|
Visas: raising the stakes |
|
|
|
|
Edition 42: Spring 2008 The recent move by Zambia to raise the price of its visas radically has led many Britons to travel elsewhere. Will the government’s decision reduce their tourist income in the long run? Probably. Will the tourists’ choice to avoid Zambia cause them to pay more money elsewhere? Possibly. Matt Phillips explores the issues.
For some travellers visas are an afterthought, so much so that some of them – those who either forgot they needed one or wrongly assumed they could simply pick one up upon arrival – are turned away from their initial flight because they lack that all-important stamp in their passport. For many others, visas are at the forefront of their planning and any associated hassles and costs can actually sway where they decide to travel.
So when the Zambian government recently made a hasty change to their visa policy, it caused tourist operators in the nation to recoil in horror. The two-pronged decision abolished the visa waiver programme, which previously allowed most safari-goers on organised trips to visit without paying for visas, and raised the price of visas by as much as 530 per cent. The tourist industry’s fears were quickly realised with a spate of cancellations, particularly from British travellers.
Considering a double/multiple-entry visa for each UK citizen is a now a whopping £240 (up from £45), the fallout is not surprising. The biggest problem is the surprise announcement was to take immediate effect, meaning those groups or families who had already booked and budgeted for their holiday were now being asked to cough up hundreds, if not thousands of pounds. In neither foreseeing the immediate economic consequence of their decision, nor realising the lasting sour taste it will leave in the mouth of many visitors to Zambia, the government’s decision was incredibly shortsighted.
However, while many Britons may turn their back on Zambia because of this, I think it would be a mistake to do so. Yes, while the £75 cost of the single-entry visa is more than double that of other popular safari destinations in Africa, trips to this country can still be good value. And you may actually pay less to the government than you do in other similar destinations. For instance, although South Africa doesn’t require a payment for visas, they do charge a bed levy – a small percentage of the accommodation’s rack rate – each and every night you are visiting. Namibia does the same thing, though their levy is usually included within the price of accommodation. Botswana, on the other hand, brings in most of its tourist income by charging lodges expensive concession fees for the exclusive use of its wilderness – again, you don’t pay anything for a visa, but the lodges will be charging you larger sums to cover their land costs.
While paying for visas is the norm in East Africa, the governments there also charge tourist levies. In Tanzania it takes the form of a substantial flat daily fee included in most park lodges’ prices, whereas in Rwanda they use their star attractions – gorilla permits are now US$500 per person per day.
The key thing to remember is that a visa is just one of the many ways by which African governments can generate much-needed income from tourism. Its cost, particularly when increased radically, can be incredibly off-putting, but it needs to be put in perspective when comparing the relative costs and quality of tourism services in other destinations. |
