Funding – or lack of it – seems to be an ongoing (and worsening) issue in many of our national parks.
While moves to allow limited commercial ventures in as a way of helping to solve the problem have already been greeted with howls of protests in some quarters, a far more radical proposal could be just around the corner.
In America, where there is an US$11 billion maintenance backlog, the Director of the National Park Service there, Jonathan Jarvis, has proposed ‘an unprecedented level of corporate donations’ to the national parks.
In return for their money, companies would apparently get an unprecedented amount of exposure in those parks. And that has got alarm bells sounding.
“You could use Old Faithful to pitch Viagra,” Jeff Ruch, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, told the Washington Post. “Or the Lincoln Memorial to plug hemorrhoid cream. Or Victoria’s Secret to plug the Statue of Liberty … every developed area in a park could become a venue for product placement.”
Defenders of the plan say such talk is an over-reaction and that, under the current proposal, corporate logos and naming rights would be limited to park facilities such as visitor centres and to things like educational and youth programs.
So could this funding model also prove a winner in Australia? Keep an eye out for Qantas Rock, the Pringle Bungles, the Vegemite Apostles, and Ugg Boot Gorge!
* Do you think corporate sponsorship in national parks is a good idea if it improves facilities … and maybe reduce entry fees and camping fees? Which other icons, do you think would make a good corporate re-naming target? Comment below.
I believe it is a good move provided it is limited to the park entry facilities a supporting brochures. The income should be used to assist in the maintenance of the respective park.