The things I do. Having grappled with the equation-littered methodology of Messrs Rosselló and Sansó and their taxing tourism, as highlighted two days ago, I set myself the masochistic task of consulting the whole 93rd edition of the journal Cuadernos Económicos (special theme, tourism and sustainability).
Actually, I didn't bother with something about visitors to the Teide National Park in Tenerife or with a hybrid multi-criteria method for evaluating the development of community tourism in Imababura, Ecuador (there are limits even to my research). Otherwise though, here was a minor treasure trove of tourism sustainability intelligence; or one hoped there was.
Mercifully, not all of it was the avalanche of mathematical formulae that Rosselló and Sansó had presented in determining (or maybe not determining) the loss of tourism because of the Balearic tourist tax. Indeed some of it was fairly straight to the point, insofar as anything that appears in an academic publication can ever be described as being straight to the point (and normally it can't be).
Bernard Lane, who is the founding editor of the Journal of Sustainable Tourism, offered views on the evolution and future of sustainable tourism. He identified twenty likely growth areas for second-generation sustainable tourism research (we are apparently now in the second generation). One of these made for particularly interesting reading. Under financial and taxation instruments, Lane said that tourism has fought shy of this type of control and referred to the "anger" created by the tourist tax in the Balearics both in 2002 and more recently in 2016.
It was illuminating that he should single out the Balearics tax. The Catalonia tax has been a more permanent feature - it's been going for six years - while there are other taxes, especially city ones, which predate the Balearics Ecotax Mark II. Yet it was the Balearics tax which was highlighted. I am ever more convinced that the "anger", notwithstanding the rates of the tax, is the consequence of the attention that Mallorca and the Balearics attract, which is vastly greater than anywhere else.
Lane added that "as neo-liberalism increases, financial and taxation issues will assume greater importance". Neo-liberalism? Are we to conclude that ex-minister Biel Barceló and the current Balearic government have inherited the neo-liberalism Earth of Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Milton Friedman? Besides, isn't neo-liberalism something to do with less tax? Well no, it's about expanding the tax base. Even so, it seems curious to link neo-liberalism to tourist taxes, especially as it is supposed to promote growth, competitiveness and wealth.
What I think he was really driving at was that taxation is a means of sustainability and the sole means. He later adds that neo-liberalist ideologies actually threaten sustainability, and that - one assumes - is because such ideologies are so geared towards growth and can be the antithesis of, say, environmental sustainability. Whatever one thinks about the Balearics tax, there is at least some genuine defence of the environment.
Lane also considered governance issues, and on these his words leave one wondering as to who, if anyone, is in charge of tourism: "Tourism is remarkably ungoverned and perhaps in some respects ungovernable, in part because of the fragmented ownership of its private sector elements, and in part because of the changing and complex nature of the public sector components that both control infrastructure and have some governance powers through planning permissions and some marketing activities. Tourism is also a relatively leaderless industry except in terms of lobbying."
Well, pick the bones out of that. He could easily be describing the Balearics. There is fragmentation in the private sector, such as with all the hotel groups that exist and their differences, as exemplified by the wage negotiations. The larger and wealthier groups basically drove the wage increases through in their desire for more sustainable employment. The leadership through lobbying is manifestly the case in the Balearics, as with the Mallorca Hoteliers Federation. Lobbying is its prime function.
At the public sector level we have the regular shifts in political control. These create a flip-flop of policies and of matters such as planning. The lack of leadership is such that there may no longer be a tourism minister in future, if Biel Barceló is to believed. This leadership, if it exists, will be shunted downwards to the islands councils until there is a later decision to reverse this. There is therefore an incoherence that undermines long-term planning for sustainability.
The article wasn't offering any solutions. It was about areas for further research or even some research. With financial measures for sustainability, e.g. the tourist tax, there is very little knowledge of their impact. The Balearics provide a perfect test base for understanding this impact because of the scale and scope of the tax. But do we really want the islands' tourism to be treated as an experiment? Because that is what it appears to be.
Showing posts with label Balearic tourist tax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Balearic tourist tax. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 07, 2018
Monday, February 05, 2018
What's The Loss From The Tourist Tax?
The Balearics attracted 13,790,968 foreign tourists last year, the highest number ever. The increase was in the order of six per cent over 2016. The exactness of the figure makes one marvel at the statistics-gathering approach. One trusts that it is accurate. On top of this 13.8 million there were the Spanish tourists. They are treated separately. In 2016 there were just shy of 2.4 million mainlander tourists. That figure will have gone up. The overall tourist total last year will have topped the 16 million mark; in 2016 it was 15.4 million.
The increase last year was against the background of the first full year of the tourist tax. Its implementation had no effect. Or if it did, the effect was mitigated by a continuing "borrowing" of holidaymakers from other destinations. This borrowing, so we understand, is over; the Balearics are returning tourists that had been out on loan. The 2018 tourism dynamic has an additional element to this returning: the tourist tax is to double between May and October.
Last November in London, we did of course learn from Mallorca's hoteliers that the tax rise will mean the loss of one million tourists. What did they base their figure on? They said that it was an extrapolation from what happened when the ecotax of 2002 was introduced. Ok, but then was it not logical to have expected a loss of tourists last year? The borrowing clouded the issue and the logic.
Basing an assessment on the effect of the 2002 tax was in any event misleading. There was a loss of half a million tourists in 2002: a 7.6% decline. The loss was predominantly due to the German market. It fell by 16%. The British market went down by just over one per cent. There were other factors that are conveniently ignored to explain the big drop in German tourism that year. In 2003, prior to the tax being scrapped, the losses were all but recouped.
Jaume Rosselló and Andreu Sansó are researchers at the University of the Balearic Islands department of applied economics. They have published an article entitled Taxing Tourism: The effects of an accommodation tax on tourism demand in the Balearic Islands. It has appeared in the journal Cuadernos Económicos. The latest edition is a special look at 'sustainable tourism', and some of it - including Rosselló and Sansó's research - is in English.
Highly academic, it is for most of us pretty impenetrable. It does, nevertheless, seek to provide an evaluation of the loss of tourism because of the tourist tax. Rosselló and Sansó refer to the 2002 ecotax but don't use it or its impact in their study. They stick to more recent evidence. The upshot of this research is that there is increased price elasticity, i.e. the effect of a price change on demand, and that a decrease of between 0.4% and 0.9% of total tourism demand can be anticipated. If the higher percentage were to be applied to last year's foreign tourism, this would represent the loss of more than 120,000 tourists.
The point about the study, however, is that it used data for 2016 and none at all for 2017, when there was that six per cent increase in tourism. Does last year's experience invalidate their findings? Up to a point perhaps it does, but they supply caveats in their conclusions. For example: "Tourism, as a social activity, is influenced by many factors, such as advertising, news and other issues that undoubtedly affect demand behaviour in many ways. Possible media coverage of the tax’s introduction in the countries of origin and how revenue from it is reinvested are examples of factors that are not considered in this study." A specific factor in 2017 was that tourist borrowing. It might be argued, therefore, that 2017's 'record season' was a blip.
The real test will be this year. Yet we have had the hoteliers also talking about another record season, seemingly therefore contradicting what was said in London (which was probably a form of headline-grabber for effect). To suggest that there will be another record season sounds counter-intuitive and also contrary to indications from Rosselló and Sansó's study. There again, perhaps the hoteliers are expecting a new form of borrowing in 2018 - from that section of the holiday rentals market that has been closed off.
We don't of course know what the loss will be (if any). Research can place an estimate, but theoretical models do not always reflect practice. If there were a loss of 120,000 tourists, this would hardly represent much of a crisis. But this was a figure that took into account the rates of the tourist tax as they were, not as they now are. All that's certain is that we will be paying a great deal more attention to those monthly tourist statistics than ever before. Assuming, that is, that we believe them.
The increase last year was against the background of the first full year of the tourist tax. Its implementation had no effect. Or if it did, the effect was mitigated by a continuing "borrowing" of holidaymakers from other destinations. This borrowing, so we understand, is over; the Balearics are returning tourists that had been out on loan. The 2018 tourism dynamic has an additional element to this returning: the tourist tax is to double between May and October.
Last November in London, we did of course learn from Mallorca's hoteliers that the tax rise will mean the loss of one million tourists. What did they base their figure on? They said that it was an extrapolation from what happened when the ecotax of 2002 was introduced. Ok, but then was it not logical to have expected a loss of tourists last year? The borrowing clouded the issue and the logic.
Basing an assessment on the effect of the 2002 tax was in any event misleading. There was a loss of half a million tourists in 2002: a 7.6% decline. The loss was predominantly due to the German market. It fell by 16%. The British market went down by just over one per cent. There were other factors that are conveniently ignored to explain the big drop in German tourism that year. In 2003, prior to the tax being scrapped, the losses were all but recouped.
Jaume Rosselló and Andreu Sansó are researchers at the University of the Balearic Islands department of applied economics. They have published an article entitled Taxing Tourism: The effects of an accommodation tax on tourism demand in the Balearic Islands. It has appeared in the journal Cuadernos Económicos. The latest edition is a special look at 'sustainable tourism', and some of it - including Rosselló and Sansó's research - is in English.
Highly academic, it is for most of us pretty impenetrable. It does, nevertheless, seek to provide an evaluation of the loss of tourism because of the tourist tax. Rosselló and Sansó refer to the 2002 ecotax but don't use it or its impact in their study. They stick to more recent evidence. The upshot of this research is that there is increased price elasticity, i.e. the effect of a price change on demand, and that a decrease of between 0.4% and 0.9% of total tourism demand can be anticipated. If the higher percentage were to be applied to last year's foreign tourism, this would represent the loss of more than 120,000 tourists.
The point about the study, however, is that it used data for 2016 and none at all for 2017, when there was that six per cent increase in tourism. Does last year's experience invalidate their findings? Up to a point perhaps it does, but they supply caveats in their conclusions. For example: "Tourism, as a social activity, is influenced by many factors, such as advertising, news and other issues that undoubtedly affect demand behaviour in many ways. Possible media coverage of the tax’s introduction in the countries of origin and how revenue from it is reinvested are examples of factors that are not considered in this study." A specific factor in 2017 was that tourist borrowing. It might be argued, therefore, that 2017's 'record season' was a blip.
The real test will be this year. Yet we have had the hoteliers also talking about another record season, seemingly therefore contradicting what was said in London (which was probably a form of headline-grabber for effect). To suggest that there will be another record season sounds counter-intuitive and also contrary to indications from Rosselló and Sansó's study. There again, perhaps the hoteliers are expecting a new form of borrowing in 2018 - from that section of the holiday rentals market that has been closed off.
We don't of course know what the loss will be (if any). Research can place an estimate, but theoretical models do not always reflect practice. If there were a loss of 120,000 tourists, this would hardly represent much of a crisis. But this was a figure that took into account the rates of the tourist tax as they were, not as they now are. All that's certain is that we will be paying a great deal more attention to those monthly tourist statistics than ever before. Assuming, that is, that we believe them.
Friday, January 26, 2018
The Explanation Game: Tourist Tax
President Armengol attempted to go on the offensive last week. She was being harangued in Madrid by leading hoteliers over the tourist tax. Carmen Riu criticised the lack of information for tourists about how tourist tax revenue is spent. Armengol responded by stressing the "great social acceptance" of the tax, noting that others (i.e. Greece) were bringing in a similar tax, and then challenging Riu to provide an example of how a tourist tax purpose is better explained than in the Balearics. "I paid seven euros tourist tax in Brussels, and no one told me what it was for."
Well, quite. Go to a city where there is a tourist tax (or whatever it is called), and there invariably won't be any explanation. Why should there be? It's a tax. You pay it. End of story.
The Balearic government can, one supposes, to be applauded for attempting to get across how the tax is spent. There is at least some transparency, even if the communication is utterly lamentable. But why is so much emphasis being placed on the need to explain the purpose of the tax? Did Catalonia undertake a major information campaign to detail the reasons for its tax when it came in back in 2011? No. There was information, mainly just through the press, and strange though it may seem, the tax was to be spent on tourism.
Most variants on the tourist tax theme are simply means of increasing revenue, be these for cities, towns or national governments. Rome, for instance, was pretty clear when it introduced its tax. Italy was in deep economic trouble, so therefore Rome was as well. The tax was to help pay for services. There was no attempt at wrapping it up as something that it wasn't. It was a tax, and one to swell the city authority's coffers.
A problem for the Balearic government is that it has disappeared so far up its collective backside of sustainability allied to the need for transparency (etc. etc.) that it has ended up being unable to truly explain why there is a tax. If it were being truthful, it would admit that it is a general tax (didn't the finance minister more or less say this on one occasion?). But no, it has to massage the message with all the sustainable guff that it comes out with. Which is by no means to decry policies of sustainability; merely that everyone grows sick of hearing about them. Everything's for sustainability. Thus, the tax and its purpose lose meaning.
Is it the case, however, that the government sees a need to inform because it is fully aware that there might just be some resistance to the tax? Its own statements have included the fact that there were barely any complaints when the tax came in. Which is true, but these were complaints sent directly to the tourism ministry. Who does that? Three or four people, it seems. Everyone else complains on social media, of which this government appears to be embarrassingly ignorant.
This apparent lack of complaint equates to the government message of social acceptance of the tax. There are taxes elsewhere, and travellers are now used to them. The Balearic tax is no different.
It's true that it isn't totally different. There are tourist taxes for whole countries with a high reliance on sun and beach tourism, e.g. Croatia. But they aren't on the scale of the Balearic tax. Travellers may be used to paying high taxes in cities, they may even now be accepting of some form of tax for when they (typical families) have their annual holidays, but it is the amount that is different. It can prove costly.
The desperate need to convince has now led the tourism ministry to fire off letters of explanation to Abta and its German counterpart, DRV. And what do we find in this letter? The same old business about the percentage of the overall cost of the holiday which Biel Barceló trotted out. As for "market prices" determining the new rate in 2018, what market? The justification is arrant nonsense. Or would be if the Greeks hadn't come along and introduced their tax. Greece has given the tourism ministry its opportunity. "Look, we're explaining how our tax is being spent. It's saving the environment (or words to that effect). What are the Greeks doing? Just slapping on a tax to raise revenue for the government?" Which of course the Balearic government isn't.
Being overlooked is the fact that the Greek tax is per room and not per person. But by resorting to making a comparison with the Greeks just seems to weaken the government's message, not strengthen it. If the government were so convinced of its case, it wouldn't need to explain anything. It isn't convinced, because although it won't admit this, there isn't "great social acceptance".
Well, quite. Go to a city where there is a tourist tax (or whatever it is called), and there invariably won't be any explanation. Why should there be? It's a tax. You pay it. End of story.
The Balearic government can, one supposes, to be applauded for attempting to get across how the tax is spent. There is at least some transparency, even if the communication is utterly lamentable. But why is so much emphasis being placed on the need to explain the purpose of the tax? Did Catalonia undertake a major information campaign to detail the reasons for its tax when it came in back in 2011? No. There was information, mainly just through the press, and strange though it may seem, the tax was to be spent on tourism.
Most variants on the tourist tax theme are simply means of increasing revenue, be these for cities, towns or national governments. Rome, for instance, was pretty clear when it introduced its tax. Italy was in deep economic trouble, so therefore Rome was as well. The tax was to help pay for services. There was no attempt at wrapping it up as something that it wasn't. It was a tax, and one to swell the city authority's coffers.
A problem for the Balearic government is that it has disappeared so far up its collective backside of sustainability allied to the need for transparency (etc. etc.) that it has ended up being unable to truly explain why there is a tax. If it were being truthful, it would admit that it is a general tax (didn't the finance minister more or less say this on one occasion?). But no, it has to massage the message with all the sustainable guff that it comes out with. Which is by no means to decry policies of sustainability; merely that everyone grows sick of hearing about them. Everything's for sustainability. Thus, the tax and its purpose lose meaning.
Is it the case, however, that the government sees a need to inform because it is fully aware that there might just be some resistance to the tax? Its own statements have included the fact that there were barely any complaints when the tax came in. Which is true, but these were complaints sent directly to the tourism ministry. Who does that? Three or four people, it seems. Everyone else complains on social media, of which this government appears to be embarrassingly ignorant.
This apparent lack of complaint equates to the government message of social acceptance of the tax. There are taxes elsewhere, and travellers are now used to them. The Balearic tax is no different.
It's true that it isn't totally different. There are tourist taxes for whole countries with a high reliance on sun and beach tourism, e.g. Croatia. But they aren't on the scale of the Balearic tax. Travellers may be used to paying high taxes in cities, they may even now be accepting of some form of tax for when they (typical families) have their annual holidays, but it is the amount that is different. It can prove costly.
The desperate need to convince has now led the tourism ministry to fire off letters of explanation to Abta and its German counterpart, DRV. And what do we find in this letter? The same old business about the percentage of the overall cost of the holiday which Biel Barceló trotted out. As for "market prices" determining the new rate in 2018, what market? The justification is arrant nonsense. Or would be if the Greeks hadn't come along and introduced their tax. Greece has given the tourism ministry its opportunity. "Look, we're explaining how our tax is being spent. It's saving the environment (or words to that effect). What are the Greeks doing? Just slapping on a tax to raise revenue for the government?" Which of course the Balearic government isn't.
Being overlooked is the fact that the Greek tax is per room and not per person. But by resorting to making a comparison with the Greeks just seems to weaken the government's message, not strengthen it. If the government were so convinced of its case, it wouldn't need to explain anything. It isn't convinced, because although it won't admit this, there isn't "great social acceptance".
Monday, January 08, 2018
Hotels Or Not, There's Still A Tax
The tourist tax, as a fiscal measure to be adopted by zealous governmental authorities, throws up some peculiar situations and anomalies. The concept of the tax is a global one, and the world and its local administration wife seems keen to contemplate its introduction, even under the daftest of circumstances.
Have you heard of Oakland in Oregon? It has a population of under 1,000. It wouldn't go amiss in Mallorca therefore. It would be rather akin to Sant Joan, which does admittedly have a population more than twice the size of Oakland, but then Sant Joan does have something in common with the Oregon village. It doesn't have any hotels. There is something else that they share, and that is a tourist tax.
As far as one can be aware, Sant Joan town hall has never wished for a tourist tax. Had it ever wished for one, it wouldn't have been in its gift to have raised it. Local authority fiscal regulation doesn't permit this. Sant Joan, largely or almost totally indifferent to the notion of a tourist tax, therefore had to wait for the Balearic government to start hovering over what tourist accommodation it has with a demand for (as from this year) two euros per person per night for a holiday rental.
Oakland, on the other hand, is not subject to the same sort of municipal tax-raising restrictions. It has introduced a tourist tax despite not having any hotels and indeed only have one holiday rental property. Mayor Bette Keehley says that it was a case of addressing the issue before having the need to do. Whenever that might be.
As things stand, there is no tax revenue from the holiday rental. That's because there are no specific regulations for Airbnb and its ilk. Oakland therefore has a tax but no one to charge it to. The municipal coffers are being increased by zero.
But at least in Oakland, the town hall has the wherewithal to implement a tax and to keep the revenue. The chances of it being able to from a hotel are, it has to be said, somewhat slim. There are no plans at present for there to be a hotel. Nevertheless, it highlights another peculiarity of the tourist tax, which is that individual municipalities have virtually no say in what happens with the revenue. What little say they do have is uttered on their behalf by their federation, the representation of which on the tax spending committee equates to 6.25%.
It will of course be argued that the tourist-tax-raising largesse of Calvia, Palma and other major tourism municipalities bestows on the likes of Sant Joan funding for improved water works and heritage museums that no one will ever visit. Sant Joan town hall will doubtless be aware of this generosity, but might it not have been the case - when drafting the tourist tax legislation - that some thought could have been given to exemptions?
If it is genuinely the case that the Balearic government and its tourism policy sidekicks at the Council of Mallorca wish to foster tourism in the more unlikely parts of the island, i.e. Sant Joan, then why go and impose a tourist tax? Ok, we get the point that there are no hotels, but there is some tourist accommodation, and there could be more, courtesy of the Council's mad criteria for rental zoning.
Ah but, the government replies, the tourist tax won't affect the type of quality tourism Sant Joan can attract, assuming anyone has ever heard of Sant Joan. True perhaps, but nevertheless why are there any exceptions if Sant Joan is not entitled to be one? You didn't think there were exceptions. Oh yes, there are. Or rather, there is. One fairly substantial one. It's known as Menorca.
The hoteliers federation for Ibiza and Formentera is furious that a last-minute amendment to the budget for 2018 slipped in a bit about a 20% reduction of the tourist tax rate for hotels in Menorca that stay open for more than five months. More than five months!? Well, yes, because it is even harder to keep Menorca open than it is Mallorca or indeed Ibiza (though the hoteliers there say that it is equally as hard to operate for five months). The reduction is thus an acknowledgement of circumstances in Menorca. It is also the consequence of Més in Menorca making demands of the government: Més, the party which in Mallorca was essentially responsible for the tourist tax - for the whole of the Balearics without exception, be it Menorca or Sant Joan.
The unspoken reality of the incentive for Menorca is that the tourist tax can potentially he harmful to tourism. The government will never admit this, but how else does one interpret the reduction? Menorca thus exposes the illogic of the tax, as also - for a different reason - does Sant Joan.
Have you heard of Oakland in Oregon? It has a population of under 1,000. It wouldn't go amiss in Mallorca therefore. It would be rather akin to Sant Joan, which does admittedly have a population more than twice the size of Oakland, but then Sant Joan does have something in common with the Oregon village. It doesn't have any hotels. There is something else that they share, and that is a tourist tax.
As far as one can be aware, Sant Joan town hall has never wished for a tourist tax. Had it ever wished for one, it wouldn't have been in its gift to have raised it. Local authority fiscal regulation doesn't permit this. Sant Joan, largely or almost totally indifferent to the notion of a tourist tax, therefore had to wait for the Balearic government to start hovering over what tourist accommodation it has with a demand for (as from this year) two euros per person per night for a holiday rental.
Oakland, on the other hand, is not subject to the same sort of municipal tax-raising restrictions. It has introduced a tourist tax despite not having any hotels and indeed only have one holiday rental property. Mayor Bette Keehley says that it was a case of addressing the issue before having the need to do. Whenever that might be.
As things stand, there is no tax revenue from the holiday rental. That's because there are no specific regulations for Airbnb and its ilk. Oakland therefore has a tax but no one to charge it to. The municipal coffers are being increased by zero.
But at least in Oakland, the town hall has the wherewithal to implement a tax and to keep the revenue. The chances of it being able to from a hotel are, it has to be said, somewhat slim. There are no plans at present for there to be a hotel. Nevertheless, it highlights another peculiarity of the tourist tax, which is that individual municipalities have virtually no say in what happens with the revenue. What little say they do have is uttered on their behalf by their federation, the representation of which on the tax spending committee equates to 6.25%.
It will of course be argued that the tourist-tax-raising largesse of Calvia, Palma and other major tourism municipalities bestows on the likes of Sant Joan funding for improved water works and heritage museums that no one will ever visit. Sant Joan town hall will doubtless be aware of this generosity, but might it not have been the case - when drafting the tourist tax legislation - that some thought could have been given to exemptions?
If it is genuinely the case that the Balearic government and its tourism policy sidekicks at the Council of Mallorca wish to foster tourism in the more unlikely parts of the island, i.e. Sant Joan, then why go and impose a tourist tax? Ok, we get the point that there are no hotels, but there is some tourist accommodation, and there could be more, courtesy of the Council's mad criteria for rental zoning.
Ah but, the government replies, the tourist tax won't affect the type of quality tourism Sant Joan can attract, assuming anyone has ever heard of Sant Joan. True perhaps, but nevertheless why are there any exceptions if Sant Joan is not entitled to be one? You didn't think there were exceptions. Oh yes, there are. Or rather, there is. One fairly substantial one. It's known as Menorca.
The hoteliers federation for Ibiza and Formentera is furious that a last-minute amendment to the budget for 2018 slipped in a bit about a 20% reduction of the tourist tax rate for hotels in Menorca that stay open for more than five months. More than five months!? Well, yes, because it is even harder to keep Menorca open than it is Mallorca or indeed Ibiza (though the hoteliers there say that it is equally as hard to operate for five months). The reduction is thus an acknowledgement of circumstances in Menorca. It is also the consequence of Més in Menorca making demands of the government: Més, the party which in Mallorca was essentially responsible for the tourist tax - for the whole of the Balearics without exception, be it Menorca or Sant Joan.
The unspoken reality of the incentive for Menorca is that the tourist tax can potentially he harmful to tourism. The government will never admit this, but how else does one interpret the reduction? Menorca thus exposes the illogic of the tax, as also - for a different reason - does Sant Joan.
Tuesday, November 21, 2017
Communicating The Tourist Tax
As I've observed before, the more times the word sustainable (or sustainability) is used, the more it will be hoped that it sticks. A different way of looking at its constant use is - like its lexicological partner in current Balearic tourism policy, quality - that it ceases to have any meaning. Everything is sustainable. Everything is quality. Meaning what exactly?
There is a desperation inherent to the government's incessant sustainable bleating, the philosopher's stone that is the key to the government's being. The government hopes to sustain itself beyond its natural four years and become a perpetual cycle of sustainable virtue. And at the core of this philosophy is the apparent alteration to a tourism model. This is unsustainable, despite contributing 45% direct GDP, because it is a monoculture. Agreed (the monoculture, that is), but can we please just stop going on about it?
There's little chance of such abatement. Not when there are tourists to convince as well as an electorate. The government, or at least the now deposed director-general of tourism, admitted recently that communications about the tourist tax were not good. Which is why, as I highlighted recently, the government brought in some professionals and came up with an amateurish website that gives some information about tourist tax spending. Actually, one suspects that no professionals were involved. If they were, then they require shooting. More likely, some job experience intern at the ministry with little grasp of website design was tasked with beefing up the rotten information about the tax.
Alerted to the fact that the communications have been abysmal, the government arranged for a communiqué. This informed us that the "tourist board" (sic) has revealed details of its sustainable tourism strategy and its sustainable tourism tax. Sustainable, sustainable, sustainable; and with an upper-case, just to make it all seem that much more impressive. Unfortunately, the communiqué started by shooting itself ever so slightly in the foot. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of the history of Mallorca's tourism and indeed the current organisation of tourism will know that the "tourist board" doesn't exist as a governmental body and never has. The Mallorca Tourist Board is non-governmental, and has been for 112 years.
The long-term sustainable tourism model, we are told, is currently being served by 100 vital tourism initiatives. Really? Define vital. And while you're at it, define tourism, because these initiatives are for tourism in only a broad sense, if at all. But then, we knew this. Didn't we? We knew that the purposes for spending sustainable tourism tax revenue owed virtually nothing to investment directly in resort infrastructure or in general promotion. Didn't we? Well, the legislation stated as such. It's there on the statute book and clear as daylight.
Peculiarly, there is the not-the-tourist-tax revenue fund. This is the tourism ministry's stock fund, made up of all the contributions from hoteliers to legitimise hotel places that were illegitimate and to pay for subsequent ones. A nice kitty has grown over the years and the cash is used, weirdly enough, for tourism purposes - actual tourism purposes. The thinking behind it stemmed from the need to modernise Mallorca's ancient and crumbling tourist resorts. This thinking was sustainability, but they never called it that; they having originally been the Unió Mallorquina when they controlled the tourism ministry.
Am I alone in finding it curious that at the same time as the government is seeking to be shown as virtuous by attempting to highlight how it spends the tourist tax, it should also be making much of the latest round of projects from the stock fund? If there is any criticism about the tax not actually being used for tourism (which there is), then the government can always point to a different source of funding, albeit the amount on offer is approximately a quarter of this year's tax spending.
While the fund will therefore go towards, for example, embellishing the main road in Puerto Alcudia (good Heavens, a resort), the tourist tax will do nothing of the sort. Instead it will, inter alia, go towards extending and improving the Inca water/sewage treatment plant (Inca, that thriving tourism centre); sponsoring a mill; supporting technology-based entrepreneurs (whoever they are); providing water conduction between Petra and Manacor; boosting the social economy and "circular sustainable management of tourism waste and creation of jobs for people at risk of exclusion".
And no, I don't know what circular sustainable management means either. And yes, the list goes on: well-managed and energetically (sic) efficient forest management; management and conservation of natural areas by people at risk of social exclusion.
Can we just accept and can the government just admit that the tourist tax is simply a tax? Insofar as most things in Mallorca are associated with tourism, then the government can define the projects any way they want. And it does. But for tourism, as in the lifeblood tourist resorts? No.
There is a desperation inherent to the government's incessant sustainable bleating, the philosopher's stone that is the key to the government's being. The government hopes to sustain itself beyond its natural four years and become a perpetual cycle of sustainable virtue. And at the core of this philosophy is the apparent alteration to a tourism model. This is unsustainable, despite contributing 45% direct GDP, because it is a monoculture. Agreed (the monoculture, that is), but can we please just stop going on about it?
There's little chance of such abatement. Not when there are tourists to convince as well as an electorate. The government, or at least the now deposed director-general of tourism, admitted recently that communications about the tourist tax were not good. Which is why, as I highlighted recently, the government brought in some professionals and came up with an amateurish website that gives some information about tourist tax spending. Actually, one suspects that no professionals were involved. If they were, then they require shooting. More likely, some job experience intern at the ministry with little grasp of website design was tasked with beefing up the rotten information about the tax.
Alerted to the fact that the communications have been abysmal, the government arranged for a communiqué. This informed us that the "tourist board" (sic) has revealed details of its sustainable tourism strategy and its sustainable tourism tax. Sustainable, sustainable, sustainable; and with an upper-case, just to make it all seem that much more impressive. Unfortunately, the communiqué started by shooting itself ever so slightly in the foot. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of the history of Mallorca's tourism and indeed the current organisation of tourism will know that the "tourist board" doesn't exist as a governmental body and never has. The Mallorca Tourist Board is non-governmental, and has been for 112 years.
The long-term sustainable tourism model, we are told, is currently being served by 100 vital tourism initiatives. Really? Define vital. And while you're at it, define tourism, because these initiatives are for tourism in only a broad sense, if at all. But then, we knew this. Didn't we? We knew that the purposes for spending sustainable tourism tax revenue owed virtually nothing to investment directly in resort infrastructure or in general promotion. Didn't we? Well, the legislation stated as such. It's there on the statute book and clear as daylight.
Peculiarly, there is the not-the-tourist-tax revenue fund. This is the tourism ministry's stock fund, made up of all the contributions from hoteliers to legitimise hotel places that were illegitimate and to pay for subsequent ones. A nice kitty has grown over the years and the cash is used, weirdly enough, for tourism purposes - actual tourism purposes. The thinking behind it stemmed from the need to modernise Mallorca's ancient and crumbling tourist resorts. This thinking was sustainability, but they never called it that; they having originally been the Unió Mallorquina when they controlled the tourism ministry.
Am I alone in finding it curious that at the same time as the government is seeking to be shown as virtuous by attempting to highlight how it spends the tourist tax, it should also be making much of the latest round of projects from the stock fund? If there is any criticism about the tax not actually being used for tourism (which there is), then the government can always point to a different source of funding, albeit the amount on offer is approximately a quarter of this year's tax spending.
While the fund will therefore go towards, for example, embellishing the main road in Puerto Alcudia (good Heavens, a resort), the tourist tax will do nothing of the sort. Instead it will, inter alia, go towards extending and improving the Inca water/sewage treatment plant (Inca, that thriving tourism centre); sponsoring a mill; supporting technology-based entrepreneurs (whoever they are); providing water conduction between Petra and Manacor; boosting the social economy and "circular sustainable management of tourism waste and creation of jobs for people at risk of exclusion".
And no, I don't know what circular sustainable management means either. And yes, the list goes on: well-managed and energetically (sic) efficient forest management; management and conservation of natural areas by people at risk of social exclusion.
Can we just accept and can the government just admit that the tourist tax is simply a tax? Insofar as most things in Mallorca are associated with tourism, then the government can define the projects any way they want. And it does. But for tourism, as in the lifeblood tourist resorts? No.
Sunday, November 12, 2017
What A Difference A Year Makes (And Doesn't)
"Early holiday bookings to the Balearics for summer 2017 have risen by eight per cent, easing fears over the weakness of the pound and Brexit, the Association of British Travel Agents (Abta) said in London today. And the news gets even better for President Armengol and tourism minister Biel Barceló. According to Abta, the controversial tourist tax has had no impact on holiday sales at all."
"Any fears about Brexit hitting the Balearics hard have been clearly dispelled at the World Travel Market in London. In fact the news just gets better for the Balearics. Holiday sales for April and May have risen by a record 20 per cent on top of the eight per cent growth in summer holiday sales for summer 2017."
"President Armengol has praised the 'magnificent work' of the tourism ministry for its tourism promotion. Speaking in London, Armengol said that a nine-month season is now a reality and that this will allow the Balearics to grow at an increased rate. It will also mean greater employment and more stable work, which are objectives of the regional government."
That was then, this is now. Abta was seemingly trying to say as little as possible about bookings for 2018 other than stressing the strength of Spain as a destination in the face of reactivated competition from the likes of Turkey. The association had, however, let the cat out of the bag prior to everyone gathering in London. Bookings to the Balearics are down on what they have been. More precisely, and the news would not have gone unnoticed, there was that report pointing to a nine per cent slump in the sale of holiday packages. This was being attributed to the rise in the tourist tax, though one suspects there are other reasons. But the tax doesn't exactly help.
At an event such as the World Travel Market, they try and avoid making public displays of differences. It's in no one's interests to do so, be they government, hoteliers or tour operators. And besides, there's no real need to make public displays. Everyone knows that the hoteliers and tour operators oppose the tax. Instead they mainly attempt to get on as well as possible and smile for the public. But you can't keep a good Escarrer down, and the son was at least prepared to break ranks and say that the tax will have negative consequences. Likewise, the national tourism minister, Álvaro Nadal, said that the tax will affect competitiveness, though to be honest he had other things to worry him more than the Balearic tourist tax - Catalonia, for example.
However, the Mallorca hoteliers did eventually break the silence. And in a major way. The loss of one million tourists because of the tourist tax.
Then there was dear President Armengol with her nine-month realities. They were being given an airing again, and for domestic Balearic consumption there are naturally all the efforts the government is making in generating more employment. A slight problem, compared to last year, is that growth - as in general economic growth - is forecast to be down in 2018, regardless of the nine-month reality. The tourism promotion we all know about as we can't avoid it: Better in Winter. But while the government will seek to take the credit, any effort it has made has been a sort of piggybacking exercise.
The greatest impulse, bar none, for an extension of the season has been cycling. This clearly hasn't suddenly happened, it has been a development over many years and it owes very little to successive governments (including this one). Greatly increased interest in cycling and therefore greatly increased demand for cycling holidays have been facilitated by the private sector - tour operators and hoteliers. The consequence has been that hotels have opened earlier and more have been doing so each year. This has benefited the non-hotel trade. Restaurants open earlier, specialist shops have sprung up, and the impulse given by cycling has given the opportunity for other types of tourist to be attracted. I give you Playa de Muro as a classic example of this reality, and it's all due to cycling.
If the president's nine-month reality was a case of no difference from last year, so also was her playing to the domestic market in another way. But and the president of the Canaries were making precisely the same song and dance about demanding a 75% residents' discount on flights at the World Travel Market last year as they were this year.
Why is it necessary for them to go through this ritual on an annual basis? The only explanation can be that it is designed to show the public that they're doing something. But if this issue and others are that important, can't they just phone each other up?
"Any fears about Brexit hitting the Balearics hard have been clearly dispelled at the World Travel Market in London. In fact the news just gets better for the Balearics. Holiday sales for April and May have risen by a record 20 per cent on top of the eight per cent growth in summer holiday sales for summer 2017."
"President Armengol has praised the 'magnificent work' of the tourism ministry for its tourism promotion. Speaking in London, Armengol said that a nine-month season is now a reality and that this will allow the Balearics to grow at an increased rate. It will also mean greater employment and more stable work, which are objectives of the regional government."
That was then, this is now. Abta was seemingly trying to say as little as possible about bookings for 2018 other than stressing the strength of Spain as a destination in the face of reactivated competition from the likes of Turkey. The association had, however, let the cat out of the bag prior to everyone gathering in London. Bookings to the Balearics are down on what they have been. More precisely, and the news would not have gone unnoticed, there was that report pointing to a nine per cent slump in the sale of holiday packages. This was being attributed to the rise in the tourist tax, though one suspects there are other reasons. But the tax doesn't exactly help.
At an event such as the World Travel Market, they try and avoid making public displays of differences. It's in no one's interests to do so, be they government, hoteliers or tour operators. And besides, there's no real need to make public displays. Everyone knows that the hoteliers and tour operators oppose the tax. Instead they mainly attempt to get on as well as possible and smile for the public. But you can't keep a good Escarrer down, and the son was at least prepared to break ranks and say that the tax will have negative consequences. Likewise, the national tourism minister, Álvaro Nadal, said that the tax will affect competitiveness, though to be honest he had other things to worry him more than the Balearic tourist tax - Catalonia, for example.
However, the Mallorca hoteliers did eventually break the silence. And in a major way. The loss of one million tourists because of the tourist tax.
Then there was dear President Armengol with her nine-month realities. They were being given an airing again, and for domestic Balearic consumption there are naturally all the efforts the government is making in generating more employment. A slight problem, compared to last year, is that growth - as in general economic growth - is forecast to be down in 2018, regardless of the nine-month reality. The tourism promotion we all know about as we can't avoid it: Better in Winter. But while the government will seek to take the credit, any effort it has made has been a sort of piggybacking exercise.
The greatest impulse, bar none, for an extension of the season has been cycling. This clearly hasn't suddenly happened, it has been a development over many years and it owes very little to successive governments (including this one). Greatly increased interest in cycling and therefore greatly increased demand for cycling holidays have been facilitated by the private sector - tour operators and hoteliers. The consequence has been that hotels have opened earlier and more have been doing so each year. This has benefited the non-hotel trade. Restaurants open earlier, specialist shops have sprung up, and the impulse given by cycling has given the opportunity for other types of tourist to be attracted. I give you Playa de Muro as a classic example of this reality, and it's all due to cycling.
If the president's nine-month reality was a case of no difference from last year, so also was her playing to the domestic market in another way. But and the president of the Canaries were making precisely the same song and dance about demanding a 75% residents' discount on flights at the World Travel Market last year as they were this year.
Why is it necessary for them to go through this ritual on an annual basis? The only explanation can be that it is designed to show the public that they're doing something. But if this issue and others are that important, can't they just phone each other up?
Friday, November 10, 2017
The Being Of Sustainability
In terms of the existential, it might well be argued that William Shakespeare stole a march on Kierkegaard and Sartre. To be or not to be. The question is whether there has ever been a more existential question. While actors have adopted different interpretations of the soliloquy, others have merely pondered the meaning. And within the ranks of the latter, we now have the Balearic government, for it has called upon the services of the Prince of Denmark to enable us all to ponder the meaning of the sustainable tourism tax. To be or not be. This most definitely is the question. And the answer is "sustainable". "I choose to be sustainable," declares a voiceover actor, who is not Hamlet, for the actor is a she.
I was recently bemoaning the fact that the government had not published a full list of projects on which tourist tax revenue for 2017 will be spent. Well, it now has. And this list appears on a new website - sustainableislands.travel. Here we can find out exactly what the money is being spent on and how much. Moreover, we can discover the answer to Hamlet's question, for the government has very thoughtfully supplied a brief video that reveals all. To be or not to be. The choice of being sustainable is reinforced by images of cycling, diving and hiking and also by the announcement of "your vacations, your islands, your support".
The next question is - will this convince tourists who are sceptical about handing over what the website fails to inform us will not be two euros per day for five-star and four-star superior hotels as from next year? It will be four euros. Let's trust that someone remembers to update the website, as the rates quoted are the current ones. The omens aren't necessarily strong in suggesting that someone will remember. And why? Well, the website is a little shoddy. Thrown together, you might say. Little thought applied. There are the errors, such as projects spelt "projectes", training spelt "trainig", Agency (as in the Balearic Tax Agency) spelt "Ageny".
Then there are the projects (projectes) themselves and which "entity" is responsible for them. One of these entities is an institution listed as "Mallorca City Hall". Now, as far as I'm aware, and I fancy you can back me up on this, Mallorca isn't a city. There once was a city known as Palma de Mallorca, but the town hall of Palma de Mallorca decided that it would no longer be Palma de Mallorca. It is now simply Palma, deprived of Mallorca, its own individual island in the sun. The Mallorca City Hall is in fact Palma town hall. So why not say so? Or has the government renamed Palma and not told anyone? Is this renaming in fact a tourist tax revenue project? To be or not to be Palma or Mallorca, that is the question.
While sceptical tourist-tax-paying tourists might be prepared to overlook this (the tourists probably couldn't care less which entity is responsible), the projects themselves will not so much convince them as to the virtue of all this sustainable being as leave them utterly baffled. I give you, for example, the 91,735.50 euros to go on "collectors and terrestrial emissary of the EDAR of Andratx". An EDAR? What the fuck's an EDAR? Well, I know what an EDAR is (it's a water/sewage treatment plant), but will those being cajoled into supporting their vacations and their islands have any idea? And what, pray, is a terrestrial emissary? Is 90 odd grand to be spent on a land-based ambassador dispatched from the mysterious ancient Kingdom of the EDAR of Andratx?
Sorry, but what on Earth are they thinking? Nothing, as far as one can make out. It's all well and good listing these projects, but might it not help if there was some sort of description, a few photos? You know the sort of thing I mean; it's what you tend to find on a website. But clearly none of the tourist tax revenue is being spent on this dismal attempt at persuasion. All one has is the brief video that has borrowed from Shakespeare.
Later in the soliloquy, Hamlet muses: "The undiscovered country, from whose bourn no traveller returns, puzzles the will, and makes us rather bear those ills we have than fly to others that we know not of." To sort of rework this, are travellers, puzzled by what they read is how their tax money is being spent on, going to in any event bear the ills of their having been responsible for the need to "compensate the territorial and environmental impact of tourism" (quoted from the website), deliver their support to their vacations and their islands and not choose to fly to countries they do not know about?
To pay the tourist tax or not to pay the tourist tax. That is the question.
* The video clip has been around since summer 2016. Its impact, you might say, has been limited.
Wednesday, November 01, 2017
Taking Refuge In The Ecotax
It was one of those embarrassing occurrences. It was August and talk of saturation, principally courtesy of Airbnb, was incessant. The rentals' legislation had, though, finally been brought into force. Airbnb would be brought into line.
The Council of Mallorca may not have been the body which introduced the legislation, but as we know it is fundamental to its implementation. Its political make-up mirrors that of the government. For the Council as well as the government, Airbnb is thus akin to the devil's work. So, when the Council discovered that Can Boi was being advertised on Airbnb, you can imagine that the Council corridors were full of fury that went beyond a mere breach of advertising rules.
Can Boi, if you are unaware, is one of the Council's Tramuntana refuges. These are essentially like hostels and they are typically pretty basic. Situated in Deià, Can Boi is on the GR221 dry-stone route. As with other refuges along the route, it isn't particularly well patronised in high summer. Publicising itself might therefore be considered to make some business sense. Well, it can publicise itself, but not on Airbnb.
While the Council owns these refuges, a couple are operated - as is the case with Can Boi - by a concessionaire. There are certain rules that need to be observed in the contracts, and the Airbnb incident points to limitations imposed on running them in a true business sense. And Heaven knows, when the Pont Romà refuge in Pollensa was being put up for "privatisation", there was a right old ballyhoo from local businesses which reckoned this would represent unfair competition, though for the life of me I couldn't understand how - a maximum of 38 people with prices pegged at low rates, it made little difference whether the Council or someone else was in charge.
The Council had pursued this limited move towards privatisation on account of the vast debt that the refuges had run up - at least 600,000 euros back in 2011. Five years ago when I considered the role of the refuges on the dry-stone route, I concluded that there should be more of them. Notwithstanding the costs of running them, I came to this conclusion purely because the refuges appeal to a particular type of minority tourism. Five years ago one assessed such an issue in straightforward tourism terms. Five years on and there is a political expedient which supersedes purely tourism considerations.
The Council and the regional government would of course deny this. As part of the "Better in Winter" campaign, the more refuges the merrier. Yes, the refuges are for tourists, but these tourists are now politicised because of the politics of tourism policies. Refuges are thus "a good thing", with no questions asked.
Once upon a time, as in 2011, the Council was shelling out upwards of three million euros in investing in its refuges. There is now an alternative source of investment - the tourist tax. Consequently, there are to be new refuges on the Galatzó finca in Calvia and in Betlem (Arta). One wouldn't be surprised if others were to pop up, thanks to the tourist tax.
The Council is not the sole provider of refuges. The Ibanat agency, part of the environment ministry, has its own - thirteen of them. Seven of these are also in the Tramuntana. The others are, for example, in the Llevant Nature Park, and the Betlem refuge is on the Es Canons finca, which is to become part of an expanded park, courtesy of 4.7 million euros of tax revenue.
In principle, this may all sound reasonable enough, but how many refuges are needed? The number of guests is generally on the rise, but to give an idea of use, in 2012 there were just over 18,000 for the entire year in the five (as were) Council refuges in the Tramuntana; there are now eight of them.
In addition to the investment, there are the running costs. The annual cost of maintenance for the five refuges in 2012 was over one million euros. There are now more of them, with others about to be added. But nowhere, it seems, is anyone actually querying the necessity of increasing the number. The government's got the money, so the government will spend on refuges because they conform to a political vision of tourism that remains predicated on a shaky foundation - all those extra tourists in winter. And in any event, do these extra tourists, even hikers, necessarily want to stay in a refuge? Wouldn't encouraging them to stay in hotels in fact make greater economic sense?
Four years ago the Council was seeking ways of boosting occupancy of the refuges in summer. Now, because of tourism policies, one fancies that it won't be, further drawing into question the viability of an expanded network. And the refuges, even if they wanted more summer business, most certainly cannot resort to using Airbnb.
The Council of Mallorca may not have been the body which introduced the legislation, but as we know it is fundamental to its implementation. Its political make-up mirrors that of the government. For the Council as well as the government, Airbnb is thus akin to the devil's work. So, when the Council discovered that Can Boi was being advertised on Airbnb, you can imagine that the Council corridors were full of fury that went beyond a mere breach of advertising rules.
Can Boi, if you are unaware, is one of the Council's Tramuntana refuges. These are essentially like hostels and they are typically pretty basic. Situated in Deià, Can Boi is on the GR221 dry-stone route. As with other refuges along the route, it isn't particularly well patronised in high summer. Publicising itself might therefore be considered to make some business sense. Well, it can publicise itself, but not on Airbnb.
While the Council owns these refuges, a couple are operated - as is the case with Can Boi - by a concessionaire. There are certain rules that need to be observed in the contracts, and the Airbnb incident points to limitations imposed on running them in a true business sense. And Heaven knows, when the Pont Romà refuge in Pollensa was being put up for "privatisation", there was a right old ballyhoo from local businesses which reckoned this would represent unfair competition, though for the life of me I couldn't understand how - a maximum of 38 people with prices pegged at low rates, it made little difference whether the Council or someone else was in charge.
The Council had pursued this limited move towards privatisation on account of the vast debt that the refuges had run up - at least 600,000 euros back in 2011. Five years ago when I considered the role of the refuges on the dry-stone route, I concluded that there should be more of them. Notwithstanding the costs of running them, I came to this conclusion purely because the refuges appeal to a particular type of minority tourism. Five years ago one assessed such an issue in straightforward tourism terms. Five years on and there is a political expedient which supersedes purely tourism considerations.
The Council and the regional government would of course deny this. As part of the "Better in Winter" campaign, the more refuges the merrier. Yes, the refuges are for tourists, but these tourists are now politicised because of the politics of tourism policies. Refuges are thus "a good thing", with no questions asked.
Once upon a time, as in 2011, the Council was shelling out upwards of three million euros in investing in its refuges. There is now an alternative source of investment - the tourist tax. Consequently, there are to be new refuges on the Galatzó finca in Calvia and in Betlem (Arta). One wouldn't be surprised if others were to pop up, thanks to the tourist tax.
The Council is not the sole provider of refuges. The Ibanat agency, part of the environment ministry, has its own - thirteen of them. Seven of these are also in the Tramuntana. The others are, for example, in the Llevant Nature Park, and the Betlem refuge is on the Es Canons finca, which is to become part of an expanded park, courtesy of 4.7 million euros of tax revenue.
In principle, this may all sound reasonable enough, but how many refuges are needed? The number of guests is generally on the rise, but to give an idea of use, in 2012 there were just over 18,000 for the entire year in the five (as were) Council refuges in the Tramuntana; there are now eight of them.
In addition to the investment, there are the running costs. The annual cost of maintenance for the five refuges in 2012 was over one million euros. There are now more of them, with others about to be added. But nowhere, it seems, is anyone actually querying the necessity of increasing the number. The government's got the money, so the government will spend on refuges because they conform to a political vision of tourism that remains predicated on a shaky foundation - all those extra tourists in winter. And in any event, do these extra tourists, even hikers, necessarily want to stay in a refuge? Wouldn't encouraging them to stay in hotels in fact make greater economic sense?
Four years ago the Council was seeking ways of boosting occupancy of the refuges in summer. Now, because of tourism policies, one fancies that it won't be, further drawing into question the viability of an expanded network. And the refuges, even if they wanted more summer business, most certainly cannot resort to using Airbnb.
Saturday, October 28, 2017
Tourist Tax Logic
So, the tourist tax is not to go up during the low season. Despite the pressure from Podemos for an all-year doubling, the government has determined that it is wise to leave the tax as it is - 50% off the current summer rate. Greater wisdom, it might be argued, would have been displayed if the tax had been scrapped for the low season. The government, ministers Barceló and Cladera at any rate, suggested that keeping the existing rate will not make a significant difference to anticipated revenue in 2018. This said much for the lack of low-season tourism. It also, logically, would not make a significant difference if there were no low-season tax.
Logic, where Barceló was concerned, had to do with the "Better in Winter" campaign. Quite. So why was an increase to the low-season rate ever contemplated in the first place? There is another form of logic that Barceló is not telling us about. This is the political logic of the realities of the government and parliament. Who was it who had originally called for a freezing of the low-season rate? Més in Menorca, that's who. Més, in its combined Mallorca-Menorca form, is deeply divided. The Menorcans are not forgiving the way in which Ruth Mateu is taking the rap for the Més contracts' affair. Their three parliamentary deputies can make life awkward for the government, if they so choose; they having formally split from Més in Mallorca - Barceló's domain. The logic has as much to do with realpolitik as it does with any tourism policy.
In addition, there is the logic that will confront Barceló next month at the World Travel Market in London. It would make no sense to go there and attempt to convince tour operators to assist in his fantasy of "diverting" large numbers of tourists away from spring and summer to autumn and winter, if at the same time he is having to explain a doubling of the low-season rate. Again, one has to wonder why this doubling was even considered.
Yet another aspect is the policy of tourism responsibility transfers to the island councils. Barceló referred to different low-season circumstances in Formentera, Ibiza and Menorca. The least one can say about this is that a tourism minister has for once recognised that there are three other islands. But with the islands now far more to the fore in shaping their own destinies and their promotion, a "tax break" makes political sense. Inherent to what he said, however, was a suggestion that Mallorca is that much better off than the other islands in the low season. It is better off, but all things are relative. His observation smacked of a magnanimity that disguised Mallorca's own, long-standing low-season failings.
A certain amount of publicity given this week to the introduction of a tourist tax in Greece next year will not have done Barceló's London mission any harm. This said, the Greek tax has been known about for several months. The rates are similar to the new ones in the Balearics, though oddly enough they apply only to hotels. One can imagine the Greek hoteliers crying the same foul as Balearic hoteliers did with the old ecotax: the foul of discrimination in favour of other forms of accommodation. Still, there is to be a tax in Greece, and where are the howls of reproach in the foreign media that are vented when Mallorca gets an increased tax? Corfu, Crete, Mykonos, Rhodes and Zante just don't cut it in the same media way as Mallorca.
Barceló, in a sense, can also thank the Catalonia crisis as this will overshadow all else in London. However, he might just find "Better in Winter" taking a knock from an independence movement that he personally endorses. The World Travel & Tourism Council brings together 150 of the most powerful companies in the sector. Its president, Gloria Guevera, was warning earlier this week of a "domino effect" from the crisis that will hit other Spanish destinations. It is being suggested that Spain's tourist total for this year might not after all top the 80 million mark because of a slump in fourth-quarter tourism. Then there is next year to be concerned about.
Logic, where Barceló was concerned, had to do with the "Better in Winter" campaign. Quite. So why was an increase to the low-season rate ever contemplated in the first place? There is another form of logic that Barceló is not telling us about. This is the political logic of the realities of the government and parliament. Who was it who had originally called for a freezing of the low-season rate? Més in Menorca, that's who. Més, in its combined Mallorca-Menorca form, is deeply divided. The Menorcans are not forgiving the way in which Ruth Mateu is taking the rap for the Més contracts' affair. Their three parliamentary deputies can make life awkward for the government, if they so choose; they having formally split from Més in Mallorca - Barceló's domain. The logic has as much to do with realpolitik as it does with any tourism policy.
In addition, there is the logic that will confront Barceló next month at the World Travel Market in London. It would make no sense to go there and attempt to convince tour operators to assist in his fantasy of "diverting" large numbers of tourists away from spring and summer to autumn and winter, if at the same time he is having to explain a doubling of the low-season rate. Again, one has to wonder why this doubling was even considered.
Yet another aspect is the policy of tourism responsibility transfers to the island councils. Barceló referred to different low-season circumstances in Formentera, Ibiza and Menorca. The least one can say about this is that a tourism minister has for once recognised that there are three other islands. But with the islands now far more to the fore in shaping their own destinies and their promotion, a "tax break" makes political sense. Inherent to what he said, however, was a suggestion that Mallorca is that much better off than the other islands in the low season. It is better off, but all things are relative. His observation smacked of a magnanimity that disguised Mallorca's own, long-standing low-season failings.
A certain amount of publicity given this week to the introduction of a tourist tax in Greece next year will not have done Barceló's London mission any harm. This said, the Greek tax has been known about for several months. The rates are similar to the new ones in the Balearics, though oddly enough they apply only to hotels. One can imagine the Greek hoteliers crying the same foul as Balearic hoteliers did with the old ecotax: the foul of discrimination in favour of other forms of accommodation. Still, there is to be a tax in Greece, and where are the howls of reproach in the foreign media that are vented when Mallorca gets an increased tax? Corfu, Crete, Mykonos, Rhodes and Zante just don't cut it in the same media way as Mallorca.
Barceló, in a sense, can also thank the Catalonia crisis as this will overshadow all else in London. However, he might just find "Better in Winter" taking a knock from an independence movement that he personally endorses. The World Travel & Tourism Council brings together 150 of the most powerful companies in the sector. Its president, Gloria Guevera, was warning earlier this week of a "domino effect" from the crisis that will hit other Spanish destinations. It is being suggested that Spain's tourist total for this year might not after all top the 80 million mark because of a slump in fourth-quarter tourism. Then there is next year to be concerned about.
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
The Non-Communication Of The Tourist Tax
There was a gathering last week of representatives of Spain's overseas tourism offices. They met with the Mallorca Hoteliers Federation, and there were people from the government in attendance as well. The acting president of the federation, Gabriel Llobera, called for regional government "responsibility" apropos the tourist tax. Which meant that he didn't want it to be increased. Fat chance of that, chum, the revenue's already been marked down in the government's budget and spending plan for 2018. He proposed that Madrid be asked for more money instead of the tax losing "our clients". Where's he been? This government has spent its entire period in office asking, nay demanding that Madrid hands over more cash.
The tourist tax, in Llobera's view, is clearly a form of general revenue-raising. The government of course denies this, which is why it's doubling the rate next year. It, the government, takes us all for fools. Of course it's revenue-raising, however much it might be glossed up with the vagueness of the constant chanting of sustainability, etc., etc.
The director of the Munich office, Álvaro Blanco, said that German tourists are accustomed to paying this type of tax. While true that there has long been a tax on hotel stays in Germany (which applies to everyone), it's only modest. There is being accustomed to paying a tax, and there is being accustomed to paying one at a particular rate. Biel Barceló recently came out with the ridiculous statement that the Balearic tax was "the cheapest, the lowest in Europe and even when it is doubled, it is still going to be relatively cheap in comparison". Taken for fools.
Blanco then went on to say that the most important thing was "to communicate what is done with the money". He added: "It's important that it goes towards projects which give added value to the tourist." Communicate. Now, there would be a novelty.
The tourism director-general, Pilar Carbonell, was at that gathering. She said that the government is "totally transparent" in respect of tourist tax collection and the allocations for spending. However, she admitted that "the government has failed to communicate where the tax money goes, and we have to rectify this". Carbonell pointed out that there is a web page with the information about tax spending, "but people don't know about it". As far as self-condemnation of an inability to communicate effectively goes, then this took some beating.
The director-general is right. There is a web page, but it takes a lot of finding. The government's website reflects the government's own labyrinthine organisational structure. Nothing, or very little, is easy to locate. I went hunting for it the other day. I wanted a complete list of the projects for the spending of the tourist tax revenue raised this year. All I got was the list for last year. Having made the announcement of this year's spending round last Monday, you would think that there would be a post that itemises it. Things obviously take a bit of time.
It isn't just that there is a failure to communicate. The communication which exists is lamentable, not least in terms of the transparency. Why, for example, do some projects not receive funding? It's no use the government pointing to its multi-page plan with its equations and specifications. No one, other than me, is going to bother wading through that lot. Even if they do, they still won't know the answer. And I don't.
Carbonell says that communication should all be about showing how tax money is "improving and preserving our destination". Fine, then each project should come replete with an explanation as to how. And all the projects should be clearly set out and available as information. It might help if the government had any proper social media means of doing so. But it doesn't. Its communication is wretched. Or should one say that it is wretchedly limited. The government's Facebook page, in Catalan of course, is asking the citizens their preferences for the seventy projects to receive tourist tax funding. Isn't this a bit late? The projects have been decided.
Participation is a different side to the communication coin. Podemos have called for there to be citizen participation in tourist tax-spending decision-making. Perhaps there should be, though given experiences with this participation in Palma - absurdly low numbers of people voting for projects from the 900 grand set aside for the "people's projects" - there could be little confidence in there being meaningful participation.
And what of the people who pay the tax? Should their views be taken into account? Maybe they should be, but one suspects that elements - politically and within society - might object. Moreover, how could tourists determine whether 4.7 million for a finca in Arta is worthwhile funding? They will just have to accept that it is worthwhile and that it is they who are paying for it.
The tourist tax, in Llobera's view, is clearly a form of general revenue-raising. The government of course denies this, which is why it's doubling the rate next year. It, the government, takes us all for fools. Of course it's revenue-raising, however much it might be glossed up with the vagueness of the constant chanting of sustainability, etc., etc.
The director of the Munich office, Álvaro Blanco, said that German tourists are accustomed to paying this type of tax. While true that there has long been a tax on hotel stays in Germany (which applies to everyone), it's only modest. There is being accustomed to paying a tax, and there is being accustomed to paying one at a particular rate. Biel Barceló recently came out with the ridiculous statement that the Balearic tax was "the cheapest, the lowest in Europe and even when it is doubled, it is still going to be relatively cheap in comparison". Taken for fools.
Blanco then went on to say that the most important thing was "to communicate what is done with the money". He added: "It's important that it goes towards projects which give added value to the tourist." Communicate. Now, there would be a novelty.
The tourism director-general, Pilar Carbonell, was at that gathering. She said that the government is "totally transparent" in respect of tourist tax collection and the allocations for spending. However, she admitted that "the government has failed to communicate where the tax money goes, and we have to rectify this". Carbonell pointed out that there is a web page with the information about tax spending, "but people don't know about it". As far as self-condemnation of an inability to communicate effectively goes, then this took some beating.
The director-general is right. There is a web page, but it takes a lot of finding. The government's website reflects the government's own labyrinthine organisational structure. Nothing, or very little, is easy to locate. I went hunting for it the other day. I wanted a complete list of the projects for the spending of the tourist tax revenue raised this year. All I got was the list for last year. Having made the announcement of this year's spending round last Monday, you would think that there would be a post that itemises it. Things obviously take a bit of time.
It isn't just that there is a failure to communicate. The communication which exists is lamentable, not least in terms of the transparency. Why, for example, do some projects not receive funding? It's no use the government pointing to its multi-page plan with its equations and specifications. No one, other than me, is going to bother wading through that lot. Even if they do, they still won't know the answer. And I don't.
Carbonell says that communication should all be about showing how tax money is "improving and preserving our destination". Fine, then each project should come replete with an explanation as to how. And all the projects should be clearly set out and available as information. It might help if the government had any proper social media means of doing so. But it doesn't. Its communication is wretched. Or should one say that it is wretchedly limited. The government's Facebook page, in Catalan of course, is asking the citizens their preferences for the seventy projects to receive tourist tax funding. Isn't this a bit late? The projects have been decided.
Participation is a different side to the communication coin. Podemos have called for there to be citizen participation in tourist tax-spending decision-making. Perhaps there should be, though given experiences with this participation in Palma - absurdly low numbers of people voting for projects from the 900 grand set aside for the "people's projects" - there could be little confidence in there being meaningful participation.
And what of the people who pay the tax? Should their views be taken into account? Maybe they should be, but one suspects that elements - politically and within society - might object. Moreover, how could tourists determine whether 4.7 million for a finca in Arta is worthwhile funding? They will just have to accept that it is worthwhile and that it is they who are paying for it.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Are Tourist Friends Electric?
For those of you who have ever paid the tourist tax, are you delighted at the results of the deliberations of the judging committee for the impulse of sustainable tourism? Sixty-two finalists had been hewn from hopefuls twice that number and with shopping lists worth more than four times the revenue on offer - for new projects, that is. And when the sixty-two aspirants were paraded before the judging panel, they were all given a prize. There are no losers in the tourist tax competition, except for the sixty who had been given the heave-ho in the prelims.
So, if you have, for instance, spent 49.50 euros (plus VAT) for fourteen nights at a three-star superior for a family of four (one child over sixteen, the other younger) in the past few months, are you satisfied that you may have contributed 0.001% to the cost of "electric mobility", otherwise known as charging-points for electric vehicles? You are satisfied? Well, good for you, and some time in the future you'll be able to use these charging-points when hire cars are all electric or you'll be safe in the knowledge that the bus taking you to your resort from the airport is fully powered by electricity. Gosh, isn't this impulse for sustainable tourism a great thing and a wonder to behold, if you can actually behold it.
All this electric mobility, thanks to the nature of its funding, should require charging-points across the isles (and I suppose we are talking plural because it's only Mallorca that is ever referred to) to have legends emblazoned on them which read "Electric mobility: POWERED BY ECOTAX". Thataway, just in case you have failed to be satisfied, you will become so. "Heavens, so that's where my money goes. Well done, Balearic government, God bless you and thank you. The world is being saved. If only it weren't for all that permafrost being defrosted."
It isn't only you, as tourists, who will be thanking the government. So also will be all those who have been agitating for a dismantling of the tourism economic monoculture. Most curiously, this is a purpose for the tourist tax. Not about tourism but about something else, the Holy Grail of economic diversification. The 4.6 million euros that the judges have decided to lavish on electric mobility will, we are assured, be instrumental in diversifying the economy. Will it be?
To me, this sounds suspiciously like replacing one thing with another. Replacement isn't diversification. The ministers for tourism, innovation and research, land, energy and transport (aka mobility), and industry, trade and employment all suggest that it is diversification. Well, they must know something that you and I don't. Are there to be thousands of jobs created to enable drivers to plug their cars in and which will allow restaurant waiters to abandon the terraces and earn five grand a month, thereby contributing to quality employment?
It's not, I hasten to add, that I am against electric mobility. Quite the contrary. Anything that provides green, clean energy is to be welcomed. But it comes with its own plug-in of spin, which is the case with much of the bull, righteousness, virtuousness and cliché attached in cable form to the sustainable tourism tax. The eco-credentials of the ecotax were being sounded long into the ozone of autumn air as the judges and recipients explained the tourist tax spending verdicts. And there is no greater credential than when "footprints" can be referred to.
Més compatriots, Barceló and Noguera, were both on the footprint trail. The numerous (62 plus eight ongoing from last year) projects, opined the tourism minister, will help to alleviate the eco-unfriendly footprint of tourism (or words to that effect). Quite right. For far too long tourists have been getting away with using petrol for hire cars and relying on coal to power their hotel (and private apartment) air-con systems. Not any more. Our tourist friends are electric, and solar, to boot.
Palma's mayor, continuing with the narrative of indignation that had endured from the fact that the chief judge - Barceló - had failed to last year give the city any direct tax funding, appeared moderately satisfied. But he was engaged in a battle of the footprints. Palma's tourism footprint is bigger than anyone else's. It's still only getting around five million, some of it to be shared with the neighbours (Llucmajor), but it's better than the 2016 spending zero. How, though, is this giant tourism footprint to be addressed? The odd track in Bellver forest does, I suppose, involve some footprints, but another way is to restore the Torres del Temple. And what, pray, has that got to do with footprints? The place has been crumbling for decades because no one has bothered to spend any money on it.
Still, the restoration will doubtless be welcomed by tourists because of its heritage value. Assuming, that is, they can find anywhere to park having arrived in Palma powered by ecotax.
So, if you have, for instance, spent 49.50 euros (plus VAT) for fourteen nights at a three-star superior for a family of four (one child over sixteen, the other younger) in the past few months, are you satisfied that you may have contributed 0.001% to the cost of "electric mobility", otherwise known as charging-points for electric vehicles? You are satisfied? Well, good for you, and some time in the future you'll be able to use these charging-points when hire cars are all electric or you'll be safe in the knowledge that the bus taking you to your resort from the airport is fully powered by electricity. Gosh, isn't this impulse for sustainable tourism a great thing and a wonder to behold, if you can actually behold it.
All this electric mobility, thanks to the nature of its funding, should require charging-points across the isles (and I suppose we are talking plural because it's only Mallorca that is ever referred to) to have legends emblazoned on them which read "Electric mobility: POWERED BY ECOTAX". Thataway, just in case you have failed to be satisfied, you will become so. "Heavens, so that's where my money goes. Well done, Balearic government, God bless you and thank you. The world is being saved. If only it weren't for all that permafrost being defrosted."
It isn't only you, as tourists, who will be thanking the government. So also will be all those who have been agitating for a dismantling of the tourism economic monoculture. Most curiously, this is a purpose for the tourist tax. Not about tourism but about something else, the Holy Grail of economic diversification. The 4.6 million euros that the judges have decided to lavish on electric mobility will, we are assured, be instrumental in diversifying the economy. Will it be?
To me, this sounds suspiciously like replacing one thing with another. Replacement isn't diversification. The ministers for tourism, innovation and research, land, energy and transport (aka mobility), and industry, trade and employment all suggest that it is diversification. Well, they must know something that you and I don't. Are there to be thousands of jobs created to enable drivers to plug their cars in and which will allow restaurant waiters to abandon the terraces and earn five grand a month, thereby contributing to quality employment?
It's not, I hasten to add, that I am against electric mobility. Quite the contrary. Anything that provides green, clean energy is to be welcomed. But it comes with its own plug-in of spin, which is the case with much of the bull, righteousness, virtuousness and cliché attached in cable form to the sustainable tourism tax. The eco-credentials of the ecotax were being sounded long into the ozone of autumn air as the judges and recipients explained the tourist tax spending verdicts. And there is no greater credential than when "footprints" can be referred to.
Més compatriots, Barceló and Noguera, were both on the footprint trail. The numerous (62 plus eight ongoing from last year) projects, opined the tourism minister, will help to alleviate the eco-unfriendly footprint of tourism (or words to that effect). Quite right. For far too long tourists have been getting away with using petrol for hire cars and relying on coal to power their hotel (and private apartment) air-con systems. Not any more. Our tourist friends are electric, and solar, to boot.
Palma's mayor, continuing with the narrative of indignation that had endured from the fact that the chief judge - Barceló - had failed to last year give the city any direct tax funding, appeared moderately satisfied. But he was engaged in a battle of the footprints. Palma's tourism footprint is bigger than anyone else's. It's still only getting around five million, some of it to be shared with the neighbours (Llucmajor), but it's better than the 2016 spending zero. How, though, is this giant tourism footprint to be addressed? The odd track in Bellver forest does, I suppose, involve some footprints, but another way is to restore the Torres del Temple. And what, pray, has that got to do with footprints? The place has been crumbling for decades because no one has bothered to spend any money on it.
Still, the restoration will doubtless be welcomed by tourists because of its heritage value. Assuming, that is, they can find anywhere to park having arrived in Palma powered by ecotax.
Monday, September 04, 2017
A Year From Now ...
It's the start of September 2018. The media has been baying for government blood. Why has tourism minister Barceló been on holiday? Where is President Armengol? Where has been the leadership?
In fact, the government is back from holiday. It is collectively gathered in a bunker, desperately trying to come up with plans for the 2019 budget. It is doing its best to hide. The British media are calling it the Summer of Death; some papers seemingly enjoying being able to.
There hasn't been a death as such, although there almost was one. A member of the Provisional Wing of Arran had chained himself to a pedalo in Playa de Muro, having first adorned the pedalo with a banner complaining about tourist pedalo "massification" that is destroying posidonia sea grass meadows. Having been chained for some time under a hot sun, he fell asleep, whereupon a group of tourists pushed him out into the bay of Alcudia. Unfortunately, he was in the same swimming-only zone as an oikish surfer girl whose board crashed into him. The lifeguards reluctantly went to his rescue.
No, the Summer of Death is because, with the exception of the tourists in Playa de Muro, there aren't any tourists. Well, no, there are some, but so de-massified are the numbers that Arran have been staging protests complaining about tourists' lack of goodwill. They should be in Mallorca, and they should be handing over the tourist tax in order that occupational-disorder therapy for chambermaids can be paid for. Not there are many chambermaids, because there aren't many tourists.
It's all because of the tourist tax, you see. Great hordes of tourists are being "borrowed" from Mallorca by Croatia and the Greek islands. In Croatia, it's a very different story. The government has been forced to declare a state of emergency, such is the level of massification. Irate Croatians have been gathering at airports and waving banners telling tourists to bugger off back to Mallorca. In Greece, meanwhile, the "borrowed" tourists are aghast to discover that they got it all wrong. Not only have the bloody Greeks got a tourist tax, they've gone and matched the Balearic rate.
It had all started to become fairly evident around ... well around April time. There was admittedly a fair degree of rejoicing. The roads were no longer saturated with cyclists. They'd all gone off to the tourist tax-free zones of Andalusia and Valencia. There were no longer vast pelatons hurtling along Puerto Pollensa's pinewalk and propelling pensioners into the bay. Country roads were restored to the time of the grand days of motoring with nary a cyclist to get in the way. Or another car for that matter. The hire-car multinationals had been hurriedly diverting their fleets to Turkey.
By June, and as airport workers, bar staff and hotel chambermaids were being laid off, Barceló declared that the tourist tax was a success as it was tackling seasonality. All the tourists who had suddenly gone missing would be returning from November, when they would be paying a lower rate of tourist tax; in other words the same rate that they had been paying the previous summer.
Very few people were buying this Barceló line. In fact no one was. So angered were the airlines that there was talk of a coup d'état and of installing Michael O'Leary as Balearic president. Members of PSOE, browbeaten into having gone along with the tourist tax rise, were wondering about all the additional government spending that was now disappearing. The PP, smugly taking pleasure in the gathering catastrophe, sat back and watched their poll ratings soar. They wouldn't even need to hunt for some illicit (allegedly) election campaign funding. They could look forward to spending just a couple of bob and still securing a landslide.
In their bunker at government HQ ministers agonised over the budget for 2019. Things were bad. Vince Vidal, the environment minister, added to the tourism woes by announcing that the entire grape harvest had been lost because of xylella. Trade minister Negueruela wondered what on earth he was going to be saying about lost exports.
Faced with the prospect of a massive hole in the spending budget, what could they do? It was then that the Podemos demand was considered. Increase the tourist tax. Were they mad? Ah but, what if the tax came with an incentive? Every tourist would go into a lottery. What would be the jackpot? 120 million euros. Wasn't that the amount the government had been anticipating raising in 2018? It was, but if the tax were to go up by at least a further 200%, then there would be plenty of revenue for a lottery payout and to keep the finances afloat. Tourists would love the idea. Brilliant, thought the ministers.
Alternatively, it's the start of September 2018, and no one has batted much of an eyelid.
In fact, the government is back from holiday. It is collectively gathered in a bunker, desperately trying to come up with plans for the 2019 budget. It is doing its best to hide. The British media are calling it the Summer of Death; some papers seemingly enjoying being able to.
There hasn't been a death as such, although there almost was one. A member of the Provisional Wing of Arran had chained himself to a pedalo in Playa de Muro, having first adorned the pedalo with a banner complaining about tourist pedalo "massification" that is destroying posidonia sea grass meadows. Having been chained for some time under a hot sun, he fell asleep, whereupon a group of tourists pushed him out into the bay of Alcudia. Unfortunately, he was in the same swimming-only zone as an oikish surfer girl whose board crashed into him. The lifeguards reluctantly went to his rescue.
No, the Summer of Death is because, with the exception of the tourists in Playa de Muro, there aren't any tourists. Well, no, there are some, but so de-massified are the numbers that Arran have been staging protests complaining about tourists' lack of goodwill. They should be in Mallorca, and they should be handing over the tourist tax in order that occupational-disorder therapy for chambermaids can be paid for. Not there are many chambermaids, because there aren't many tourists.
It's all because of the tourist tax, you see. Great hordes of tourists are being "borrowed" from Mallorca by Croatia and the Greek islands. In Croatia, it's a very different story. The government has been forced to declare a state of emergency, such is the level of massification. Irate Croatians have been gathering at airports and waving banners telling tourists to bugger off back to Mallorca. In Greece, meanwhile, the "borrowed" tourists are aghast to discover that they got it all wrong. Not only have the bloody Greeks got a tourist tax, they've gone and matched the Balearic rate.
It had all started to become fairly evident around ... well around April time. There was admittedly a fair degree of rejoicing. The roads were no longer saturated with cyclists. They'd all gone off to the tourist tax-free zones of Andalusia and Valencia. There were no longer vast pelatons hurtling along Puerto Pollensa's pinewalk and propelling pensioners into the bay. Country roads were restored to the time of the grand days of motoring with nary a cyclist to get in the way. Or another car for that matter. The hire-car multinationals had been hurriedly diverting their fleets to Turkey.
By June, and as airport workers, bar staff and hotel chambermaids were being laid off, Barceló declared that the tourist tax was a success as it was tackling seasonality. All the tourists who had suddenly gone missing would be returning from November, when they would be paying a lower rate of tourist tax; in other words the same rate that they had been paying the previous summer.
Very few people were buying this Barceló line. In fact no one was. So angered were the airlines that there was talk of a coup d'état and of installing Michael O'Leary as Balearic president. Members of PSOE, browbeaten into having gone along with the tourist tax rise, were wondering about all the additional government spending that was now disappearing. The PP, smugly taking pleasure in the gathering catastrophe, sat back and watched their poll ratings soar. They wouldn't even need to hunt for some illicit (allegedly) election campaign funding. They could look forward to spending just a couple of bob and still securing a landslide.
In their bunker at government HQ ministers agonised over the budget for 2019. Things were bad. Vince Vidal, the environment minister, added to the tourism woes by announcing that the entire grape harvest had been lost because of xylella. Trade minister Negueruela wondered what on earth he was going to be saying about lost exports.
Faced with the prospect of a massive hole in the spending budget, what could they do? It was then that the Podemos demand was considered. Increase the tourist tax. Were they mad? Ah but, what if the tax came with an incentive? Every tourist would go into a lottery. What would be the jackpot? 120 million euros. Wasn't that the amount the government had been anticipating raising in 2018? It was, but if the tax were to go up by at least a further 200%, then there would be plenty of revenue for a lottery payout and to keep the finances afloat. Tourists would love the idea. Brilliant, thought the ministers.
Alternatively, it's the start of September 2018, and no one has batted much of an eyelid.
Friday, September 01, 2017
The Improvising Tourist Tax
Anyone care to make any predictions for next year's tourism? It wasn't so long ago - as in before the current season - that we were being told that 2018 would be the same procedure as in recent years. The tour operators were among those who were saying that Mallorca 2018 would produce another bumper tourist crop.
What a difference a few months make. Tour operators holding back on contracts, the odd group of youthful agitators commanding way more attention than they merit, the rentals' saga and now the tourist tax again. It had looked as if the tourist tax introduction last year really hadn't made much difference, though it may have depressed spending. But with a doubling, one can be sure that this will be something else that will be latched onto by a foreign media only too eager to hype up Mallorcan negatives.
Not that the foreign media will be alone. The jungle drums of social media are already pounding. The tourist tax will be revisited when the Balearics turn up in London for the World Travel Market in a couple of months time. Biel Barceló is going to have a lot of explaining to do.
With everything else going on, putting up the tourist tax seems unnecessary if, as the government is saying, it is a measure to moderate tourist numbers. The government may succeed in other ways in doing this, such as with the rentals' legislation. The hoteliers are assisting the government, thanks to their prices. The foreign media, loving the odd anti-tourist riot that simply hasn't taken place, is doing its best in overblowing a really minor matter.
So why is the tourist tax going up? Well, there are those in the parties of the pact who always felt it was too low. Not long after the tax was introduced last summer there was already talk that it might go up. Biel Barceló said that a rise wasn't on the cards but that it might be considered once it was possible to get a complete picture of its impact. Well, he now has one, and this year it hasn't made a difference insofar as the number of tourists has actually increased. Alarmed by ongoing saturation and with Podemos pointing a gun at his head and at the government's budget, up will go the tax.
But Barceló once insisted that the tax was not about reducing numbers. Yes, he really did say this. The tax was only a very small contribution to Balearic sustainability, something to be spent by adoring and loyal tourists. Now, however, it is about cutting numbers. It has nothing to do with making more revenue available to the government. Do Barceló and the government take people for idiots? Of course it's about increasing government revenue and so increasing government spending. Why do they keep going on about insufficient funding that needs to be topped up if it isn't?
Over and above this is the clear political agenda. PSOE were initially reluctant in wanting there to be a tourist tax at all. They remembered that it was they who had introduced the old ecotax. Then they started to say that had the ecotax remained in place, Balearic funding woes would not have been as lachrymose as they allegedly have been. So their narrative shifted in order to justify their willingness to go along with certain tax-agitating eco-nationalists and quasi or actual anti-capitalists within Més and Podemos. And now we arrive at an increase and at a situation in which the level of government improvisation and dissembling has become truly mind-blowing. How's London going to be for you, Biel? Take your tin helmet.
What a difference a few months make. Tour operators holding back on contracts, the odd group of youthful agitators commanding way more attention than they merit, the rentals' saga and now the tourist tax again. It had looked as if the tourist tax introduction last year really hadn't made much difference, though it may have depressed spending. But with a doubling, one can be sure that this will be something else that will be latched onto by a foreign media only too eager to hype up Mallorcan negatives.
Not that the foreign media will be alone. The jungle drums of social media are already pounding. The tourist tax will be revisited when the Balearics turn up in London for the World Travel Market in a couple of months time. Biel Barceló is going to have a lot of explaining to do.
With everything else going on, putting up the tourist tax seems unnecessary if, as the government is saying, it is a measure to moderate tourist numbers. The government may succeed in other ways in doing this, such as with the rentals' legislation. The hoteliers are assisting the government, thanks to their prices. The foreign media, loving the odd anti-tourist riot that simply hasn't taken place, is doing its best in overblowing a really minor matter.
So why is the tourist tax going up? Well, there are those in the parties of the pact who always felt it was too low. Not long after the tax was introduced last summer there was already talk that it might go up. Biel Barceló said that a rise wasn't on the cards but that it might be considered once it was possible to get a complete picture of its impact. Well, he now has one, and this year it hasn't made a difference insofar as the number of tourists has actually increased. Alarmed by ongoing saturation and with Podemos pointing a gun at his head and at the government's budget, up will go the tax.
But Barceló once insisted that the tax was not about reducing numbers. Yes, he really did say this. The tax was only a very small contribution to Balearic sustainability, something to be spent by adoring and loyal tourists. Now, however, it is about cutting numbers. It has nothing to do with making more revenue available to the government. Do Barceló and the government take people for idiots? Of course it's about increasing government revenue and so increasing government spending. Why do they keep going on about insufficient funding that needs to be topped up if it isn't?
Over and above this is the clear political agenda. PSOE were initially reluctant in wanting there to be a tourist tax at all. They remembered that it was they who had introduced the old ecotax. Then they started to say that had the ecotax remained in place, Balearic funding woes would not have been as lachrymose as they allegedly have been. So their narrative shifted in order to justify their willingness to go along with certain tax-agitating eco-nationalists and quasi or actual anti-capitalists within Més and Podemos. And now we arrive at an increase and at a situation in which the level of government improvisation and dissembling has become truly mind-blowing. How's London going to be for you, Biel? Take your tin helmet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
