I MAY BE WRONG, BUT AT-LEAST THIS IS HOW I SEE
Before i begin anything, i am for the change provided the royalty of USD 65/tourist/day goes to the government exchequer.
My arguments:
The current tariff of USD 250/tourist/day is of-course in-line with the policy of 'High Value - Low Impact' policy which seem to be doing very well to the Bhutan's economy (I m not arguing in this front nor with regards to the policy). However, i believe that the royalty of USD 65/day/pax may be tabled for discussion. Beyond the royalty, the rest should be left for the tour operators or to the tourist themselves. The current fixed tariff seems to benefit only those hotels/guest houses wherein the tour operators are friendly as it leaves either with no choice or very little choice to the tourists themselves. I believe that leaving it for the tourist themselves to decide will remove the complacency of our tour operators as well as the guest houses/hotels: With the fixed tariff, besides USD 65/day/pax from the USD 250/day/pax, rest remains in the hands of tour operators to decide what percent of margin they want to make. This is being said as tour operators decide on the meals, hotels and even the travel components within the country. Removing the fixed tariff would force the hoteliers to provide the best possible services at a reasonable price and tour operators to provide the best services. However, in no way do i claim that our tour operators nor our hoteliers are not providing the best services. Here I am referring to the rooms which are there to improve. I am just staying here that, it shall encourage more competition - Bhutan's hotels are relatively expensive comparing to the hotel rates elsewhere [based on the services offered]. Tourists shall distribute themselves to those places where best services are offered for the best value.
We should also remember that our two airliners heavily depend on tourists. Just about a week ago i was in Tashi Air from Kathmandu to Paro, there were only 9 passengers. It was not a good feeling to see our airliners operating in loss. Increasing number of tourists mean, increased revenue for our two airliners. Most of our hotels remain empty considering the number of hotels we have in Bhutan. For instance, last year when the Ugyen Wangchuck Institute for Conservation and Environment in Bumthang organized the 14th World Ethnobiology Congress, Bumthang saw about 550 participants for a week in June, and guess what, quite a good number of hotels still had some rooms vacant. I believe that Bumthang has the capacity to cater to the needs of about a thousand tourists every day and the case may not be any different in Punakha, Thimphu and Paro. This in itself is a clear indication of the potential of making hard currency through tourism. Waiving off the daily tariff would mean increased inflow of tourist which in itself is directly proportional to the revenue generation. More people visiting = more souvenir sold = more revenue generation = traditions and culture on handicraft prevail.
The group of people who are against the revision try to defend the move by putting 'environment' in front. I just can't understand why we take it for granted that more visitors will affect or rather spoil our environment. I think there should be room for experiments and for improvements. We just can't directly jump into conclusion with the negative thoughts always. Of-course we need to be skeptic. There is no guarantee that our environment will be disturbed irrespective of more or less visitors getting in our country. We just know that we have good conservation policies. I m still trying to understand the relation between more visitors and the environmental disruption. And some people have this equation in mind; More people visiting = increased environmental destruction (Give me a break please).
Remember, we just need to follow our rules strictly and environment shall follow.
Before i begin anything, i am for the change provided the royalty of USD 65/tourist/day goes to the government exchequer.
My arguments:
The current tariff of USD 250/tourist/day is of-course in-line with the policy of 'High Value - Low Impact' policy which seem to be doing very well to the Bhutan's economy (I m not arguing in this front nor with regards to the policy). However, i believe that the royalty of USD 65/day/pax may be tabled for discussion. Beyond the royalty, the rest should be left for the tour operators or to the tourist themselves. The current fixed tariff seems to benefit only those hotels/guest houses wherein the tour operators are friendly as it leaves either with no choice or very little choice to the tourists themselves. I believe that leaving it for the tourist themselves to decide will remove the complacency of our tour operators as well as the guest houses/hotels: With the fixed tariff, besides USD 65/day/pax from the USD 250/day/pax, rest remains in the hands of tour operators to decide what percent of margin they want to make. This is being said as tour operators decide on the meals, hotels and even the travel components within the country. Removing the fixed tariff would force the hoteliers to provide the best possible services at a reasonable price and tour operators to provide the best services. However, in no way do i claim that our tour operators nor our hoteliers are not providing the best services. Here I am referring to the rooms which are there to improve. I am just staying here that, it shall encourage more competition - Bhutan's hotels are relatively expensive comparing to the hotel rates elsewhere [based on the services offered]. Tourists shall distribute themselves to those places where best services are offered for the best value.
We should also remember that our two airliners heavily depend on tourists. Just about a week ago i was in Tashi Air from Kathmandu to Paro, there were only 9 passengers. It was not a good feeling to see our airliners operating in loss. Increasing number of tourists mean, increased revenue for our two airliners. Most of our hotels remain empty considering the number of hotels we have in Bhutan. For instance, last year when the Ugyen Wangchuck Institute for Conservation and Environment in Bumthang organized the 14th World Ethnobiology Congress, Bumthang saw about 550 participants for a week in June, and guess what, quite a good number of hotels still had some rooms vacant. I believe that Bumthang has the capacity to cater to the needs of about a thousand tourists every day and the case may not be any different in Punakha, Thimphu and Paro. This in itself is a clear indication of the potential of making hard currency through tourism. Waiving off the daily tariff would mean increased inflow of tourist which in itself is directly proportional to the revenue generation. More people visiting = more souvenir sold = more revenue generation = traditions and culture on handicraft prevail.
The group of people who are against the revision try to defend the move by putting 'environment' in front. I just can't understand why we take it for granted that more visitors will affect or rather spoil our environment. I think there should be room for experiments and for improvements. We just can't directly jump into conclusion with the negative thoughts always. Of-course we need to be skeptic. There is no guarantee that our environment will be disturbed irrespective of more or less visitors getting in our country. We just know that we have good conservation policies. I m still trying to understand the relation between more visitors and the environmental disruption. And some people have this equation in mind; More people visiting = increased environmental destruction (Give me a break please).
Remember, we just need to follow our rules strictly and environment shall follow.
Comments