Weekend Edition

stluciatimes, caribbean, caribbeannews, stlucia, saintlucia, stlucianews, saintlucianews, stluciatimesnews, saintluciatimes, stlucianewsonline, saintlucianewsonline, st lucia news online, stlucia news online, loop news, loopnewsbarbados

Subscribe to our St. Lucia Times Newsletter

Get our headlines emailed to you every day.

Sulphur Springs Fee Increase Paused After Backlash

The Soufriere Regional Development Foundation (SRDF) has temporarily halted its proposed fee increases for the Sulphur Springs Park and other managed sites following public outcry.

The decision came after sharp criticism from local vendors, tour operators, and political figures who argued the hikes were poorly timed and unjustified.

The Sulphur Springs, a major tourist attraction in Saint Lucia, is famed for its drive-in volcano, mineral-rich mud baths, and therapeutic waters.

Attracting over 200 000 visitors annually, the park provides revenue for the SRDF which also manages other key attractions in the area, like the Gros Piton Trail and the Soufriere Jetties. However, the site’s management has been contentious, with persistent allegations of mismanagement and political interference.

The latest controversy erupted on May 26 when the SRDF announced increased entry fees for non-residents, set to take effect June 1. Adult bath fees rose from US$10 to US$12, child baths from US$5 to US$6, and adult tours from US$9 to US$10.

The move drew immediate backlash. A small tour operator, speaking anonymously, called the timing “bad” and noted the lack of facility upgrades.

“This is the off-season for tourism and all of a sudden we are hearing of this increase,” the operator told St Lucia Times. “I really do not think it is deserving because we have asked for improvements to the toilet facilities… and that has not been done.”

Vendors also feared the hikes would further hurt already sluggish sales.

Former Soufriere MP Senator Herod Stanislas condemned the increases as “illogical and unwarranted”, pointing to declining vendor earnings and neglected infrastructure.

He revealed an unpublicised SRDF letter raising monthly vending fees from EC$50 to EC$200, a fourfold jump he called “unaffordable” for mostly women and single mothers.

“While visitor numbers have risen during the high season, overall spending has declined,” Stanislas said. “This means that, despite increased foot traffic, vendors are earning less than ever.”

He also criticised the SRDF for failing to repair hurricane-damaged jetties, posing safety risks.

“The current leadership of the SRDF must be held accountable for undermining both the organisation’s integrity and the reputation of Soufriere/Fond St Jacques,” he said, demanding a full rollback.

On Thursday, the SRDF announced a “temporary hold” on the fee adjustments, citing a need for “broader conversation” with stakeholders.

The statement emphasised a commitment to “structured dialogue” to balance tourism needs with community resilience.

“Considering recent developments, there is a recognised need for a broader conversation about rescue arrangements, docking policies, charging structures, and operational protocols,” it said. “SRDF is initiating this pause to allow space for meaningful engagement around these issues and to support the development of a comprehensive, coordinated and sustainable approach to tourism management in Soufriere.”

In its earlier announcement of the increases, the agency said the decision was made after “careful consideration of what it takes to properly maintain and improve the sites we manage”, and “following consultation with stakeholders and tourism partners”.

Stanislas welcomed the pause but noted concerns remain: “This is just a temporary hold. We still have the $200 increase hanging over vendors’ heads… as well as the jetty fees hanging over the heads of the boaters.”

He noted that no timeline was listed for consultations and reiterated calls for urgent jetty repairs ahead of the peak hurricane season.

St Lucia Times reached out to the SRDF for clarification on vending fees and other issues but received no response by publication time.

Any third-party or user posts, comments, replies, and third-party entries published on the St. Lucia Times website (https://stluciatimes.com) in no way convey the thoughts, sentiments or intents of St. Lucia Times, the author of any said article or post, the website, or the business. St. Lucia Times is not responsible or liable for, and does not endorse, any comments or replies posted by users and third parties, and especially the content therein and whether it is accurate. St. Lucia Times reserves the right to remove, screen, edit, or reinstate content posted by third parties on this website or any other online platform owned by St. Lucia Times (this includes the said user posts, comments, replies, and third-party entries) at our sole discretion for any reason or no reason, and without notice to you, or any user. For example, we may remove a comment or reply if we believe it violates any part of the St. Lucia Criminal Code, particularly section 313 which pertains to the offence of Libel. Except as required by law, we have no obligation to retain or provide you with copies of any content you as a user may post, or any other post or reply made by any third-party on this website or any other online platform owned by St. Lucia Times. All third-parties and users agree that this is a public forum, and we do not guarantee any confidentiality with respect to any content you as a user may post, or any other post or reply made by any third-party on this website. Any posts made and information disclosed by you is at your own risk.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

TRENDING

Subscribe to our St. Lucia Times Newsletter

Get our headlines emailed to you every day.

Share via
Send this to a friend