Analysis: Tourism 3.0 is heading in the right direction, but the plan needs to change

Written by Tito Laclé

Aruba needs to change its tourism model. On that point, almost every major stakeholder agrees. The question is whether Tourism 3.0, in its current form, is realistic enough to achieve that without creating new problems. I made an analysis. Yes, it is long, but I did not want to split it into pieces. So sit back, read it, save it, take a break if necessary, but I believe those who are genuinely interested will read it to the end. Whether they — or you — agree is another matter.

After analyzing the draft of the Aruba Strategic Tourism Implementation Plan 2026–2031, together with the reactions of AHATA, the Chamber of Commerce, Aruba Birdlife Conservation and other stakeholders in the sector, the conclusion is clear:

Aruba should not reject Tourism 3.0, but neither should it adopt the plan in its current form. The direction is right; important parts of the implementation, financing and growth strategy need to be revised. The main problem is not the vision, but the contradiction between that vision and some of the measures being proposed.

TOURISM CANNOT BE MEASURED ONLY BY NUMBERS

One of the most important changes in the plan is the principle that tourism should no longer be evaluated only by the number of visitors. For every 1% increase in arrivals, the real economic value generated by tourism should rise by at least 2%. In other words: fewer tourists, but those tourists should spend more.

The plan wants to increase average spending by stay-over tourists and connect tourism more directly with infrastructure, housing, nature, education, the labor market and quality of life.

That change is necessary. And as I have said before, Aruba cannot keep celebrating arrival records while roads, housing, water, energy, beaches and quality of life pay the price. There are ideas here that deserve support. How often do we see the airport full of aircraft and boast politically about how many planes and tourists we have, while at times those same planes cannot even park because “there is no space at the gate”? “Welcome to Aruba, but sorry, there is no spot for us at the gate.” I have experienced that myself several times.

TOURISM 3.0 HAS SEVERAL STRONG ELEMENTS

The plan proposes protected funds for resilience, nature and tourism investment, with the aim of preventing money collected for a specific purpose from simply disappearing into the government’s general coffers. It also includes proposals for investment in housing, roads, infrastructure, nature, workforce training and modernization of the tourism product.

Another positive point is the attempt to stabilize cruise tourism, control the number of passengers arriving per day and prevent unlimited growth. In other words, just as with airplanes, we should not boast a packed harbor with cruise ships simply because it looks successful and makes for a nice political campaign photo. Bonaire has already started limiting the number of cruise ships. Imagine that.

The plan also pays attention to leakage: money spent by tourists that later leaves Aruba. The intention to increase the participation of local entrepreneurs, producers, artists and employees in the tourism value chain is important.

But now comes the problem: growth remains the plan’s biggest contradiction. How so? Well, the same plan that talks about “value over volume” does not place a sufficiently clear limit on continued growth in visitor numbers. On this point, AHATA and the Chamber of Commerce have a strong argument.

AHATA argues that Aruba should not continue increasing visitor numbers and simply hope that value grows faster. Its preference is to reduce pressure and focus on visitors who spend more, appreciate culture and nature, and place less pressure on the island. Incidentally, the Tourism Minister quickly responded that a stakeholder — clearly referring to AHATA — cannot decide Aruba’s tourism future. My question is: then why invite them to the table in the first place?

The Chamber of Commerce has also been critical. It points out that infrastructure, wastewater treatment, water and energy production, beaches and parking are already under pressure, while additional hotel capacity remains under development.

The logical question is: if Aruba acknowledges that the current system is overloaded, why continue allowing capacity to grow while infrastructure is still unable to keep up? I have written before that the airport is also expanding, but there is reason to worry that the island’s infrastructure is not ready for that expansion.

Aruba should consider a strategic pause or stop on net tourism-capacity growth until there are clear indicators that infrastructure, housing, nature and the labor market can carry more. Period.

TOO MANY NEW FEES AT THE SAME TIME

Tourism 3.0 proposes several new revenue streams, including a resilience fee, an increase in the Tourism Product Fee, a higher room tax, fees for divers, higher charges for cruise passengers and a possible levy on rental cars.

Individually, each fee may have an argument behind it. The problem is the accumulation. Let me explain.

Tourists look at the total cost of Aruba. A destination that wants to charge more must also deliver more. That means that before introducing all these new charges, the government should first show how much is already being collected, where exactly that money is going, how much revenue is being lost through non-compliance — Airbnb, perhaps? — and how much could be gained through better efficiency.

THE TOTAL COST IS STILL UNCLEAR

A serious issue is that the plan itself acknowledges that the Afl. 584.5 million figure does not include the full cost of the cruise-transformation program. For a national five-year plan, that is not a small detail.

Before the government commits Aruba to the entire package, there should be a final, independent and comprehensive financial model, including scenarios in which economic growth or fee revenues turn out lower than projected.

MORE ORGANIZATIONS DO NOT NECESSARILY MEAN BETTER GOVERNMENT

Tourism 3.0 proposes the creation of a National Tourism Office, councils, funds and other coordination structures. The logic is understandable because tourism touches almost every ministry. But if the current problem is bureaucracy and fragmented responsibility, creating more organizations could make the system even more complicated.

The solution is not necessarily more government, but better government. Every new entity should have to demonstrate that an existing structure cannot perform the same task, that its mandate is unique and that its responsibilities are measurable.

OCEAN REST DAY MUST BE TREATED SCIENTIFICALLY

This was one idea that initially made me laugh. The plan proposes a monthly National Ocean Rest Day in designated zones, during which certain marine activities would be suspended. In other words, one day when certain areas would not be accessible to tourists — or locals. 

The idea may have value, but only if it is based on evidence and monitoring. The document itself says the measure should lead to demonstrable ecological recovery, not merely a symbolic closure. We do not have that evidence yet. So there is no need to reject the idea, but neither should Aruba rush to implement it simply as environmental symbolism.

SECTOR OPPOSITION DESERVES WEIGHT

The fact that AHATA, the Chamber of Commerce and other organizations are questioning important parts of the plan cannot simply be ignored. But their criticism does not mean they oppose transformation.

As I said earlier, the minister quickly stated that a stakeholder cannot decide Aruba’s tourism future. He should be careful with that kind of language.

Deep down, many of the stakeholders agree on the goal: more value, less pressure, more local benefit and stronger protection of nature. The disagreement is mainly about HOW to get there. And believe me, these stakeholders need to be heard.

REVISE THE PLAN, DO NOT REJECT THE DIRECTION

Tourism 3.0 contains enough serious material that it should not be discarded. Its focus on value, resilience, nature, infrastructure, housing, productivity and local benefit is necessary.

But the current draft is not mature enough to be implemented as one complete package. Aruba should adopt the direction, but revise the implementation.

First, control growth while Aruba determines its true carrying capacity. Second, resolve bottlenecks in infrastructure, wastewater, housing and traffic. Third, present the full cost of every program. Fourth, simplify government structures before creating new organizations. And fifth, introduce new fees only when there is a clear destination for the money and proper accountability.

Tourism 3.0 is not a bad plan. But a good vision, combined with too much growth, too much structure and too many charges introduced too quickly, can still produce a bad result.

The opportunity now is to use the criticism to strengthen the plan, not to kill the transformation Aruba genuinely needs.

So, dear mr Minister: Pay attention. Listen, and use the advice you are being given by yes, the stakeholders!.