very far. And in the meantime, the industry continues to suffer. Once again it comes down to a commitment by the States to provide the industry with enough support to do the job properly. That undoubtedly means more money, and although handing out sums to replace business lost by incidents such as the volcanic ash cancellations, is obviously a help, it is not progress.

Peter Body is editor of Business Brief magazine