Tourism Global Local

8/13/2019 Tourism Global Local

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tourism-global-local 1/22

Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503–524

What is small island sustainabledevelopment about?

Sandy A. Kerr

International Centre for Island Technology, Heriot-Watt University, Back Road, Stromness, Orkney,Scotland KW16 3AW, UK

Available online 1 June 2005

Abstract

Sustainable development is often stated as an objective of management strategies for smallislands. However, relatively little work has explicitly considered what sustainable developmentmeans in the context of small islands. This article explores the nature of the development

process on small islands and considers this in the context of different interpretations of sustainable development. A case study of the Galapagos is presented which considers thedrivers and threats to development in these islands. The case study helps illustrate some of themultiple interpretations of sustainable development that are possible in a small island context.r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The purpose of this paper is to consider the meaning of Sustainable Developmentin the context of small islands. To help answer this question some key interpretationsof the sustainable development problem shall be considered in the context of islandissues and the development pathways open to islands. A case study of the GalapagosIslands is presented including the results of a recent tourism study there. The casestudy is used to illustrate several points raised in the discussion.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

0964-5691/$- see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.03.010

E-mail address: [email protected].

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman



2. Denitional issues—what is an island?

At rst sight the denition of an island is simple. Indeed, the apparentclarity of boundaries, the very insularity of islands, makes them a temptingobject of study. Initially, islands may appear to be clearly denable units, where allinputs and outputs can be measured, providing a useful ‘laboratory’ to test theoriesof sustainable development. Island communities that have survived for millenniawith limited resources at their disposal may offer insights into sustainabledevelopment.

On closer inspection things become less clear and we are presented withsome difcult questions. When is a rocky outcrop an island? When is anisland a continent? Analysts engaged in comparative studies of islandshave frequently adopted arbitrary thresholds based on area and/orpopulation [1,2]. In the case of small states, Selwyn [3] has long arguedthat such quantitative thresholds are meaningless, and King [4] suggests thatsuch thresholds may make articial distinctions between islands that arequalitatively comparable. Attempts to set physiographic criteria are ultimatelyequally arbitrary [5].

Extending our denition to include social, economic and political parameters,questions become more complex. What is an island community? Does it includeseasonal workers, islanders who travel for their work, expatriates who maintainfamily or economic ties? When does an island have political autonomy and the

ability to determine its own future? When considering the nature of island autonomyit is perhaps useful to consider a continuum ranging from the smallest islands withthe least political and economic autonomy through to the largest fully independentisland states. Fig. 1 attempts to illustrate this continuum and some of the pressuresacting upon it [6].

Fig. 1 attempts to illustrate different states of independence ranging from fullyincorporated islands with little or no autonomy to large, fully independent states. In

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 1. Island autonomy.

S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503–524504



between we have a myriad of different levels of economic and political autonomy.Wharto and Overton [7] give an account of different constitutional arrangements inthe context of Pacic Islands. While there are many exceptions, we do generally seegreater political and economic autonomy with increasing size. However, at the startof the 21st century we can identify two opposing forces.

(1) Globalization —which is eroding the power of sovereign states to act indepen-dently. The removal of global trade barriers makes it increasingly difcult forstates to implement economic or labor policies signicantly different from theglobal norm. The proliferation of international treaties on everything fromhuman rights to the environment, while laudable, limits scope for unilateralaction.

(2) Localization —what Bartmann [8] described as the ‘‘power of localism’’ is anincreasingly relevant force in the world today. Devolving decision-making powerto the lowest level of government is a key feature of the post-Rio world.Synonymous with this is increased interest in participatory processes and otherforms of direct democracy when making resource management decisions. This isevident in both developed and developing nations [9–12]. Increasingly, islandsidentify with each other, creating political alliances in an attempt to inuencepolicy. This is visible at global (e.g. UN) and regional (e.g. EU) levels [13]. Thesealliances extend to social and cultural networks, for example, the InternationalIsland Games Association encourages sporting links between islands [14],

irrespective of whether they are states or not. All these processes increase theeffective autonomy of small islands.

Pitt [15] notes that islanders identify very strongly with their island, which is oftena key aspect of personal identity; the island becomes the center and other groups areoften considered inferior. This strong identity might suggest the existence of well-dened social boundaries. However, social systems have long been recognized ashaving ill-dened boundaries [16]. Social systems centered on islands often transcendthe physical boundaries of the island [17].

Pitt [18] notes that social structures associated with islands should be considered

as ‘‘amorphous networks linked together by a wide range of contacts’’ ratherthan independent, well-dened units. Indeed, it has been noted that largenumbers of islanders may only be present for part of the year or indeed part of their lives [19,20]. Island economies are equally open—far from being self-sufcientclosed systems, they tend to be characterized by high levels of specializationbased around a small number of products or services. Islands then engage intrade to satisfy many of their actual needs. This led McElroy [21] to suggest thatislands ‘‘produce what they do not consume and consume what they do notproduce’’.

Dening the term island is clearly not straightforward. Concepts of

island independence, autonomy, economy and society are all difcult to dene,yet they are of profound importance in the context of island sustainabledevelopment.

ARTICLE IN PRESS

S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503–524 505



3. Sustainable development

The post-Brundtland era has seen a vast outpouring of literature seeking toexplain sustainable development. It can be easy to forget that sustainabledevelopment is a contrivance. The Brundtland/Rio conception of sustainabledevelopment was contingent upon a number of key drivers, including:

(i) The ‘ environmental crises ’—characterized by a move from focused incidents (e.g.oil spills) to global issues (habitat loss, global warming, ozone depletion).

(ii) Resource depletion —neo-Malthusian concerns about the sustainability of growth-based economic policies reliant upon nite resources.

(iii) The north– south divide —growing north–south disparities.(iv) Globalization —the emergence of market capitalism and democracy as the

dominant political/economic ideology and the integration of global markets.(v) Post-modernist skepticism —this has been called the ‘cultural rejection’ of the

certainty of both science and conventional politics [22].(vi) Institutional frameworks —transnational institutional structures which provided

a stage for the sustainable development debate to evolve and which are alsoideologically underpinned by market capitalism.

These drivers set the agenda for the sustainable development debate and they alsodetermine the policy responses to this agenda. For example, the work of the IPPC

and institutional approaches to the climate change problem are an amalgam of drivers (i), (iv) and (vi). Local Agenda 21 (LA21) and the increasing interest inparticipatory processes have been inuenced by drivers (i), (ii), (iii) and (v).

4. Models of sustainable development

4.1. Optimization models

Constant Stock (CS) approaches to sustainable development were amongst the

rst to be embraced by the political establishment. Sustainable development isachieved if one generation bequeaths to the next a stock of resources equivalent tothat which it has inherited [23]. Substitution from environmental to manmade capitalallows the consumption of non-renewable resources, provided income is reinvestedin new manmade capital. This is an attractive model for political decision-makers,legitimizing the continued consumption of non-renewable resources. Dobson [24]describes an important tension between different interpretations of the CS model.Weak interpretations driven by current human needs allow maximum substitution.Progressively stronger interpretations, inuenced by future needs and environmentalconcerns, place increasing restriction on substitution. The central difculty is

identifying the level of substitution allowed between manmade and natural capital.An interesting case to consider is the almost complete exhaustion of phosphate

reserves by environmentally destructive opencast mining on the Pacic island of

ARTICLE IN PRESS




Naru [7]. Rents from this exploitation have been invested in nancial markets,producing one of the highest GNPs per capita in the world. This could be said to besustainable development according to the CS model.

While they may seem progressive, CS models are essentially expert-drivenoptimization approaches. Once the appropriate rules concerning substitution havebeen established, the goal is to maximize utility without diminishing the total stockof resources. CS approaches can t with a modernist view of society and theconventional decision-making process, allowing the government to make rational,scientically informed policy decisions.

4.2. Sustainable decision-making

The decision-making process itself was another concern of Rio/Brundtland. LA21was a clear attempt to address a growing dislocation between society andconventional political decision-making (and the science that informs it). LA21 hasbeen ofcially adopted by many countries, although considerable institutionalresistance and an inertia to change exists [25,26].

This dislocation is also characteristic of the relationship between science andsociety. Societal skepticism towards science is seen as a profound challenge forenvironmental policy-makers [27]. Emerging issues, where science cannot givedenitive answers, compound this problem. Funtowicz and Raventz [28] famouslycalled this ‘post-normal’ science. Global Warming is perhaps the best example wherethe same evidence is open to ‘scientic interpretation’. For society, science no longerpresents simple facts but different interpretations, which may be inuenced bypoliticians, business, or other interest groups. Addressing this problem is profoundlydifcult for institutions rooted in the conventional reductionist model [29].

An alternative contextualist view of society and the citizen sees decision-making asmore than a simple optimization process [30]. According to this worldview, societyshould be engaged in seeking solutions through participatory processes. Stakeholderinvolvement in the decision-making process is more likely to engender consensus andunderstanding. Similarly, Davos [31] seeks solutions to resource allocation problemswhich achieve consensus or at least minimize value conicts between stakeholders.Sustainable development is therefore more to do with legitimizing the decision-making process rather than progressing towards a predetermined ‘optimal state’.Accepting this worldview is, however, much more challenging for conventionalgovernment. Some of these concepts are mirrored in island literature and severalauthors note an increasing dislocation between island societies and conventionalpolitical processes [32–34].

5. The island development prole

The literature contains many references to the limitations placed on small islandsand their economies [35–38]. These limitations can be divided into issues of scale and

ARTICLE IN PRESS




issues of isolation:

(1) Issues of scale include: very limited natural and human resources; diseconomiesof scale in infrastructure development, service provision and administration; andthe monopolistic nature of island economies. Limited capacity to spatiallysegregate activities produces tight feedback loops between any environmentalstressor and its impact [39,40].

(2) Issues of isolation include: the cost of transport, making manufacturingexpensive; unreliability and irregularity of transport, making the ‘just in time’demands of the modern supply chain difcult to satisfy; and vulnerability to theimpacts of natural disasters.

These issues have created a particular development prole. Island economies tendto be highly specialized, based around a small number of export markets. Primaryand tertiary sectors dominate. Manufacturing is seldom a major feature of islandeconomies. Baldacchino [41] sees island manufacturing as an extension of the servicesector, focusing on captured markets (e.g. tourists or ex-patriot islanders). Othersconclude that island-based manufacturing can only succeed if there is an intensefocus on niche markets [42].

It is the emergence of relative advantages in the provision of products, resources orservices that allows trade to occur. The limited resource base of most islands meansthat if a relative advantage exists, it only does so in a small number of sectors. Trade

with relatively wealthy continental partners can mean that the returns gained fromspecializing in the traded commodity far outweigh the return from effort in othersectors of the island economy. Consequently, island economies can quickly becomehighly specialized, to the virtual exclusion of all unrelated activities. Specialization intraded agricultural products can quickly crowd out food production for localconsumption [43]. A complete response to emerging relative advantages may resultin highly man-modied environments [17,44,45] .

The smallness of islands in comparison to their markets means that there is oftenlittle prospect of the island output, on its own, inuencing prices. This ‘lack of inuence’ extends further. The emergence of a relative advantage dependent upon: (i)

demand—a function of tastes, real incomes, the availability and cost of substitutes;(ii) the ability of the island to reach consumers—a function of physical and politicalaccess to markets; and (iii) supply and price from competing sources. None of thesefactors are within the control of small islands.

In a free market situation one would expect the emergence (and disappearance) of comparative advantages to be both unpredictable and uncontrollable. We wouldexpect to see highly cyclical economies exhibiting a boom-bust development proleas relative advantages appear and disappear. There is much historical evidence tosupport this proposition [17]. However, contemporary studies suggest that the bust-phase of the cycle is often missing [1,35,38] . Bertram and Waters [46] explained this

phenomenon in their MIRAB model, where the downward swing of the cycle isameliorated by remittances and aid payments, which often fund a burgeoningbureaucracy. It has been estimated that remittances from islanders working off the

ARTICLE IN PRESS




island may account for in excess of 66% of the island of Tonga’s GDP [47]. Outsidesubsidy and preferential trade agreements are additional forms of aid common inmany island economies [48].

6. Development strategies

Development pathways presented in the literature fall into two camps.

(1) Development focused on economic growth by means of:(a) import substitution;(b) the development of new export markets;

(c) the pursuit of aid and remittance payments or economic rent as ends inthemselves.(2) The encouragement of people-centered development activity that is driven by

participatory processes and aimed at meeting basic needs.

6.1. Encouraging island-based economic activity

For many newly independent island states in the 1950s and 1960s, importsubstitution was seen as the appropriate vehicle for economic development. Reducedreliance on old economic ties was also a political priority [49,50]. However,diseconomies of scale made industry unable to compete with imports, and reliant ongovernment intervention [51].

The emergence of new export markets is ultimately driven by the appearance of relative advantages over which the island has little or no control. The developmentissue for islands becomes one of controlling activity when a relative advantageappears. Of all development opportunities, tourism is the one that has had themost impact on island communities in recent times. Of the 31 countries in theworld with +20% of their GDP generated by travel and tourism, 27 areislands states, 17 in the Caribbean [52]. Tourism has long been recognized as an

activity with positive feedback, effectively creating its own demand [53]. As tourisminfrastructure develops, it creates additional demand from different groups of visitors [54]. Positive feedback means that development can go beyond the social andenvironmental capacity of the island. The control (rather than encouragement) of tourism activity is a widely recognized concern of islands wishing to develop theindustry [43,55,56] .

6.2. Pursuit of aid and remittances

Conventionally, it is suggested that aid should be targeted at measures which

increase economic self-sufciency [1,57,58] . An alternative school of thoughtsuggests that the pursuit of aid and remittances is a legitimate economic developmentactivity in its own right [50,59–61] . Conventional development opportunities may

ARTICLE IN PRESS




simply not exist and the only ‘relative advantages’ may be political ones, including:ties with former colonial powers; the non-threatening nature of smallness; and, forisland states, the inuence of sovereignty. These political advantages can be used asleverage when securing aid and developing remittance relationships. Bertram [60]suggests that island development policy should focus on (i) how to make remittancesmore secure and predictable and (ii) how to distribute remittances equitably. Goodeducation may help emigrants achieve better-paid, more secure employment. Somesuggest that island states should use favorable interest rates to encourage migrants toinvest remittances in their native islands [47]. High levels of remittances may,however, keep local currencies articially strong, further militating againstconventional island-based development (effectively a form of Dutch disease [62]).

In the 1980s, the Convention on the Law of the Sea created Exclusive EconomicZones endowing many small islands with substantial oceanic resources. Small islandsoften lack the capacity to exploit these resources, and rights of access are leased toother countries. As pressure on global pelagic sh stocks increases, this puts islandsin a strong bargaining position. The Falkland Islands, for example, are nownancially self-sufcient, leasing shing rights with a value of $60 m/p.a. [63]. Rentsare secured in return for access to other resources including lumber and mineralresources [64–66].

We noted above that MIRAB pathways might allow islands to mitigate therecessionary phases of the development cycle that would exist if these islands weredependent solely on their limited internal resources. Both remittances and aid are

dependent on economic growth in metropolitan areas. It may well be the case thatremittance incomes exhibit high elasticity in relation to economic performance inmetropolitan areas.

6.3. People-centered development

In a similar vein to the sustainable development literature discussed above, islanddevelopment literature now includes a school which eschews top-down macro-economic development policies in favor of more process-orientated developmentpolicies, with a strong emphasis on participatory decision-making. There appear to

be two forces at work here:

(1) An increasing focus on traditional decision-making processes and traditionalmethods of resource management as alternatives to conventional westernplanned development [67,68]. This is linked to—but not entirely synonymouswith—a desire for a more equitable distribution of wealth and the empowermentof marginalized groups and communities [33,48]. This involves the adoption of apositive perspective with islands ‘at the center’—adaptable, exible, in control,and surrounded by a world of opportunities [69,70]. This perspective is mostfrequently seen in Pacic island literature—linked with the notion of a Pacic

way , somehow separate from the western Marxist/capitalist polemic [71].(2) The increasing adoption of participatory management as part of coastal zone

management (CZM). In the 1980s, increasing calls for CZM were based on the

ARTICLE IN PRESS






km, with a land area in the region of 800 ha. There are 13 larger islands and over 100smaller islands and outcrops. The mixing of cold water from the southern oceans andwarm equatorial waters creates a highly productive marine environment. On land,colonizing plants and animals have in many cases followed a different evolutionarypath from their mainland ancestors. The unique ecology of the Galapagos is the keyto the lucrative tourism industry.

7.1. Governance

First discovered by the Spanish in 1535, there is no evidence of aboriginalinhabitants on the islands. Exploitation of marine resources began in the 19th centuryby US and British whalers. These vessels also took large numbers of tortoise for food.The rst species introductions (rats and goats) occurred around this time andintroductions continue to pose the most signicant threat to the indigenous wildlife.

The islands became part of the Republic of Ecuador in 1832. The GalapagosNational Park was established in 1959. The Galapagos Marine Resources Reservewas declared in 1986, extending to 15 nautical miles offshore. This was extended to40 miles in 1998 as the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR). The Special Law for theConservation and Sustainable Use of the Province of Galapagos (SLG) was declared inMarch 1998. Inter alia the law: restricted immigration; established the GMR; limitedshing to locals using artisanal techniques; created an Authority for Inter-Institutional Management (AIM) which established a management plan for the

GMR; and vested responsibility for enforcement in the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS). A Participatory Management Board (PMB) provides stakeholderinput on the establishment of shing seasons and catch quota, and alsohelps regulate the movement of tourist vessels. Final authority, however, lies withthe AIM.

7.2. Population and economy

Economic opportunity, in shing and tourism, has been a powerful draw forimmigrants from mainland Ecuador, resulting in a steady population increase since

the 1950s ( Table 1 ). Over the 1990s, population growth was approximately 6.7% p.a.National Ecuadorian population growth was 2.4% p.a. over this period.

Ecuador is one of the poorest countries in South America, with the lowest GNPper capita in the region [86]. In 1994, 30.4% of the population was living below thepoverty line ( o US$1 per person per day). Table 2 presents four quality-of-lifeindicators for the Galapagos and Ecuador—the islands perform signicantly betterfor each indicator. The relative high quality of life on the islands is an importantattraction for immigrants.

7.3. The shing industry

Until the 1960s, dried sh was the main export from the islands. During the late1960s and 1970s, mainland shers started to exploit lobster. Improved air transport

ARTICLE IN PRESS




opened access to markets in the US. The lobster shery expanded rapidly during the1980s and 1990s, peaking at an estimated 100 tonnes in 1995 [88]. More recently, a

lucrative sea cucumber (pepino) shery has provided an additional incentive forimmigrants.

Lobster and pepino shing is conducted by surface-demand diving. In 2001, 869shers were registered with the GNPS. Dealers purchase frozen lobster tails, whichare stored before batch export. Pepino are processed and dried before being sold todealers and exported to the Far East. In 1999, the total nsh catch recorded was223.3 tonnes; lobster 54.5 tonnes; and sea cucumber 86.3 tonnes (dry weight).

Fig. 2 illustrates the principal ows and incomes for sheries in the Galapagos,clearly dominated by pepino and lobster. In the recent past, lobster was the mostimportant export, supplying markets in the USA. However, pepino now dominates

the shing economy, supplying markets in the Far East. The value of an individualsea cucumber to a sher is in the region of US$0.6–0.8 [89], with nal retail value inthe Far East in the region of US$2.10 (2000 prices) [90]. The price paid for lobster in

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2Quality-of-life indicators for the Galapagos

Indicator Galapagos All Ecuador

Houses without sanitation 2.6% a 36% b

Illiteracy rate Males 1% c Males 8% d

Females 2% Females 12%Infant mortality 8.7 a 34e

(per 1000 births)Annual mortality 1.2 a 15a

(deaths per 1000)

Sources : [85–87].a Data for 1998.b Data for 1995.c Illiteracy rate for population over age of 10 years in 1998.d Illiteracy rate for population over age of 16 years in 1995.e Data for 1996.

Table 1Galapagos population 1950–2003

Year Population

1950 13461982 61191990 97851998 15,3112001 21,000 a

Sources: [83–85].a Estimate based on 1990–98 growth rate of 6.7% p.a.




the Galapagos is in the region of US$19.9/kg, with a sale value in the US in theregion of US$34/kg (2000 prices).

The SLG established a comprehensive monitoring and regulatory regime for thesheries within the GMR. Fishing activities are regulated by a Fishing Calendar(FC), which is formulated through a participatory process. In recent years, thelobster shery has operated from September to December. The FC also setsminimum catch size, an annual quota and no-take zones; and prohibits landings of berried females. The pepino shery opened legally for the rst time in 1994, when an

experimental shery opened for 2 months. Despite pressure from shers, it was onlyre-opened in 1999. In each subsequent year this shery has operated for 2 monthssometime between April and August. With no closed season, size limit, or quota, thensh shery focuses on reef shes and mullets. Small unregulated sheries exist forchitons, conch and octopus.

There are two key instruments used to control the shery, both managed by theGNPS:

Fishery Monitoring Certicates (FMC) are given to shers once their catch hasbeen recorded as part of the Fisheries Monitoring Programme. Fishers cannot sell

their catch without FMCs. Export Permits are required before dealers can export to the mainland. Oncequota has been reached, no further permits are issued. The system should ensure

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Fig. 2. Principal export markets for Galapagos sheries.




(a) that the quota is not exceeded (by limiting exports), and (b) comprehensivereporting of catch.

7.4. Tourism

Tourism developed rapidly over the 1980s and 1990s, with a threefold increase inthe number of tourists between 1985 and 1999. The increase in tourist numbers ispartly a response to increasing incomes in North America and Europe, and also ashift in the tourism markets away from conventional sun/sand tourism towardsactivity-based holidays (cultural, nature, sport, etc.). Most Galapagos tourism isbased around cruise vessels that provide accommodation for visitors and visitdifferent islands. The activities of visitors are tightly controlled by ofcers of theGNPS who accompany the cruise vessels.

Unless otherwise referenced, the data referred to in the following section wascollected by a questionnaire survey conducted between January and March 2001.Face-to-face interviews produced a total of 448 usable questionnaires. The majorityof the respondents were non-Ecuadorian (88%). This compares well with the datacollected by GNPS for all of the 66,000 visitors in 1999, 82% of whom were non-Ecuadorian [91]. The US was the single largest source of visitors (44%). For USvisitors, the 56–65 age group was the largest. For other visitors, the 26–35 age groupwas most signicant. The majority of visitors in employment said that they held

managerial or professional positions. The largest single group said they had nooccupation, corresponding with visitors in older age groups who are likely to beretired.

The average length of stay in the Galapagos was 7 days, with most visitors stayingon the mainland for 2 days. Despite many visitors (73%) saying they would considera return trip, there is a low level of actual returners, 93% of the sample, being ontheir rst visit. Vessel-based tourists accounted for 82% of all leisure visitors in thesample spending on average 1.6 nights on shore and 5.9 nights on board. Mostvisitors (60%) had been on nature-orientated holidays before (68% of the USsample). US visitors tended to have visited other Latin American countries (notably

Costa Rica), while European visitors were more likely to have visited Africa (inparticular Namibia and Kenya).

The average US package cost US$3000, while the average non-American packagecost was US$1650. Independent travelers purchasing their holiday as separatecomponents spent on average US$115 per day (excluding travel cost) on theirholiday in the Galapagos. The incomes of visitors varied greatly according to theirorigin. Latin American visitors showed the lowest incomes, mostly o US$1k permonth. US visitors had the widest-spread income distribution accounting for 70% of all respondents recording monthly incomes over US$4k per month.

No ofcial estimates are available for regional GDP or the contribution made by

tourism. It is possible to make a tentative estimate of contribution to the economy of the Galapagos by examining total holiday expenditure and making relevantdeductions for spend outside the islands (particularly travel and the margin retained

ARTICLE IN PRESS




by travel agents). The questionnaire survey asked respondents traveling on apackage deal what the cost of the package was and where it started from (someforeign nationals travel to Ecuador and start their package there). Independenttravelers were asked about the cost of individual components of their holiday. Therewas a signicant difference in levels of expenditure made by Ecuadorian and foreignnationals, and consequently they were treated as two separate groups. Based on datagathered from the questionnaire survey, annual tourism income was estimated to bein the region of US$71.5 million in 2000. Over 90% of this expenditure wasattributed to non-Ecuadorian visitors. Within the group of foreign tourists, USvisitors spent the most on their holiday.

8. Discussion

In the space of 30 years, the Galapagos have gone from largely uninhabitedvolcanic outcrops to the richest department in Ecuador. In 1996, Ecuador had thelowest estimated GNP per capita in South America at $1500, with 30% of thepopulation living below the poverty line of $1/day. No estimates of regional GDP forthe Galapagos are available. However, using the estimated export incomes for 2000,we can make a crude estimate.

ðfishing exports þ tourism exports ÞC estimated population ¼ export income per capita ;

ðUS$4 : 1 m þ US$71 : 5 m ÞC 18 ; 500 ¼ US$4000per capita per annum :

This gure will be a signicant underestimate of GDP/capita in the islands, as itfails to consider multiplier effects and any other productive activity in the islands. Itshould also be pointed out that this income is not evenly distributed. Nonetheless, itillustrates the relative wealth of the Galapagos compared to mainland Ecuador.

The Galapagos illustrates the boom phase of the island development cycle with theappearance of relative advantages, high levels of specialization, economic growthand immigration. The economy is driven by export-orientated primary and tertiarysectors. But does this activity represent sustainable development? To help us explore

this question further we need to consider Table 3 . In Table 3 , Column (A) identiesthe drivers that have caused relative economic advantages to emerge in theGalapagos. Columns (B) and (C) identify potential threats that might underminethat advantage.

The rst point to note about (A) is that these drivers are outside the inuence of the Galapagos. Interestingly, it is also possible to argue that drivers A1, A3 and A4are features of global unsustainability. The tourism survey established that theindustry in the Galapagos is largely dependent on wealthy customers from developedcountries. This wealthy elite is the pinnacle of a heavily skewed global incomedistribution, which for many commentators is either a cause or consequence of

global unsustainability [92]. The uneven distribution of global wealth was a keyconcern of the World Commission on the Environment and Development, Agenda21, and the more recent 2002 World Summit in Johannesburg [93–95]. The

ARTICLE IN PRESS




Table 3Drivers and threats to economic development in the Galapagos

(A) Exogenous drivers of economic development Threats to continued economic development

(B) Non-controllable

A1. Improved transport B1. Recession in trading partner country C1.A2. Western fashion/taste B2. Competing locations CA3. Global economic growth and uneven income distribution. B3. Changing tastes C3. SA4. Over-exploitation of resources elsewhere B4. Security issues C



emergence of valuable sheries in the Galapagos is largely a result of unsustainableexploitation in other parts of the world. The pepino shery, in particular, is a directresult of the unsustainable exploitation of sheries in the Far East. Both tourism andthe export of high value shery products from the Galapagos are reliant on airtransport. Expansion in air travel may become a major contributor to future climatechange [96].

Column (B) indicates possible threats to the Galapagos’ economy that are outsidethe ‘control’ of the islands. Tourism activity exhibits a high income-elasticity of demand. Consequently, demand for holidays will fall quickly in response to anydecrease in incomes in countries of visitor origin. As luxury products, pepino andlobster markets may also be vulnerable to such effects. The tourist market hasevolved in response to a fashion for nature tourism and changing marketsegmentation [97]. The tourist survey revealed that most visitors were engaging inan exclusive market, visiting various high-cost nature holiday destinations aroundthe globe. The survey also pointed out that even satised visitors were unlikely tomake return visits. This combination makes the Galapagos vulnerable to changes intastes for nature tourism or the emergence of new ‘fashionable’ locations.

Finally in Column (B), security is a key factor. This is particularly the case for UStourists, who are the largest single contributors to the Galapagos tourist economy.US citizens are already relatively reluctant foreign travelers, with an annualoutbound visitor rate per capita of 0.19 compared to an EU average of 0.58 [86].While Ecuador is generally a safe country, any spread of guerrilla activity from the

Colombian border could act as a deterrent to US visitors.Column (C) identies threats over which the island potentially has some control.These all relate to the management and conservation of natural resources. Clearly,the pressure of tourism has potential to degrade the environment and choke off future demand. As noted above, the GNPS monitors and restricts the movement of tourists. The SLG has instituted a stakeholder-driven regime for the management of sheries resources [98]. It is generally accepted that the single largest threat to theterrestrial ecosystem in the Galapagos is the introduction of new species. Whileefforts are underway to try and eradicate some alien species, the rate of newintroductions appears to increase with population. Economic opportunity in the

tourism and shing sectors is a strong draw for immigrants from the mainland. Theintroduction of the SLG has now limited the opportunities for further immigration.However, with a substantial population of recent immigrants, the islands will nowbegin to generate their own population growth.

9. Conclusions

The recent colonization of the Galapagos is not typical of many islands. However,in many other respects (limited resources, specialization, etc.) the Galapagos are

typical. So does the Galapagos represent an example of sustainable development ornot? The answer to this question depends very much upon one’s perspective. One cansustain an argument that the drivers of economic well being in the Galapagos are

ARTICLE IN PRESS




features of global unsustainability. Furthermore, experience from other islandssuggests that the development bubble will burst. Various uncontrollable exogenousthreats may extinguish the relative advantages currently enjoyed by the Galapagos.It could therefore be argued that current development in the islands may beunsustainable in terms of its longevity.

On the other hand, at the purely local level much of what is being done in theGalapagos could be said to represent sustainable development. The increasedautonomy granted by the SLG has resulted in many measures that t with a stronginterpretation of the CS model (the control of tourism development, attempts toeradicate introduced species, control of immigration, etc.). The use of participatorymanagement as part of the Islands’ management regime is also consistent withprocess-orientated approaches to sustainable development.

Like many islands, the economic well being of the Galapagos is dependent ontrade in an increasingly globalized market. At the same time there is an ongoingprocess of increasing local autonomy. The SLG has increased local control of resources. Arguably, this local control is against the interests of many citizens of mainland Ecuador now denied access to the Islands’ resources. The drive forprotection of the Galapagos comes from international recognition of their ecologicalsignicance, which has created a favorable scenario for the islanders.

Models of sustainable development may have something to offer islands in termsof the internal management of resources. However, CS models assume a level of control and stability that may simply not exist on many islands. Islands have very

limited control over exogenous threats or the economic drivers of development. Thecase study illustrates the complexity of sustainability in an Island context. Theintriguing paradox that some islands may be managing local resources sustainably,while exploiting unsustainable patterns of global consumption, deserves furtherinvestigation.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my colleagues at Heriot-Watt University (ICIT, Orkney), the

Charles Darwin Research Station (Galapagos, Equador), Coralina (San Andres,Colombia) and the University of California and Los Angeles, who took part in theEU funded Islas Minga project, particularly those who helped with data collection.The views expressed in this article are, however, entirely the author’s own.

References

[1] Dolman AJ. Paradise lost? The past performance and future prospects of small island developingcountries. In: Dommen E, Hein P, editors. States microstates and islands. London: Groom Helm;1985. p. 40–69.

[2] Hess A. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. In: Beller W,d’Ayala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable development and environmental management of smallislands. New Jersey: Parthenon; 1990. p. 3–15.

ARTICLE IN PRESS




[3] Selwyn P. Development policy in small countries. London: Croom Helm; 1975 208pp.[4] King R. The geographical fascination of islands. In: Lockhart DG, Drakakis-Smith D, Schembri J,

editors. The development process in small island states. London: Routledge; 1993. p. 15–38.

[5] Doumenge F. The viability of small intertropical islands. In: Dommen E, Hein P, editors. Statesmicrostates and islands. London: Groom Helm; 1985. p. 70–118.[6] The idea for Figure 1 came from an illustration in Dommen E. What is a microstate. In: Dommen E,

Hein P, editors. States microstates and islands. London: Groom Helm; 1985. p. 1–15.[7] Wartho R, Overton J. The Pacic islands in the world. In: Overton J, Scheyvens R, editors. Strategies

for sustainable development experiences from the Pacic. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 33–48.[8] Bartman B. Patterns of localism in a changing global system. In: Baldacchino G, Milne D, editors.

Lessons from the political economy of small islands. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2000. p. 38–56.[9] Arya S, Samara J. Participatory process and watershed management—a study of the Shiwalik foothill

villages in Northern India. Asia Pacic Journal of Rural Development 1995;5(2):27–35.[10] Boyer B. Institutional mechanisms for sustainable development: a look at national councils for

sustainable development in Asia. Global Environmental Change 2000;10(2):157–60.[11] Younis T. Bottom-up implementation after Rio: community participation in Scottish forestry.

Community Development Journal 1997;32(4):299–311.[12] Bouchy M, Race D. The twists and turns of community participation in natural resource

management in Australia: what is missing? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management2001;44(3):293–308.

[13] There are numerous examples of global and regional island networks including: the UN Small IslandDeveloping States network (SIDSnet) at www.sidsnet.org ; the Global Islands Network (GIN) atwww.globalislands.net ; the European Small Islands Network at www.europeansmallislands.net , TheEuropean Islands System of Links and Exchanges at www.eurisles.com ; and the European IslandsNetwork on Energy and the Environment at www.europeanislands.net .

[14] The objective of the International Island Games Association is ‘‘to foster and encourage friendshipthrough sporting activities between Island communities’’. See IIGA, Constitution of the InternationalIsland Games Association, Isle of Man, August 2004, http://www.islandgames.net/ .

[15] Pitt D. Sociology, islands and boundaries. World Development 1980;8(12):1051–9.[16] Boulding K. General systems theory: the skeleton of science. Management Science 1956;2(3):197–208.[17] Veronicos N. The study of Mediterranean small islands: emerging theoretical issues. Ekistics

1987;323/324:101–11.[18] Pitt D. Anthropological and social theories and microstates. In: Dommen E, Hein P, editors. States

microstates and islands. London: Groom Helm; 1985. p. 30–9.[19] Starc N. Managing sustainable development on the Croatian Islands—documents, problems and

perspectives. Periodicum Biologorum 2000;102:199–208.[20] Vernicos N. The islands of Greece. In: Beller W, d’Ayala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable development

and environmental management of small islands. New Jersey: Parthenon; 1990. p. 141–68.

[21] McElroy J, de Albuquerque K. Managing small island sustainability: towards a systems design. In:Beller W, d’Ayala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. New Jersey: Parthenon; 1990. p. 43–56.

[22] Brown D. An institutionalist look at postmodernism. Journal of Economic Issues1991;XXV(4):1089–104.

[23] Pearce D, Markandya A, Barbier E. Blueprint for a green economy. London: Earthscan PublicationsLtd.; 1989 192pp.

[24] Dobson A. Environmental sustainabilities: an analysis and a typology. Environmental Politics1986;5(3):401–28.

[25] Counsell D. Sustainable development and structure plans in England and Wales: a review of currentpractice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1998;41(2):177–94.

[26] Hales R. Land use development planning and the notion of sustainable development: exploringconstraint and facilitation within the English planning system. Journal of Environmental Planningand Management 2000;43(1):99–121.

[27] O’Niel J. Ecology, policy and politics. London: Routledge; 1993 227pp.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


http://www.sidsnet.org/

http://www.globalislands.net/

http://www.europeansmallislands.net/


http://www.eurisles.com/


http://www.europeanislands.net/

http://www.islandgames.net/



http://www.europeanislands.net/



http://www.globalislands.net/

http://www.sidsnet.org/



[28] Funtowicz S, Ravetz J. Post-normal science: a new science for new times. Scientic European1990;October:20–2.

[29] Lawrence GJ. The future of Local Agenda 21 in the new millennium. London: UNED-UK; 1998

12pp.[30] Burgess J, Harrison C, Filius P. Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Environment and Planning A 1997;30(8):1445–60.

[31] Davos CA. Sustaining co-operation in the coastal zone. Journal of Environmental Management1998;52(4):379–87.

[32] Murray D. Public administration in the microstates of the Pacic. In: Dommen E, Hein P, editors.States microstates and islands. London: Groom Helm; 1985. p. 185–200.

[33] Purdie N. Pacic island livelihoods. In: Overton J, Scheyvens R, editors. Strategies for sustainabledevelopment experiences from the Pacic. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 64–79.

[34] Dahl C. Integrated Coastal Zone Management and community participation in small island settings.Ocean and Coastal Management 1997;36(1–3):23–45.

[35] Dommen E. Some distinguishing characteristics of island states. World Development1980;8(12):931–43.

[36] UNCTAD. Examination of the particular problems and needs of island developing states. In:Dommen E, Hein P, editors. States microstates and islands. London: Groom Helm; 1985. p. 118–51.

[37] Hein P. Between Aldabra and Nauru. In: Beller W, d’Ayala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainabledevelopment and environmental management of small islands. Parthenon: New Jersey; 1990.p. 57–76.

[38] Briguglio L. Small island states and their economic vulnerability. World Development1995;23(9):1615–32.

[39] McElroy J, Potter B, Towle EL. Challenges for sustainable development in small Caribbean islands.In: Beller W, d’Ayala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. New Jersey: Parthenon; 1990. p. 299–316.

[40] Patterson R. The primary sector: problem and opportunity for islands. In: Baldacchino G, Milne D,editors. Lessons from the political economy of small islands. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2000.p. 159–71.

[41] Baldacchino G. The other way round: manufacturing as an extension of services in small island states.Asia Pacic Viewpoint 1998;39(3):267–79.

[42] Greenwood R, McCarthy S. Manufacturing development on the North Atlantic rim. In: BaldacchinoG, Milne D, editors. Lessons from the political economy of small islands. New York: PalgraveMacmillan; 2000. p. 172–92.

[43] Potter RB. Basic needs and development in the small islands of the eastern Caribbean. In: LockhartDG, Drakakis-Smith D, Schembri J, editors. The development process in small island states. London:Routledge; 1993. p. 92–116.

[44] Bayliss-Smith T. From taro garden to golf course? Alternative futures for agricultural capital in the

Pacic islands. In: Burt B, Clerk C, editors. Environment and development in the Pacic islands.Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies, Research School of Pacic and Asian Studies,The Australian National University; 1997. p. 143–70.

[45] Shembri PJ, Lanfranco E. Development and the natural environment in the Maltese islands. In:Lockhart DG, Drakakis-Smith D, Schembri J, editors. The development process in small islandstates. London: Routledge; 1993. p. 247–66.

[46] Bertram IG, Watters RF. The MIRAB economy in South Pacic microstates. Pacic Viewpoint1985;26(3):497–519.

[47] Brown RP, Ahlburg DA. Remittances in the South Pacic. International Journal of Social Economics1999;26(1–3):325–44.

[48] Sawatibau S. Who controls development in the Pacic. In: Burt B, Clerk C, editors. Environment anddevelopment in the Pacic islands. Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies, ResearchSchool of Pacic and Asian Studies, The Australian National University; 1997. p. 34–44.

[49] Elek A, Hill H, Tabor SR. Liberalization and diversication in a small island economy: Fiji since the1987 coups. World Development 1993;21(5):749–69.

ARTICLE IN PRESS




[50] Connel J. Island microstates: development autonomy and the ties that bind. In: Lockhart DG,Drakakis-Smith D, Schembri J, editors. The development process in small island states. London:Routledge; 1993. p. 117–50.

[51] Chandra R. Breaking out of import substitution industrialization: the case of Fiji. In: Lockhart DG,Drakakis-Smith D, Schembri J, editors. The development process in small island states. London:Routledge; 1993. p. 205–27.

[52] WTTC. Tourism satellite accounts. London: World Travel and Tourism Council; 2001.[53] McEachern J, Towle EL. Ecological guidelines for island development. Morges: IUCN; 1974 62pp.[54] Cohen E. Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research 1972;39(1):164–82.[55] Shera W, Matsuoka J. Evaluating the impact of resort development on an Hawaiian island:

implications for social impact assessment policy and procedures. Environmental Impact AssessmentReview 1992;12:349–62.

[56] Baum T, Mudambi R. Managing demand uctuations in the context of island tourism. In: ConlinMV, Baum T, editors. Island tourism management and principles. Chichester: Wiley; 1995. p. 115–20.

[57] Dolman AJ. The potential contribution of marine resources to sustainable development in small-island developing countries. In: Beller W, d’Ayala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable development andenvironmental management of small islands. New Jersey: Parthenon; 1990. p. 87–102.

[58] Hein P. Between Aldabra and Nauru. In: Beller W, d’Ayala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainabledevelopment and environmental management of small islands. New Jersey: Parthenon; 1990.p. 57–76.

[59] Baldachino G. Bursting the bubble: the pseudo development strategies of microstates. Developmentand Change 1993;24:29–51.

[60] Bertram IG. Sustainability and material welfare in small south Pacic Island economies, 1900–1990.World Development 1993;21(2):247–58.

[61] Bertram IG. Sustainable development in Pacic micro-economies. World Development1986;17(7):809–22.

[62] Named after the effects of gas discoveries in the Netherlands, Dutch disease occurs where one exportindustry becomes disproportionately strong compared to other export industries in a country. Thismay cause a signicant appreciation in the value of currency, forcing up the price of all exports onforeign markets. This price rise can make exports uncompetitive compared to similar products fromother countries. The export of labor from islands, and consequent inow of remittances, may increasethe value of the local currency raising the export price of island-produced products on internationalmarkets.

[63] Barton J. Commercial shing: opportunities and conservation striking a balance. In: Proceedings,Falkland Islands forum—sustaining a future, 12 July 2000, The Brewery, Chiswell St., London.

[64] Henderson M. Forest futures for Papua New Guinea: logging or community forest. In: Burt B, ClerkC, editors. Environment and development in the Pacic Islands. Canberra: National Centre forDevelopment Studies, Research School of Pacic and Asian Studies, The Australian National

University; 1997. p. 45–68.[65] Filer C. Logging and resource dependency in Papua New Guinea. In: Burt B, Clerk C, editors.

Environment and development in the Pacic Islands. Canberra: National Centre for DevelopmentStudies, Research School of Pacic and Asian Studies, The Australian National University; 1997.p. 69–77.

[66] Lagisa L, Scheyvens R. Mining in Papua New Guinea. In: Overton J, Scheyvens R, editors. Strategiesfor sustainable development experiences from the Pacic. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 125–41.

[67] Hviding E. Fisheries and coastal resources: knowledge and development. In: Burt B, Clerk C, editors.Environment and development in the Pacic Islands. Canberra: National Centre for DevelopmentStudies, Research School of Pacic and Asian Studies, The Australian National University; 1997. p.123–42.

[68] Batibasaqa K, Overton J, Horsley P. Vanua: land people and culture of Fiji’. In: Overton J,Scheyvens R, editors. Strategies for sustainable development experiences from the Pacic. London:Zed Books; 1999. p. 100–8.

[69] Hau’ofa E. Our sea of islands. The Contemporary Pacic 1994;6(1):147–61.

ARTICLE IN PRESS






[94] United Nations. Agenda 21: programme of action for sustainable development—the nal text of agreements negotiated by governments at the United Nations conference on environment anddevelopment (UNCED), Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, 3–14 June 1992. 295pp.

[95] United Nations General Assembly. Environment and sustainable development implementation of Agenda 21 and the programme for further implementation of Agenda 21. United Nations A/57/532/Add1. December 2002. 8pp.

[96] Penner JE, Lister DH, Griggs, Dokken DJ, McFarland M. Aviation and the global atmosphere,special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress; 2001 373pp.

[97] Ryan C. Island, beaches and life-stage marketing. In: Conlin V, Boulm T, editors. Island tourism:management principles and practice. Chichester: Wiley; 1995. p. 79–94.

[98] Baine M, Howard M, Kerr S, Edgar G, Toral V. Coastal and marine resource management in theGalapagos Islands and the archipelago of San Andres: issues, problems and opportunities. Ocean andCoastal Management, under review.

ARTICLE IN PRESS


Documents

Tourism Global Local