Letting them pay more than compliments
Should New Zealand consider introducing some kind of charge for overseas visitors using huts in our national parks? Jill Worrall, who has visited over 70 countries mostly as a tour manager, puts the idea into some global perspective and suggests we don’t stop at hut charges but introduce a general national park fee for overseas visitors.
It’s a small country, rather remote, with a fragile mountainous environment, distinctive indigenous culture, a growing reliance on tourism and a strong emphasis on promoting outdoor activities in unspoiled landscapes.
Sounds like it must be New Zealand, doesn’t it? But in fact the country I have in mind is the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan.
If you’re a little geographically challenged on the whereabouts of Bhutan just visualise the Indian subcontinent with Nepal nestled in the Himalayas at the top with, to the right, the Indian state of Sikkim and, to its right, Bhutan.
Ever since Bhutan opened its doors to tourists in 1974 it has taken the approach of high-value, low-volume tourism. Unlike Nepal, with which it shares physical and cultural similarities, there are no backpackers in Bhutan; no streets packed with cheap guest houses; no foreign coffee houses and no rapacious salespeople.
If you want to visit Bhutan you can only do so if you are willing to pay the Government-set rate of US$250 per person per day (the high season charge.) For this money you will receive 3-star accommodation, all your meals, transport, an English-speaking guide and entry fees. In recent years, as four and five-star hotels or lodges have opened in Bhutan, a surcharge has been added for those wanting a higher standard of accommodation. (It’s possible to spend at least US$1000 a night for some of the most luxurious and exclusive resorts).
There are no exclusions to this tariff (other than for visitors from India, Sri Lanka and the Maldives) so the result is that travellers on lower budgets are excluded, plus visitors tend not to stay in Bhutan for extended periods. Shorter visits, especially in places with sensitive environments and vulnerable traditional cultures, are known to have less impact on both.
What makes this tariff system especially interesting for New Zealanders now considering whether some kind of fee should be introduced for overseas tourists using our national parks, is that the Bhutanese Government takes $65 of each tariff. This money is used to help fund Bhutan’s free education and health system, and for developing the country’s tourist infrastructure.
Bhutan has a poverty rate of 12 per cent (the proportion of the population living on less than US$1.25 per day) with the figure rising to over 30 per cent in rural areas, which is most of the country. The income from tourism, therefore, is seen as a viable way to improve the country’s living standards.
In 1974, the first year Bhutan was open to tourists, it received 287 foreign visitors. That figure is now up to about Conservation aim:
privilege of experiencing places like this?
Should overseas visitors pay something for the 64,000. Clearly, the imposition of a tariff has not hindered a 22,200 per cent increase in visitor numbers.
Now, clearly we don’t need tourists to directly fund our education and health systems (or maybe we do . . .) but in my opinion, we could do with some extra funds for maintaining our national parks and wider conservation estate.
Bhutan is certainly not the only country in the world that imposes a specific fee on visitors. I would imagine no one from New Zealand who has ever visited the Great Barrier Reef in Australia has even blinked at the $A5.50 per full day Environmental Management Charge that everyone pays if they visit the reef.
We have natural treasures just as spectacular and as globally significant as the Great Barrier Reef, so why are we so nervous about charging visitors to help us maintain and conserve them? I agree wholeheartedly with David Round of the Aoraki Conservation Board, that this seems to be another manifestation of cultural cringe. Are we worried that if we impose a fee people won’t come because they don’t think we as a nation are worth it?
Every person who visits Tanzania’s national parks such as Serengeti or Ngorongoro pays a US$50 a day national park fee. That’s considered expensive but there’s no shortage of people on safari in Africa (just ask anyone who’s braved the breakfast buffet in one of Tanzania’s larger safari hotels).
The precedents go on and on. So, what is surprising is firstly why we’re not
Tourists to Bhutan are charged a fee that includes a tax used by the Bhutanese government to help pay for the free education of all its school-age children. considering at least a higher hut fee, secondly why just a hut fee and lastly what’s taken us so long?
There have been suggestions in the past that by introducing a charge for overseas tourists we’re exploiting our visitors by expecting them to pay more than we do. Which again doesn’t hold water if you consider the idea in a global context.
For example, if I visit the Taj Mahal in Agra, India, it will cost me the equivalent of NZ$14 but an Indian national will pay just 40 cents. Which is as it should be. The Taj Majal first and foremost belongs to the Indians, it’s part of their heritage, so entry fees need to be realistic for the millions of Indians on very low incomes. I can afford to pay more so should do so. You might hear a