BVI News

Gov’t disappointed over BVI feature in Fodor’s No-List

Premier Dr Natalio Wheatley.

Premier Dr Natalio Wheatley has expressed his disappointment with the British Virgin Islands being featured in Fodor’s “No List 2025” but disagrees with the publication’s assessment.

Fodor’s “No List” highlights destinations the travel guide publisher recommends avoiding due to overcrowding, environmental issues, and other concerns.

During a press conference on Tuesday, November 26, Wheatley addressed the travel review.

“The public will be aware that the Virgin Islands was recently featured in Fodor’s No List 2025, which highlights destinations its editors believe travelers should reconsider visiting in the coming year,” he said.

“The Government is disappointed by Fodor’s decision to include the Territory on its list. We remain a destination of choice because visitors enjoy our unmatched sailing waters, beautiful environment, and usually uncrowded beaches,” Dr. Wheatley added.

He also emphasised ongoing efforts to ensure the sustainability of tourism in the BVI.

“We continue to take steps to ensure tourism is environmentally sustainable, including through the beach management plans we are implementing. As a tourism destination, cruise tourism is an important dimension of our tourism sector,” he continued.

$100 million

In response to the publication’s concerns, Premier Wheatley highlighted the territory’s recent acquisition of a $100 million loan facility aimed at improving infrastructure.

Fodor’s report also pointed to infrastructure limitations in the BVI, which Communications and Works Minister Kye Rymer acknowledged, stating the territory’s current infrastructure cannot support mass tourism.

Former BVI Tourist Board Director Sharon Flax-Brutus stressed the need for comprehensive planning, noting that the BVI often overlooks potential drawbacks in its tourism strategies. She pointed out that the territory faces ongoing challenges in tourism planning, especially as visitor numbers are expected to rise this season.

Environmental concerns were also raised in the publication, particularly regarding the BVI’s coral reefs, which are already vulnerable due to climate change. Additional threats come from unregulated anchoring, coastal development, and the use of non-reef-safe sunscreens.

Fodor’s inclusion of the BVI in its “No List” served as a reminder of the need for sustainable tourism practices that balance economic growth with environmental preservation and the well-being of local communities.

Shares

Copyright 2024 BVI News, Media Expressions Limited. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or distributed.

7 Comments

Disclaimer: BVI News and its affiliated companies are not responsible for the content of comments posted or for anything arising out of use of the comments below or other interaction among the users.

  1. Plan? says:

    There is no plan!

  2. Truth says:

    Truth always hurts. Reap what you sow.

  3. Hmmm says:

    You need to be fired, bare nonsense you doing.

  4. Resident says:

    The place looks like trash/accident hazard- NCL told you guys the same about the infrastructure, now you disappointed in the article– fix the place and stop traveling- this is the worst I’ve ever seen Tortola- if I was a tourist I wouldn’t come here either!!

  5. Guest says:

    People, google Fodor’s “No List 2025” and read the write-up for yourself. Then ask yourself if it is inaccurate.

  6. offended people says:

    who on earth do the bvi people think they are? Unlike youall, there are people out here who will call a spade a spade. I guess there wasn’t anyone in Foders that you could pay for a lovely delusional review. It is what it is.

    Based on the economic development and financial aspects of the territory of BVI, it is shameful of the condition of the place all around. You folk want tourists to come, but those with physical mobility issues cannot get around without high risk? If youall had simple sidewalks and public building access, toilets etc for your disable residents, then the tourists nee3ded the accessibility would gladly use them. We visit the BVI and go around to put ourselves in the shoe of a tourist, and ohh my goodness, most times it is a crying shame. Just drive from the airport bridge and the ride to your accommodation can give one a whiplash. Don’t youall have road engineers and don’t youall have road building codes, where for example the two lanes are never equal? Now youall are disappointed in the write-up. Instead, pull the mirror and see the areas that you can work on to improve and maintain them. Maintenance of anything seem to be a big problem with them as well. Other Caribbean islands have sand and sea too. What amenities have you put in place for the beach goers? Can they enter the restrooms and feel comfortable? or are they subjected to broken doors and filth?

    Ohh the bush. We took a safari ride and many of us were scratched up from the overgrown bushes along the tour routes. It rains in Anguilla, Antigua, St Maarten, St. Kitts and other islands too. Not going get into your politics but in every development country, the government sanitation and environment and public works departments deal with these stuff, but youall seem to think that a PWD is out of style and give the works to persons who just need a job.

    Come on BVI, do better and better would be said

  7. Article does not disparage BVI says:

    The article highlights destinations facing the challenges of unsustainable popularity, including places like Bali, Sicily, and Tokyo. Far from denouncing these locations, it explicitly describes them as ‘highly coveted,’ underscoring their enduring appeal. The central point is not that these destinations are undesirable but that proactive planning is essential to preserve their attractiveness and prevent overburdening the local infrastructure. Some places on the list are flagged as ‘no-go’ due to overtourism. The Government simply needs to put a plan in place to address the growing popularity . The false narrative is being pushed by those individuals with ulterior motives, some of whom were interviewed or quoted in the article.

Leave a Comment

Shares