Tourism Recovery and Development in Oceania

The pandemic of COVID-19 caused the biggest blow to the economies that were heavily based on tourism in Oceania. The speed with which the virus spread in the early months of 2020 forced countries like Australia and New Zealand to initiate travel bans and lockdowns. Apart from this, the smallest nations of the Pacific Islands, namely Fiji, Samoa, and Vanuatu, chose complete confinement of their borders as a measure of containing this viral outbreak, which led to very few or no visitors entering their territories.

According to the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO), the figures for Oceania’s international tourist arrivals in 2020 were marked by an 81% drop compared to 2019, which is not only the highest rate since the capturing of historical statistics but also unprecedented. One clear example is Fiji, which suffered from a dramatic reduction in visitation from over 890,000 visitors in the year 2019 to fewer than 150,000 visitors in the year 2020, resulting in a loss rate of more than 90% in tourism revenue. In the same way, Statistics New Zealand revealed that the country’s tourism earnings export volume fell by almost 65% in the first quarter of 2021 compared to the respective period at the beginning of the previous year, which indicated a record going down since World War II.

Even though the economic impacts were accompanied by poverty, communities that depended largely on tourism for their employment and income were the most impacted. Prior to the pandemic, the tourism sector was a primary producer of employment for just about a quarter of the overall labor force in Fiji. The abrupt grounding of international flights resulted in the unemployment of tens of thousands of people and enforced deepening poverty with on-site high living costs crises across the region.

The impact of tourism loss was felt across many service sectors, most notably those that were closely interlinked with tourism, such as public and private transport services, hospitality businesses, small-size shops, and creators of handcrafts. Regional carriers like Fiji Airways and Air Tahiti Nui were forced to cut routes and staff, and many international flight connections have yet to return to pre-pandemic levels. In smaller nations, diminished tourist inflow through the collapse of tourism also brought with it a decrease in tax revenue and greater pressure on the fiscal systems of governments that have fewer options for economic diversification.

To sum up, the tourism drop during the COVID-19 pandemic in Oceania was not only a drastic decline in visitor numbers on a temporal basis, but the event also gave the region a way to revile the structural weaknesses and the overreliance on external demand. The road to recovery thus demands not only reopening borders but also replacing traditional tourism models with ones that encourage the development of economic resilience, diversification of income sources, and the support of sustainability efforts.

Being one of the most tourism-dependent economies in the Pacific, Fiji took a leadership role in the revival of its tourism sector in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic through proactive measures. In 2021, Fiji’s best partners, the designated first countries, mostly Australia and New Zealand, accounted for the largest incoming markets; therefore, a “travel bubble” concept was presented. The goal was to design a protected tourism corridor for vaccinated travelers so that the process of opening borders would be gradual and proper.

Therefore, the key aspects of Fiji’s recovery strategy were the intense national vaccination campaign and the subsequent lifting of almost all quarantine regulations. To achieve the critical mass vaccination goal, which had been set at 90% by the end of 2021, most Fijian adults were fully vaccinated, allowing the government to remove or modify most of the quarantine requirements for vaccinated international visitors from approved countries. To support the tourism industry’s comeback, the “Care Fiji Commitment” was launched as a health and safety certification program to reassure tourists of the nation’s readiness and make them confident that Fiji is a COVID-safe destination.

Not only did Fiji launch an intensive international marketing campaign to prop up the country post-pandemic, but it also met any health protocols. Using digital platforms and joint campaigns by tourism boards, Fiji, in particular, promoted its “safe paradise” and “open for happiness” messages, which mainly targeted families, couples, and eco-conscious travelers coming from Australia, New Zealand, and some new Asian markets. The reopening was also ensured by the airlines of Fiji Airways, which regained regular flights to the major hubs with appropriate health safety measures on board.

Fiji’s recovery plan was not only a matter of reopening but also aimed at making the industry more resilient and sustainable. There are also developed tendencies to eco-tourism, community-based tourism, and reducing the complicity of low-cost tours. Even though the initial recovery trends in tourist arrivals in 2022 and 2023 were encouraging—tourism brought noticeable increases to the economy—the government displayed complete caution and demonstrated its proactive approach to the global conditions and the development of the variant of COVID-19.

The case of Fiji serves as a perfect example of how small island developing states (SIDS) can effectively attain the goal of tourism recovery through regional partnerships, public health success stories, and focused branding. The concept may contribute to a more inspiring approach in other Pacific Island situations, tackling the problem of pandemic closure versus economic recovery.

Samoa, in line with many other small nations of the Pacific, embarked on a journey towards reopening with regard to international travel that was relatively reserved and careful compared to that of the other states in the region. Considering the country’s inadequate healthcare capacity and high exposure to risks from external sources, the government gave priority to the public health and safety of people rather than the economy at the beginning of the COVID-19 response. For a little more than two years, international borders were mostly closed, with repatriation flight interactions strictly controlled and observed.

The gradual reopening of the nation started in the middle of 2022, which was exactly after the massive vaccination of the population became successful. By June 2022, an estimated more than 90% of the eligible adult population was immunized with a COVID-19 vaccine, hence enabling the government to start opening borders with conditions. However, contrary to Fiji, Samoa was not the first nation to make arrangements for “travel ensembles”. Rather, it established a system of restricted entry that included pre-departure testing, vaccination proof, and quarantine protocols depending on risk assessments of origin countries.

Similarly, the tourism recovery strategy of Samoa included taking steps to preserve cultural heritage protect the environment and promote sustainability. Tourism Samoa, the national authority for tourism, had a priority to administer low-volume, pricey tourism with successful campaigns such as “Beautiful Samoa Awaits”. These efforts are sought to attract people who are more conscious and who would want to be involved in cultural immersion, wellness retreats, and eco-tours rather than mass-market tourism.

In the face of such endeavors, the speed of restoration remains sluggish. Compared to the figures for 2019, the visitor count dropped in 2022, around the same year that many businesses, especially family-run accommodations and tour operators, found themselves in a very difficult financial situation. The international partners, such as Australia and New Zealand, helped the small businesses absorb some of the losses. Still, the test of time is the only thing that will show the group’s ability to survive in the long run.

Samoa’s case shows the conundrum that small island states encounter – what is the right decision to make in the way of minimizing the speed of economic recovery being able to protect public health and fragile local ecosystems? Nevertheless, the standoff action might have postponed recovery efforts in the short run. However, it could be possible that this cautious approach will result in a more sustainable and culturally respectful tourism model in the future.

New Zealand was among the nations that enacted the world’s most extreme measures of border entry during the COVID-19 pandemic. While it completely banned international travel in March 2020, the nation has consistently gone to great lengths to impose entry restrictions, with a return to an almost normal situation only recently, in 2022. The country adopted an “elimination strategy,” which turned out to be quite successful in the early stages. Furthermore, international tourism prior to 2020 brought about 5.5% of GDP and engaged over 8% of the total employment force.

Different from some Pacific Island countries, New Zealand, with its inbound tourism market, was able to assist the industry during this period of international isolation. Initiatives such as the “Do Something New, New Zealand” initiative proved to be very effective, and locals were offered discounts. Nevertheless, domestic travelers and tourism could not entirely replace the niches in which higher-spending international visitors like Chinese or American Europeans could be.

In the early months of 2022, the number of vaccinations for eligible adults reached 90% for the first dose, and the Omicron variant became a dominant strain globally. It was then and there that New Zealand moved from “elimination” to “mitigation” and started reopening its borders in phases. By mid-2022, vaccinated travelers from key partner countries could enter without quarantine, and regular international operations could return at the same time. The government put in place new national tourism strategies that would focus more on sustainability, resilience, and adventure tourism.

Tourism New Zealand has now rebranded its marketing endeavors under the “100% Pure New Zealand” campaign, incorporating components like environmental preservation, native culture, and regenerative travel. At this point, it is not catching up with already existing figures of visitors but attracting travelers who have the same vision for tourism and sustainable development as New Zealand.

New Zealand’s approach to recovery, though, shows a subtle shift in thinking—as if the country had arrived at an evolved level of insight by upgrading from volume to value, from achieving growth to attaining sustainable tourism. It is a prototype for harmonizing public health, environmental goals, and economic development in post-pandemic tourism.

The post-pandemic recovery strategies in tourism that the governments of Fiji, Samoa, and New Zealand implemented exhibit not only some expected similarities but also some differentiated policies, which are formed in each country individually for the reason of different levels of economic structure, public health capacity, and country-specific strategy. Facing the same challenge, Fiji adopted an early reopening model to recover from the devastation, compounded by a tough dependency on tourism; the model focused on a high vaccination rate and reopening the trans-Tasman corridor with Australia and New Zealand. Then again, Samoa took a conservative and health-oriented approach and only allowed for border reopening in mid-2022. Also, preserving culture and supporting the community were valued more by introducing fewer and higher-end tourism services.

New Zealand, which is better equipped with healthcare infrastructure that generates domestic tourism, opted for a phased reopening plan that maintained a balance between public health measures and economic recovery. This is evident in the shift from a mass to a sustainable type of tourism, offering a preference for quality rather than quantity of visitors, directed toward tourists with a green rather than a blue mentality and harmony with the Indigenous culture.

Though all three countries were in unity of purpose is tourism revival and ensuring safety, their operational pace, marketing strategy, and long-term vision varied. Fiji was looking for speed and volume; Samoa demanded caution and cultural sustainability; New Zealand was emphasizing strategy, rebranding, and resilience. These views, taken together, provide a good perspective on the diversity of crisis reactions that occur in Oceania and allow for reflection on the means of small and medium-sized states to cope with global crises while redesigning tourism for the future.

With Oceania’s shift into post-pandemic tourism, there has emerged a sharper focus on balancing economic recovery and conservation. Natural beauty comprises Oceania’s tourist appeal—beaches, coral reefs, rainforests, and cultural heritage—forms its bedrock. But this natural wealth is also extremely fragile, and a rapid return to tourism raises serious issues about sustainability.

There have been serious efforts at policy integration of sustainability in Fiji through engagement with industry stakeholders and the state. The “Care Fiji Commitment” not only functions as a COVID-safe measure but also emphasizes eco-certification, waste reduction, and energy efficiency. Revival initiatives for community-based tourism operations—such as homestays at the village level and nature walks with local guides—aim at ensuring equitable distribution and cultural sensitivity of benefits from tourism. However, there are issues with managing large-scale resort development, sustainable water management, and protection of coral reef ecosystems from increasing tourist pressure.

Samoa’s slow and controlled reopening has facilitated greater planned development with a focus on sustainability. With its renewed focus on low-impact tourism, there is a push toward traditional file accommodations, eco-lodges, and cultural tourism that minimize ecological footprints but preserve local identity. However, limited technical capacity and financial resources are limitations for upscaling green infrastructure and monitoring for environmental impact.

New Zealand, a global conservation leader, is further down this road. The new government tourism strategy includes a shift toward “regenerative tourism” that not only reduces impacts but also restores and enhances ecosystems and communities through tourism. It includes increased environmental regulation over tourism activity, investment in offsetting emissions, and partnerships with Mauri communities to embed Mauri values of stewardship into tourism design.

In all three countries, there is a growing understanding that business-as-usual tourism models, based on volume and revenue maximization, are not sustainable. Instead, sustainable tourism is being reframed as a long-term economic development strategy that supports resilience, healthy ecosystems, and social well-being. However, gaps exist with respect to policy alignment with private sector practice, community engagement, and climate-resilient infrastructure development.

The tourism future of Oceania will hinge not just on the number of repeat visitors but also to the degree to which destinations manage for quality, intention, and expense to the environment during their visits. With growing numbers of conscious travelers globally, Oceania’s dilemma—and chance—is to lead by example sustainably.

The future for Oceania’s tourism development is not one of simply recovering pre-Covid visitor numbers but one of refashioning the industry into a sustainable, resilient, and inclusive one. Based on lessons from Fiji, Samoa, and New Zealand, several strategic recommendations can be made for future tourism development in Oceania.

Regional cooperation must come first. The development of multilateral tourism frameworks—such as shared health measures, cooperative marketing campaigns, and even regional visa schemes—could raise Oceania’s international competitiveness and facilitate safer, smoother travel. Regional cooperation can also facilitate small states’ access to technical expertise and infrastructure financing for sustainable tourism.

Second, investment in digital transformation is needed. The pandemic accelerated digital travel planning and virtual engagement. Governments and tourism boards must invest in providing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) with digital tools for marketing, reservation, and customer service, especially for remote island communities with limited international market access.

Third, destinations must focus on high-value, low-impact visitors with a higher ability and inclination to pay for real, sustainable experiences. It involves promoting niche markets such as ecotourism, well-being retreats, indigenous cultural tourism, and voluntourism. Tourism development sensitive to local needs and environmental capacity will reduce risks from over-tourism and maximize long-term community benefits.

Fourth, infrastructure development must be climate-resilient and sustainable. This includes harnessing renewable energy at tourist resorts, improving waste and water management, and promoting sustainable marine tourism practices. Green transition can also be promoted through capacity-building for workers and local communities.

In the future, Oceania’s unique natural endowments and cultural heritage offer a sound foundation for rebound—given that they are well managed. If pandemic lessons are converted into lasting innovation, Oceania can serve as a model for sustainable tourism worldwide. There are challenges, but there is a window for structural transformation and strategic investment into tourism that respects people and the planet in the post-COVID era.

By Qingning Zhao