Biševo: why the Blue Cave does not automatically sustain the visitor centre

A funding question behind the excursion destination

Biševo is often seen through the lens of Modra špilja, the Blue Cave. The visitor centre of the same name has a broader purpose: to explain the island’s geology, nature and culture. On 10 October, the Morski portal published a statement by the citizens’ initiative Svezak questioning the centre’s economic viability and demanding greater transparency.

The current dispute is a reason to examine the documents more closely. An important source is already public: the Croatian State Audit Office’s report on the operating company Nautički centar Komiža. Completed on 12 December 2025, it examines the 2023 financial year. Its figures are therefore a substantiated retrospective, not current accounts for 2026.

The cave, centre and company are not the same thing

The shared name easily causes confusion. Revenue from visits to the Blue Cave is a separate item in the audit report. Admission revenue for the visitor centre is treated separately. The operating company also performs other tasks, including municipal and transport services.

Reading the company’s entire profit as the museum’s result conflates these levels. Conversely, a weak revenue item for the centre does not prove that the entire company is making a loss. A meaningful discussion therefore starts by asking which part of the operation, which year and which type of revenue a figure concerns.

The centre’s official concept also extends beyond a ticket office. Its presentation describes exhibitions and educational activities, natural and cultural heritage, and spaces for organisations, science and sustainable development. Whether and how these aims are achieved would need to be assessed alongside the financial results. A concept document provides a benchmark, but is not yet evidence of impact.

What the audit shows about admission revenue

Admission ticket sales for the visitor centre were budgeted to generate 210,000 euros in 2023. According to the audit report, actual revenue fell short by 206,656.48 euros, or 98.4 per cent. Subtracting this shortfall gives an actual figure of 3,343.52 euros.

This is a substantial deviation from plan. But it explicitly concerns the centre’s admission revenue, not all revenue from every activity on Biševo and not an already calculated operating loss. Establishing a loss would require a full comparison of the relevant income and expenses. The missing ticket revenue alone does not provide that calculation.

For comparison, the same report cites around 1.98 million euros in Blue Cave admission revenue for 2023. This amount too is revenue, not profit. Above all, it shows why the two visitor attractions must be distinguished: in the audited year, the cave’s tourist prominence did not translate into the visitor centre’s planned admission revenue.

Running costs extend beyond the exhibition

The audit report documents an agreement concluded in 2022 and supplemented in January 2023 for renting and operating the visitor centre’s premises. The agreed term was five years, with monthly rent of 2,747.12 euros excluding VAT, plus operating costs. The facilities handed over included exhibition and educational spaces, a catering area and two electric vehicles for visitors.

These details show that a centre, once built, needs continuing organisation and funding. A full assessment requires more than comparing a construction grant with a ticket office: what are the costs of staffing, premises, technology and activities? Which revenue is actually assigned to the centre? Which services are intentionally to receive public funding?

According to the report, the company as a whole generated a pre-tax profit of 465,783.98 euros in 2023. This positive overall figure answers the questions about the centre no more than the substantial ticket revenue shortfall does. But it prevents the false conclusion that the audit report shows a loss for the entire company.

The State Audit Office calls for more transparent planning

The auditors recommend more realistic estimates of revenue, expenditure and profit, and adjustments to the financial plan when substantial deviations occur. Planned and actual figures should also be more readily comparable. This is not a minor formality: only then can one see whether an assumption failed and what decision follows.

For the visitor centre, a separate operating account that can be followed over several years would therefore be particularly helpful. Visitor numbers, use of educational activities and identifiable benefits for the island would also be needed. These are criteria for a fair assessment: public benefit can be recognised, but it must be as transparent as a financial subsidy.

What the current debate does not yet prove

We cannot confirm the current loss figures quoted in the public dispute using the report on 2023. Nor do we have a specific decision requiring repayment of EU funds. A claimed full repayment must therefore not be portrayed as an already established financial obligation.

The sources examined here do not establish a decision to close the centre either. For visitors, the debate does not therefore automatically cancel a planned visit. Check current opening arrangements, the programme and access directly with the centre. For political assessment, current operating figures and the specific funding conditions remain crucial.

The substantiated core matters even without dramatic exaggeration: the centre’s admission revenue expectations were missed by a large margin in 2023, and the State Audit Office sees a need to improve planning. How operations have developed since then must be answered with more recent figures—not an assumption that the famous cave will sustain every other attraction by itself.