In a report on tourism taxation, the New Green Transition Chair at the University of Valencia is highlighted. Proponents of the overnight tax, including Botànic and Combines PodemAs, defend their positions, especially after the recent release of a study led by the Autonomous Secretary of Tourism and carried out through Invat:tur, based on work from the University of Alicante. The central question remains: what does this research reveal? The report, authored by Aurora Peter, a professor of applied economics at the University of Valencia, presents key conclusions. It notes that the epidemic’s impact on the economy, and on tourism specifically, suggests that delaying the tourist tax until covid control is firmly in place might be prudent. Yet the author also argues that expanding the overnight tax does not appear sensible while it lags behind a broader European trend. The spread of such taxes across Europe is acknowledged, with examples from Portugal, Italy, and Croatia, and a recognition that there is substantial variation among cases. The author emphasizes that the tax revenues could support improved tourism policy tools, and that the funds should be clearly allocated to the sector.
the document places particular emphasis on the tax’s impact. It states that there is no definitive evidence that implementing a tourist tax has reduced the number of visitors or overnight stays in destinations. To support this view, the study examines cases in cities such as Berlin, Paris, Rome, and Amsterdam. The author stresses that tourism taxation is common across Europe and that its effect on visitor numbers is not necessarily negative.
In addition, the report analyzes Spain’s situation by looking at tourism trends since the tax was introduced in the Balearic Islands and Catalonia, focusing on arrivals and overnight stays. For Catalonia, the study records a slight dip in arrivals of 0.18 percent in 2013, followed by consistent growth in subsequent years, rising from 5.44 percent to 0.93 percent by 2015, and continuing through 2019, the year before the pandemic. Overnight stays show a similar pattern of a gradual increase with a minor drop in 2018, when declines of around 0.83 percent were noted in the late 2010s, according to the study.
Ineca reiterates its stance against the tourist tax: now is not the time
The Balearic Islands receive special attention. The study highlights a notable 21.12 percent decline in highly important tourist arrivals in 2016, the year the tax was approved. After two years, growth returned, reaching 0.43 percent in 2018 and jumping to 1.24 percent before the pandemic struck in 2019, when many destinations experienced significant declines. Although not fully detailed, the report presents comparisons with 2015 and 2019, the years directly preceding the tax and the pandemic, showing a sizable drop in visitor numbers, with approximately 3 million visitors lost, from 16.4 million to 13.6 million.
What is striking is that the evolution of overnight stays in the Balearic Islands tells a different story. The trend remained positive up to 2018, slipping by 0.34 percent the year before covid and then rising to 1.78 percent. During this period, the accommodation sector grew substantially, with overnight totals rising from 54.6 million in 2015 to 58.1 million in 2019 before the pandemic impact. The data indicate a robust capacity to absorb the tax while visitor numbers fluctuated.
Universities, mayors, and tourism entrepreneurs are presented as facing challenging odds and warning that Benidorm could become a focal point of debate. The report notes the difficulty in proving a negative impact on two core indicators of tourism performance: arrivals and overnight stays. Exceptions exist for the Balearic Islands, but generally the data do not show a straightforward negative response to the tax. References to the Community of Valencia and Benidorm are brief, and it is noted that municipal budgets often depend on census data, with beach areas on the Spanish Mediterranean coast experiencing seasonal population surges. The report also cites 13 points raised by employers’ associations to oppose the rate.