A few years ago, there was a report in a newspaper, the name of which I shall not mention (and it wasn't the Bulletin), which said that the number of hotel places in the Balearics would rise to one million. I don't recall when this magic number was supposedly going to be reached (perhaps it should have been by now) nor indeed the basis for it being reached, but it was, to put it mildly, an ambitious suggestion.
It was wrong because of the constraints on hotel building. Yes, there are new hotels, but to achieve one million places would require a doubling of the current stock. It isn't going to happen and it never will. The official number of places - some 420,000 - has been queried by the alarmists Terraferida (who do otherwise have some justification in their alarmism). They maintain there are 700,000. Sorry, that can't be. Not even the hoteliers can somehow hide almost 300,000 places.
The notion that there might be one million places was, at the time of that report, taken to be a "good thing". The more tourists the merrier was the general thrust of the thinking. Today, the more the merrier are among us, and they owe very little to an increase in hotel places, give or take, in Terraferida's estimation, the odd 300k.
There is a current attitude which concurs with the "good thing". More tourists, more people: bring 'em on. Mallorca lives from tourism and cannot, should not, do anything to deter growth. Quite the contrary, ever greater numbers mean ever more jobs and ever more tills tinkling with the sound of coinage. There is a further attitude. If there is deterrence, then Mallorca will slip back to times of yore, and the island will be riding its collective horse and cart, digging from the same potato patch and throwing its artisanal pots. Nothing more.
The colonialist view that Mallorca should be grateful for every last tourist who arrives at its points of entry either wilfully or ignorantly neglects basic theories of tourism development and society's attitudes. What starts out as a form of gratitude passes through various stages until it reaches antagonism and hostility. It is colonialism on a grand scale. It can be observed in the ever more aircraft lumbering across the tarmac, in the gloriously repugnant apartment blocks on water with their pile 'em high, pack 'em in communist designs that creep into the bay of Palma, in the velodromes of the island's roads. The territory is invaded by sea and by land. And no greater sense of irrational territorialism is there than that of road users. Hostility morphs into hate.
I am aware that this is a familiar theme, but its familiarity is what makes it crucial. There is a sense now of the theme having adopted the manifestation of crisis. Is this the consequence of the alarmism of Terraferida and others? To an extent perhaps it is. Those who shout loudest appeal to the instincts implicit in that ultimate stage of tourism development theory. They stir the pot. The brew becomes noxious.
Day after day we are fed a stream of information that merely increases the feeling of crisis. The accommodation crisis, the crisis of overwhelming numbers of vehicles and people. Into the latter bracket, the Llevant park has now been added to the endangered coves. Betlem and the like are being overrun. And it is hire cars which are running over these tiny places, entrance points to a natural world. Tourism authorities love to point to the natural wonders of the island, to their contribution to a sun-and-beach alternative. They extol the virtues of nature, of the natural heritage and landscape, and then suddenly find to their dismay that nature is falling victim to humanity. The colonialists will doubtless argue the more, the merrier, while small, one-time colonies such as Betlem and Colonia Sant Pere are colonised by fleets provided by Ford or Renault. Betlem becomes Bedlam.
These places can't cope. They start to tear their hair out. The noxious brew of Palma and its collapse by cruise leviathan and cloudy-day congestion spills out and spreads across the wounded land - the terra ferida. It forms small torrents in streaming towards sleepy enclaves unused to and ill-prepared for invasion. The gentle torrents become mighty ones. The torrents eventually break their banks. They flood like January floods. Except it isn't water. It's that brew.
As for the accommodation crisis, one manipulated by the hoteliers and the PP into a carefully crafted political lament for doctors and police, seasonal workers now have to resort to living in hotels. And paying the tourist tax (plus IVA). What's the point of their working if they hand everything back to a representative of the business collective many of them work for?
One million places. Why not?
Showing posts with label Saturation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saturation. Show all posts
Thursday, May 04, 2017
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Arguing Over Tourismphobia
The national tourism minister, Álvaro Nadal, has not exactly endeared himself to Biel Barceló. The minister, responding to a press question at the Berlin fair about anti-tourist sentiment, said that tourismphobia and prominence given to "saturation" are the result of political interests rather than their being a reflection of social concerns. Moreover, this tourismphobia only exists in the Balearics and Catalonia; nowhere else.
For a Partido Popular politician, which Nadal is, to cite these two regions might itself sound political. Catalonia, politically, we know all about, while its capital - Barcelona - has been right at the centre of the tourismphobia/saturation phenomenon; far more so than the Balearics. The city's mayor, Ada Colau, is light years away from Nadal in political terms.
Biel Barceló doesn't occupy such distant political territory, but he is nevertheless what he is: a left-wing, pro-Majorcan nationalism politician. There is a great deal of water between him and Nadal, some of it the product of more than 200 kilometres of sea. In fact, Barceló would argue, as do others in the Balearics, that it's mostly to do with all that sea: Madrid just doesn't get it where the Balearics are concerned.
Nadal is correct, though, in highlighting the two regions. When I have done research into this so-called tourismphobia, I have only ever found references in the Balearics and Catalonia. It may well exist elsewhere, but if it does, it doesn't make its presence felt.
But is Nadal correct in suggesting that politics have driven the arguments and not society? Up to a point he is. Saturation was first really heard about when Barceló started referring to it in summer 2015. The anti-tourist slogans in Palma appeared several months later. However, is it too simplistic and convenient to draw the conclusion that Nadal has?
Although the word may not have been used, saturation has been an issue bubbling under the surface ever since the days of the old ecotax. There again, one can ask how genuinely societal a development of tourismphobia has been. GOB, the environmentalists, have been agitating in an anti-tourism style for years. Despite their being a "social agent", they are overtly political. There is a blurring, therefore, between social and political. Other groups, ones now enjoying increasing prominence - Terraferida, Palma XXI and Tramuntana XXI - have been a response to the arguments, rather than instigators.
Whatever the political/social balance, Barceló clearly doesn't see politics (his, for instance) as having been the driving force. He was therefore furious with what Nadal had to say. But Barceló can himself appear contradictory. He has spoken against limits being imposed on tourist numbers (saying that it would be impractical to do so), has argued that the tourist tax is not a means of limiting tourists, and yet he wants co-management of the airports for the very reason that the government could then exert some control over numbers.
Responding to Nadal, he made it clear that a way to reduce saturation would be through a reform of the Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos (the tenancy act). This is because it would, he hopes, limit the number of tourists staying in apartments (the main cause of saturation) and also limit the activities of Airbnb and others. Nadal, it would appear, is not inclined to reform the act, thus seeming to himself contradict Matilde Asián, the secretary of state for tourism, who has implied that she is open to considering this. Instead, Nadal said that there will be a tightening of taxation on the likes of Airbnb.
This only made Barceló more agitated. Rather than Madrid coming to the aid of the Balearics via legislative reform, all the national government does is to want to collect more taxes. The irony of this, one would suggest, wasn't lost on many. Nadal, as with all other PP politicians, is firmly opposed to tourist taxes, which only the Balearics and Catalonia have.
Anyway, political or social, we know that this summer will again be about saturation, with tourismphobia tossed into the mix. And if we didn't know, then GOB were telling the Germans that it will be. Who was it that once said that GOB should put up and become a political party or shut up? A PP politician.
For a Partido Popular politician, which Nadal is, to cite these two regions might itself sound political. Catalonia, politically, we know all about, while its capital - Barcelona - has been right at the centre of the tourismphobia/saturation phenomenon; far more so than the Balearics. The city's mayor, Ada Colau, is light years away from Nadal in political terms.
Biel Barceló doesn't occupy such distant political territory, but he is nevertheless what he is: a left-wing, pro-Majorcan nationalism politician. There is a great deal of water between him and Nadal, some of it the product of more than 200 kilometres of sea. In fact, Barceló would argue, as do others in the Balearics, that it's mostly to do with all that sea: Madrid just doesn't get it where the Balearics are concerned.
Nadal is correct, though, in highlighting the two regions. When I have done research into this so-called tourismphobia, I have only ever found references in the Balearics and Catalonia. It may well exist elsewhere, but if it does, it doesn't make its presence felt.
But is Nadal correct in suggesting that politics have driven the arguments and not society? Up to a point he is. Saturation was first really heard about when Barceló started referring to it in summer 2015. The anti-tourist slogans in Palma appeared several months later. However, is it too simplistic and convenient to draw the conclusion that Nadal has?
Although the word may not have been used, saturation has been an issue bubbling under the surface ever since the days of the old ecotax. There again, one can ask how genuinely societal a development of tourismphobia has been. GOB, the environmentalists, have been agitating in an anti-tourism style for years. Despite their being a "social agent", they are overtly political. There is a blurring, therefore, between social and political. Other groups, ones now enjoying increasing prominence - Terraferida, Palma XXI and Tramuntana XXI - have been a response to the arguments, rather than instigators.
Whatever the political/social balance, Barceló clearly doesn't see politics (his, for instance) as having been the driving force. He was therefore furious with what Nadal had to say. But Barceló can himself appear contradictory. He has spoken against limits being imposed on tourist numbers (saying that it would be impractical to do so), has argued that the tourist tax is not a means of limiting tourists, and yet he wants co-management of the airports for the very reason that the government could then exert some control over numbers.
Responding to Nadal, he made it clear that a way to reduce saturation would be through a reform of the Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos (the tenancy act). This is because it would, he hopes, limit the number of tourists staying in apartments (the main cause of saturation) and also limit the activities of Airbnb and others. Nadal, it would appear, is not inclined to reform the act, thus seeming to himself contradict Matilde Asián, the secretary of state for tourism, who has implied that she is open to considering this. Instead, Nadal said that there will be a tightening of taxation on the likes of Airbnb.
This only made Barceló more agitated. Rather than Madrid coming to the aid of the Balearics via legislative reform, all the national government does is to want to collect more taxes. The irony of this, one would suggest, wasn't lost on many. Nadal, as with all other PP politicians, is firmly opposed to tourist taxes, which only the Balearics and Catalonia have.
Anyway, political or social, we know that this summer will again be about saturation, with tourismphobia tossed into the mix. And if we didn't know, then GOB were telling the Germans that it will be. Who was it that once said that GOB should put up and become a political party or shut up? A PP politician.
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Mallorca's Saturated Skies
It is not just Mallorca's roads, streets and beaches that are saturated with tourists, so are the island's skies, and these are due to be more jammed than ever this summer courtesy of a 20% increase in air capacity. One uses the word "capacity" advisedly, because capacity is already stretched to the limits, and as a result tourism minister Biel Barceló is absolutely furious with Aena.
He isn't the only one who should be. The tipping-point with visitor numbers has been edging ever closer. One fears the edge will be reached this summer. The additional numbers being spoken of verge on the preposterous.
Aena is scheduling a landing or a taking-off every 45 seconds. The hourly capacity is to rise from the current 66 to 80. That gives you the 20% increase (actually 21.2%). The logic of such an increase is that passenger numbers, which were a record 26 million last year, will be well over the 30 million mark this year. There had been talk of one million more passengers for 2017, not of five or six million more.
Barceló's anger stems from the fact that there had been no consultation about this increase. While there will be those who believe the more the merrier when it comes to ever greater tourist numbers, there will be plenty who do not, and Barceló is right to say that a major increase in volume has serious ramifications for roads, the environment, emergency services, waste management, health services. Everything. There again, one might suggest that he would say all this. Politically, he can't afford to be presiding as tourism minister over ever greater numbers, given the "saturation" and sustainability debates and arguments.
It is in fact highly unlikely that the increased numbers will be in the order of five or six million. It serves Barceló, Podemos and GOB well to suggest that this will be the case, but one is talking here about maximum capacity at specific times. Even so, there will be a rise (and perhaps a significant one) while there is also the distinct sense of Aena totally disregarding the island's own capacity in the pursuit of ever greater profit. And when one refers to Mallorca's capacity, where exactly might these greater numbers be staying? Not hotels because they're pretty much booked out as it is in high summer.
The Aena announcement simply adds further fuel to the argument that there should be local co-management (and so therefore greater control) of airports and ports. And there is an important point to make about these. The ports are run by the state. The Balearic Ports Authority, which is the regional division of the State Ports, doesn't generate enormous profit, and much of what profit it does make is ploughed back in the form of investment. Aena, on the other hand, makes colossal money from Palma and the other two Balearic airports - over 1,100 million euros per annum from airport taxes.
There will be even more local anger because of the coincidental announcement of Aena's figures for last year. Its profit increased by almost 40%. The consolidated net profit of more than 1,100 million euros (a figure that is a coincidence in itself given the revenue generated from the Balearics) equates to some 30% of consolidated revenue - a staggering return.
To return to the increase in hourly capacity, a point also needs to be made about safety. Air-traffic controllers in Palma were last summer saying that at peak times (typically weekends in high summer), they were having to deal with well over 66 planes an hour. They were warning that safety was at risk of being compromised and that their own ability to handle such volume was being stretched to the limit. Aena needs to give some explanations and assurances. Barceló and the government have requested a meeting with Aena's directors. That's likely to be a feisty affair.
He isn't the only one who should be. The tipping-point with visitor numbers has been edging ever closer. One fears the edge will be reached this summer. The additional numbers being spoken of verge on the preposterous.
Aena is scheduling a landing or a taking-off every 45 seconds. The hourly capacity is to rise from the current 66 to 80. That gives you the 20% increase (actually 21.2%). The logic of such an increase is that passenger numbers, which were a record 26 million last year, will be well over the 30 million mark this year. There had been talk of one million more passengers for 2017, not of five or six million more.
Barceló's anger stems from the fact that there had been no consultation about this increase. While there will be those who believe the more the merrier when it comes to ever greater tourist numbers, there will be plenty who do not, and Barceló is right to say that a major increase in volume has serious ramifications for roads, the environment, emergency services, waste management, health services. Everything. There again, one might suggest that he would say all this. Politically, he can't afford to be presiding as tourism minister over ever greater numbers, given the "saturation" and sustainability debates and arguments.
It is in fact highly unlikely that the increased numbers will be in the order of five or six million. It serves Barceló, Podemos and GOB well to suggest that this will be the case, but one is talking here about maximum capacity at specific times. Even so, there will be a rise (and perhaps a significant one) while there is also the distinct sense of Aena totally disregarding the island's own capacity in the pursuit of ever greater profit. And when one refers to Mallorca's capacity, where exactly might these greater numbers be staying? Not hotels because they're pretty much booked out as it is in high summer.
The Aena announcement simply adds further fuel to the argument that there should be local co-management (and so therefore greater control) of airports and ports. And there is an important point to make about these. The ports are run by the state. The Balearic Ports Authority, which is the regional division of the State Ports, doesn't generate enormous profit, and much of what profit it does make is ploughed back in the form of investment. Aena, on the other hand, makes colossal money from Palma and the other two Balearic airports - over 1,100 million euros per annum from airport taxes.
There will be even more local anger because of the coincidental announcement of Aena's figures for last year. Its profit increased by almost 40%. The consolidated net profit of more than 1,100 million euros (a figure that is a coincidence in itself given the revenue generated from the Balearics) equates to some 30% of consolidated revenue - a staggering return.
To return to the increase in hourly capacity, a point also needs to be made about safety. Air-traffic controllers in Palma were last summer saying that at peak times (typically weekends in high summer), they were having to deal with well over 66 planes an hour. They were warning that safety was at risk of being compromised and that their own ability to handle such volume was being stretched to the limit. Aena needs to give some explanations and assurances. Barceló and the government have requested a meeting with Aena's directors. That's likely to be a feisty affair.
Thursday, December 29, 2016
Beaches And Towels: Oddities Of 2016
This was a year in which Ikea found itself involved in a Spanish general election, there were arguments over the use of "a" or "e", beaches were targeted by sellers on eBay and beach towels had the attention of environmentalists.
Whatever one might think of Podemos, they know how to do things differently. They "borrowed" the Ikea catalogue for their June election campaign. Prominent members of the party were to be found on a white Vilmar chair (Pablo Iglesias), by a Hemnes desk (Iñigo Errejón), with a PS 2002 watering can (Balearic leader Alberto Jarabo). Each image carried a message from the Podemos manifesto. Ikea stressed that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the campaign, though privately may have felt that it was pretty good promotion.
Toponymy (the study of place names) loomed large on the agenda. While Palma was engrossed (or not) in discussions regarding its name (Palma or Palma de Mallorca), Calvia was considering the rival claims of Paguera and Peguera. Here was a genuine vowel controversy. It had always been Pag, it was said, until the town hall introduced Peg in the 1980s. The current town hall was determined to ensure that Peg it was and will be. Toponymy experts were being consulted. The Peg camp were able to point to the derivation from "pega" for pine sap. The Pag-ists were unimpressed, and they included the hoteliers who were equally determined to use Paguera.
Calvia spent much of the summer informing us how well new ordinance and policing arrangements were going in stamping out crime (mostly petty) and bad behaviour. This was all very well, but the information rarely informed anyone about the most serious issues, such as actions against the so-called prostitutes of Magalluf and Santa Ponsa. Instead, there were stories such as the major success in confiscating 79 coconuts, 24 pineapples and 23 watermelons that had been destined for sale on beaches. In isolation, this was fair enough, but reaction to this success was inevitable: they can seize fruit but they can't do anything about the prostitutes.
Meanwhile, there was outrage when it was discovered that tiny pieces of beach (pebbles and sand) were being flogged on eBay. A German was offering bags containing bits of Sa Calobra beach for 5.90 euros. The regional environment ministry said such "extraction" could not be tolerated, though pointed out that it was a matter for the Costas Authority. There were also packets with Camp de Mar and Sant Elm beaches. The mayor of Andratx said that there would be "investigations".
Outrage was even greater when occupants of superyachts took over, "occupied" and "privatised" a beach on the island of Cabrera. Towels, beds and tents were installed by crew members. It was the equivalent of a "beach club", claimed environmentalists GOB. Action was demanded. Fines had to be issued, but once more the regional ministry suggested it was a matter for the Costas, who were being invited to intervene in other similar "occupations", such as by Russian oligarchs moving in on beaches and employing security personnel to keep the riff-raff away.
Towels were in great abundance on the beach in El Molinar a week or so after Cabrera had been invaded. A Portuguese performance artist by the name of Hugo Israel placed fifteen large towels on the beach and then sat in a chair sunning himself in typical tourist mode as a form of protest against tourist "saturation" and in defence of the island's environment and sustainability that were being harmed by excessive tourism. The stunt attracted a good deal of publicity, but for some, Hugo represented a growing "saturation" of protesters against saturation. And what was a Portuguese doing, staging a protest? Was he not a tourist? Where environmentalists were concerned, however, there were no objections to his "occupation" of the beach.
Back in Calvia they were getting agitated by the return of "Geordie Shore" to film in Magalluf; they having been the town hall, the tourism ministry and local businesses. There was no permission to film in public areas, they shouted, and to so contribute to a programme that would be "harmful to the image of Magalluf, Calvia and Mallorca" at a time when everyone was collaborating on pushing "quality tourism". Well, not quite everyone, as Geordie Shore were able to film in non-public areas, such as a party boat.
While Calvia was defending the good name of Magalluf and media sensation-seekers were finding there was now thin sensationalist gruel to be had in Maga, the authorities in Madrid and Barcelona were being confronted by the problem of hard-core pornography being filmed in the streets. Barcelona insisted that having sex in the streets was prohibited, but Madrid was less explicit (so to speak). Unless tripods were being used for filming, it seemed unable to stop it.
So for once, Magalluf was not sin city. And that was odd in itself.
Whatever one might think of Podemos, they know how to do things differently. They "borrowed" the Ikea catalogue for their June election campaign. Prominent members of the party were to be found on a white Vilmar chair (Pablo Iglesias), by a Hemnes desk (Iñigo Errejón), with a PS 2002 watering can (Balearic leader Alberto Jarabo). Each image carried a message from the Podemos manifesto. Ikea stressed that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the campaign, though privately may have felt that it was pretty good promotion.
Toponymy (the study of place names) loomed large on the agenda. While Palma was engrossed (or not) in discussions regarding its name (Palma or Palma de Mallorca), Calvia was considering the rival claims of Paguera and Peguera. Here was a genuine vowel controversy. It had always been Pag, it was said, until the town hall introduced Peg in the 1980s. The current town hall was determined to ensure that Peg it was and will be. Toponymy experts were being consulted. The Peg camp were able to point to the derivation from "pega" for pine sap. The Pag-ists were unimpressed, and they included the hoteliers who were equally determined to use Paguera.
Calvia spent much of the summer informing us how well new ordinance and policing arrangements were going in stamping out crime (mostly petty) and bad behaviour. This was all very well, but the information rarely informed anyone about the most serious issues, such as actions against the so-called prostitutes of Magalluf and Santa Ponsa. Instead, there were stories such as the major success in confiscating 79 coconuts, 24 pineapples and 23 watermelons that had been destined for sale on beaches. In isolation, this was fair enough, but reaction to this success was inevitable: they can seize fruit but they can't do anything about the prostitutes.
Meanwhile, there was outrage when it was discovered that tiny pieces of beach (pebbles and sand) were being flogged on eBay. A German was offering bags containing bits of Sa Calobra beach for 5.90 euros. The regional environment ministry said such "extraction" could not be tolerated, though pointed out that it was a matter for the Costas Authority. There were also packets with Camp de Mar and Sant Elm beaches. The mayor of Andratx said that there would be "investigations".
Outrage was even greater when occupants of superyachts took over, "occupied" and "privatised" a beach on the island of Cabrera. Towels, beds and tents were installed by crew members. It was the equivalent of a "beach club", claimed environmentalists GOB. Action was demanded. Fines had to be issued, but once more the regional ministry suggested it was a matter for the Costas, who were being invited to intervene in other similar "occupations", such as by Russian oligarchs moving in on beaches and employing security personnel to keep the riff-raff away.
Towels were in great abundance on the beach in El Molinar a week or so after Cabrera had been invaded. A Portuguese performance artist by the name of Hugo Israel placed fifteen large towels on the beach and then sat in a chair sunning himself in typical tourist mode as a form of protest against tourist "saturation" and in defence of the island's environment and sustainability that were being harmed by excessive tourism. The stunt attracted a good deal of publicity, but for some, Hugo represented a growing "saturation" of protesters against saturation. And what was a Portuguese doing, staging a protest? Was he not a tourist? Where environmentalists were concerned, however, there were no objections to his "occupation" of the beach.
Back in Calvia they were getting agitated by the return of "Geordie Shore" to film in Magalluf; they having been the town hall, the tourism ministry and local businesses. There was no permission to film in public areas, they shouted, and to so contribute to a programme that would be "harmful to the image of Magalluf, Calvia and Mallorca" at a time when everyone was collaborating on pushing "quality tourism". Well, not quite everyone, as Geordie Shore were able to film in non-public areas, such as a party boat.
While Calvia was defending the good name of Magalluf and media sensation-seekers were finding there was now thin sensationalist gruel to be had in Maga, the authorities in Madrid and Barcelona were being confronted by the problem of hard-core pornography being filmed in the streets. Barcelona insisted that having sex in the streets was prohibited, but Madrid was less explicit (so to speak). Unless tripods were being used for filming, it seemed unable to stop it.
So for once, Magalluf was not sin city. And that was odd in itself.
Friday, November 04, 2016
The Missing Numbers Among The Two Million
So, we learn that 9 August was this summer's M-Day when the maximum population of the Balearics was reached. Biel Barceló will feel slightly aggrieved. It was 10 August when he roped in unions and the business confederation to make his statement - "welcome sustainable tourism". The day had been chosen because 10 August in 2015 was last year's M-Day. Then the max was 2,010,520. On 9 August this year it was 2,036,132.
Much was made of the fact that the two million mark was exceeded for the first time in 2015. A socio-psychological threshold was crossed. The number was thus unsustainable for no better reason than it was more than two million. This year there has been rather more justification for concern with this size of population. Water has been the principal one.
The declaration of M-Day has in the past been around the start of the following year. The number-crunchers at the Balearic statistics institute must have been putting in overtime in order to get out the M-Day declaration to more or less coincide with the official end of summer. One detects a degree of political expedience in the manner in which this has been expedited.
Confirmation of human pressure can thus be latched onto more rapidly by those with human pressure agendas, among them Biel Barceló, whose legislative agenda includes holiday rentals, the apparent cause of this increased pressure. Curiously enough, Barceló had said that the draft legislation would be presented before the end of October. Does one conclude that it has been delayed so that the M-Day declaration can provide more grounds for whatever legislation he has in mind? One can't help but feel that there is some convenience in the earlier than usual declaration. Or maybe they've just got more efficient.
Intuitively, if only because of that socio-psychological threshold, one might feel that here is evidence of too high a level of human pressure. But it is largely intuitive. Exactness in scientific terms is thin on the ground. We therefore rely almost exclusively on anecdote and on "sensation". When opinion surveys ask about "saturation", they couch the question in terms of its feeling, of its perception. Responses are therefore given on the basis of subjective observation, itself made less objective by the constant resort by agenda-setters to wave the banner of saturation. In addition, we are bombarded with the Palma-centric obsession with cruise passenger numbers. While these can be proved, there is less proof (if any) that all those numbers actually "invade" Palma at any given time.
The real proof lies with what can be observed in the reservoirs. There again, low levels of water and low capacities are only indirectly the consequence of added human pressure. The direct consequence is Mother Nature. Populations have always struggled to combat her capriciousness.
But what precisely is this population, the one that exists on M-Day? The number is precise: 2,036,132. How is it arrived at, though? The answer, as always, lies with statistics. It has to because there is no possible way that the number can physically be verified. Elements of comparative exactness can be thrown into the statistical pot, such as the total number of hotel places and airport arrivals, but these cannot simply be added together because of the massive degree of overlap. The most certain element is the resident population, though even that is questionable, given that there are those who are resident but who mysteriously go unaccounted. Countering this are the numbers of the resident population who have evacuated. Strange though it may sound but a fair number of people go elsewhere in August.
On the basis of the official resident population and the official number of registered accommodation places, it is possible to arrive at some fairly conclusive figure, albeit that there is never any such thing as 100% occupancy of all accommodation places. But simple calculations which draw on these numbers will always fall well short of what M-Day indicates. There is anything between 150,000 and 300,000 people unaccounted for, and this "missing" population factors in the number of apparently illegal accommodation places and a stab at estimating the size of the seasonal working population.
The figure that is arrived at will be a statistical calculation, yet scholars of population studies have long recognised the difficulty of precision. One learned paper acknowledges that there is a drawback in terms of a lack of solid data regarding the temporary population. The de facto population, which is what M-Day seeks to prove, is therefore - one assumes - the product of multiple data sets, the reliability of which is only as good as the methodology. And inevitably, scholars disagree.
How reliable is the 2,036,132 figure? Indeed, how transparent is it? A precise breakdown of the figure should be given, but it never is.
Much was made of the fact that the two million mark was exceeded for the first time in 2015. A socio-psychological threshold was crossed. The number was thus unsustainable for no better reason than it was more than two million. This year there has been rather more justification for concern with this size of population. Water has been the principal one.
The declaration of M-Day has in the past been around the start of the following year. The number-crunchers at the Balearic statistics institute must have been putting in overtime in order to get out the M-Day declaration to more or less coincide with the official end of summer. One detects a degree of political expedience in the manner in which this has been expedited.
Confirmation of human pressure can thus be latched onto more rapidly by those with human pressure agendas, among them Biel Barceló, whose legislative agenda includes holiday rentals, the apparent cause of this increased pressure. Curiously enough, Barceló had said that the draft legislation would be presented before the end of October. Does one conclude that it has been delayed so that the M-Day declaration can provide more grounds for whatever legislation he has in mind? One can't help but feel that there is some convenience in the earlier than usual declaration. Or maybe they've just got more efficient.
Intuitively, if only because of that socio-psychological threshold, one might feel that here is evidence of too high a level of human pressure. But it is largely intuitive. Exactness in scientific terms is thin on the ground. We therefore rely almost exclusively on anecdote and on "sensation". When opinion surveys ask about "saturation", they couch the question in terms of its feeling, of its perception. Responses are therefore given on the basis of subjective observation, itself made less objective by the constant resort by agenda-setters to wave the banner of saturation. In addition, we are bombarded with the Palma-centric obsession with cruise passenger numbers. While these can be proved, there is less proof (if any) that all those numbers actually "invade" Palma at any given time.
The real proof lies with what can be observed in the reservoirs. There again, low levels of water and low capacities are only indirectly the consequence of added human pressure. The direct consequence is Mother Nature. Populations have always struggled to combat her capriciousness.
But what precisely is this population, the one that exists on M-Day? The number is precise: 2,036,132. How is it arrived at, though? The answer, as always, lies with statistics. It has to because there is no possible way that the number can physically be verified. Elements of comparative exactness can be thrown into the statistical pot, such as the total number of hotel places and airport arrivals, but these cannot simply be added together because of the massive degree of overlap. The most certain element is the resident population, though even that is questionable, given that there are those who are resident but who mysteriously go unaccounted. Countering this are the numbers of the resident population who have evacuated. Strange though it may sound but a fair number of people go elsewhere in August.
On the basis of the official resident population and the official number of registered accommodation places, it is possible to arrive at some fairly conclusive figure, albeit that there is never any such thing as 100% occupancy of all accommodation places. But simple calculations which draw on these numbers will always fall well short of what M-Day indicates. There is anything between 150,000 and 300,000 people unaccounted for, and this "missing" population factors in the number of apparently illegal accommodation places and a stab at estimating the size of the seasonal working population.
The figure that is arrived at will be a statistical calculation, yet scholars of population studies have long recognised the difficulty of precision. One learned paper acknowledges that there is a drawback in terms of a lack of solid data regarding the temporary population. The de facto population, which is what M-Day seeks to prove, is therefore - one assumes - the product of multiple data sets, the reliability of which is only as good as the methodology. And inevitably, scholars disagree.
How reliable is the 2,036,132 figure? Indeed, how transparent is it? A precise breakdown of the figure should be given, but it never is.
Thursday, November 03, 2016
Tourism Promotion: Saturation Spending
I find myself increasingly knarked by the way in which elements of the local media insist on relating absolutely everything to do with the island's tourism - as currently is - to security issues in other parts of the Mediterranean and consequently to the harmful impact of so-called saturation. Frankly, I think we are now all saturated by saturation talk, while we all realised months ago that lunatics in Turkey and elsewhere had meant tourists arriving en masse in Mallorca. Why keep going on about it?
It's a matter of fascination to note the way in which this media falls into line with narratives that are dominant at the time until an alternative comes along. Take holiday rentals, as an example. Some while back - up to roughly three years ago - the narrative was accepted unquestioningly. Dreadful people going around not paying tax, the "illegal" offer needed stamping out, which was of course the view of the Partido Popular and the hoteliers. The media nodded its head and parroted the line.
Then, somewhat out of the blue, came a counter-argument. It was partly driven by PSOE who had latched onto the idea that some good might come from allowing owners to legally market their apartments as holiday rentals. Blimey, seemed to think these elements in the media, maybe they've got a point. For a time, therefore, the argument shifted in the opposite direction, until, that is, we arrived at saturation and therefore the devil's work which is the holiday rental.
Which is not to deny that there aren't issues. There most certainly are issues, but these have moved somewhat from the ones of the time when the PP and the hoteliers first formed their government in 2011. Not paying tax seems to have been largely forgotten amidst, for example, the inability of local people being able to find anywhere to rent because Airbnb has hoovered up every available living space on the island.
Yes, there are very serious issues, and ones that badly need addressing by effective legislation, which one fears may well be beyond the wit of Balearic legislators. Meanwhile, the saturation narrative has consumed everything. It has gobbled up all that is in its path, including the judgement and perspective of elements of the media drawn, as previously and without question, to the prevailing arguments.
We thus have, for example, the announcement of the Balearic budget for 2017. The fact that the Balearic Tourism Agency (ATB) has had its budget cut - the only government agency to have suffered in this regard - is evidence of the power of the saturation narrative. Yes of course Podemos have argued that there should be absolutely no more of the citizens' taxes spent on promoting tourism (in light of saturation), but then there are some in Podemos who are at least one sun lounger short of a whole beach when it comes to tourism matters.
Notwithstanding Podemos's views, the ATB budget cut is manifestly linked to saturation. There can be no other explanation. Well, perhaps there can be another explanation, as in spending vast fortunes on promotion isn't needed - certainly not at present. Saturation should thus be seen as a virtue: a couple of million lopped off the agency's budget can be diverted to projects to promote Catalan. Everyone's a winner.
As important is the fact that a damn great knife was taken to tourism promotion spend by the PP. Carlos Delgado, for it was he when tourism minister, pared spend back to the barest of marketing bones. There would, for instance, be no more Rafa Nadal hurtling around the islands on board some minor superyacht and being paid at least the equivalent of a Grand Slam win for doing so. Delgado decreed that simply going to travel fairs was terminally dull in marketing terms but just as effective. If one's being totally honest, he wasn't far wrong.
The miserly nature of the promotional spend was therefore a PP creation. During the previous PSOE-led administration (admittedly with the Unió Mallorquina in charge of tourism for most of the administration), money was splashed out. Rather too much of it, or so it would seem. The current PSOE-led government is therefore pursuing a PP policy. How very odd.
This all said, there will come a day when desaturation occurs naturally because tourists have been convinced that the lunatics have all been bombed or locked up. What then? Blanket prime-time telly ads for every tourist market? Meanwhile the ATB will just have to get on with what it has and with what it has to do, which includes assisting at the likes of the London World Travel Market and fielding angry questions, such as why everyone keeps banging on about saturation. "Don't you want our tourists?" "Of course we do, and just to prove it we've cut our promotional budget for next year."
Forget it. They should be spending more, not less.
It's a matter of fascination to note the way in which this media falls into line with narratives that are dominant at the time until an alternative comes along. Take holiday rentals, as an example. Some while back - up to roughly three years ago - the narrative was accepted unquestioningly. Dreadful people going around not paying tax, the "illegal" offer needed stamping out, which was of course the view of the Partido Popular and the hoteliers. The media nodded its head and parroted the line.
Then, somewhat out of the blue, came a counter-argument. It was partly driven by PSOE who had latched onto the idea that some good might come from allowing owners to legally market their apartments as holiday rentals. Blimey, seemed to think these elements in the media, maybe they've got a point. For a time, therefore, the argument shifted in the opposite direction, until, that is, we arrived at saturation and therefore the devil's work which is the holiday rental.
Which is not to deny that there aren't issues. There most certainly are issues, but these have moved somewhat from the ones of the time when the PP and the hoteliers first formed their government in 2011. Not paying tax seems to have been largely forgotten amidst, for example, the inability of local people being able to find anywhere to rent because Airbnb has hoovered up every available living space on the island.
Yes, there are very serious issues, and ones that badly need addressing by effective legislation, which one fears may well be beyond the wit of Balearic legislators. Meanwhile, the saturation narrative has consumed everything. It has gobbled up all that is in its path, including the judgement and perspective of elements of the media drawn, as previously and without question, to the prevailing arguments.
We thus have, for example, the announcement of the Balearic budget for 2017. The fact that the Balearic Tourism Agency (ATB) has had its budget cut - the only government agency to have suffered in this regard - is evidence of the power of the saturation narrative. Yes of course Podemos have argued that there should be absolutely no more of the citizens' taxes spent on promoting tourism (in light of saturation), but then there are some in Podemos who are at least one sun lounger short of a whole beach when it comes to tourism matters.
Notwithstanding Podemos's views, the ATB budget cut is manifestly linked to saturation. There can be no other explanation. Well, perhaps there can be another explanation, as in spending vast fortunes on promotion isn't needed - certainly not at present. Saturation should thus be seen as a virtue: a couple of million lopped off the agency's budget can be diverted to projects to promote Catalan. Everyone's a winner.
As important is the fact that a damn great knife was taken to tourism promotion spend by the PP. Carlos Delgado, for it was he when tourism minister, pared spend back to the barest of marketing bones. There would, for instance, be no more Rafa Nadal hurtling around the islands on board some minor superyacht and being paid at least the equivalent of a Grand Slam win for doing so. Delgado decreed that simply going to travel fairs was terminally dull in marketing terms but just as effective. If one's being totally honest, he wasn't far wrong.
The miserly nature of the promotional spend was therefore a PP creation. During the previous PSOE-led administration (admittedly with the Unió Mallorquina in charge of tourism for most of the administration), money was splashed out. Rather too much of it, or so it would seem. The current PSOE-led government is therefore pursuing a PP policy. How very odd.
This all said, there will come a day when desaturation occurs naturally because tourists have been convinced that the lunatics have all been bombed or locked up. What then? Blanket prime-time telly ads for every tourist market? Meanwhile the ATB will just have to get on with what it has and with what it has to do, which includes assisting at the likes of the London World Travel Market and fielding angry questions, such as why everyone keeps banging on about saturation. "Don't you want our tourists?" "Of course we do, and just to prove it we've cut our promotional budget for next year."
Forget it. They should be spending more, not less.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Tourists Feel Saturated Too
If it weren't for all the other damn tourists ... . It's one thing to ask the locals if they feel overwhelmed and saturated by a massification of vast tourist hordes. It's another to ask tourists the question and for them to say much the same. Yes, I feel saturated, and do you know what? I'm part of the problem. The response does at least suggest some self-awareness, one guesses.
Our friends at the Gadeso Foundation have been out and about surveying once more. They asked tourists - 500 of them (margin of error 4.5%; level of confidence 95.5%) - what they thought about saturation. They were asked if there were more tourists than before. Or at least the 32% who had been to the Balearics were asked. And of them, 74% said yes, there were many more than before. By my calculation, that is 118.4 tourists who say that there are more tourists than before, but let's not quibble as there is an acceptable margin of error.
Given that there were 340 tourists who either hadn't been to the Balearics previously or didn't know if they had (yes, two per cent, i.e. ten of them, didn't know), how can one judge the finding that 84% of them felt that there was saturation on the beaches of the islands? What were they judging against?
There were also 64% who felt that roads and car parks were saturated and 48% who thought bars and restaurants were. This latter finding was good news for those in Mallorca's hostelry business: the summer has been fantastic because 48% were implying that they couldn't find a table. Notwithstanding this discovery, there will be any number of bar/restaurant owners who will maintain that summer 2016 was nothing special: there'll probably be a survey to discover what the percentage was (within an acceptable margin of error of course).
Having found that 74% of those who had been before thought that there were many more tourists and that 19% believed that there were some more, 58% were in favour of a form of limit being placed on themselves. There are far too many of us, opined 32%. We must be limited. A lower percentage - 21% - wanted themselves to be limited but only in certain places. The other five per cent were in favour of being limited but believed it was impractical to have limits.
So, what do we conclude from all this? Certain politicians will feel vindicated; those who say that tourists feel the locals' pain and sense of saturation as well. Others will feel that they are on the right tracks when talking about the need for limits to tourism numbers. After all, 58% of tourists (within a margin of error of 4.5%) can't be wrong.
As a snapshot of opinion, which is as much as such a survey can ever be, the findings are quite revealing. Are they surprising? Not necessarily, as there has been evidence over a number of years that visitors find Mallorca too built-up. That doesn't equate to saturation but is an indication as to the potential.
But are the findings particularly reliable? Market researchers would say that they are, but what we aren't told is anything about where tourists were from, where they were staying, what type of accommodation they were in, whether they had a hire car; all that sort of thing. And as there were also 66% (at least) who hadn't been before, the findings are questionable. Answers by all the 100% are subjective in any event, but only 32% have a degree of objectivity based on previous experience.
There again, the replies are likely to be more objective than those of the locals. The great majority of tourists won't have been exposed to all the saturation talk, whereas the locals have been and are therefore likely to have their perceptions influenced by all the talk.
The survey also asked about the tourist tax. The findings here are less open to past experiences (or not) of Mallorca and so less questionable. Almost three-quarters (74%) believed that the tax is positive. A mere six per cent viewed it as negative. This will definitely be music to Biel Barceló's ears. And this positivity wasn't reflected in whether visitors knew about the tax or not. Over half said they did before going on holiday, eighteen per cent were still unaware of it when asked the question (they hadn't been charged it), while 27% found out on arrival.
There is even more support for the government when it comes to how the tax should be spent: 55% said the environment. And would the tax deter visitors from returning? Absolutely not, said 56%, while 27% thought it was unlikely. A mere 2% were adamant they wouldn't be coming back.
Yes, there's saturation. Yes, there should be limits (possibly). Yes, the tourist tax is great. Tourists have spoken. Within a margin of error.
Our friends at the Gadeso Foundation have been out and about surveying once more. They asked tourists - 500 of them (margin of error 4.5%; level of confidence 95.5%) - what they thought about saturation. They were asked if there were more tourists than before. Or at least the 32% who had been to the Balearics were asked. And of them, 74% said yes, there were many more than before. By my calculation, that is 118.4 tourists who say that there are more tourists than before, but let's not quibble as there is an acceptable margin of error.
Given that there were 340 tourists who either hadn't been to the Balearics previously or didn't know if they had (yes, two per cent, i.e. ten of them, didn't know), how can one judge the finding that 84% of them felt that there was saturation on the beaches of the islands? What were they judging against?
There were also 64% who felt that roads and car parks were saturated and 48% who thought bars and restaurants were. This latter finding was good news for those in Mallorca's hostelry business: the summer has been fantastic because 48% were implying that they couldn't find a table. Notwithstanding this discovery, there will be any number of bar/restaurant owners who will maintain that summer 2016 was nothing special: there'll probably be a survey to discover what the percentage was (within an acceptable margin of error of course).
Having found that 74% of those who had been before thought that there were many more tourists and that 19% believed that there were some more, 58% were in favour of a form of limit being placed on themselves. There are far too many of us, opined 32%. We must be limited. A lower percentage - 21% - wanted themselves to be limited but only in certain places. The other five per cent were in favour of being limited but believed it was impractical to have limits.
So, what do we conclude from all this? Certain politicians will feel vindicated; those who say that tourists feel the locals' pain and sense of saturation as well. Others will feel that they are on the right tracks when talking about the need for limits to tourism numbers. After all, 58% of tourists (within a margin of error of 4.5%) can't be wrong.
As a snapshot of opinion, which is as much as such a survey can ever be, the findings are quite revealing. Are they surprising? Not necessarily, as there has been evidence over a number of years that visitors find Mallorca too built-up. That doesn't equate to saturation but is an indication as to the potential.
But are the findings particularly reliable? Market researchers would say that they are, but what we aren't told is anything about where tourists were from, where they were staying, what type of accommodation they were in, whether they had a hire car; all that sort of thing. And as there were also 66% (at least) who hadn't been before, the findings are questionable. Answers by all the 100% are subjective in any event, but only 32% have a degree of objectivity based on previous experience.
There again, the replies are likely to be more objective than those of the locals. The great majority of tourists won't have been exposed to all the saturation talk, whereas the locals have been and are therefore likely to have their perceptions influenced by all the talk.
The survey also asked about the tourist tax. The findings here are less open to past experiences (or not) of Mallorca and so less questionable. Almost three-quarters (74%) believed that the tax is positive. A mere six per cent viewed it as negative. This will definitely be music to Biel Barceló's ears. And this positivity wasn't reflected in whether visitors knew about the tax or not. Over half said they did before going on holiday, eighteen per cent were still unaware of it when asked the question (they hadn't been charged it), while 27% found out on arrival.
There is even more support for the government when it comes to how the tax should be spent: 55% said the environment. And would the tax deter visitors from returning? Absolutely not, said 56%, while 27% thought it was unlikely. A mere 2% were adamant they wouldn't be coming back.
Yes, there's saturation. Yes, there should be limits (possibly). Yes, the tourist tax is great. Tourists have spoken. Within a margin of error.
Saturday, October 22, 2016
Reflecting On The Season
The season is drawing to a close. It is time to reflect. The great and good of the tourism industry (plus politicians - up to you if you describe them as great or good) gathered for some reflection earlier this week. Some of them will reconvene next week and reflect further. That conference will consider the benefits and risks from the increase in demand, an aspect of which is the "sensation" of saturation, the "feeling" of being overcrowded. It was the same earlier this week. The reflections concerned three words starting with an "s" - sustainability, security and saturation. They sum the summer up. These words are constantly uttered by Mallorca's politicians. When it has come to security, it has been more a case of others' lack of security. Elevated demand for Mallorca because of insecurity equals saturation equals questions of sustainability.
Among the more significant contributions were those related to numbers of tourists and to road users. On the latter, it was said that heavy traffic and jams in Palma - frequently held up as evidence of saturation - have less to do with tourists in hire cars than with the sheer number of island residents who enter the city. This conclusion has been given support by Council of Mallorca statistics for traffic growth: the numbers of vehicles on key stretches of road are back to what they were pre-crisis. Saturation on the roads is as much a consequence of economic well-being on the island, if not more so than tourists and the economic well-being they bring.
The other contribution of note had to do with tourist arrivals. José Antonio Alvarez, who is the director of Son Sant Joan airport, observed that while passenger traffic has risen by ten per cent, the distribution of this increase was weighted in favour of the non-peak summer months. Growth was less in August - only five per cent - while May almost saw the three million mark broken and October won't be that far short. Three million has typically been confined only to July and August, yet June and September surpassed it.
In a way, this showed that the government's wish for more of a spread of tourists has been satisfied this summer, though of course what the government really wishes is that this spread is more even across the whole of the year. It may be a long time in the wishing.
The killer contribution, however, was to do with welfare, the benefit derived by society as a whole from tourism activity, with population and the environment factored in. This welfare has reduced markedly this century. In other words there is greater inequality, with riches being derived at the expense of general societal welfare and also the well-being of the environment because of the strain placed on it by increased numbers.
This is a theme that tourism minister Biel Barceló has explored in the past by referring to the degree to which per capita income in the Balearics has dropped from being at the top of the Spanish list in the 1990s to seventh. There are different manifestations of this decline, and the Exceltur alliance for touristic excellence drew attention to one this week. The increased numbers of tourists who have been "borrowed" this summer do not translate in direct proportion (or anything like it) to increased financial returns. It's common sense and it's something that's been known for years.
While this summer's boom has given a further boost to economic growth (and clearly there is evidence of it, such as with the number of cars), there is great unevenness in terms of the beneficiaries of this growth. The high level of short-term contracts, often poorly paid, is proof of this. In a wider societal sense, the constantly depressing information about Balearic educational performance confirms this welfare imbalance. There are too many young people being seduced into abandoning education for short-term, insecure and not well-paid employment in the summer. One might ask why they do it, but then the young see no further than a summer's enjoyment. They put their futures in doubt and so they and society lose in the longer-term.
As the politicians have been gearing themselves up for negotiations over next year's budget, a theme has been the necessity for a change to the economic model. Podemos talk about this in strident terms, a consequence of their dislike of anything that is vaguely big business. Biel Barceló isn't so strident. Indeed, Barceló is a generally sane bloke, who sees the necessity for re-forming the current model (and its consequent loss of welfare) into one that enhances welfare. Here is where you achieve genuine sustainability in terms of employment and the benefits to be derived from tourism. It is perhaps the most important issue bar none of the debates about tourism. Saturation, quite frankly, is an interim irrelevance.
Among the more significant contributions were those related to numbers of tourists and to road users. On the latter, it was said that heavy traffic and jams in Palma - frequently held up as evidence of saturation - have less to do with tourists in hire cars than with the sheer number of island residents who enter the city. This conclusion has been given support by Council of Mallorca statistics for traffic growth: the numbers of vehicles on key stretches of road are back to what they were pre-crisis. Saturation on the roads is as much a consequence of economic well-being on the island, if not more so than tourists and the economic well-being they bring.
The other contribution of note had to do with tourist arrivals. José Antonio Alvarez, who is the director of Son Sant Joan airport, observed that while passenger traffic has risen by ten per cent, the distribution of this increase was weighted in favour of the non-peak summer months. Growth was less in August - only five per cent - while May almost saw the three million mark broken and October won't be that far short. Three million has typically been confined only to July and August, yet June and September surpassed it.
In a way, this showed that the government's wish for more of a spread of tourists has been satisfied this summer, though of course what the government really wishes is that this spread is more even across the whole of the year. It may be a long time in the wishing.
The killer contribution, however, was to do with welfare, the benefit derived by society as a whole from tourism activity, with population and the environment factored in. This welfare has reduced markedly this century. In other words there is greater inequality, with riches being derived at the expense of general societal welfare and also the well-being of the environment because of the strain placed on it by increased numbers.
This is a theme that tourism minister Biel Barceló has explored in the past by referring to the degree to which per capita income in the Balearics has dropped from being at the top of the Spanish list in the 1990s to seventh. There are different manifestations of this decline, and the Exceltur alliance for touristic excellence drew attention to one this week. The increased numbers of tourists who have been "borrowed" this summer do not translate in direct proportion (or anything like it) to increased financial returns. It's common sense and it's something that's been known for years.
While this summer's boom has given a further boost to economic growth (and clearly there is evidence of it, such as with the number of cars), there is great unevenness in terms of the beneficiaries of this growth. The high level of short-term contracts, often poorly paid, is proof of this. In a wider societal sense, the constantly depressing information about Balearic educational performance confirms this welfare imbalance. There are too many young people being seduced into abandoning education for short-term, insecure and not well-paid employment in the summer. One might ask why they do it, but then the young see no further than a summer's enjoyment. They put their futures in doubt and so they and society lose in the longer-term.
As the politicians have been gearing themselves up for negotiations over next year's budget, a theme has been the necessity for a change to the economic model. Podemos talk about this in strident terms, a consequence of their dislike of anything that is vaguely big business. Biel Barceló isn't so strident. Indeed, Barceló is a generally sane bloke, who sees the necessity for re-forming the current model (and its consequent loss of welfare) into one that enhances welfare. Here is where you achieve genuine sustainability in terms of employment and the benefits to be derived from tourism. It is perhaps the most important issue bar none of the debates about tourism. Saturation, quite frankly, is an interim irrelevance.
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
So Much Saturation, So Little Sense
There's been another survey about saturation. Can you stomach it? Are we not all sick of saturation stories saturating the media? Well, hold it back. Don't rush to the toilet just yet. There's plenty more saturation still to be wrung from the saturated rag of tourism tossed around by agenda-setting politicians and agitators.
It's Gadeso's turn this time. Its survey into saturation discovers, inter alia, that 80% of Balearic citizens have perceived increased saturation this summer, that 61% are in favour of limits on the number of tourists and that 78% are fully supportive of the ecotax. (I am, incidentally, ceasing to refer to it as the "tourist tax"; it is quite obviously a new ecotax, regardless of what certain members of the government have said in the past.)
Let's just take the 80%. It is possible that they do indeed all "perceive" increased saturation because they have genuinely experienced it. Possible, but also subject to influence. When there is so much talk of saturation and/or massification, then that talk is going to rub off. Repeat the message often enough and enough people will believe it and treat it as gospel.
But if we accept that there is increased saturation - and tourist arrival numbers would suggest that there is - why nevertheless is there such agitation, when majority opinion recognises its root cause? This is the insecurity elsewhere in the Med. Gadeso finds that 65% of those surveyed accept this.
It could of course be that this insecurity persists, thus maintaining elevated levels of demand for Balearic tourism. A political response - and an agitator response - is therefore to seek some form of limit. But what happens if and when the insecurity evaporates? Are limits (whatever these might turn out to be, if any) to then be discarded? In all probability, no. The political agenda since the turn of the century has been dominated by a philosophy of control, even of reduction. This started, as noted yesterday, with the old ecotax and with the aims of the former tourism minister Celestí Alomar.
So, it's all a left-wing conspiracy to cut tourism numbers? Correct? No, not entirely. The "quality tourism" agenda has been one of the right as well. By its very nature it implies reduction. A current quantity of some 13 million tourists per annum to the Balearics couldn't be maintained if strict "quality" requirements were to be insisted upon. This agenda was one advocated by the defunct Unió Mallorquina and has even been voiced by the Partido Popular. Carlos Delgado, when he became tourism minister, alluded to potential reduction in the pursuit of quality and so greater returns per head of tourist population.
Regardless of left or right, why does the notion of limits inspire opposition among some? While it is hard to know definitively what "a limit" should be, intuitively one suspects that there should be one. There is only so much strain that small islands can be subjected to. This doesn't have to be a political discussion; merely a common sense one.
The problem is that the debate, such as it is, has already wandered off into radical territory. The Luddite tendency wants more than limits. It is so anti-tourist that it seems to want an end to tourism full stop. It couches its arguments in terms of the "mass" without ever adequately elucidating what "non-mass " might equate to (if anything) or indeed what, economically, would take up the slack.
The government's folly is in having allowed the more extreme views against tourism to have taken hold. With Podemos in the camp, this has not been surprising, but Més have not helped. In so doing, sensible, clear, objective debate is impossible.
A means of seeking limits is through a form of price engineering. For this, read the ecotax. Celestí Alomar seemed to believe that the old tax would achieve this and bring with it the much-desired "quality tourism". Yet, we now have a government, and a tourism minister, which doesn't necessarily equate the new ecotax with limits. Biel Barceló has maintained that the tax will not affect tourism. By implication, that means it will not lead to a reduction and nor would it necessarily prevent an increase in tourist numbers.
But the tax is bound up in this whole debate, leading one to query the coherence of government thinking. It only needs to look at the experience of Catalonia to know that a tourist tax doesn't stop growth in numbers. They have been going up there since the tax came in four years ago, and they were going up before parts of the Med became virtual tourist no-go areas. So, price engineering via a tax, unless it were really onerous, doesn't necessarily work.
A serious, level-headed debate needs to be had. Will an increasingly febrile atmosphere permit it? Doubtful.
It's Gadeso's turn this time. Its survey into saturation discovers, inter alia, that 80% of Balearic citizens have perceived increased saturation this summer, that 61% are in favour of limits on the number of tourists and that 78% are fully supportive of the ecotax. (I am, incidentally, ceasing to refer to it as the "tourist tax"; it is quite obviously a new ecotax, regardless of what certain members of the government have said in the past.)
Let's just take the 80%. It is possible that they do indeed all "perceive" increased saturation because they have genuinely experienced it. Possible, but also subject to influence. When there is so much talk of saturation and/or massification, then that talk is going to rub off. Repeat the message often enough and enough people will believe it and treat it as gospel.
But if we accept that there is increased saturation - and tourist arrival numbers would suggest that there is - why nevertheless is there such agitation, when majority opinion recognises its root cause? This is the insecurity elsewhere in the Med. Gadeso finds that 65% of those surveyed accept this.
It could of course be that this insecurity persists, thus maintaining elevated levels of demand for Balearic tourism. A political response - and an agitator response - is therefore to seek some form of limit. But what happens if and when the insecurity evaporates? Are limits (whatever these might turn out to be, if any) to then be discarded? In all probability, no. The political agenda since the turn of the century has been dominated by a philosophy of control, even of reduction. This started, as noted yesterday, with the old ecotax and with the aims of the former tourism minister Celestí Alomar.
So, it's all a left-wing conspiracy to cut tourism numbers? Correct? No, not entirely. The "quality tourism" agenda has been one of the right as well. By its very nature it implies reduction. A current quantity of some 13 million tourists per annum to the Balearics couldn't be maintained if strict "quality" requirements were to be insisted upon. This agenda was one advocated by the defunct Unió Mallorquina and has even been voiced by the Partido Popular. Carlos Delgado, when he became tourism minister, alluded to potential reduction in the pursuit of quality and so greater returns per head of tourist population.
Regardless of left or right, why does the notion of limits inspire opposition among some? While it is hard to know definitively what "a limit" should be, intuitively one suspects that there should be one. There is only so much strain that small islands can be subjected to. This doesn't have to be a political discussion; merely a common sense one.
The problem is that the debate, such as it is, has already wandered off into radical territory. The Luddite tendency wants more than limits. It is so anti-tourist that it seems to want an end to tourism full stop. It couches its arguments in terms of the "mass" without ever adequately elucidating what "non-mass " might equate to (if anything) or indeed what, economically, would take up the slack.
The government's folly is in having allowed the more extreme views against tourism to have taken hold. With Podemos in the camp, this has not been surprising, but Més have not helped. In so doing, sensible, clear, objective debate is impossible.
A means of seeking limits is through a form of price engineering. For this, read the ecotax. Celestí Alomar seemed to believe that the old tax would achieve this and bring with it the much-desired "quality tourism". Yet, we now have a government, and a tourism minister, which doesn't necessarily equate the new ecotax with limits. Biel Barceló has maintained that the tax will not affect tourism. By implication, that means it will not lead to a reduction and nor would it necessarily prevent an increase in tourist numbers.
But the tax is bound up in this whole debate, leading one to query the coherence of government thinking. It only needs to look at the experience of Catalonia to know that a tourist tax doesn't stop growth in numbers. They have been going up there since the tax came in four years ago, and they were going up before parts of the Med became virtual tourist no-go areas. So, price engineering via a tax, unless it were really onerous, doesn't necessarily work.
A serious, level-headed debate needs to be had. Will an increasingly febrile atmosphere permit it? Doubtful.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
No Future Without Limits?
The other day, a group of people gathered near the Cathedral. They stood on steps and unfurled a banner. With a hashtag, it said in translation "without limits there is no future". The "limits" was in red, suggesting a red stop sign, the "future" was in green - the way forward, so long as the red is applied.
What were they wanting limits to? It should be obvious. It's been a theme for several weeks. Tourist numbers. "Massification" of tourism and uncontrolled urbanising put basic resources at risk - water, the countryside, the ecosystems.
Who are these people? By Sunday morning, the blog - www.senselimitsnohihafutur.com - had 600 supporters. Teachers, farmers, activists, professors, psychologists, gardeners, doctors, nurses, engineers, salespeople, architects, unionists, lawyers, social workers, painters, dry-stone workers. On and on. Among the 600 some names stood out. Margalida Ramis, spokesperson for the environmentalists GOB; Jaume Adrover, farmer and spokesperson for another environmentalist group, Terraferida; Laura Camargo, university professor and parliamentary deputy for Podemos; Caterina Amengual, environmentalist (but also the government's director for biodiversity); Ivan Murray, geographer and now no longer undertaking a government-sponsored study related to tourism sustainability; Celestí Alomar, former minister of tourism.
Of these, Alomar is perhaps the most interesting. He was the tourism minister who introduced the original ecotax. Writing in July last year, so at a time when the newly elected regional government was just beginning to talk about a revived ecotax, he considered the circumstances that had led the first PSOE-headed government of Francesc Antich to contemplate and to implement the ecotax.
He said that at that time there was fierce international competition for sun-and-beach tourism. It was competition predicated (and not just in Mallorca) on the medium to low end of the market. As a consequence, it was hard to penetrate a more demanding tourism market. Further consequences were seasonality, a loss of identity and a dependence on large international tour operators. It was evident, he argued, that at the start of the new millennium there had to be a strengthening of the Mallorcan tourist product against a coming price war.
The government, therefore, looked to redefine the model of "mass" tourism. More value added to traditional sun-and-beach; diversification of tourist products; an emphasis on sustainability rather than the short-term; action against the consumption of resources; environmental conservation; a smoothing of the flow of tourists.
Above all, and here is maybe the most revealing of all his observations, was that social support was needed in order to reverse a trend by which tourism was being ever more rejected by the resident population. This trend had been brought about by "massification" and the burden being placed on the environment.
In 2001, Alomar famously, or infamously, said that in a few years the "Ballermann" (Arenal) would no longer exist. Package holidaymakers should only make up 20% of all tourists. Instead, there should be independent travellers, golfers, culture-seekers, nature lovers. It was these comments that enraged many Germans. They were no longer wanted by Mallorca.
The ecotax was finally introduced in time for the start of the 2002 season. History is easily rewritten. The ecotax failed because the Partido Popular came to power the following spring and scrapped it (it actually ceased to be at the end of the 2003 season). The tax may have been detested in some quarters, but the slump in tourism in 2002 was principally because of a marked fall in German tourism: the market enraged by Alomar's comments. By 2003, that German tourism had all but recovered.
No one can say what might have happened had the old ecotax remained in place. The revival that occurred in 2003 could well have been an indication. Or it may not have been. But inherent to its introduction, and one can detect this from Alomar's observations, was a reduction in tourist numbers. It's debatable if there would have been one as a consequence of the ecotax, even if he believed that it was a means of disengaging from a price war.
His thoughts about the original ecotax from some seventeen years ago show that little is new. Much of what was thought then is being said now. The current and additional dynamics are well-known, and one of them is the nature of the political narrative. It is unsurprising to see several Podemos names in addition to Laura Camargo on the list. The narrative gives succour to "movements". And some names on the list will be taking part in the two days of activism in Palma later this week.
Alomar had, in 1999, hoped to reverse a trend towards the rejection of tourism. He has now put his name to one of the movements fostered by the current narrative. On Saturday, the activists will hold an "anti-tourist" route starting from Es Baluard. People are invited to go along "dressed as a foreigner".
What were they wanting limits to? It should be obvious. It's been a theme for several weeks. Tourist numbers. "Massification" of tourism and uncontrolled urbanising put basic resources at risk - water, the countryside, the ecosystems.
Who are these people? By Sunday morning, the blog - www.senselimitsnohihafutur.com - had 600 supporters. Teachers, farmers, activists, professors, psychologists, gardeners, doctors, nurses, engineers, salespeople, architects, unionists, lawyers, social workers, painters, dry-stone workers. On and on. Among the 600 some names stood out. Margalida Ramis, spokesperson for the environmentalists GOB; Jaume Adrover, farmer and spokesperson for another environmentalist group, Terraferida; Laura Camargo, university professor and parliamentary deputy for Podemos; Caterina Amengual, environmentalist (but also the government's director for biodiversity); Ivan Murray, geographer and now no longer undertaking a government-sponsored study related to tourism sustainability; Celestí Alomar, former minister of tourism.
Of these, Alomar is perhaps the most interesting. He was the tourism minister who introduced the original ecotax. Writing in July last year, so at a time when the newly elected regional government was just beginning to talk about a revived ecotax, he considered the circumstances that had led the first PSOE-headed government of Francesc Antich to contemplate and to implement the ecotax.
He said that at that time there was fierce international competition for sun-and-beach tourism. It was competition predicated (and not just in Mallorca) on the medium to low end of the market. As a consequence, it was hard to penetrate a more demanding tourism market. Further consequences were seasonality, a loss of identity and a dependence on large international tour operators. It was evident, he argued, that at the start of the new millennium there had to be a strengthening of the Mallorcan tourist product against a coming price war.
The government, therefore, looked to redefine the model of "mass" tourism. More value added to traditional sun-and-beach; diversification of tourist products; an emphasis on sustainability rather than the short-term; action against the consumption of resources; environmental conservation; a smoothing of the flow of tourists.
Above all, and here is maybe the most revealing of all his observations, was that social support was needed in order to reverse a trend by which tourism was being ever more rejected by the resident population. This trend had been brought about by "massification" and the burden being placed on the environment.
In 2001, Alomar famously, or infamously, said that in a few years the "Ballermann" (Arenal) would no longer exist. Package holidaymakers should only make up 20% of all tourists. Instead, there should be independent travellers, golfers, culture-seekers, nature lovers. It was these comments that enraged many Germans. They were no longer wanted by Mallorca.
The ecotax was finally introduced in time for the start of the 2002 season. History is easily rewritten. The ecotax failed because the Partido Popular came to power the following spring and scrapped it (it actually ceased to be at the end of the 2003 season). The tax may have been detested in some quarters, but the slump in tourism in 2002 was principally because of a marked fall in German tourism: the market enraged by Alomar's comments. By 2003, that German tourism had all but recovered.
No one can say what might have happened had the old ecotax remained in place. The revival that occurred in 2003 could well have been an indication. Or it may not have been. But inherent to its introduction, and one can detect this from Alomar's observations, was a reduction in tourist numbers. It's debatable if there would have been one as a consequence of the ecotax, even if he believed that it was a means of disengaging from a price war.
His thoughts about the original ecotax from some seventeen years ago show that little is new. Much of what was thought then is being said now. The current and additional dynamics are well-known, and one of them is the nature of the political narrative. It is unsurprising to see several Podemos names in addition to Laura Camargo on the list. The narrative gives succour to "movements". And some names on the list will be taking part in the two days of activism in Palma later this week.
Alomar had, in 1999, hoped to reverse a trend towards the rejection of tourism. He has now put his name to one of the movements fostered by the current narrative. On Saturday, the activists will hold an "anti-tourist" route starting from Es Baluard. People are invited to go along "dressed as a foreigner".
Saturday, September 10, 2016
How Do You Set A Ceiling On Tourist Places?
The battle for Balearic holiday rentals has been well and truly engaged, tourism minister Biel Barceló of Més surrounded by all sides. The hoteliers we have known about for years. Right out in the open now have emerged Podemos and Aptur, the holiday rentals' association. Nothing that either of these have said is fundamentally new, but both are stepping up the pressure on Barceló.
To take Podemos, the parties of government, of which it is one, met this week to consider their "agreements" for government. Tourism was top of the agenda. At least there were some conciliatory noises from Podemos. Having accused the actual government (PSOE and Més) and so therefore Barceló in particular of policy "improvisation" (a euphemism for saying that the government has failed to get on top of tourist "saturation"), there was an acceptance that holiday rentals' legislation is not straightforward. Hallelujah, the penny had dropped. Podemos, seemingly always in a hurry to legislate, would have pressurised Barceló into total improvisation, had holiday rentals' draft legislation been rushed in by the end of August (which had been the original intention).
Fundamental to whatever legislation is enacted is the principle of a ceiling on tourist places. Podemos wants a lowering of numbers; Més, Barceló and PSOE don't see that as plausible. But through legislation they believe they can create a limit to the total number of tourist places. It's going to be fascinating to see how they intend to set this and what the limit might be. Determining it is pretty much anyone's guess.
There are, however, individuals who can assist in removing the guesswork, which is why the government has commissioned two studies. One of these, for indicators of the sustainability of tourism in the Balearics, has lost its chief expert. Dr. Ivan Murray of the University of the Balearic Islands, says that other commitments will not allow him the time to undertake the study. Perhaps so, or maybe he prefers not to be caught in any political crossfire. Whatever the reasons, the government can ill afford to lose good thinkers. There needs to be objectivity rather than political dogma.
Where Aptur is concerned, it has been banging the drum for liberalisation for ages and regularly producing its own studies to back this up. It came out this week with what appeared to be a startling statistic: that the "illegal" supply of holiday accommodation in the Balearics represents over 11% of GDP. It is possible to calculate GDP in different ways and, in the case of tourism, to assign to it a GDP impact that is highly indirect as well as direct, but this was an astonishing claim nonetheless. What was the basis for it? National statistics, funnily enough.
There is confusion regarding the number of properties and of places that represent holiday rentals - legal and illegal - in the Balearics. Aptur did attempt to clear this up. There are almost 46,000 properties, of which under a third are regulated (i.e. registered as legal holiday accommodation). The illegal remainder - 31,500 - provide 126,000 places. The conclusion one draws, therefore, is that there are around 180,000 places - legal and illegal - in the private accommodation sector.
Notwithstanding any more property and places to be added courtesy of Airbnb and others, might this 180,000 be taken as the "ceiling", assuming that they were all legalisable (a big assumption)? It is here that being certain of the statistics becomes tricky. For example, what is the total number of hotel places?
According to the regional government's figures for August 2015, when occupancy is at is highest and so "saturation" is at its greatest, there were 344,445 places in the Balearics: 250,000 of them were in Majorca. On 10 August last year, the total population of the Balearics topped the two million mark for the first time, a figure that will have been repeated this year. However, the regular Balearic population is 1.1 million. Add some 530,000 from Aptur and hotel numbers, and how does one account for the remaining approximately 400,000? They can't all be itinerant workers. One can add numbers for "extra-hotel" accommodation, such as camping in Ibiza, and also numbers for relatives and friends, but the discrepancy still requires some explaining. Therefore, before any ceiling is set, there has to be rigorous certainty that the numbers are accurate and beyond question. At present, there isn't this certainty, and perversely the tourist tax may add to it. Does the system of hotelier self-assessment for making tax returns not carry with it an inherent tendency to under-estimate the number of places? Podemos, for one, thinks that it does.
Aptur's economic argument is on the face of it compelling. The association may also be correct in arguing that private accommodation supply is not the cause of "saturation", and the uncertainty of the statistics as outlined above might reinforce this. However, it is being extremely naive (and simplistic) in brushing off any potential for saturation by saying there need to be improvements to road infrastructure, public transport and water supplies.
The battle for holiday rentals' legislation is fully engaged. Like the battle for the tourist tax and the arguments over "purposes" (remember the old folks' homes?) and distribution of revenue by island, respectively raised by Més and Podemos, it is one that will have many a skirmish along the way.
To take Podemos, the parties of government, of which it is one, met this week to consider their "agreements" for government. Tourism was top of the agenda. At least there were some conciliatory noises from Podemos. Having accused the actual government (PSOE and Més) and so therefore Barceló in particular of policy "improvisation" (a euphemism for saying that the government has failed to get on top of tourist "saturation"), there was an acceptance that holiday rentals' legislation is not straightforward. Hallelujah, the penny had dropped. Podemos, seemingly always in a hurry to legislate, would have pressurised Barceló into total improvisation, had holiday rentals' draft legislation been rushed in by the end of August (which had been the original intention).
Fundamental to whatever legislation is enacted is the principle of a ceiling on tourist places. Podemos wants a lowering of numbers; Més, Barceló and PSOE don't see that as plausible. But through legislation they believe they can create a limit to the total number of tourist places. It's going to be fascinating to see how they intend to set this and what the limit might be. Determining it is pretty much anyone's guess.
There are, however, individuals who can assist in removing the guesswork, which is why the government has commissioned two studies. One of these, for indicators of the sustainability of tourism in the Balearics, has lost its chief expert. Dr. Ivan Murray of the University of the Balearic Islands, says that other commitments will not allow him the time to undertake the study. Perhaps so, or maybe he prefers not to be caught in any political crossfire. Whatever the reasons, the government can ill afford to lose good thinkers. There needs to be objectivity rather than political dogma.
Where Aptur is concerned, it has been banging the drum for liberalisation for ages and regularly producing its own studies to back this up. It came out this week with what appeared to be a startling statistic: that the "illegal" supply of holiday accommodation in the Balearics represents over 11% of GDP. It is possible to calculate GDP in different ways and, in the case of tourism, to assign to it a GDP impact that is highly indirect as well as direct, but this was an astonishing claim nonetheless. What was the basis for it? National statistics, funnily enough.
There is confusion regarding the number of properties and of places that represent holiday rentals - legal and illegal - in the Balearics. Aptur did attempt to clear this up. There are almost 46,000 properties, of which under a third are regulated (i.e. registered as legal holiday accommodation). The illegal remainder - 31,500 - provide 126,000 places. The conclusion one draws, therefore, is that there are around 180,000 places - legal and illegal - in the private accommodation sector.
Notwithstanding any more property and places to be added courtesy of Airbnb and others, might this 180,000 be taken as the "ceiling", assuming that they were all legalisable (a big assumption)? It is here that being certain of the statistics becomes tricky. For example, what is the total number of hotel places?
According to the regional government's figures for August 2015, when occupancy is at is highest and so "saturation" is at its greatest, there were 344,445 places in the Balearics: 250,000 of them were in Majorca. On 10 August last year, the total population of the Balearics topped the two million mark for the first time, a figure that will have been repeated this year. However, the regular Balearic population is 1.1 million. Add some 530,000 from Aptur and hotel numbers, and how does one account for the remaining approximately 400,000? They can't all be itinerant workers. One can add numbers for "extra-hotel" accommodation, such as camping in Ibiza, and also numbers for relatives and friends, but the discrepancy still requires some explaining. Therefore, before any ceiling is set, there has to be rigorous certainty that the numbers are accurate and beyond question. At present, there isn't this certainty, and perversely the tourist tax may add to it. Does the system of hotelier self-assessment for making tax returns not carry with it an inherent tendency to under-estimate the number of places? Podemos, for one, thinks that it does.
Aptur's economic argument is on the face of it compelling. The association may also be correct in arguing that private accommodation supply is not the cause of "saturation", and the uncertainty of the statistics as outlined above might reinforce this. However, it is being extremely naive (and simplistic) in brushing off any potential for saturation by saying there need to be improvements to road infrastructure, public transport and water supplies.
The battle for holiday rentals' legislation is fully engaged. Like the battle for the tourist tax and the arguments over "purposes" (remember the old folks' homes?) and distribution of revenue by island, respectively raised by Més and Podemos, it is one that will have many a skirmish along the way.
Thursday, September 01, 2016
Podemos And The Battle Of Tourism
Terraferida is an association that only now is starting to make its name known. It was Terraferida who first drew attention to the spill of faecal water in Albufera a couple of weeks ago. Its name has been attached to images on social media of the "invasion" of Cabrera beach by superyacht users. Its blog would appear to have started in April last year. Since then it has posted almost sixty items - articles about land, roads, biodiversity, tourism and - the largest category - "denuncia". As part of this latter category, in June it complained about the "occupation" of Es Caló in Betlem and the activities of a tourist boat taking visitors to the coves of the Llevant Nature Park.
It's all worthy stuff. All well-informed and researched. As is its publication for Mallorca, Summer 2016. Entitled "Tot Inclòs", the strap line reads "damage and consequences of tourism in our islands". There are features about land, about "political protection" for "grand capitalists" in the Balearics, about holiday rentals, about resources, about impacts ("climate suicide", for instance). You can probably get an idea, therefore, where it is coming from. If you still need more explanation, then you can find, inter alia, a graphic with election posters. Under "vota" are the faces of Gabriel Escarrer senior (Meliá), Carmen Riu (Riu Hotels & Resorts), Miquel Fluxa (Iberostar) together with the amounts they are said to be worth - each a dollar billionaire.
In a broad sense, therefore, Terraferida is an environmentalist group. For an island considered to be "saturated" by tourists, there seems an equivalent risk of Mallorca being overwhelmed by the number of groups and associations lining up to confront tourism and the consequences of tourism. There are familiar targets for Terraferida in "Tot Inclòs" - all that occupancy of beaches of whatever sort, roads jammed with cars, land colonised for polo fields. On and on it goes.
Terraferida has had another boost to its growing reputation. "Tot Inclòs" formed the basis of an assault by Podemos on the regional government's tourism policies earlier this week. Laura Camargo and Carlos Saura, respectively the parliamentary spokesperson for Podemos and a parliamentary deputy, railed against tourism minister Biel Barceló and others. "The government is on a party boat looking at a wonderful reality that doesn't correspond with the truth." Tourism success, Saura remarked, only generates more social poverty from the majority and greater wealth for a few - the grand hoteliers - at a cost to the environment and to land.
Podemos, one feels, are working themselves up for the mother of all confrontations with their so-called partners in the "government for change" following the summer break. One battleground will be the legislation for holiday rentals, an issue that greatly confuses the left. It is a democratic right for someone, for a family to earn extra income from a property. Thus spake Toni Reus of Més some time ago. The implication of his words was that there should be a sort of free-for-all. His domain - Santa Margalida so therefore Can Picafort - would indeed be saturated.
Since he said this, his party has moved into government. The realities are rather different. Podemos are correct in this regard. Camargo, however, somewhat echoes what Reus had to say. There is a difference between renting out to make ends meet and a form of property speculation with the sole aim of making vast profits from rentals. Camargo wants a review of the tourist tax, arguing that the "objective estimation" for self-assessment of what is to be paid means that hotels do not reveal exact numbers of places. And these places - tourist places of all kinds - need to be subject to limits.
The Podemos rhetoric, not confined to tourism matters, marks the opening exchanges in the confrontation to come, one being heightened by the struggles that each of the three partners in the pact have politically. Podemos see themselves, with some justification, as the main power in the pact, and there is a great deal of mileage to be had from the tourism debate. They accuse Barceló and the government of improvisation and complacency when faced by the "gravity" that is tourist saturation. They take issue with President Armengol, Pilar Costa and Cosme Bonet (all PSOE) for seeking to downplay the "saturation" argument and the call for limits. PSOE are fearful of such talk and rhetoric, yet Podemos are cranking it up, fearful of nothing it would seem.
But what do they want from tourism? It wouldn't be surprising to learn that Terraferida and Podemos are more or less one and the same. The Terraferida agenda finds absolutely nothing good about tourism - this, at any rate, is the impression given - and it is an impression which Podemos convey. Their tourism "guru" once spoke about sun-and-beach tourism being obsolete. What do they want from tourism? What do they actually know about tourism?
It's all worthy stuff. All well-informed and researched. As is its publication for Mallorca, Summer 2016. Entitled "Tot Inclòs", the strap line reads "damage and consequences of tourism in our islands". There are features about land, about "political protection" for "grand capitalists" in the Balearics, about holiday rentals, about resources, about impacts ("climate suicide", for instance). You can probably get an idea, therefore, where it is coming from. If you still need more explanation, then you can find, inter alia, a graphic with election posters. Under "vota" are the faces of Gabriel Escarrer senior (Meliá), Carmen Riu (Riu Hotels & Resorts), Miquel Fluxa (Iberostar) together with the amounts they are said to be worth - each a dollar billionaire.
In a broad sense, therefore, Terraferida is an environmentalist group. For an island considered to be "saturated" by tourists, there seems an equivalent risk of Mallorca being overwhelmed by the number of groups and associations lining up to confront tourism and the consequences of tourism. There are familiar targets for Terraferida in "Tot Inclòs" - all that occupancy of beaches of whatever sort, roads jammed with cars, land colonised for polo fields. On and on it goes.
Terraferida has had another boost to its growing reputation. "Tot Inclòs" formed the basis of an assault by Podemos on the regional government's tourism policies earlier this week. Laura Camargo and Carlos Saura, respectively the parliamentary spokesperson for Podemos and a parliamentary deputy, railed against tourism minister Biel Barceló and others. "The government is on a party boat looking at a wonderful reality that doesn't correspond with the truth." Tourism success, Saura remarked, only generates more social poverty from the majority and greater wealth for a few - the grand hoteliers - at a cost to the environment and to land.
Podemos, one feels, are working themselves up for the mother of all confrontations with their so-called partners in the "government for change" following the summer break. One battleground will be the legislation for holiday rentals, an issue that greatly confuses the left. It is a democratic right for someone, for a family to earn extra income from a property. Thus spake Toni Reus of Més some time ago. The implication of his words was that there should be a sort of free-for-all. His domain - Santa Margalida so therefore Can Picafort - would indeed be saturated.
Since he said this, his party has moved into government. The realities are rather different. Podemos are correct in this regard. Camargo, however, somewhat echoes what Reus had to say. There is a difference between renting out to make ends meet and a form of property speculation with the sole aim of making vast profits from rentals. Camargo wants a review of the tourist tax, arguing that the "objective estimation" for self-assessment of what is to be paid means that hotels do not reveal exact numbers of places. And these places - tourist places of all kinds - need to be subject to limits.
The Podemos rhetoric, not confined to tourism matters, marks the opening exchanges in the confrontation to come, one being heightened by the struggles that each of the three partners in the pact have politically. Podemos see themselves, with some justification, as the main power in the pact, and there is a great deal of mileage to be had from the tourism debate. They accuse Barceló and the government of improvisation and complacency when faced by the "gravity" that is tourist saturation. They take issue with President Armengol, Pilar Costa and Cosme Bonet (all PSOE) for seeking to downplay the "saturation" argument and the call for limits. PSOE are fearful of such talk and rhetoric, yet Podemos are cranking it up, fearful of nothing it would seem.
But what do they want from tourism? It wouldn't be surprising to learn that Terraferida and Podemos are more or less one and the same. The Terraferida agenda finds absolutely nothing good about tourism - this, at any rate, is the impression given - and it is an impression which Podemos convey. Their tourism "guru" once spoke about sun-and-beach tourism being obsolete. What do they want from tourism? What do they actually know about tourism?
Saturday, August 27, 2016
Confused By Sustainability
The survey published earlier this week into attitudes towards the so-called tourist "saturation" of Mallorca this summer was very revealing. For one thing, it did rather confirm my suspicions that saturation is more applicable to Palma than elsewhere and that the saturation sensation has been latched on to by Palma-based politicians (and others in Palma) and been turned into an island-wide issue for primarily political purposes.
The overriding conclusion was that increased numbers, though they may cause inconveniences or concerns - more traffic jams, strain on water supplies - bring benefits that outweigh these disadvantages. And even among these downsides, are traffic jams not more of a Palma rather than elsewhere? Not exclusively, e.g. if it's a cloudy day and you have people heading for Soller, but primarily yes.
It was also revealing, as noted by the survey's director, that a sensation of saturation is felt more by those aged over 60. The younger the population, the less the sensation. Revealing but not surprising: there are economic and employment benefits to be reaped from there being more tourists.
There was little doubting that there are more tourists, but the survey certainly didn't link this with a feeling of being overwhelmed, which is one way to describe this saturation. For the regional government and for the tourism minister in particular, the fact that a limit on tourist numbers was ranked the third most important measure for making tourism "more sustainable" might come as something of a relief, given the type of rhetoric that has been coming from the government. But this was still only 10%. More policing was considered to be more important, as was the raising of the "quality" of the tourist, however this might be interpreted (and indeed how those surveyed might in fact have interpreted "more sustainable").
Digging into the issue of limits, the survey found that most people (66%) wanted a limit placed on numbers going to Palma. Well, if a survey base has a majority from Palma, which this one did, then you might expect such an answer. Palma, always Palma. Somewhat strangely, 64% wanted a limit placed on the number of all-inclusive places. Why was this strange? Well, because a limit would allow more tourists to be out and about spending money. That's fair enough, but if there are fewer tourists stuck inside all-inclusives, would the level of "saturation" on the roads and elsewhere not be greater?
It was even stranger when only 2% identified measures to deal with all-inclusives as being important for greater sustainability. Not only did this seem to contradict the other finding, it also ignored the fact that all-inclusives fail totally one of the key tests of sustainability - that of generating general economic welfare.
Also at the bottom of the list of importance for sustainability were holiday rentals. Yet aren't these supposedly the key contributing factor in all the increased tourist numbers? Biel Barceló wants there to be a limit on the total number of tourist places. For there to be a limit, there has to be regulation of holiday rentals (and one really is referring to apartments) - a mixture of permission and prohibition in terms of opening marketing as tourist accommodation.
Barceló, when in opposition, was one who criticised the Partido Popular for its restrictive stance over holiday rentals. In government he is finding out just how difficult an issue this is. He admitted earlier this week that it is "not clear" that websites such as Airbnb, which operate with pretty much total impunity, can be considered as promoting tourist rentals. And underpinning this is the loophole that is the national law on urban leasings (aka the tenancy act). It needs amending, and Barceló said so. Until it is, there will always be evasion and, in terms of Balearic government coffers, no tourist tax revenue. By definition, any accommodation rented out under the tenancy act is not touristic, despite everyone knowing that a great deal of it is just that.
Airbnb and other sites, unless they are somehow made to comply with whatever legislation Barceló comes up with, will continue to facilitate the promotion of apartments that are not registered as tourist accommodation. This is exactly what has happened in Catalonia, despite that region having enabled the legal marketing of tourist apartments. To this end, Barcelona is envisaging fines of up to 600,000 euros for websites like Airbnb. The hoteliers federation in Ibiza this week applauded this stance, while at the same time attacking the Balearic government for what it senses will be regulation "without the consent of neighbours; an activity that seriously prejudices co-existence".
The overriding conclusion was that increased numbers, though they may cause inconveniences or concerns - more traffic jams, strain on water supplies - bring benefits that outweigh these disadvantages. And even among these downsides, are traffic jams not more of a Palma rather than elsewhere? Not exclusively, e.g. if it's a cloudy day and you have people heading for Soller, but primarily yes.
It was also revealing, as noted by the survey's director, that a sensation of saturation is felt more by those aged over 60. The younger the population, the less the sensation. Revealing but not surprising: there are economic and employment benefits to be reaped from there being more tourists.
There was little doubting that there are more tourists, but the survey certainly didn't link this with a feeling of being overwhelmed, which is one way to describe this saturation. For the regional government and for the tourism minister in particular, the fact that a limit on tourist numbers was ranked the third most important measure for making tourism "more sustainable" might come as something of a relief, given the type of rhetoric that has been coming from the government. But this was still only 10%. More policing was considered to be more important, as was the raising of the "quality" of the tourist, however this might be interpreted (and indeed how those surveyed might in fact have interpreted "more sustainable").
Digging into the issue of limits, the survey found that most people (66%) wanted a limit placed on numbers going to Palma. Well, if a survey base has a majority from Palma, which this one did, then you might expect such an answer. Palma, always Palma. Somewhat strangely, 64% wanted a limit placed on the number of all-inclusive places. Why was this strange? Well, because a limit would allow more tourists to be out and about spending money. That's fair enough, but if there are fewer tourists stuck inside all-inclusives, would the level of "saturation" on the roads and elsewhere not be greater?
It was even stranger when only 2% identified measures to deal with all-inclusives as being important for greater sustainability. Not only did this seem to contradict the other finding, it also ignored the fact that all-inclusives fail totally one of the key tests of sustainability - that of generating general economic welfare.
Also at the bottom of the list of importance for sustainability were holiday rentals. Yet aren't these supposedly the key contributing factor in all the increased tourist numbers? Biel Barceló wants there to be a limit on the total number of tourist places. For there to be a limit, there has to be regulation of holiday rentals (and one really is referring to apartments) - a mixture of permission and prohibition in terms of opening marketing as tourist accommodation.
Barceló, when in opposition, was one who criticised the Partido Popular for its restrictive stance over holiday rentals. In government he is finding out just how difficult an issue this is. He admitted earlier this week that it is "not clear" that websites such as Airbnb, which operate with pretty much total impunity, can be considered as promoting tourist rentals. And underpinning this is the loophole that is the national law on urban leasings (aka the tenancy act). It needs amending, and Barceló said so. Until it is, there will always be evasion and, in terms of Balearic government coffers, no tourist tax revenue. By definition, any accommodation rented out under the tenancy act is not touristic, despite everyone knowing that a great deal of it is just that.
Airbnb and other sites, unless they are somehow made to comply with whatever legislation Barceló comes up with, will continue to facilitate the promotion of apartments that are not registered as tourist accommodation. This is exactly what has happened in Catalonia, despite that region having enabled the legal marketing of tourist apartments. To this end, Barcelona is envisaging fines of up to 600,000 euros for websites like Airbnb. The hoteliers federation in Ibiza this week applauded this stance, while at the same time attacking the Balearic government for what it senses will be regulation "without the consent of neighbours; an activity that seriously prejudices co-existence".
Saturday, August 20, 2016
The Palmarati And Tourism Sustainability
Are we being sold a fast one, do you suppose? Saturation, massification, overcrowding. Increasingly I wonder if it isn't all propaganda with a yet to be revealed agenda, but one that may well come with "limits" attached. Moreover, is this propaganda all the work of what one might call the "Palmarati"?
I don't doubt that there are more tourists than ever, but does that automatically mean saturation? I had largely accepted the argument until recently. Let me explain.
My manor, for want of a better term, is right bang in one of the principal tourist resorts in Mallorca. The density of tourist population in Alcudia is extremely high. On hotel places alone, the maximum number of tourists at a given time is 1.5 times the regular population of the entire, sprawling municipality. This is something I sense and see every single day in summer. Unlike commentators, especially politicians, who are divorced from the realities of resort life, I live it. Tourism mass doesn't come any more massive than Bellevue.
Perceptions, I accept, are not scientific, but there was a sudden realisation this week that driving in Alcudia is not the nightmare it once was in August. And I'm talking perhaps ten years ago. This may reflect the level of all-inclusive in the resort, but traffic most certainly isn't determined by in-resort circumstances alone. Moreover, there is all the additional residential tourism that has sprung up. None of that is all-inclusive and much of it requires a car.
Along the bay from Alcudia is the beach of Es Comú, a long stretch of rustic beach in Playa de Muro. It's somewhere else I know, unlike some. There was a time when even on Sundays it wouldn't be especially busy. It is now. The conclusion drawn is that this is because of saturation, with tourists to blame. Yes, there are tourists, but for the most part the beachgoers are residents of the island. They started going to Es Comú because word of the beach was spread by social media (Trip Advisor included) and also by the Balearic government on its beaches website.
We now have the government's environment ministry wanting to create a minibus shuttle service for the beach. There's nothing wrong with the idea, other than its practicality. Furthermore, does the ministry's director-general for biodiversity really have any idea about Es Comú's circumstances or indeed those of other beaches she wishes to be served by minibuses? One of the others is Sa Calobra. Where would you put a car park to allow a park and ride system?
That beach was highlighted earlier this week by a group which wants to "save" the Tramuntana. This group appears not to want anyone going anywhere near the mountains. The photo it posted for the Torrent de Pareis showed a number of beachgoers along with a howling complaint of saturation. Yes, people on a beach. Who would ever have thought? But hardly packed to the gunwales. And guess what? Social media and the government have been talking lovingly about Sa Calobra in recent years.
Then there was Palma's deputy mayor, Aurora Jhardi, going on about Mallorca (as well as Palma) collapsing under the strain of all the tourists. Time to "minimise" the damage, she insisted. She's welcome to her opinion, but what does she know about Mallorca beyond Palma?
Herein lies the rub, and the greater realisation that occurred to me this week. The "Palmarati". This is the class that chatters endlessly about cruise ships this or that, which for the rest of Mallorca is mostly by the bye. Yet lo and behold, we found, thanks to figures from the State Ports, that cruise passenger numbers for the half year were in fact down on last year. Remember those 22,000 who had invaded back in May and who were used as evidence of the collapse of Palma? Always Palma, and always Palma sounding off and reckoning it knows all and knows best for the island's resorts. Yet, we have a tourism ministry and government that can see no further, for political reasons, than Magalluf and Playa de Palma. Cala Millor, Cala Ratjada, Can Picafort and others: who are you? who are you?
This isn't to minimise the potential negative impacts, of which water is the most obvious. Tourists in their apparently saturating numbers do use a hell of a lot of water, which is why I made the moral case, long before the tourist tax was even being considered, for a tax to be directed at vital resources. But tourists aren't to blame for the water shortage. The climate is, plus a lack of planning. The water crisis, though, has become a useful tool for the Palmarati (the governmental brand in particular) in its propaganda.
Biel Barceló, bless him, seems a sincere enough chap. He wants sustainability of tourism. Who doesn't? It's a non-discussion in some respects, but debating limits and future models of tourism will get nowhere when the argumentation is skewed by one side's propaganda, only to then be refuted by the other side's, and which is the domain of competing political parties, business interests and above all the Palmarati.
I don't doubt that there are more tourists than ever, but does that automatically mean saturation? I had largely accepted the argument until recently. Let me explain.
My manor, for want of a better term, is right bang in one of the principal tourist resorts in Mallorca. The density of tourist population in Alcudia is extremely high. On hotel places alone, the maximum number of tourists at a given time is 1.5 times the regular population of the entire, sprawling municipality. This is something I sense and see every single day in summer. Unlike commentators, especially politicians, who are divorced from the realities of resort life, I live it. Tourism mass doesn't come any more massive than Bellevue.
Perceptions, I accept, are not scientific, but there was a sudden realisation this week that driving in Alcudia is not the nightmare it once was in August. And I'm talking perhaps ten years ago. This may reflect the level of all-inclusive in the resort, but traffic most certainly isn't determined by in-resort circumstances alone. Moreover, there is all the additional residential tourism that has sprung up. None of that is all-inclusive and much of it requires a car.
Along the bay from Alcudia is the beach of Es Comú, a long stretch of rustic beach in Playa de Muro. It's somewhere else I know, unlike some. There was a time when even on Sundays it wouldn't be especially busy. It is now. The conclusion drawn is that this is because of saturation, with tourists to blame. Yes, there are tourists, but for the most part the beachgoers are residents of the island. They started going to Es Comú because word of the beach was spread by social media (Trip Advisor included) and also by the Balearic government on its beaches website.
We now have the government's environment ministry wanting to create a minibus shuttle service for the beach. There's nothing wrong with the idea, other than its practicality. Furthermore, does the ministry's director-general for biodiversity really have any idea about Es Comú's circumstances or indeed those of other beaches she wishes to be served by minibuses? One of the others is Sa Calobra. Where would you put a car park to allow a park and ride system?
That beach was highlighted earlier this week by a group which wants to "save" the Tramuntana. This group appears not to want anyone going anywhere near the mountains. The photo it posted for the Torrent de Pareis showed a number of beachgoers along with a howling complaint of saturation. Yes, people on a beach. Who would ever have thought? But hardly packed to the gunwales. And guess what? Social media and the government have been talking lovingly about Sa Calobra in recent years.
Then there was Palma's deputy mayor, Aurora Jhardi, going on about Mallorca (as well as Palma) collapsing under the strain of all the tourists. Time to "minimise" the damage, she insisted. She's welcome to her opinion, but what does she know about Mallorca beyond Palma?
Herein lies the rub, and the greater realisation that occurred to me this week. The "Palmarati". This is the class that chatters endlessly about cruise ships this or that, which for the rest of Mallorca is mostly by the bye. Yet lo and behold, we found, thanks to figures from the State Ports, that cruise passenger numbers for the half year were in fact down on last year. Remember those 22,000 who had invaded back in May and who were used as evidence of the collapse of Palma? Always Palma, and always Palma sounding off and reckoning it knows all and knows best for the island's resorts. Yet, we have a tourism ministry and government that can see no further, for political reasons, than Magalluf and Playa de Palma. Cala Millor, Cala Ratjada, Can Picafort and others: who are you? who are you?
This isn't to minimise the potential negative impacts, of which water is the most obvious. Tourists in their apparently saturating numbers do use a hell of a lot of water, which is why I made the moral case, long before the tourist tax was even being considered, for a tax to be directed at vital resources. But tourists aren't to blame for the water shortage. The climate is, plus a lack of planning. The water crisis, though, has become a useful tool for the Palmarati (the governmental brand in particular) in its propaganda.
Biel Barceló, bless him, seems a sincere enough chap. He wants sustainability of tourism. Who doesn't? It's a non-discussion in some respects, but debating limits and future models of tourism will get nowhere when the argumentation is skewed by one side's propaganda, only to then be refuted by the other side's, and which is the domain of competing political parties, business interests and above all the Palmarati.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
The High Summer Of Saturation
It's the ducks which do it of course: the ducks and Pep Guardiola. The Manchester City supremo may be a Premier League virgin, but he'll do as a representative. The football season returned not so much with a bang but with the bank vault having been blasted open with a nuclear device and a vast mushroom cloud of cash obliterating the summer skies as the wads rained down on agents and their eager clients. What madness it is. As someone said, money, where English football is concerned, has ceased to have any value.
Curiously, the great stakeholder base, which could once afford a speck on the terraces, remains intact but now scrapes its pennies together in order to pay its tithes to the Murdoch empire and the bastard descendant of Maggie's privatisation of the spun-off telecommunications wing of the Post Office. Fans howl for millions more to be spent in pursuit of a grand marketing masterplan. When money loses its value, the money is meaningless. It's like Monopoly, only million times greater.
This is just as well. The bars (British) of Mallorca count the days until the new season starts. And so it did start, as it always does right around the time that summer begins to splutter before hurtling into its tailspin. This might also seem curious, as high summer is still here, but it's the ducks (as well as the Premier League) which suggest otherwise.
The day of Assumption, 15 August, marks the swim for the ducks of Can Picafort and summer's peak. No doubt the occupancy numbers will remain close to maximum, but once the peak has been reached, there's no mistaking the signs of summer in descent. Slow at first, and then suddenly it's gone. Again.
And as it makes its descent, what will there be to debate? With almost total certainty we know that Mallorca's saturation point of last mid-August will have been surpassed this mid-August. If it hasn't been, then politicians will be disappointed. A point of argumentation will have been undermined.
But what is this saturation? Is it a state of mind rather than wholly physical? What constitutes saturation? The government is hiring experts to explain all. To what end? Will there be controllers at Son Sant Joan with counters which, when they reach a predetermined number, will trigger the raising of barriers? Mallorca's full. Go home.
This saturation does of course bring with it riches and wealth. More riches and wealth. We should be grateful that it does. Shouldn't we? But the riches are often meaningless. They find their way into the investment portfolios of some of Spain's wealthiest individuals. Pickings for others are meanwhile slim ones, sufficient to enable a reasonable winter return on the dole, but slim nonetheless. Unlike football, alienation of the stakeholder base has existed over time. It howls for more money of its own, not for meaningless amounts to be spent on fantasies and the fantastic.
Saturation is not egalitarian. But then tourism never has been. Oh, an original philosophy where the tourist was concerned was predicated on an ideal of equal rights to a foreign holiday (the philosophy of Horizon's Vladimir Raitz anyway). But the equal distribution of wealth has never been part of the equation: only the generation of wealth.
The government would like there to be greater distribution. It may succeed, but will this turn back the tide of negativity, for which saturation is now a chief conspirator? By its very narratives, the government has fostered negativity. It demands that there is now sustainable tourism. Logically this means that tourism, as it is, is unsustainable. Meaning what exactly? Just as saturation has not been defined or quantified, so sustainability is not qualified. Saturation and non-sustainability are thus states of mind, allowed to enter society's consciousness and to become accepted wisdoms.
As part of its sustainability message, the government wishes to now inform the public about the value of tourism. Yet it has allowed a perception of lack of value to take hold, one to be addressed fiscally with a tax. Its mantras include that of "quality", the indefinable platitude that is sustainability's fellow traveller on the way to non-saturation.
So as summer starts its descent, the saturation will lessen. There will still be the Palma-centric obsessing with cruise passengers, a class of saturators divorced from the rest of the island, but otherwise the numbers will fall, just as fall comes round until finally the question is asked: where did everyone go? If only some thousands of summer visitors could be magically moved to November or December. If only ... .
And then, as thoughts begin to turn to next summer, there will be the other saturation. Cyclists. Keys to sustainability and tackling seasonality but the objects of venom. What does this island want? Does it know? And come next August high summer, nothing will have changed. Let's play Monopoly.
Curiously, the great stakeholder base, which could once afford a speck on the terraces, remains intact but now scrapes its pennies together in order to pay its tithes to the Murdoch empire and the bastard descendant of Maggie's privatisation of the spun-off telecommunications wing of the Post Office. Fans howl for millions more to be spent in pursuit of a grand marketing masterplan. When money loses its value, the money is meaningless. It's like Monopoly, only million times greater.
This is just as well. The bars (British) of Mallorca count the days until the new season starts. And so it did start, as it always does right around the time that summer begins to splutter before hurtling into its tailspin. This might also seem curious, as high summer is still here, but it's the ducks (as well as the Premier League) which suggest otherwise.
The day of Assumption, 15 August, marks the swim for the ducks of Can Picafort and summer's peak. No doubt the occupancy numbers will remain close to maximum, but once the peak has been reached, there's no mistaking the signs of summer in descent. Slow at first, and then suddenly it's gone. Again.
And as it makes its descent, what will there be to debate? With almost total certainty we know that Mallorca's saturation point of last mid-August will have been surpassed this mid-August. If it hasn't been, then politicians will be disappointed. A point of argumentation will have been undermined.
But what is this saturation? Is it a state of mind rather than wholly physical? What constitutes saturation? The government is hiring experts to explain all. To what end? Will there be controllers at Son Sant Joan with counters which, when they reach a predetermined number, will trigger the raising of barriers? Mallorca's full. Go home.
This saturation does of course bring with it riches and wealth. More riches and wealth. We should be grateful that it does. Shouldn't we? But the riches are often meaningless. They find their way into the investment portfolios of some of Spain's wealthiest individuals. Pickings for others are meanwhile slim ones, sufficient to enable a reasonable winter return on the dole, but slim nonetheless. Unlike football, alienation of the stakeholder base has existed over time. It howls for more money of its own, not for meaningless amounts to be spent on fantasies and the fantastic.
Saturation is not egalitarian. But then tourism never has been. Oh, an original philosophy where the tourist was concerned was predicated on an ideal of equal rights to a foreign holiday (the philosophy of Horizon's Vladimir Raitz anyway). But the equal distribution of wealth has never been part of the equation: only the generation of wealth.
The government would like there to be greater distribution. It may succeed, but will this turn back the tide of negativity, for which saturation is now a chief conspirator? By its very narratives, the government has fostered negativity. It demands that there is now sustainable tourism. Logically this means that tourism, as it is, is unsustainable. Meaning what exactly? Just as saturation has not been defined or quantified, so sustainability is not qualified. Saturation and non-sustainability are thus states of mind, allowed to enter society's consciousness and to become accepted wisdoms.
As part of its sustainability message, the government wishes to now inform the public about the value of tourism. Yet it has allowed a perception of lack of value to take hold, one to be addressed fiscally with a tax. Its mantras include that of "quality", the indefinable platitude that is sustainability's fellow traveller on the way to non-saturation.
So as summer starts its descent, the saturation will lessen. There will still be the Palma-centric obsessing with cruise passengers, a class of saturators divorced from the rest of the island, but otherwise the numbers will fall, just as fall comes round until finally the question is asked: where did everyone go? If only some thousands of summer visitors could be magically moved to November or December. If only ... .
And then, as thoughts begin to turn to next summer, there will be the other saturation. Cyclists. Keys to sustainability and tackling seasonality but the objects of venom. What does this island want? Does it know? And come next August high summer, nothing will have changed. Let's play Monopoly.
Saturday, August 13, 2016
Accommodation Regulation: The Devil's Own Job
Biel Barceló has again been talking about limits being placed on the number of tourist places. He was doing so in the context of the launch of the campaign to make Balearic residents understand what sustainable tourism is all about (a useful exercise, it must be said) and to sensitise these same residents to the value of tourism and tourists (even more useful).
The timing of the launch of this campaign and the talk of limits is surely no coincidence. Although the figure is not usually given for several months, there will at some point be an announcement as to the day in high summer when the total population of the Balearics (residents, tourists and any others) was at its peak. The day is always around this time in August. On the tenth of the month last year, the figure topped the two million mark for the first time.
The tourism minister mainly has holiday rentals in his sights. Hotel places, though not totally subject to a ceiling, cannot increase significantly without there being permissive regulation. The "saturation" to which Barceló and others regularly refer stems from the non-hotel sector. He says that when regulation comes along it will not be "total prohibition". The choice of words can seem a little odd. While he implies that there has been such prohibition until now and that it hasn't solved anything (which is true), it has never been total. The prohibition has been for the open marketing of apartments as holiday accommodation and so for the registration of apartments to be advertised as holiday, tourist or vacation rental.
The Barceló remedy will be to legalise some of these apartments (it's easier to talk in terms of legalise, as regulate can be taken different ways). But certainly not all. There is to be no carte blanche for anyone to commercialise an apartment for tourist rental. And nor should there be.
But he has the devil's own job in drawing up this legislation. Apart from the market dynamics, such as with the online accommodation providers, there are the institutional issues in the Balearics. These are the varying responsibilities for tourism organisation and urban planning, ones that reside with island councils and town halls.
There is the possibility that whatever parameters the government seeks to establish for private tourist accommodation, the actual implementation of regulation will not be universal. For example, the councils of Ibiza and Formentera will be loathe to allow greater permissiveness. In Menorca, there may be greater willingness. The council there attempted to get the previous government to relax regulations, a plea that was ignored when it came to drafting the 2012 tourism law. As for Mallorca, the council has yet to assume full responsibilities for tourism, so no one can tell.
At town hall level there will be different needs. As yet, however, it would seem the government is not engaging in active discussions as to what these might be. Councillors in Alcudia and Pollensa have told me that they don't really know what Barceló has in mind. If the new law on holiday rentals is indeed to be ready for parliament before the end of the year, then the government needs to get a move on and consult.
The talk has been that there will be a system of zoning, with apartment rentals capable of being legitimately marketed for holiday purposes in some areas and not others. It sounds like a recipe for legal challenge, while even within the zones there is the not insignificant issue of how communities react. The government, stressing the need for "coexistence" and therefore hinting at community administrators vetoing holiday rentals, has nevertheless admitted that such vetoes may well not stand up in court.
But whatever the government decides, there will remain the question of enforcement. The experience in Catalonia is instructive in this regard. Although there has been greater permissiveness than the Balearics for a few years, this hasn't stemmed the supply of illegal accommodation. In seeking to combat this, the town hall in Barcelona has this week announced a system whereby neighbours can rat on others. Also this week it said that 256 properties were "closed" during July, a process enabled by a specific search engine created to detect illegal properties. Moreover, nine accommodation websites are facing sanctions.
While Barceló says that the Balearics can take no more additional tourists in high summer and he seeks legislative remedy, we can probably anticipate he'll be saying the same things about "saturation" this time next year. And the year after.
The timing of the launch of this campaign and the talk of limits is surely no coincidence. Although the figure is not usually given for several months, there will at some point be an announcement as to the day in high summer when the total population of the Balearics (residents, tourists and any others) was at its peak. The day is always around this time in August. On the tenth of the month last year, the figure topped the two million mark for the first time.
The tourism minister mainly has holiday rentals in his sights. Hotel places, though not totally subject to a ceiling, cannot increase significantly without there being permissive regulation. The "saturation" to which Barceló and others regularly refer stems from the non-hotel sector. He says that when regulation comes along it will not be "total prohibition". The choice of words can seem a little odd. While he implies that there has been such prohibition until now and that it hasn't solved anything (which is true), it has never been total. The prohibition has been for the open marketing of apartments as holiday accommodation and so for the registration of apartments to be advertised as holiday, tourist or vacation rental.
The Barceló remedy will be to legalise some of these apartments (it's easier to talk in terms of legalise, as regulate can be taken different ways). But certainly not all. There is to be no carte blanche for anyone to commercialise an apartment for tourist rental. And nor should there be.
But he has the devil's own job in drawing up this legislation. Apart from the market dynamics, such as with the online accommodation providers, there are the institutional issues in the Balearics. These are the varying responsibilities for tourism organisation and urban planning, ones that reside with island councils and town halls.
There is the possibility that whatever parameters the government seeks to establish for private tourist accommodation, the actual implementation of regulation will not be universal. For example, the councils of Ibiza and Formentera will be loathe to allow greater permissiveness. In Menorca, there may be greater willingness. The council there attempted to get the previous government to relax regulations, a plea that was ignored when it came to drafting the 2012 tourism law. As for Mallorca, the council has yet to assume full responsibilities for tourism, so no one can tell.
At town hall level there will be different needs. As yet, however, it would seem the government is not engaging in active discussions as to what these might be. Councillors in Alcudia and Pollensa have told me that they don't really know what Barceló has in mind. If the new law on holiday rentals is indeed to be ready for parliament before the end of the year, then the government needs to get a move on and consult.
The talk has been that there will be a system of zoning, with apartment rentals capable of being legitimately marketed for holiday purposes in some areas and not others. It sounds like a recipe for legal challenge, while even within the zones there is the not insignificant issue of how communities react. The government, stressing the need for "coexistence" and therefore hinting at community administrators vetoing holiday rentals, has nevertheless admitted that such vetoes may well not stand up in court.
But whatever the government decides, there will remain the question of enforcement. The experience in Catalonia is instructive in this regard. Although there has been greater permissiveness than the Balearics for a few years, this hasn't stemmed the supply of illegal accommodation. In seeking to combat this, the town hall in Barcelona has this week announced a system whereby neighbours can rat on others. Also this week it said that 256 properties were "closed" during July, a process enabled by a specific search engine created to detect illegal properties. Moreover, nine accommodation websites are facing sanctions.
While Barceló says that the Balearics can take no more additional tourists in high summer and he seeks legislative remedy, we can probably anticipate he'll be saying the same things about "saturation" this time next year. And the year after.
Tuesday, June 07, 2016
Is Tourist Saturation Such A Negative?
There are many ways of skinning the statistical cat. It depends on the point to be proved and the motives for doing so. The Balearic tourism minister, Biel Barceló, will doubtless approve of what was being proved. It came in a report at the weekend. Mallorca has by far the highest proportion of hotel places per one thousand inhabitants of anywhere in the known tourism world. So high is this proportion that it is almost three times greater than the Canaries, five times greater than the whole of Greece and heading for ten times greater than all of Spain put together. And the point is?
That should be fairly obvious. Mallorca is saturated with tourism in a way that nowhere else is. It has slightly under 233,000 hotel places (which have increased by some 60,000 over the past two decades), representing 306 for every one thousand of those resident on the island. Add on all the various other types of accommodation (estimates/statistics vary) and the total offer is more in the region of 400,000.
Ah yes, you might say, but the Canaries are several islands. Greece has islands and a mainland. How can these be comparable? Well, they're not in direct terms, but if one takes specific islands, then what are the comparisons?
Tenerife attracts more tourism than the other Canary Islands. Its resident population is almost identical to Mallorca's (hovering around the 900,000 mark). It is far more densely populated as it is approximately 55% the size of Mallorca. But its hotel and other official accommodation places are far fewer. This number is around 160,000. Throw in some illegal stuff, and it's roughly a half.
Crete is more than twice the size of Mallorca. Its population is smaller (around 630,000). It has some 87,000 places. A guess might be, therefore, that it has about 100,000 places in all: a quarter of the upper estimate for Mallorca.
So Mallorca is, by comparison, saturated. However, that depends on the definition of saturation. As I have asked previously, what actually might constitute a maximum number of places and so therefore tourists? Or what might be an optimal limit to maintain and grow the island's economy? Does anyone know?
Though intuitively one can accept that there is overcrowding especially in high summer, intuition gets one only so far. The reverse argument, where the likes of Crete or Tenerife are concerned, is that they both have scope for greater development.
But taking whole islands as points of reference doesn't offer an accurate picture. In Mallorca, of the 233,000 places, around 80% of them are concentrated into four zones - Calvia, Playa de Palma and the bays of Alcudia and Cala Millor. A further point I've made before is that there is a strong case for such concentration. It is more efficient environmentally and in terms of resourcing and has been shown to be so in Benidorm. That resort's more or less 73,000 places are almost identical to the regular population and they are in a land area approximately a quarter of the size of Calvia, which has more hotel places than anywhere else in Mallorca (some 60,000). While Calvia's population is smaller (just over 50,000), Benidorm's tourism density in land terms is far higher.
While it is said that it has been the availability of private accommodation that has been contributing to Mallorca's saturation, it is undeniably the case that - for the island as a whole - the base of hotel accommodation greatly exceeds that of other destinations. This is the legacy effect. Resort and hotel development of the early boom years paved the way for ever more development, with most of it confined to the four specific zones.
Is this such a negative, though? From the point of view of efficiency through concentration of hotel places, then not necessarily. But where there is huge inefficiency stems from the fact that all these hotel places (and other accommodation) have been and are used for a limited season. The saturation effect is the consequence of massive development to satisfy a tourism economy which is so clearly imbalanced, which isn't the case in Tenerife and to a lesser extent in Benidorm.
But without this development, where would Mallorca be? The economy is rooted in one product and so therefore dependent on what is, for months of the year, unproductive real estate. Unproductive or not, saturation or not, concentration in specific zones or not, this tourism does have a general benefit that contrasts, for instance, with Tenerife. That island has all-year tourism, but the underlying level of year-round unemployment for a population of much the same size has traditionally been and remains much higher than Mallorca's.
Might it therefore be that this massive supply of accommodation, inefficient though it is, is an asset because of indirect employment? Saturation maybe, but what else is there?
That should be fairly obvious. Mallorca is saturated with tourism in a way that nowhere else is. It has slightly under 233,000 hotel places (which have increased by some 60,000 over the past two decades), representing 306 for every one thousand of those resident on the island. Add on all the various other types of accommodation (estimates/statistics vary) and the total offer is more in the region of 400,000.
Ah yes, you might say, but the Canaries are several islands. Greece has islands and a mainland. How can these be comparable? Well, they're not in direct terms, but if one takes specific islands, then what are the comparisons?
Tenerife attracts more tourism than the other Canary Islands. Its resident population is almost identical to Mallorca's (hovering around the 900,000 mark). It is far more densely populated as it is approximately 55% the size of Mallorca. But its hotel and other official accommodation places are far fewer. This number is around 160,000. Throw in some illegal stuff, and it's roughly a half.
Crete is more than twice the size of Mallorca. Its population is smaller (around 630,000). It has some 87,000 places. A guess might be, therefore, that it has about 100,000 places in all: a quarter of the upper estimate for Mallorca.
So Mallorca is, by comparison, saturated. However, that depends on the definition of saturation. As I have asked previously, what actually might constitute a maximum number of places and so therefore tourists? Or what might be an optimal limit to maintain and grow the island's economy? Does anyone know?
Though intuitively one can accept that there is overcrowding especially in high summer, intuition gets one only so far. The reverse argument, where the likes of Crete or Tenerife are concerned, is that they both have scope for greater development.
But taking whole islands as points of reference doesn't offer an accurate picture. In Mallorca, of the 233,000 places, around 80% of them are concentrated into four zones - Calvia, Playa de Palma and the bays of Alcudia and Cala Millor. A further point I've made before is that there is a strong case for such concentration. It is more efficient environmentally and in terms of resourcing and has been shown to be so in Benidorm. That resort's more or less 73,000 places are almost identical to the regular population and they are in a land area approximately a quarter of the size of Calvia, which has more hotel places than anywhere else in Mallorca (some 60,000). While Calvia's population is smaller (just over 50,000), Benidorm's tourism density in land terms is far higher.
While it is said that it has been the availability of private accommodation that has been contributing to Mallorca's saturation, it is undeniably the case that - for the island as a whole - the base of hotel accommodation greatly exceeds that of other destinations. This is the legacy effect. Resort and hotel development of the early boom years paved the way for ever more development, with most of it confined to the four specific zones.
Is this such a negative, though? From the point of view of efficiency through concentration of hotel places, then not necessarily. But where there is huge inefficiency stems from the fact that all these hotel places (and other accommodation) have been and are used for a limited season. The saturation effect is the consequence of massive development to satisfy a tourism economy which is so clearly imbalanced, which isn't the case in Tenerife and to a lesser extent in Benidorm.
But without this development, where would Mallorca be? The economy is rooted in one product and so therefore dependent on what is, for months of the year, unproductive real estate. Unproductive or not, saturation or not, concentration in specific zones or not, this tourism does have a general benefit that contrasts, for instance, with Tenerife. That island has all-year tourism, but the underlying level of year-round unemployment for a population of much the same size has traditionally been and remains much higher than Mallorca's.
Might it therefore be that this massive supply of accommodation, inefficient though it is, is an asset because of indirect employment? Saturation maybe, but what else is there?
Tuesday, September 23, 2014
Reduce vs. Increase: Tourism volume
There are various themes related to Mallorca's tourism which crop up with regularity and those which surface far less regularly. The first category includes the controversies surrounding all-inclusives, off-season tourism and holiday rentals, while the latter includes the subject of tourism volume. These controversies would naturally form a part of any discussion of tourism volume, but the complexities raised by each of them in isolation are not of the same order of complexity entailed in the consideration of tourism volume. It is more complex because any adjustment to this volume pre-supposes a fundamental change in the nature of Mallorca's tourism, were there to be a planned reduction in the number of tourists, which is typically what the volume debate means.
It was reported last week that the Confederación de Patronales Turísticas de Baleares (CPTB), which is the body which represents a host of non-hotel, complementary offer businesses, had called for a reduction in tourist numbers. It hadn't and it has tweeted to that effect, just in case there was any misunderstanding. The call for a reduction came from the Més political grouping, one that combines the PSM socialists (with their Mallorcan nationalist beliefs) and others on the left, including the Greens. The CPTB had in fact only expressed a desire for tourists with greater purchasing power. Més agreed but wanted fewer of them.
Over the years, there have been discussions about the nature of tourism and about its mass in Mallorca. One can go back to the fallout from the oil crisis in the 1970s in order to discover the first really serious discussion. The shock of a sudden decline in tourist numbers (it took four to five years for numbers to recover) led some to wonder if this unexpected reduction might not in fact be beneficial. Such a thought didn't linger. Come the 1990s, and there was a boom in construction that didn't match that of the 1960s but nevertheless contributed to a major increase in tourist numbers. Economic advancement demanded ever more volume and ever more mass.
But some politicians were uneasy. Maria Antonia Munar, the president of the Council of Mallorca, was one of them. Another was the tourism minister in the first Antich PSOE administration from 1999 to 2003, Celesti Alomar. Munar made references to the need for more "quality" tourists over mere quantity. Alomar went further. He even spoke of the end of mass tourism.
No one has ever gone as far as Alomar, but the question of volume has continued to be an issue which has bubbled under the tourism surface without ever erupting into a full and frank debate. It is one that should be had, but because of its complexity and potential negativity it is studiously avoided in political circles. The complexity is such that any strategy for reduction would have to be considered alongside a strategy for what would compensate for any reduction.
Why should there be a reduction in any case? The stock answer, and the one which Més subscribes to, is the resource one. Land, services, the environment cannot cope with more volume or even with the existing volume. But is this true? What actually might be considered to be the point at which the volume of tourism is too great, and has it indeed been reached or passed? One of the foremost authorities on the subject, Dr. Ivan Murray at the university in Palma, has been unable to come up with what should be the ideal tourism population, except to have noted that twelve million tourists spread across the Balearics constitute "an aberration without comparison in the whole world".
It might be considered to be an aberration, but how can one be certain that it is? Where Murray is on firmer ground is when it comes to the contribution that this volume makes. He has discovered, among other things, that in 2008 a 35% increase in tourist numbers over those in 2003 had been required in order to realise the same level of tourism expenditure five years before. It was a discovery that was to prove to be not that dissimilar to one that the hoteliers federation were to make. But where the hoteliers wanted more tourists, Murray argued there should be fewer.
It has been known for years that there is a percentage of tourists who are either neutral in terms of their "profitability" for Mallorca or who represent a loss. As it costs more to service these tourists than they contribute, then why not cut them adrift and so reduce the tourism volume? It isn't as easy as this, though, and one reason why not is that politicians, regardless of what some might have said, cannot be boastful if numbers fall. Increases are what matter. They are the stuff of political machismo.
It was reported last week that the Confederación de Patronales Turísticas de Baleares (CPTB), which is the body which represents a host of non-hotel, complementary offer businesses, had called for a reduction in tourist numbers. It hadn't and it has tweeted to that effect, just in case there was any misunderstanding. The call for a reduction came from the Més political grouping, one that combines the PSM socialists (with their Mallorcan nationalist beliefs) and others on the left, including the Greens. The CPTB had in fact only expressed a desire for tourists with greater purchasing power. Més agreed but wanted fewer of them.
Over the years, there have been discussions about the nature of tourism and about its mass in Mallorca. One can go back to the fallout from the oil crisis in the 1970s in order to discover the first really serious discussion. The shock of a sudden decline in tourist numbers (it took four to five years for numbers to recover) led some to wonder if this unexpected reduction might not in fact be beneficial. Such a thought didn't linger. Come the 1990s, and there was a boom in construction that didn't match that of the 1960s but nevertheless contributed to a major increase in tourist numbers. Economic advancement demanded ever more volume and ever more mass.
But some politicians were uneasy. Maria Antonia Munar, the president of the Council of Mallorca, was one of them. Another was the tourism minister in the first Antich PSOE administration from 1999 to 2003, Celesti Alomar. Munar made references to the need for more "quality" tourists over mere quantity. Alomar went further. He even spoke of the end of mass tourism.
No one has ever gone as far as Alomar, but the question of volume has continued to be an issue which has bubbled under the tourism surface without ever erupting into a full and frank debate. It is one that should be had, but because of its complexity and potential negativity it is studiously avoided in political circles. The complexity is such that any strategy for reduction would have to be considered alongside a strategy for what would compensate for any reduction.
Why should there be a reduction in any case? The stock answer, and the one which Més subscribes to, is the resource one. Land, services, the environment cannot cope with more volume or even with the existing volume. But is this true? What actually might be considered to be the point at which the volume of tourism is too great, and has it indeed been reached or passed? One of the foremost authorities on the subject, Dr. Ivan Murray at the university in Palma, has been unable to come up with what should be the ideal tourism population, except to have noted that twelve million tourists spread across the Balearics constitute "an aberration without comparison in the whole world".
It might be considered to be an aberration, but how can one be certain that it is? Where Murray is on firmer ground is when it comes to the contribution that this volume makes. He has discovered, among other things, that in 2008 a 35% increase in tourist numbers over those in 2003 had been required in order to realise the same level of tourism expenditure five years before. It was a discovery that was to prove to be not that dissimilar to one that the hoteliers federation were to make. But where the hoteliers wanted more tourists, Murray argued there should be fewer.
It has been known for years that there is a percentage of tourists who are either neutral in terms of their "profitability" for Mallorca or who represent a loss. As it costs more to service these tourists than they contribute, then why not cut them adrift and so reduce the tourism volume? It isn't as easy as this, though, and one reason why not is that politicians, regardless of what some might have said, cannot be boastful if numbers fall. Increases are what matter. They are the stuff of political machismo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
