Balancing Boracay’s Appeal and Sustainability

The debate over tourism fees in Boracay once again highlights the challenge of balancing economic growth with environmental sustainability.

Mayor Frolibar Bautista of Malay, Aklan, has defended the PHP150 environmental fee amid discussions on whether such charges make the island too expensive for visitors. While concerns over affordability are valid, reducing or removing these fees could come at a steep cost to the island’s environmental health and long-term viability.

At the heart of this discussion is a critical question: Should Boracay prioritize short-term tourist influx by lowering fees, or should it ensure the island remains pristine and operationally sustainable through proper funding?

Boracay’s rehabilitation in 2018 was a stark reminder that without strict regulations and sufficient resources, even the most beautiful destinations can succumb to environmental degradation. The island’s transformation was hailed as a model for sustainable tourism, but maintaining that success requires continuous funding. The environmental fee, which helps finance waste management, coastal protection, and other essential services, is a small but vital contribution to the preservation of Boracay’s fragile ecosystem.

The argument that the PHP150 fee is driving away tourists seems unconvincing. As noted by Bautista, the decline in foreign arrivals is largely attributed to external factors such as tensions in the West Philippine Sea affecting Chinese tourism. Meanwhile, South Korean tourists—the island’s biggest market—are calling for improved infrastructure rather than fee reductions. If anything, the priority should be enhancing facilities like the Godofredo P. Ramos Airport in Caticlan, not cutting back on crucial environmental programs.

While affordability is an important consideration, it should not come at the expense of sustainability. A well-maintained Boracay, with clean waters and a thriving natural environment, is more valuable than an overcrowded, poorly managed destination that risks another environmental collapse. If tourists are willing to spend thousands on accommodations, activities, and dining, a PHP150 fee—equivalent to the price of a cup of coffee in some resorts—should not be a dealbreaker.

Nonetheless, transparency in fund allocation is essential. The Malay local government must ensure that every peso collected is used efficiently for environmental protection and infrastructure improvement. Tourists and stakeholders have the right to know how these fees contribute to maintaining Boracay’s status as a world-class destination.

Rather than reducing fees, a more constructive approach would be improving tourist experience while enforcing environmental safeguards. If tourists are deterred, it is likely due to inefficiencies such as long travel times, subpar airport facilities, and restrictive policies rather than the environmental fee itself. Addressing these concerns will make Boracay more attractive without compromising the sustainability efforts that have kept it pristine.

Ultimately, Boracay’s long-term success depends on finding the right balance between tourism growth and responsible stewardship. The island’s appeal is not just in its powdery white sand but in the assurance that it will remain a paradise for generations to come. Sacrificing environmental protection for a modest increase in arrivals would be shortsighted. Instead, investing in sustainability and infrastructure will ensure that Boracay remains a premier destination without repeating the mistakes of the past.