Boracay: Are We Again Killing the Goose that Lays the Golden Egg?

By the Institute of Contemporary Economics (ICE)

The Backstory

Boracay was closed for a period of six months in 2018 after sustained environmental damage with the island paradise becoming tagged as a cesspool. The closure led to a significant decline in tourist arrivals with overnight visitors declining from 2,001,974 in 2017 to 941,868 in 2018 (Chart 1).

This also caused a significant drop in local sources of revenue for the local government of Malay, Aklan. Revenue from taxes, service and business income fell by 21.1% to P442 million in 2018 from P561 million in 2017 (Chart 2).

By 2019, however, tourists returned to Boracay with overnight visitors exceeding the number of arrivals recorded in 2017. This also allowed the local government to recover and exceed the previous year’s revenue figures. Then the pandemic hit.

For the years 2020 and 2023, tourist numbers declined by up to 83.8% compared to 2019. This also hammered local revenues of Malay which declined by 29.8% in 2020 and another 28.3% in 2021. By 2021, local revenues of the municipality were down to P224 million, barely half of what it was in 2019. It was only in 2023 when both tourism numbers and the local government finances finally exceeded previous highs recorded in 2017.

The meeting

Last month. national government officials led by DILG Secretary Jonvic Remulla and DoT Secretary Christina Frasco met with local government officials and other stakeholders to discuss the apparently high fees being charged to tourists on their way to Boracay. In what has been described in press reports as a “tense” meeting, sources say that “Secretary Remulla gave the mayor a two-week deadline to either reduce the fees for island hopping, picnicking, and snorkeling or impose a moratorium on them,”. Aklan Governor Joen Miraflores was said to have indicated his willingness to reduce or do away with the fees right away. The only pushback came from Malay Mayor Frolibar Bautista who expressed concern about the loss of revenues and its impact on the delivery of services.

How much is enough

It is sad that during this meeting, we have not been able to find any mention of the dangers of again asking Boracay to host more people than its ascribed “carrying capacity”. In their work, Regional sustainability and tourism carrying capacities, Zekan, et.al.

describes carrying capacity in the following manner:

“Carrying capacity, a concept stemming from ecology, is a suitable frame for illustrating the environmental boundaries of a given socioeconomic system. This purely science-based approach helps to understand the resource endowment of a given ecosystem and to assess environmental sustainability…carrying capacity has long been applied in the context of the environmental impacts of human activities, especially in natural resource and ecosystem management of protected areas such as national parks. The explicit focus on human carrying capacity…investigates the resilience of regions’ social-ecological systems in the context of regional sustainability.”

Studies have shown that Boracay has gone beyond its limits for sustainability

One of the outputs coming out of the Boracay closure in 2018 was a study undertaken by UP Los Baños and the Ecosystems Research and Development Bureau, an attached agency of the DENR. That study among others, concluded that Boracay can only accommodate 54,945 persons per day. It broke down this number into 35,730 non-tourists (i.e. residents, stay-in workers, migrant workers) and 19,215 tourists. There are various numbers that you can look at, but the observation remains that Boracay has already exceeded the number of non-tourists that it can sustainably support. Capping tourists at 19,215 on any given day means that there can only be about 6,000 arrivals per day assuming they stay an average of 3 days on the island.

This is not the first time that a study on the ability of Boracay to host people has come out. In 1997, ecoplan international, inc. was commissioned by the Department of Tourism, the Canadian Urban Institute-Philippines and Canada-Philippines Cooperative Program on Sustainable Development for Boracay Island to undertake a “carrying capacity” study funded by the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). The results and recommendations of this study were ignored, and we are now teetering on ignoring the more recent study.

It is quite ironic that the municipal government of Malay has been called out multiple times for allowing more tourists to visit the island than the cap put in place. Fees and other similar regulatory levies have the effect of making it more expensive to visit Boracay. That being the case, it helps deter the influx of people testing the carrying capacity of the island. To now mandate that this be removed is inconsistent with the mandate to protect Boracay. It is quite difficult to relate the idea of sustainability with removing a tool (i.e. the imposition of fees) meant (by design or by happenstance) to promote such sustainability.

Options

We remain steadfast in our belief that economic growth and the protection of the environment are not mutually exclusive. In this case, it has been proven time and again that the island has breached its ability to support human activities given its physical and infrastructural limitations. Ignoring environmental considerations also has economic costs as proven by the billions of pesos foregone with the closure of Boracay in 2018.

The municipality of Malay has attained revenue levels that can promote equitable development without the need for more tourists. Keeping fees at current rates still makes Boracay relatively affordable and competitive as a tourist destination. Reducing the fees and levies may make Boracay even more affordable but at what price?

The province of Aklan must continue its work to diversify its economy not just by industry but even geographically. We estimate that Boracay and the tourism industry in Aklan accounts for at least 25-30% of its GDP. Its dependence on tourism is highlighted by the 20.7% contraction of its economy at the onset of the pandemic. The decision by Philippine Airlines to discontinue its Manila – Kalibo flights is a clear red flag indicative of the uneven geographical economic development in the province.

We would propose that the national government turn its eyes to other tourism destinations or help develop new ones to avoid the dangers of “overtourism”. We have seen the effects of straining the capacities of tourism destinations to the detriment of the local population and the environment. Santorini (Greece), Maya Bay (Thailand), Bondi Beach (Australia) and Kuta Beach (Bali, Indonesia) are lessons we need to learn from to walk back from being listed as beaches ruined by overtourism (5). Oh, and yes, El Nido and Boracay are currently on that list too.

If we ignore lessons from the past, we may just end up killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

End Notes:

(1) Arnaldo, M. S. (2025, February 20). Remulla tells Malay LGU: Cut Boracay fees [Review of Remulla tells Malay LGU: Cut Boracay fees]. https://businessmirror.com.ph/…/remulla-tells…/Bozana

Zekan, Christian Weismayer, Ulrich Gunter, Bernd Schuh, Sabine Sedlacek,

(2) Regional sustainability and tourism carrying capacities, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 339, 2022,

130624, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.130624

. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/…/pii/S0959652622002657

)

(3) Boracay’s carrying capacity for tourists limited to 19K a day: Cimatu | Philippine News Agency. (2018). Pna.gov.ph.

https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1047750

(4) Trousdale, W. (1997). Carrying Capacity Considerations: The Need for Managing Change in a Unique Tourism Destination – Boracay Island, Philippines. ecoplan international, inc.

(5) Zendrila, M. (2025, January 23). 10 Beautiful Beaches Ruined by Overtourism. Cultural Creatives. https://culturalcreatives.org/…/10-beautiful-beaches…/