I LOVE Sark and I worry about the future of its tourism industry. I’m not talking about the row over the positive/negative impact of the Barclays’ investment. No, my concern is over something far more basic: the cost of getting there.
I know that it’s a real dilemma.
If the fares are too low, the boats can all be packed but the Isle of Sark Shipping Company still loses money hand over fist.
Certainly the cash-strapped Chief Pleas has no bottomless pit of money and the shipping company’s ongoing losses must be hard for this micro-government to bear.
Perhaps it’s in reaction to those losses that the decision was taken to put up fares by a whopping 16% for the 2009 season. This will surely lead to diminishing passenger numbers.
Even in 2008 the cost of getting to Sark from Guernsey, at £22 return, was pretty steep. For a family of four you were talking about serious cash. Full marks to Chief Pleas for recognising this and bringing in a new family fare, although it is still a pretty expensive day out, even before you buy your first cream tea. For individual trippers and couples, the new fare of £25.50 is a significant disincentive.
It’s true that the higher return fare will do little to deter the loyal band of Sarkophiles from spending a holiday at their favourite hostelry on the island. What it will do is serious damage to the day-tripper market. That in turn will affect cafes, restaurants and shops.
Sark’s economy is fairly narrowly based. The biggest sector is probably the private wealth of settlers but tourism is a vital second string to their bow and can’t be allowed to dwindle.
So what can be done? Travel Trident believes it has the answer and could step in as a ‘white knight’ offering lower fares. The way it could achieve that would be by triangulating trips from Guernsey to Herm, Sark and back again.
That makes some sense – after all, both islands lie pretty much due east of Guernsey – but an independent report came out firmly against allowing a second operator.
There were two reasons: the strength of public opposition and the market being too small for two operators in competition.
Both conclusions are valid. After all, limited passenger numbers is the root of the problem and would simply be compounded if the punters were split between two operators. Even if Trident’s lower fares succeeded in growing the market somewhat, it seems certain that the Isle of Sark Shipping Company would go to the wall.
That in turn is probably why opposition from Sark was so strong. The community has put megabucks – by its standards – into Sark Shipping and it doesn’t want to put that investment in jeopardy by allowing a competitor in. Particularly one with the inherent advantage of servicing another tourist island en route. Equally, there are strategic issues here and Sark would not be happy for its lifeline links to be controlled by a single, Guernsey-based private company, no matter how benign it may appear.
To the sympathetic observer, the answer is obvious: not competition, but co-operation.
Of course boats going to Sark via Herm make sense, particularly outside the peak season, when neither vessel is full.
Some tourists would welcome the option to move between the smaller islands without going back to Guernsey first and lower fares/higher passenger numbers would benefit everybody.
There might even be further savings from shared booking and engineering operations in Guernsey.
Whether such a radical option is really a starter I have no idea. It depends on flexibility and goodwill from Travel Trident and Sark Shipping. Both will have interests to protect which may prove incompatible but the alternative looks too much like inevitable slow decline.
Next week the States will be asked to approve rules allowing itself to borrow well over £300m.
Once that limit is set, it is almost a given that our politicians will spend up to it. Not in this House but in the next, which will inherit almost no room to fund capital projects out of revenue surpluses.
Need a new school at La Mare? Redevelop the KEVII? ‘No problem – the prudent fiscal rules laid down by the last States gives us plenty of headroom for extra borrowing.’
The Treasury minister has said the States has no wish to borrow more than £175m. ‘in the lifetime of this House’.
Enough said. The slippery slope gets ever greasier.
Co-operation could be key to future of Sark tourism
I LOVE Sark and I worry about the future of its tourism industry. I’m not talking about the row over the positive/negative impact of the Barclays’ investment. No, my concern is over something far more basic: the cost of getting there.
I know that it’s a real dilemma.
If the fares are too low, the boats can all be packed but the Isle of Sark Shipping Company still loses money hand over fist.
Certainly the cash-strapped Chief Pleas has no bottomless pit of money and the shipping company’s ongoing losses must be hard for this micro-government to bear.
Perhaps it’s in reaction to those losses that the decision was taken to put up fares by a whopping 16% for the 2009 season. This will surely lead to diminishing passenger numbers.
Even in 2008 the cost of getting to Sark from Guernsey, at £22 return, was pretty steep. For a family of four you were talking about serious cash. Full marks to Chief Pleas for recognising this and bringing in a new family fare, although it is still a pretty expensive day out, even before you buy your first cream tea. For individual trippers and couples, the new fare of £25.50 is a significant disincentive.
It’s true that the higher return fare will do little to deter the loyal band of Sarkophiles from spending a holiday at their favourite hostelry on the island. What it will do is serious damage to the day-tripper market. That in turn will affect cafes, restaurants and shops.
Sark’s economy is fairly narrowly based. The biggest sector is probably the private wealth of settlers but tourism is a vital second string to their bow and can’t be allowed to dwindle.
So what can be done? Travel Trident believes it has the answer and could step in as a ‘white knight’ offering lower fares. The way it could achieve that would be by triangulating trips from Guernsey to Herm, Sark and back again.
That makes some sense – after all, both islands lie pretty much due east of Guernsey – but an independent report came out firmly against allowing a second operator.
There were two reasons: the strength of public opposition and the market being too small for two operators in competition.
Both conclusions are valid. After all, limited passenger numbers is the root of the problem and would simply be compounded if the punters were split between two operators. Even if Trident’s lower fares succeeded in growing the market somewhat, it seems certain that the Isle of Sark Shipping Company would go to the wall.
That in turn is probably why opposition from Sark was so strong. The community has put megabucks – by its standards – into Sark Shipping and it doesn’t want to put that investment in jeopardy by allowing a competitor in. Particularly one with the inherent advantage of servicing another tourist island en route. Equally, there are strategic issues here and Sark would not be happy for its lifeline links to be controlled by a single, Guernsey-based private company, no matter how benign it may appear.
To the sympathetic observer, the answer is obvious: not competition, but co-operation.
Of course boats going to Sark via Herm make sense, particularly outside the peak season, when neither vessel is full.
Some tourists would welcome the option to move between the smaller islands without going back to Guernsey first and lower fares/higher passenger numbers would benefit everybody.
There might even be further savings from shared booking and engineering operations in Guernsey.
Whether such a radical option is really a starter I have no idea. It depends on flexibility and goodwill from Travel Trident and Sark Shipping. Both will have interests to protect which may prove incompatible but the alternative looks too much like inevitable slow decline.
Next week the States will be asked to approve rules allowing itself to borrow well over £300m.
Once that limit is set, it is almost a given that our politicians will spend up to it. Not in this House but in the next, which will inherit almost no room to fund capital projects out of revenue surpluses.
Need a new school at La Mare? Redevelop the KEVII? ‘No problem – the prudent fiscal rules laid down by the last States gives us plenty of headroom for extra borrowing.’
The Treasury minister has said the States has no wish to borrow more than £175m. ‘in the lifetime of this House’.
Enough said. The slippery slope gets ever greasier.
Article posted on 20th April, 2009 - 2.30pm