We should be taking more pride in what we have to offer travellers; be prepared to stand up for what we value and not fret that if we do so people ‘‘won’t come’’.
User pays: If you want to see Taktsang, or the Tiger’s Nest monastery, in Bhutan, you can only do so if you’ve paid the Bhutanese government’s set charge for tourist visitors. few grumbles in the queues before the sunrise opening but the Indians are not going to balk because of that – they know they have an attraction worth what is still an incredibly reasonable fee to see and make no apologies. We should take note.
Over the last few years I’ve been staggered to see how busy our national parks and walks have become, especially over the main summer tourist season; you only need to watch the number of people on glacier view walks or circuiting the Punakaiki blowholes as just two examples to appreciate the increased pressure on the paths themselves, on toilet facilities and in terms of the environment itself, on the flora and fauna of the area concerned.
Certainly, implementing a fee might prove administratively complex but if the fee is levied on arrival, for example, or in the case of people travelling with groups, through their tour package costs, the process could be simplified.
If a fee was collected at our airports it might slow the arrival process down. However, as we believe it’s important enough to search tourists’ bags at our airports and thus delay their entry into the country for a few minutes in order to protect our agricultural industry surely a few minutes more to protect our national parks (and thus our tourism industry, which is also a major contributor to our foreign exchange earnings) isn’t going to make a big difference.
Underpinning any debate on national park charges is perhaps a worry that any attempt to do so will impact on our desire for more and more tourists. Again, maybe we should look to Bhutan here, which although under pressure now to accommodate more visitors, is still maintaining its high-value, lowvolume approach. It’s probably too late to do that here now but maybe we should consider setting some kind of threshold both to protect our environment and in the process enhance our reputation as a more exclusive destination. Maybe in a small way a fee is a good way to begin this process.
The phrase ‘‘killing the goose that lays the golden egg’’ is incredibly apt when it comes to tourism. Last European summer I was in St Petersburg and in Dubrovnik during peak cruise ship season. It was obvious that the local infrastructures in places such as Catherine’s Palace or the whole of Dubrovnik’s old town were totally unable to cope with the sheer volume of people descending on one place in the same short period of time. Do we want the same scenarios played out here?
We should be taking more pride in what we have to offer travellers; be prepared to stand up for what we value and not fret that if we do so people ‘‘won’t come’’. Do we really want to do the equivalent of advertising a party on Facebook?
We could do a lot worse than take a leaf from the Bhutanese example: Cultivate a sense of exclusivity, make no apology for our fees and attract tourists who will appreciate what we have.