Jerome L. McElroy
Professor of Economics
Department of Business
Administration and Economics
Saint Mary's College
Notre Dame, Indiana USA
TEL-574-284-4488
FAX-574-284-4566
jmcelroy@saintmarys.edu
*Paper
presented to the Workshop on Coastal Tourism Policy, Simon Fraser University,
Vancouver, British Columbia (December 6-7, 2002).
This paper focuses on the
threat of coastal alteration in small (less than one million population)
primarily Caribbean islands because of their relatively large coastal envelopes
and their specialization in sea-based mass tourism. It reviews the primary causes of environmental overrun, presents
two case studies to distill the key parameters that circumscribe coastal
development, and provides suggestions for an appropriate planning and
regulatory framework with an emphasis on the Coastal Zone Management Program of
the U.S. Virgin Islands (VICZMP).
Past
policy failure to protect coastal capital is due to at least four deep-seated
dynamics. The first is a history of
environmental neglect, particularly in the Caribbean, developed as a peripheral
colonial export enclave, without an indigenous population and tradition of
resource conservation. This legacy
continues today in under funded monitoring and weak enforcement of protective
legislation.
The
second is aggressive promotion of low-multiplier, low value-added mass
visitation, in part another colonial monocrop legacy (sugar, cotton) and in
part a response to the labor-intensive requirements of an economy buffeted by
declining agriculture, high-cost industry, and the damaging contours of globalization:
a drastic fall-off in the U.S. aid since 1990, the export of manufacturing
(textiles) jobs to Mexico through NAFTA, and the ongoing phase-out of banana
production for export (and possibly sugar) through the consolidation of the
European Union. As a result, the region
has become increasingly tourism dependent.
According to 2001 TSA estimates (WTTC, 2001), this lead sector is more
significant in the Caribbean than in any other region in the world. The visitor industry accounts for 17 percent
of GDP, 21 percent of capital formation, 20 percent of exports and 16 percent
of total employment.
The
third and fourth relate to the nature of international tourism itself. The scale discrepancy between heavily
capitalized, high-volume international travel interests (air and cruise lines,
hotel chains, tour operators) and the small fragile insular ecosystems produce
an inherent propensity for environmental overrun, and tourism’s on-site
consumption character can easily spawn socio-cultural disruption. In addition, tourism’s uneven dynamics often
catch policymakers unprepared. While
visible economic benefits accrue linearly (jobs, foreign exchange, etc.), costs
are often hidden until dangerous thresholds are violated (coastal erosion, reef
kills, traffic congestion). Finally,
because of its pervasiveness, it is extremely difficult to simultaneously
satisfy tourism’s four major stakeholders: profits for developers and other
commercial interests, improved life quality and decision-making voice for
residents, satisfied visitors who wish to return, and environmental stability
for the enjoyment of future generations.
As
a result of this confluence of systemic forces, a generation of postwar
Caribbean history suggests mass tourism development in small islands has been
largely a disequilibria strategy.
Hillside condo/hotel clusters and roadways have damaged forests, caused
erosion silting over streams and wetlands and polluting lagoons. Mangroves and salt ponds have been destroyed
by the construction of large-scale resorts, marinas, and infrastructure along
delicate coastlines, depleting species, heritage artifacts and reefs already
weakened by sand-mining, yacht anchoring, hotel and cruise ship sewage dumping
and visitor “footprints” (McElroy and de Albuquerque, 1998).
However,
coastal alteration is not inevitable.
Two brief case studies highlight key ingredients of success or
failure. The stagnation of Bermudian
tourism in the mid-1980’s prompted widespread public discussion and a long-term
reassessment. Residents favored
retaining the Island’s upscale image and protecting its unique biodiversity and
heritage. Policy-makers responded with
ceilings on bed capacity, vehicles and cruise ships as well as specific
controls on construction design and landscaping. Natural amenities and historical architecture remained intact
while tourism stabilized in the 1990’s somewhat below 1980’s levels (McElroy,
2001). Five elements played a role in
this success story: a tradition of environmental conservation, widespread
community awareness and participation, strong destination identity, policy
commitment to the long term, and a robust offshore financial sector (banking,
insurance, ship registry) to absorb any tourism declines.
Antigua represents the reverse
case. Centuries of deforestation for
sugar culture presaged the post-war growth of mass tourism. Between 1975-1980 total visitation doubled,
and doubled again between 1980-1990.
During these years more mangrove swamps and offshore reefs were damaged or
killed than in all previous island history (Coram, 1993) through intense
coastal commercial colonization.
Subsequent to these asset losses, overnight visitors have still not
recovered (WTO, 2002). This policy
failure derives from the absence of the five ingredients illustrated in the
Bermudian case: (1) a legacy of environmental neglect, (2) the absence of a
clear destination identity anchored to the “native genius of the place,” (3)
the poor performance of non-tourist diversification into manufacturing and
domestic agriculture, (4) marginal citizen and NGO decision-making
participation, and (5) the political directorate’s persistent preference for
short-term economic gain over long-term sustainable natural resource planning
and management.
To
establish an effective regulatory framework supportive of coastal stability,
one first step would be to strengthen among public planners, resource users,
and managers and developers a basic integrative understanding of how insular
terrestrial and marine ecosystems interact to preserve overall ecological
stability. This involves how upland
forests and hillside vegetation slow storm runoff, staunch erosion, preserve
moisture and soil fertility for downstream savannahs, and how
wetlands/mangroves trap sediments to preserve lagoon quality and productivity
(OTA, 1987). This understanding also
involves how reefs slow erosive wave action and grass beds trap debris so sand
and shoreline vegetation can preserve beach strands. Understanding the ecological functions of these two fresh and
salt water buffering systems is a fundamental starting point for sustainably
developing small island coastal areas.
The
second step is to mount a sustained comprehensive integrated planning process
along ICAM lines (UNEP, 1999) designed to achieve four ends: (1) to curtail
developments that damage the two buffering systems- - i.e., steep hillside
construction/infrastructure that accelerates runoff and erosion and despoils
nearshore waters, and sand mining that destabilizes shorelines, heightens
low-land flooding and salt water intrusion, and destroys reefs through rising
turbidity- - (2) to strengthen community awareness of the unique insular
terrestrial and marine patrimony, (3) to anchor this awareness to a consensus
tourism style (s) compatible with the long-term integrity of that patrimony as
well as with present and future resident aspirations, and (4) to
institutionalize wide-spread citizen participation in coastal resource conflict
resolution.
Although
there is a variety of coastal contexts as well as a variety of planning models
(Innskeep, 1994; Singh and Singh, 1999), for illustrative purposes this study
examines the specifics of the Virgin Islands Coastal Zone Management Program
(VICZMP) which was enacted into law by the USVI Legislature in 1978. Its purpose is to protect, maintain and,
where feasible, enhance the overall quality of the coastal zone environment for
the benefit of residents and visitors alike, and to minimize competing land and
water uses. The coastal zone is defined
as the coastal waters and adjacent shorelands including islands, beaches, salt
marshes and wetlands (GOVI, 1977). The
Program is sponsored and funded by the U.S. federal government..
The
overall charge of the CZMP and its functionaries is to regulate the development
and activity within the coastal zone in accordance with the CZM
Legislation. Specifically this means to
ensure sustainable commercial development of coastal resources, to favor renewable
over non-renewable uses (and water-dependent over non-water-dependent uses), to
maximize traditional public beach access and traditional resource user rights,
to conserve ecologically critical habitats (reef integrity, marine meadows,
salt ponds, mangroves etc…), and to maintain coastal water quality through
control of erosion, sedimentation, run-off, siltation and sewage discharge.
The
CZMP is housed in the USVI Department of Planning and Natural Resources
(DPNR). The key functionaries in the
CZM process are the Commissioner of DPNR, a cabinet level government position,
the CZM technical and support staff, and the CZM Commission. The Commission is made up of 15 private
citizens appointed by the Governor and approved by the Legislature. It consists of 5 members each from the three
main islands: St. Croix, St. John and
St. Thomas. These five members each
make up the three respective CZM Committees that make CZM decisions for their
respective islands. In all cases, the
Commissioner and Assistant Commissioner of DPNR are non-voting ex-officio
members.
The
CZM regulates activity and development in the coastal zone through the major
and minor permit process. The latter
involves small projects like construction of a family residence or duplex,
improving an existing structure(s) costing less than $75,000, or any other
development valued less than $66,000.
Normally, a minor permit is approved or rejected by the DPNR
Commissioner with input from the CZM staff within 60 days of the application
submission. This allows the overall
CZMP to focus on major projects (GOVI, 2002).
In
the case of a major permit for a large resort, or multifamily dwelling, or even
U.S. federal projects like dock or airport extensions, the process involves
several steps. These include an
extensive application form, an Environmental Impact Report (EAR), review by the
CZM staff and appropriate agencies, public notices/hearings for citizen input,
and a final decision by the appropriate CZM Commission Committee. In particular, once an application is made,
say, by a private developer, the Major Permit Project Review Team of the CZM
staff will inspect the application and the EAR for accuracy and circulate it
for review to relevant public agencies whose jurisdiction is affected by the
proposed project. The Review Team will
also notify private organizations
and individuals who have expressed interest in the
project and will make all pertinent documents available for review by the
general public.
Within
60 days after the CZM staff has deemed the application complete, the DPNR will
hold public hearings for citizen input (oral and written) to be followed by a
comment period. Following the hearing
and the comment period, the CZM staff will make its recommendation to the
respective CZM Committee. The Committee
must make its final decision within 30 days of the hearing to deny, approve, or
approve with conditions. If either a
major or minor permit is denied, the applicant must be informed of the reason
for the denial and can make an appeal to the VI Board of Land Use Appeal (BLUA)
within 45 days. The BLUA has the
ultimate say, and can affirm, reverse or modify the decision of the CZM
Committee.
In
the case where a major permit has been approved, the CZM staff has the
obligation to conduct regular site inspections to monitor all construction and
other activities taking place in the coastal zone to ensure that all conditions
of the approved CZM permit are adhered to.
The CZM staff is also charged under the law with identifying any illegal
coastal zone activities undertaken without valid permits such as dredging,
mining, dumping, harvesting vegetation or coral and so on. Such violators, if convicted, are subject to
fines of $10,000 or more and/or imprisonment of not more than one year.
From a public participation
perspective, the VICZMP has much to recommend it. The thorough permit vetting process institutionalizes expert
input from the CZM staff and from technicians in related local public agencies,
but also provides for general input from concerned citizens through the public
hearings and comment period. Most
importantly, the process allows citizen control over major activity in the
coastal zone through the decisions handed down by the all-citizen CZM
Committees. The Program has recently
(October 2001) received a national (U.S.) Award for Excellence for its
effectiveness in increasing public awareness of coastal zone issues and public
participation in coastal zone decision-making.
It is recognized as a model for other governments and for other island
governments in the Caribbean.
However, proof of
effectiveness is whether coastal resource management has improved during the
past two decades of CZMP regulation.
Although no comprehensive performance review has been completed, three
weaknesses have surfaced. First,
specific management plans for 18 coastal Areas of Particular Concern were not
drawn up until the early 1990s resulting in the loss of many conservation and
resource management opportunities (Towle and Volk, 1994). Second, partly as a result of this inertia,
as well as other factors—negative reaction to early anti-development
environmentalism, the fortuitous largesse of benefactors who purchased assets
for protection, and frequent political/policy reversals—the VICZMP failed to
take a leadership role in the development of a territorial system of marine
parks and reserves (IRF, 1998). Recent
natural disasters and increasing development pressures, however, produced a
more favorable landscape for protection, and four marine and wildlife reserves
were established in the late 1990s. In
addition, a major new Territorial Park encompassing extensive coastal and
marine resources at the East End of St. Croix has been proposed and submitted
for Legislative approval. The
development process for this park involved extensive community discussions,
including the involvement of local fishermen.
Finally, although the
Program tends to assess and manage the incremental or micro impacts of a given
development project, the framework provides no clear-cut provisions for
assessing and monitoring the cumulative or macro impacts in a given ecosystem
from the interaction of a variety of individual developments. This tyranny of marginalism can result in
environmental threshold violations that can cause coastal alterations like
beach erosion, loss of species diversity and so on.
References
Coram,
R. 1993. Caribbean Time Bomb.
New York: William Morrow.
Government
of the Virgin Islands. 2002. VICZMP Official Website.
<http://www.viczmp.com/>.
Government
of the Virgin Islands. 1977. Preliminary Virgin Islands Coastal Zone
Management Program. St.
Thomas, USVI: Virgin Islands Planning Office.
Innskeep,
E. 1994. National and Regional Tourism Planning: Methodologies and Case
Studies. London:
Routledge.
Island
Resources Foundation. 1998. “History of Marine Protection Efforts in the
USVI.”
VI Marine Park
Project—Resource Description Report.
St. Thomas, USVI: IRF.
McElroy,
J.L. 2001. “Island Tourism: A
Development Strategy for Biodiversity.”
Insula
9(September): 21-22.
McElroy,
J.L. and K. de Albuquerque. 1998. “Tourism Penetration Index in Small
Caribbean Islands.”
Annals of Tourism Research 25(1): 445-468.
Office
of Technology Assessment. 1987. Integrated Renewable Resource Management
for U.S. Insular Areas. Washington, DC: U.S. Congress, OTA.
Singh,
T.V. and S. Singh (eds). 1999. Tourism Development in Critical
Environments.
New York: Cognizant Communication Corporation.
Towle,
E.L. and R.D. Volk. 1994. From Theory to Practice with Virgin Islands
Coastal
Management: A Retrospective
Review. Occasional Paper No. 52. St. Thomas,
USVI: Island Resources Foundation.
United
Nations Environment Program. 1999. Guidelines for Integrated Planning and
Management of Coastal and
Marine Areas in the Wider Caribbean.
Kingston,
JA: UNEP, Caribbean Environment
Programme. <http://www.cep.unep.org/
Pubs/techreports/guidelines/>.
World
Tourism Organization. 2002. Compendium of Tourism Statistics 2002. Madrid,
SP: WTO.
World
Travel and Tourism Council. 2001. Tourism Satellite Accounts 2001. London:
WTTC. <http://www.wttc.org/>.