Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Sources of finance, Sue Snyman and Paul Eagles

125 views

Published on

Presentation made at the CBD/IUCN TAPAS Group meeting on "Tourism partnerships and concessions in protected areas: Cooperating for success" meeting in the iSimangaliso Wetland Park

Published in: Environment
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Sources of finance, Sue Snyman and Paul Eagles

  1. 1. Sources of finance 31 May 2017 Block 7 Facilitators: Dr Sue Snyman & Prof Paul Eagles Image © stevepb via Pixabay
  2. 2. • Understanding financing • Portfolio of revenue streams • Unique selling points (USPs) • Sound, financially viable business Financing tourism concessions Image © geralt via Pixabay
  3. 3. Investors questions •  Will the business be viable? 
 •  Is the sponsor credible? 
 •  What collateral is available? 
 •  Is this project profitable enough for us to take the risk? 
 Image © 3dman_eu via Pixabay
  4. 4. Choosing the right investor ü Identify appropriate investors ü Sources: internet, local contacts in tourism and development, tourism information offices ü Similar values and goals as the PA ü Track record in sustainable tourism and commercial successImage © 3dman_eu via Pixabay
  5. 5. Background •  In wealthy countries, parks are often managed by government agencies and rely on government funding. •  In poorer countries, parks rely heavily on tourism fees and charges to finance park management •  In 2008, the average percentage of state park budgets in the USA covered by user fees was 42%. •  In 2011, California State Parks closed 70 of its 278 parks in order to deal with a $33 million reduction in government funds from the state. •  In 2018, Ontario Provincial Parks was 90% funded by tourism fees.
  6. 6. Park Finance •  Most income for management comes three sources: 1.  Government tax revenue; 2.  Tourist fees and charges, either directly to the park or through concessionaire payments; and, 3.  Donations.
  7. 7. Insourcing Examples •  In Ontario, several major agencies are funded entirely or mostly by tourist fees and charges: –  Niagara Parks Commission (Niagara Falls) (110%) –  Ontario Conservation Authority Parks (Watershed Management) (100%) –  Ontario Provincial Parks (90%)
  8. 8. Balance of Taxes and Tourism Taxes Tourism
  9. 9. Background to Ontario Parks •  The finance for park management in many jurisdictions is moving from government grants to tourism fees and charges. •  In 1995, Ontario Parks received permission from government to move to tourism funding. •  This presentation describes the financial implications of this change. •  This is based on an analysis of the yearly income spreadsheets from 1995 to 2012.
  10. 10. Policy Changes •  The policy changes in 1995 enabled Ontario Parks to: – Retain all income in a special purpose account. – Retain all income over the end of the fiscal year.
  11. 11. Ontario Parks •  Ontario has the oldest and second-largest provincial park system in Canada, starting with the establishment of Algonquin National Park in 1893. •  By 2011, the Ontario system contained 630 provincial of Algonquin National Park in 1893. •  By 2011, the Ontario system contained 630 provincial parks and conservation reserves covering an area of 9.5 million hectares, or about 9% of the province. •  This area is larger than all US state parks combined. •  110 operating parks with recreation services.
  12. 12. Tourism Volumes 1985 to 2016 - 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Visitor Days
  13. 13. Income 1995 to 2010 •  From 1995 to 2010, Ontario Parks budget increased from $28.2 to $76.5 million, an increase of 165%. •  In constant dollars, the overall Ministry of Natural Resources operating budget was $700 million in 1995/96 and $400 million in 2010/11, a decrease of 43%. •  Therefore, the move from government funding to tourism funding enabled Ontario Parks to gain a substantial increase in budget, while if it had remained tied to the government allocations for the larger MNR it would have seen a substantial decrease.
  14. 14. Tourism Income •  In 1994, about 36% of the budget was earned by park fees, but these were placed into central government coffers. •  In 2012, 88% of the budget was earned by park fees, and all of these were retained in the park agency special purpose account. •  In 2015, 90% cost recovery from tourism fees •  Therefore, the income coming from tourism fees and charges increased from 36% to 90% of the budget.
  15. 15. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Series1 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Series2 $18,181 $20,686 $26,141 $31,502 $40,413 $37,355 $43,224 $45,198 $46,244 $47,742 $57,158 $53,521 $62,456 $64,856 $64,793 $64,793 $64,979 Series3 8,607, 8,005, 8,339, 9,228,7 9,415,1 8,869,8 10,140, 10,493, 10,183, 9,754,3 10,517, 10,096, 10,377, 9,537,6 9,447,5 9,505,4 9,595,0 $18,181,527 $20,686,061 $26,141,371 $31,502,377 $40,413,891 $37,355,497 $43,224,735 $45,198,955 $46,244,306 $47,742,199 $57,158,758 $53,521,881 $62,456,115 $64,856,992 $64,793,877 $64,793,877 $64,979,103 $0.00 $10,000,000.00 $20,000,000.00 $30,000,000.00 $40,000,000.00 $50,000,000.00 $60,000,000.00 $70,000,000.00 Dollars Ontario Parks' Tourism Income
  16. 16. Ontario Parks’ Return per Visitor Day (1995 – 2011) $2.11 $2.58 $3.13 $3.41 $4.29 $4.21 $4.26 $4.31 $4.54 $4.89 $5.43 $5.30 $6.02 $6.80 $6.86 $6.82 $6.77 $0.00 $1.00 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 $6.00 $7.00 $8.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
  17. 17. Ontario Parks’ Tourism Income 1995 to 2010 $0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Day Use Income Camping Income Merchandise Sales Other Income
  18. 18. Income Sources •  Day use income increased 124% •  Camping income increased 225% •  Merchandise sales increased 409% •  Other income increased 9870%
  19. 19. Ontario Parks’ Fee Changes 1995 to 2010 $0.00 $20.00 $40.00 $60.00 $80.00 $100.00 $120.00 Campsite with electricity Campsite without elecKcity Daily Vehicle Permit Minimum Daily Vehicle Permit Maximum Commerical Bus Permit 1995 2010
  20. 20. Campsites •  Campsites differentiated into three levels: premium, middle and low. •  Within each level there are subcategories according to: –  electricity on site, –  seniors’ discounts, and –  discounts for people with disabilities. •  Yurts (permanent tents) introduced into 11 parks. •  Rustic cabins introduced in 4 parks, cottages in 4. •  New campgrounds built in 4 parks. •  Internet campsite booking introduced.
  21. 21. SANParks and Ontario Parks Income 21 33 19 8 7 5 1 6 22 49 9 4 0 8 1 9 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Percent of Budget Income Categories SANParks Ontario Parks
  22. 22. SANParks and Ontario Parks •  A comparison with South Africa National Parks, who underwent a similar transformation from government to tourism funding in a similar time period, revealed that the top three income sources for both park systems are, in order: –  1) accommodation; –  2) government grants; and, –  3) entrance fees.
  23. 23. Conclusions. 1.  Is the government grant level reduced when tourism funding increases? Yes, the government grant was reduced from $28.8 million in 1994 to 10.6 million in 1995, a drop of 63%. 2.  Do the park fees increase and how much? •  Campsite with electricity fees up 152% •  Campsite without electricity fees up 166% •  Daily use fees, up 79% in low use periods & 221% in high use periods •  Commercial bus permit increased 207%
  24. 24. Conclusions 3.  If fees increase, does use decline? No, use increased from 7.5 million to 9.5 million visitor days. 4.  Are a wider variety of sources of income utilized? The number of income sources used doubled. Differential fees introduced.
  25. 25. Conclusions 5.  What are these new income sources? 1.  reservation penalties for cancellations, 2.  winter ski permits, 3.  donations, 4.  staff house fees, 5.  park fines, 6.  merchandise sales, 7.  campfire wood sales, 8.  camper supplies sales,
  26. 26. Conclusions 5.  What are these new income sources? 9.  recreation equipment rentals, 10. sales of cold beverages, 11. winter storage fees for recreation vehicles, 12. parking fees, 13. annual vehicle permits.
  27. 27. Summary •  The park tourism income increased through three major factors: – 1) increased levels of fees charged; – 2) increased diversity of pricing; and, – 3) broadening the income to include new features.
  28. 28. Use of NGOs •  Non-government bodies (Friends Groups) became more prominent in delivering education, festivals, information delivery, recreation, and occasionally food delivery and transit. •  Several parks are entirely operated by NGOs. •  Decreasing use of concessionaires, and replacement by park staff and NGOs.
  29. 29. Reference and Reading •  Eagles, Paul F. J. 2014. Fiscal Implications of Moving to Tourism Finance for Parks: Ontario Provincial Parks. Managing Leisure 19(1): 16-27. •  Eagles, Paul F. J., Julia Coburn and Bobbie Swartman. 2014. Plan Quality and Plan Detail of Visitor and Tourism Policies in Ontario Park Management Plans. Journal of Outdoor Recreation and Tourism DOI: 10.1016/j.jort. 2014.09.006
  30. 30. •  Current sources of financing in your PAs •  Pros and cons of each source Discussion session 1
  31. 31. Discussion session 2 Group One: Financing options for investors Group Two: Financing options for PAs •  Choosing the right investors •  What is needed to attract investors
  32. 32. Summary of the financing process

×