Adrienne Harris, Executive Director of Harvest Tourism, addresses how industry can better benefit from the TOMSA levy. 
It would be useful to this debate to look at the history of TOMSA as well as its relevance in the current environment. Those of us who have been around for years will remember how severely underfunded South African Tourism (SAT) was in the early 1990s. I may be wrong but think it was in the region of R18 million per annum. Even in those days, this was insufficient to fund even a basic marketing campaign. It was clear that government at that stage did not really understand the huge role that tourism played in the South African economy.
A delegation of ‘Captains of Industry’, led by the Tourism Business Council (TBCSA), approached the then Minister of Tourism, Pallo Jordan, in 1998 to discuss this issue. The Minister agreed that a voluntary levy could be established and he committed that government would match any funds collected. It is important to understand the reason for a voluntary levy – Treasury has a policy that any taxes imposed by Government cannot be ring-fenced but rather have to be included in the general fiscus.  In order to ensure that the monies collected went directly to tourism marketing, the levy would have to be collected on a voluntary basis by the individual property owners. This means that each levy collector would have to have an independent contract with TOMSA. The fund, managed by TBCSA, would transfer money to SAT, based on an agreed marketing plan.
Fast forward 16 years to the current situation and things look vastly different. SAT enjoys a budget of some R1 billion, and TOMSA collects approximately R100 million. So the ratio has gone from 50:50 to 90:10, although I acknowledge that R100 million is still no small amount of money. This means that, in fact, the industry holds less ‘bargaining power’ when it comes to directing the activities of SAT.
It is also important to note the fact that the bulk of the monies collected come from the hotel groups and large independent hotels. Therefore it would be essential to get their buy-in on any changes and as well as that of NDT, even though this is a private sector initiative.
I do feel that the time has come to see whether this money (or some of it) could not be put to better use. In my opinion, two key opportunities exist. Firstly, we should look at specifically funding bids for international conferences and conventions. Ring-fenced funding will be easier to manage and should allow for a quicker turnaround time regarding allocation of budgets to particular bids, as opportunities can often present themselves with short turnaround times.
Secondly, I think that the recognised trade associations could benefit from some financial support.  The trade associations are in an incredibly difficult position where they have to spend most of their time creating benefits for the members to ensure financial sustainability. This results in the sub-sector they represent often not being adequately represented as a whole (mainly due to lack of resources) or ‘poaching’ of members to increase revenue by membership fees. In addition, some associations look to doing outside projects as a revenue stream, which only stretches their resources even more.
I am sure that there are all sorts of other options as well.  I am merely saying that I feel the time is right to once and for all open this debate.  Hopefully this will also make the non-TOMSA levy collectors realise that they do have a role to play in the growth of our industry.
Adrienne Harris, Executive Director, Harvest Tourism