Bhutan model for tourism

[Raphael Hythlodaeus]

No doubt many reading this might get severe indigestion, but I wonder if mass international tourism to Thailand is sustainable over the long run, due to the negative impact on the environment, infrastructure, culture, and of course COVID19.

Does Thailand really need 40-million tourists a year despite the tourism industry making up at least 20% of GDP?

 

The Thai authorities might like to consider the Bhutanese tourism model which is called "high value, low impact."

Every tourist to Bhutan is required to pay US$240 PER DAY to enter the country with a surcharge of US$50 for single travelers. Plus a US$40 visa fee.

 

Now since Thailand (population around 67-million) is a much larger country than Bhutan (population 755,000) then the US$240~290 cost could be lower. On a per capita basis, this would result in a fee of about US$3 per day. Let's not quibble about a few bucks and make it US$5 per day to enter Thailand, paid up-front on arrival based on the number of days stay allowed on the visa. Refunds made on departure for unused days.

 

I suggest that those on a marriage extension should continue with existing arrangements without the daily charge.

We can argue about retirees. I would be in favour of increasing the bank deposit from 800,000 to 1-million baht since the lower figure has remained unchanged for years.

The per diem rate could help to pay for hospital treatment for those unable to pay, so health insurance would not be compulsory (only strongly recommended). 

 

The aim would be to go for quality rather than quantity.

Probably COVID19 tests/infections/quarantines would be manageable under this scheme.

Now you can all shoot me down in flames.

 

 

[Maestro]

Consider the possibility that the bureaucratic cost of administering such a scheme might cost more than the equivalent of USD 5.00 per person.

[Raphael Hythlodaeus]

1 minute ago, Maestro said:

Consider the possibility that the bureaucratic cost of administering such a scheme might cost more than the equivalent of USD 5.00 per person.

The per diem charge would be collected and refunded by the existing Immigration officials, so I don't think the bureaucratic cost would be great. I agree needs to be costed.

[Maestro]

19 minutes ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

The Thai authorities might like to consider the Bhutanese tourism model which is called "high value, low impact."

Every tourist to Bhutan is required to pay US$240 PER DAY to enter the country with a surcharge of US$50 for single travelers. Plus a US$40 visa fee...

 

Are you sure about your figure of USD 250.00 per day?

 

Quote

 

What does my tariff pay for?

USD 65 per night (frequently termed as royalty) actually goes toward a development fund for free health care, free education and road building in Bhutan. The remainder of the tariff goes to accommodation, meals, and services such as tour guides, transportation, drivers and entrance fees to places of attractions

 

 

 

Source: https://www.drukasia.com/bhutan/faq

[Raphael Hythlodaeus]

6 minutes ago, Maestro said:

Are you sure about your figure of USD 250.00 per day?

According to this web site . . . https://www.thisbatteredsuitcase.com/how-much-does-it-really-cost-to-visit-bhutan/

I went to Bhutan in around 1982 and remember paying US$100 per day then.

 

However, the above link also states:

But that’s where I was totally wrong. In fact, your daily fee covers everything, and once you are in the country you do not pay a single penny.

 

Still, I'm not suggesting that Thailand copies the Bhutanese model exactly, only to be considered as a guide.

[Nout]

Horrible idea.

[Raphael Hythlodaeus]

2 minutes ago, Nout said:

Horrible idea.

Why is it a horrible idea? Please explain.

[Poet]

2 minutes ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

Why is it a horrible idea? Please explain.

Because Thailand actually needs its tourism industry?

 

[Raphael Hythlodaeus]

1 minute ago, Poet said:

Because Thailand actually needs its tourism industry?

I did not say Thailand does not need its tourism industry. I am suggesting a "high value, low impact" approach, not to end tourism altogether. The per diem charge could be adjusted on a yearly basis depending on the number of tourist arrivals and what is considered a sustainable number (say 10~20 million per year?). 

[RichardColeman]

Currently getting into Thailand is less Bhutan and more Train to Busan 

[Raphael Hythlodaeus]

Just now, RichardColeman said:

Currently getting into Thailand is less Bhutan and more Train to Busan 

5555. Yes, but I'm thinking of the future. 

[vinci]

"The aim would be to go for quality rather than quantity" has been talk for the last five decade, it will never happen

[Poet]

25 minutes ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

I am suggesting a "high value, low impact" approach, not to end tourism altogether.

Despite frequent flights into fantasy, Thailand is actually in the business of mass tourism.

This is not a five-star destination. It has always been a compromise, but one that generally suited most of us here. In recent years, two factors in that mix have considerably worsened: the ease with one could stay here, and the cost of living. Incredibly, Spain and Portugal now work out significantly cheaper and in many ways better than Thailand for Europeans.

Meanwhile, credible competitors, both in the region and around the world, have emerged, offering significant advantages over Thailand.

This year, Thailand's tourism industry has received a body blow. Foreign tourists just stopped. How often does that happen in any industry?

Even if they start arriving again at some point in 2021 (and it is by no means certain that they will), it will be a trickle. The industry will not truly recover in this decade.

I remember in early March, there was a member here who wrote seeking advice. He had received what he considered a pretty good offer on a hotel in Pattaya. He was aware that the virus was going to disrupt international travel and he wanted to know whether we thought things would open up again by July or August. I sincerely hope he didn't end up buying that hotel.

All the poor sods who invested their savings into hotels did so on the understanding that Thailand was in the mass tourism business, and that the government would do its best to continue increasing visitor numbers each year.

And, now, at this dire point in history, when we don't even know how many foreigners are still interested in foreign travel, or will still have jobs in the new year, you want to introduce a $5 daily charge with the express purpose of rate limiting the number of tourists who come into Thailand.

Surely it must be clear to you that, for Thailand, that is precisely the worst possible idea. And, therefore, may well happen.


 

[Raphael Hythlodaeus]

1 minute ago, vinci said:

"The aim would be to go for quality rather than quantity" has been talk for the last five decade, it will never happen

Sure, but I would not like to bet on "never."

Any Thais out there who wish to comment? Do you really want an ever increasing number of tourists in the future post COVID19? How many is too many? 

[Poet]

2 minutes ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

Any Thais out there who wish to comment?

I think we only have one regular Thai poster, and she's actually a retired Australian bloke.
 

 

[Raphael Hythlodaeus]

4 minutes ago, Poet said:

Surely it must be clear to you that, for Thailand, that is precisely the worst possible idea.

But you miss the point. I am not talking about implementing this idea NOW while the dire COVID19 travel restrictions exist, but in the FUTURE when I presume at some point this will all be history? Or will it?

[2 is 1]

Go to work on TAT! Maybe get few meating for this new "great" idea! Can even make other announcement!

[Poet]

 

Quote

I am not talking about implementing this idea NOW while the dire COVID19 travel restrictions exist, but in the FUTURE when I presume at some point this will all be history

Fair enough. Some mass tourism resorts such as Bali certainly managed to reach a level of wealth in the population that allowed them to drag their market slightly upstream.

Thailand though, in terms of size, capability, and the amount of unused capacity, is a very different story. They not only needed those 20 million tourists but, also, to keep growing.

As crazy as it may sound, even if an effective vaccine is created, it will take the rest of this decade for them to get back up to the levels they need to grow. It simply isn't going to happen as quickly as many here are supposing.

I expect the 30's will be back to the old growth. Then, as the entire nation gets richer, in the 40s or 50s they might consider the levels of daily tax you are proposing as a way to weed out the less desirable elements and transition to far lower visitor numbers.

 

[Raphael Hythlodaeus]

1 minute ago, 2 is 1 said:

Go to work on TAT! Maybe get few meating for this new "great" idea! Can even make other announcement!

Excuse me, I never said it was a "great" idea.

I am merely inviting sensible and constructive comments.

Thais please step forward !! Do you really want an ever-increasing number of tourists in the post-COVID19 era? They are likely to be mainly from Asia, I guess mainly Chinese.

 

[Poet]

1 minute ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

Thais please step forward !!

Which actual, real Thais would you expect to find hanging around a forum for expats in Thailand?

 

[Raphael Hythlodaeus]

3 minutes ago, Poet said:

Which actual, real Thais would you expect to find hanging around a forum for expats in Thailand?

 

Those wanting to practice their English skills?

[Poet]

10 minutes ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

Those wanting to practice their English skills?

Okay. Will be interesting to see if any turn up. Perhaps they will also perceive benefits to your proposed scheme that would not occur to us.

 

[bodga]

59 minutes ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

I did not say Thailand does not need its tourism industry. I am suggesting a "high value, low impact" approach, not to end tourism altogether. The per diem charge could be adjusted on a yearly basis depending on the number of tourist arrivals and what is considered a sustainable number (say 10~20 million per year?). 

I  dont see anything in Thailand that has a high  value for  tourists.

[Sambotte]

57 minutes ago, RichardColeman said:

Currently getting into Thailand is less Bhutan and more Train to Busan 

OP is a boute-en-train ????

This one is excellent guys ! Learn some French !

[Caldera]

Charging $5 per day is probably too low to have any real impact, but I agree that mass tourism is extremely damaging, so thinking along the lines of reducing travelers' impact while maximizing their spend goes in the right direction.

 

They could start by increasing the departure tax. Flying in for a short trip is a lot worse than staying put for a few weeks.

 

Attracting quality tourists isn't that easy though and competition is tough. Thailand has tried and failed to do that in the past, they'd need to increase service standards by at least the same rate as they increase the cost, probably quite a bit more.

[Dcheech]

54 minutes ago, Raphael Hythlodaeus said:

Still, I'm not suggesting that Thailand copies the Bhutanese model exactly, only to be considered as a guide.

Bhutan sits deep in the Himalaya mountains with a ready made tourist base of trekkers that will pay handsomely to sleep in tents and walk on trails. Yes other groups visit temples but the trekkers are their main base.

 

I would be surprised, no shocked,  if this model could work for Thailand. BTW Laos tried it 89 -94. Did not work there.

[herfiehandbag]

The trouble with the "Bhutan model" for tourism is:

 

1) there aren't any decent bars.

 

2) the beaches are rubbish!

[ThailandRyan]

I am betting that Thailand's tourism model will be more like North Koreas, where you fly into the country and then like an escape room, you do your best to get back out of the country without getting eaten by the dogs or getting shot by an anti aircraft gun.....

[b17]

I spent three months in Bhutan back in 1986 as a guest rather than a visitor. 

 

IMHO, comparing Bhutan and Thailand is like comparing apples and oranges, due to a variety of reasons, including Bhutan's relatively difficult to reach location, its unique and unspoiled nature, and it s previous insistence on keeping foreign influences, such as tv and internet, from diluting its very special culture. 

Thailand, on the other hand, has a reputation for being a place to relax and let your hair down for a budget price, and most people used to come here to enjoy an inexpensive holiday and relax with the beautiful ladies who seemed to be everywhere. 

Trying to change Thailand into Bhutan with regard to tourism expectations would be tantamont to putting lipstick on a very old, cynical but still attractive pig. Tempting, but ultimately doomed for failure. 

 

[androokery]

A lot of the visa types aren't free. Isn't that sort of the system you're already advocating? Are you just saying that they should be more expensive? And that the 30-day TV on arrival should cost USD 150?