In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements in
Introduction
The characteristics or features of islands, especially small islands or Small Island Developing States (SIDS), are such that the local economy in these territories or regions would depend on tourism unlike larger states (Briguglio & Briguglio n.d., 1). We can attribute this to the prevalence of tourist-related activities, specifically people choosing to visit SIDS for vacations or holidays. As argued by Jack Carlsen (2012), islands are appealing tourist locations because of the images that these territories engender. The desire of people to separate themselves from fast-paced, contemporary life influence them to view islands as idyllic spots for holidays where they can experience pure leisure, relaxation, and an ideal weather or climate (Bunce, 2008). Furthermore, islands benefit more from tourism than other industries because based on previous efforts or initiatives from these places to establish other industries apart from tourism, the outcomes lead to failure due to the higher cost of investing and maintaining businesses that do not relate to tourism (Shakeela, Breakey, & Ruhanen, 2010). Consequently, the paralysis of tourism in SIDS would lead to economic decline (Singh, 2008; Shareef, Hoti, & McAller, 2008). Hence, islands, especially SIDS are left with no choice but to capitalise on their assets, which are more profitable with a stable tourism.
Although tourism in SIDS contribute to economic development and improvement of socio-economic situation in these territories due to high employment rates in the tourism industry, dependence on tourism poses a threat to the environment. The problem with the standard economic model in small islands, however, is that tourism has a price. One of the long-term effects of tourism is environmental degradation (Kinnas, 2009; Yasarata, Altinay, Burns, & Okumus, 2010). Most natural resources are finite while unregulated tourism activities damage the environment. It is for this reason that sustainable tourism plays an important role in tourism planning and development, especially in small islands. Since local economies in these locations rely heavily on tourism, it is important that developers, operators, and environmental bodies find a balance between tourism-based economic growth and environmental sustainability. Despite the efforts of these groups, their initiatives are challenged by various problems and issues, which will be discussed in the succeeding sections specifically within the context of tourism in SIDS such as the Maldives, Seychelles, Mauritius, and the Indian Ocean.
Problems of Developers, Tour Operators, and Environmental Bodies in Establishing Tourism Projects on Islands
The tourism industry in the Maldives has gained traction during the last three decades. Since the early 1970s, the Maldives worked on the tourism industry, which has drawn about 600,000 visitors in recent years and contributes to 30 percent of the SIDS’ GDP (Zubair, Bowen, & Elwin, 2011). Similarly, due to the high number of visitors in the Maldives, developers and operators adopted environmental sustainability practices and launched initiatives to control the detrimental impact of tourism on the environment, especially since the country attracts visitors because of its robust marine life. Nevertheless, developers, operators, and environmental bodies in the Maldives face problems in developing and implementing sustainable projects due to inadequate environmental impact assessment (EIA). Essentially, EIA refers to a tool or instrument that can be used to plan and make informed decisions based on potential or predicted and existing impact of projects on the environment. Furthermore, practitioners can base their recommendations about projects based on the data or information gathered through EIA. Hence, developers, operators, and environmental bodies would significantly benefit from EIA because it would allow them to assess the potential impact of projects on the environment and present solutions or change plans to eliminate detrimental outcomes.
In the case of the Maldives, EIA initiatives are inadequate, which means that developers, operators, and environmental bodies do not carefully and thoroughly assess the impact of projects in the SIDS. Based on the study conducted by Zubair, Bowen, and Elwin (2011), EIA initiatives lack standard criterion that would allow developers, operators, and environmental bodies to fully assess a project’s environmental impact. Because of this problem, these groups failed to prevent the implementation of developmental projects that eventually led to damaging outcomes. If this trend continues, developers and operators would fail to veto future projects that would have unfavourable effects on the environment. The Maldives, therefore, would benefit more from an EIA that is based on international standards, such as the metrics developed by the Environment Impact Regulations. These metrics would allow developers and operators to assess projects thoroughly and identify potential detriments prior to implementation, and consequently avoid negative outcomes.
While the primary problem in the Maldives is the inadequacy of EIA initiatives, Seychelles, another SIDS, faces a different problem specific to energy consumption and production. Gossling and Schumacher (2010) conducted research about tourism and sustainability in Seychelles and discovered that tourism activities in the island relied heavily on energy. This means that as the number of visitors in Seychelles grows, so will the rate of carbon footprint. Research studies highlight the impact of tourism activities that spur carbon emissions on local wildlife, specifically the spread of diseases among various species including birds and marine life (Wikelski, Foufopoulos, Vargas, & Snell, 2004). In response, some developers proposed initiatives towards carbon neutrality to fully eliminate carbon emissions in Seychelles. Working towards carbon neutrality necessitates various measures, such as a review of current carbon emissions in the country and the identification of ways or options to reduce carbon footprint. The next step of assessment, however, is more difficult because it requires considerable amount of resources for SIDS to develop infrastructures and facilities that help curb carbon emissions. Restructuring energy sources often involves the acquisition of sophisticated but high-cost systems and equipment such as solar panels. Airline industries, on the other hand, should replace existing fleet units that are ecologically efficient.
Overall, carbon neutrality necessitates the involvement of all players in the tourism industry, from developers to operators of transportation to and from Seychelles, accommodations, and other organizations or establishments that offer tourism activities. For this reason, carbon neutrality as project must be a concerted effort among developers, operators, and environmental bodies, which is a challenge in itself due to its scale. Aside from significant financial investments the project would entail, all players in Seychelles’ tourism industry must be involved in planning and work towards a singular goal of attaining carbon neutrality. This serves as the solution but also a problem because developers, operators, and environmental bodies have different goals and each prioritise different ones (Gossling & Schumacher, 2010). If Seychelles is to fulfil carbon neutrality, all groups must synchronise and converge all their plans, activities, and resources to eliminate carbon emission in the country (Norris, 2005).
In Mauritius, tourism is the cornerstone of the local economy. During the 20th and early 21st Century, the World Bank cited Mauritius as one of the few countries in Africa that significantly benefits from tourism. Continuous investments and expansion allowed Mauritius to host hundreds of thousands of visitors. In recent years, however, the local government implemented measures to reduce the environmental impact of tourism by setting limits on visitor population for a given time. The local government also set restrictions on tourism development projects. With these restrictions, the government can control the annual flow of projects. Regardless of this policy, most projects that commence often lead to detrimental outcomes to the environment. Prayag, Dookhony-Ramphul, and Maryeven (2010) credited this to the lack of knowledge and awareness among developers about sustainability issues and practices. Some developers and operators that spur tourism project developments in Mauritius are also unaware of the features of SIDS that make them exceptionally vulnerable to heavy tourism activities. Government control illustrates why tourism, including sustainability, is political in nature. Existing and planned policies that governments would implement affect and influence initiatives of developers (Vogler, 2007).
Another problem that Prayag, Dookhony-Ramphul, and Maryeven (2010) raised in their study is the developers’, specifically those that operate in the hospitality industry, inability to recognise the impact of tourism development on the environment. The researchers studied the responses of hoteliers towards sustainable hospitality practices. Prayag, Dookhony-Ramphul, and Maryeven discovered that most developers understand that tourism development bear positive and negative outcomes. Nevertheless, even without concrete solutions to the possible negative impact of tourism projects, the participants still agreed that developers and operators should push through with development projects. In this case, the problem is the lack of a concrete and executable plan to curb the detrimental impact of tourism development initiatives.
Past occurrences in the Indian Ocean also relate problems that interfere with sustainable projects in SIDS. Natural disasters hinder tourism development in SIDS as evidenced by the Indian Ocean tsunami. Aside from disasters, weather disturbances also pose threats to the permanence not only of tourism structures and facilities but also the balance or state of ecology in these areas (Holden, 2007). When this happens, developers, operators, and environmental bodies would need to work on the reconstruction of all structures and facilities to restore tourism operations. SIDS then go back to “square one” so to speak and any previous efforts to establish sustainable operations would have to be re-established after natural disasters and weather disturbances.
Conclusion
The foregoing discussion highlights unique problems that developers, operators, and environmental bodies face in developing sustainable projects on islands, specifically SIDS. Most of these problems are wide-ranging but to narrow down research, the discussion focused on three SIDS – the Maldives, Seychelles, and Mauritius. Existing literature detail the problems that developers, operators, and environmental bodies experience, such as the inadequacy of EIA initiatives, the scale and requirements in implementing sustainable projects, the lack of awareness among developers and operators about the characteristics and needs of SIDS, and the threats of disasters and weather disturbances. Regardless of these issues, however, developers, operators, and environmental bodies must work together to establish sustainability in SIDS not only because tourism in these territories spur the local economy and improve socio-economic outcomes due to increased labour, but also because it contributes to the longevity of the industry when the environment is preserved and resources are maintained. SIDS heavily rely on tourism but there must be balance between tourism activities and sustainability policies so they can continue to reap the benefits of an island locale.
Bibliography
Briguglio, L. & Briguglio, M. n.d. Sustainable tourism in small islands: The case of Malta.
Bunce, M. 2008. The ‘leisuring’ of rural landscapes in Barbados: New spatialities and the implications for sustainability in small island states. Geoforum, 39:2, 969-979.
Carlsen, J. 2012. Island tourism sustainability. [Online]. 10 Sep 2012. [Accessed 01 Mar 2014] Available from: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDQr38gWDj8
Gossling, S. & Schumacher, K.P. 2010. Implementing carbon neutral destination policies: Issues from the Seychelles. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 18, 3: 377-391.
Holden, A. 2007. Environment and tourism. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kinnas, Y. N. 2009. Human security, climate change and small islands. Facing Global Environmental Change Hexagon Series on Human and Environmental Security and Peace, i4: 131-139.
Norris, C. 2005. Partnerships for sustainable development: The role of type ii agreements. Global Challenges: Furthering the Multilateral Process for Sustainable Development. Westport, CT: Greenleaf Publishing.
Prayag, G., Dookhony-Ramphul, K., & Maryeven, M. 2010. Hotel development and tourism impacts in Mauritius: Hoteliers’ perspectives on sustainable tourism. Development Southern Africa, 27, 5.
Shakeela, A., Breakey, N. & Ruhanen, L. 2010. Dilemma of a paradise destination: Tourism education and local employment as contributors to sustainable development. [Online]. CAUTHE 2010: Tourism and Hospitality: Challenge the Limits. Hobart, Tasmania: University of Tasmania School of Management.
Shareef, R., Hoti, S., & McAller, M. 2008. The economics of small island tourism: International demand and country risks analysis. Oxford, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Singh, D. R. 2009. Small island developing states (SIDS): Tourism and economic development. Tourism Analysis, 13, 5-6: 629-636.
Vogler, J. 2007. The international politics of sustainability development. In Atkinson, Dietz, & Neumayer’s Handbook of Sustainable Development. Oxford, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Wikelski, M., Foufopoulos, J., Vargas, H. & Snell, H. 2004. Galapagos birds and diseases: invasive pathogens as threats for island species. Ecology and Society, 9:1, 5.
Yasarata, M., Altinay, L., Burns, P. & Okumus, F. 2010. Politics and sustainable tourism development – Can they co-exist? Voices from North Cyprus. Tourism Management, 31: 3, 345-356.
Zubair, S., Bowern, D., & Wlein, J. 2011. Not quite paradise: Inadequacies of environmental impact assessment in the Maldives. Tourism Management, 32, 2: 225-234.
