Shortly before the 1987 release of the UN World Commission on Environment and Development’s report Our Common Future, researchers from the University of Wisconsin’s Institute for Environmental Studies pondered emerging definitions of a new buzzword: sustainability. The researchers felt the term was largely ambiguous, depending entirely on context and whether being used in a social, economic, or ecological perspective and they wanted to know: “Is global sustainability merely a utopian ideal, or is it actually something which is achievable?” (Brown et al., 1987, p.718). Over twenty years later, despite the significant obstacles still hindering the achievement of global sustainable development, this question is still tremendously relevant. No closer to an answer, even the question has become more complicated. In order to truly create global sustainability, it is necessary to first understand their particular needs and the climactic and developmental differences which shape the Northern and Southern environmental perspectives.
Excerpt from paper I will be presenting at BU’s Emerging Scholarship on Africa Conference
Coral reefs are one of the most integral and unique ecosystems on earth. Beyond their intrinsic value as a habitat for many of the ocean's fish and other species, coral reefs furnish human societies with shoreline protection. This and other assets and amenities are worth many billions of dollars each year. However, coral reefs are extremely fragile; they also serve as the ocean's canary in a coal mine, exemplifying the early effects of pollution and climatic variations.
While Africa is not as famed for its reefs as the Caribbean and Australia, they nonetheless play an important role environmentally and economically. The El Nino Southern Oscillation in the late 1990s severely affected coral reefs off the east coast of Africa (Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique) in terms of bleaching and mortality. More than a decade later, reef recovery has been slow and hindered by flaws in the coastal management strategies enacted to protect them. Coral reefs are often called 'mawe na maiamba,' Kiswahili for 'stones and rocks.' A number of sensitive East African coral reef areas continue to be distressed by human economic undertakings such as tourism and fishing, despite policies aimed at reducing or mitigating activity. The weaknesses of these policies may stem from issues regarding implementation, local participation, monitoring, accountability and incentives. Coral reef mismanagement has the potential to negatively affect biodiversity as well as the long-term sustainability of coral reefs within and outside themselves. Coupled with the increasing momentum of climate change, it is important to take a proactive stance on coral reef conservation. A balance must be struck between economic security and the sustainability of natural systems that foster it.
A common strategy for coastal protection is the gazettement of marine protected areas (MPAs), of which marine reserves and marine parks are variations. These are often permanent or temporary no-take fishing areas, but can also be zoned for mixed use. MPAs are intended to provide not only ecology benefits, in terms of reef species recovery and larval connectivity, but also economic benefits in terms of tourism and fishing.
Developing Countries and Beach Tourism Certification
For a number of developing countries, the expansion of beach tourism for leisure and recreation is a significant economic driver. In fact, many coastal state economies are earning high revenues from beach tourism and subsequent recreational activities due largely in part to increased beach quality; no other natural environment receives more visitors than beaches. Countries investing in 3S tourism (sea, sand, sun) presumably want clean beaches in order to be more appealing to tourists. Unless beach ecosystems are properly cared for, the degradation is twofold: both the environment and future tourism become imperiled. One method to combat such negative externalities is the introduction of tourism certification programs. Certification programs are intended to promote sustainable management practices and clean beaches.
A major player in the realm of beach certification is the Blue Flag Programme, subsidiary of the Foundation for Environmental Education (FEE) of Denmark. "Blue Flag is a voluntary ecolabel awarded to over 3650 beaches and marinas in 44 countries across Europe, South Africa, Morocco, Tunisia, New Zealand, Brazil, Canada and the Caribbean that works towards sustainable development of beaches and marinas through strict criteria dealing with Water Quality, Environmental Education and Information, Environmental Management, and Safety and Other Services” (Blue Flag, 2011). Although McKenna and Williams (2011) and others claim that Blue Flag’s success lies in its ability to highlight safe, aesthetically-pleasing beaches rather than its sustainability ethic, it nonetheless serves as an important symbol for sustainable beach practices across the globe. As the largest and most popular beach certification program, Blue Flag’s distinction also makes it a game changer. Its dominance also allows it to surpass some of the challenges faced by smaller, regional, and community-based certification programs. However, Blue Flag is not axiomatically the most attainable standard for all nations interested in sustainable beach tourism certification, particularly for developing countries. While Blue Flag certification is utilized in a few developing countries, those that employ it often struggle to retain their Blue Flag rankings. Whether this is a problem generated by Blue Flag or by the structure of beach tourism in general remains to be seen.
CITES
Issue-specific regimes have achieved a relatively high level of performance, and after the Montreal Protocol, CITES could be considered the second-most successful international regime. Entering into force in 1975, there are currently 175 member countries. Although CITES is legally binding on the parties it does not take the place of national laws; instead, it provides a framework to be respected by each party. In theory, each party should adopt its own domestic legislation to ensure CITES is implemented on the national level.
CITES works by subjecting international trade of living (or products from) selected species to certain controls; all import, export, and re-export and introduction from the three species appendices covered by CITES has to be authorized through a licensing system. The appendices are a flexible system of categorizing the 30,000 included plant and animal species by the degree of protection necessary for species sustainability, as individual species may be moved from one category to another and new species may be added. Unlike many international treaties, CITES moves by 2/3 majority rather than consensus. Compliance is encouraged through technical and political compliance action plans, arrears to the CITS Trust Fund (CITES’ financial mechanism) and recommendations to suspend trade in CITES species (Reeve, 2006). Though there have been some qualms expressed in peer-reviewed literature pertaining to compliance and enforceability of CITES, in general it has been a successful policy tool for mitigating species trade and thereby protecting endangered populations on a global scale.
Predominance of Coastal/Sea-Borne Tourism in Antarctica
Tourists planning an Antarctic destination vacation have three general transportation options: by sea, by land, or by air. Given the murky Treaty coverage of permanent facilities-building, sea-borne tourism has an advantage in that it does not usually require a permanent land-based facility (Kriwoken & Rootes, 2000, p.140).The most popular, economical and accessible choice is therefore a sea-borne voyage, whether it is a ‘cruise-by’ venture or one that makes port or has smaller charter boats for the inclusion of land-based tourism activities.“Ship-based expeditions provide an opportunity for visitors to experience a wide range of areas of interest, including wildlife sites, historic sites, active research stations, and sites of exceptional wilderness and aesthetic value” (IAATO, 2010b). However, the full impact of the increasing number of these environmental incursions on the environment has yet to be determined.
Since the 1970s and 1980s there has been a tremendous influx in tourists to the Antarctic Peninsula and surrounding areas. Until the mid-1980s, annual tourist tallies had been fairly small, but in the subsequent decade they rocketed by 800% (Murray & Jabour, 2004, p.309) assumedly with the conversion of retired icebreaker ships for transporting tourists, a growing environmental interest in Antarctic from the general public, and increased ease of travel to the area. Some 6,000-14,000 visitors traveled to Antarctica each season through the 1990s, and tourism peaked in the millennium summer 1999-2000 (13,826 visitors); from November 2002 to March 2003, 13,571 visitors landed in the Antarctic, a 16% increase from the 2001-02 season. They arrived on 26 commercially organized tour vessels, some of which made up to ten repeat visits during the season as well as numerous sailing vessels and yachts; seaborne tourism exceeded the millennium peak in the 2003-04 season, with a total of 19,772 visitors (Stewart et. al, 2005, p.385). Also startling is the increase in the number of peninsular sites visited, which increased more from 36 sites in 1989 to nearly 200 less than ten years later (Davis, 1999, p.517). The more recent IAATO statistics list 46,069 tourists in the 2007-08 season and 37,858 in 2008-09, the general trend being more than 30,000 tourists per year since 2004-05 with an overall upswing with continued growth likely (IAATO, 2010a).
Upwards of 95% of the Antarctic sea-borne tourism is concentrated in the peninsular region, with the residual 5% aimed at the Ross Sea area in McMurdo Sound (Molenaar, 2005, p.253 & Stewart et. al, 2005, p.385) – see Figure 1. Although Antarctic air-borne tourism is expanding, sea-borne tourism is expected to remain predominant; in 2001, IAATO offered full membership to tour operators with 400+ capacity vessels which also reflects an increasing contemporary fleet (Molenaar, 2005, p.252). “It is likely that circumnavigation of the continent or at least partial circumnavigation will increase in popularity”(Maher et. al, 2003, p.205). This is especially true as ship-borne tours to the Antarctic Peninsula become cheaper and more passenger-friendly. On the other hand, it is unlikely that any sort of tourism ban would be implemented, nor any sort of cap be placed upon the frequency of visitors to Antarctica unless overwhelming scientific proof coerces a consensus agreement.
Possible Future Measures for Sustainable Development for the Panama Canal Watershed
Despite its international prominence as the chief feature of Panama, the Panamanian economy does not reap a significant portion of its GDP from the Canal’s operations. Nonetheless, it is important to consider pilot projects that will help foster enhanced comprehension about the structure and water budget of the PWC as well as proper preparation for population growth and future, sustainable development. The first step would be to carry out an environmental impact assessment and increase transparency. The second would be to provide a funding mechanism for the third component, the implementation of well-researched programs that reflect the wants and needs of the local people and the environment.
Seeing REDD for Carbon Tanzania
“Carbon Tanzania aims to reduce the threats of global climate change by turning carbon dioxide emissions into natural Tanzania forests. Working with rural communities in Northern Tanzania, Carbon Tanzania's projects not only contribute to conserving and protecting local ecosystems, but they also provide opportunities for improved local livelihoods” (Carbon Tanzania, 2011). Besides helping the environment, Marc Baker, director of CT, sees that participating in REDD has other benefits as well: in terms of tourism (carbon friendliness gives an edge to ecotourism ventures that can claim it), international agents may need to meet customer requirements, international companies may need to meet internal environmental policies, local companies may be required to become carbon neutral as part of an association, external markets, schools, want to use process for education and marketing. CT appears to have embraced REDD and its accompanying measures with few salient criticisms.
Approximately one third (35.3 million hectares) of the country is forestland, out of which 16 million ha comprise forest reserves, 2.2 million ha in national parks, and 17.3 million ha are unprotected forest on general land (URT, 2009). According to Marc Baker, there are two general options for reducing the carbon emissions that result from deforestation and degradation: adaptation (food security, human health, an extreme market) and mitigation (REDD+). “There is a clear link between climate change mitigation and adaptation in the forestry sector; investments in improved governance of forest reserves and benefit sharing mechanisms have the potential of reducing vulnerability of rural households” (Bolin, 2009). CT leans heavily on the mitigation side of carbon emissions reduction, by promoting and assisting Tanzanians to participate in the voluntary carbon offset market.
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation in developing countries (REDD) is based on this fundamental principle: reward individuals, communities, projects and governments that reduce greenhouse gas emissions from forests. Verbist et al. (2011) note that REDD may deliver large cuts in emissions at a low cost within a short time frame and, at the same time, contribute to reducing poverty and sustainable development. Thus Tanzanian leaders became interested in REDD based on foreseeing a strong connection between REDD and the nation’s development aspirations, including poverty reduction (Yanda, 2009). Despite a number of issues with its initial trials, REDD remains a top-down approach to climate change mitigation and adaptation, although some argue that this approach has proven to be highly insensitive local needs, priorities and goals (Angelsen, 2009). While negotiations take place far from the local level and context and have a small degree of local stakeholder inclusion, it is encouraging that non-governmental organizations such as CT are helping provide a bridge between national task forces and local communities.
As part of the United Nations REDD or REDD+ program, in 2009 the Tanzanian government launched its first REDD strategy on a national level – its aim is to build on existent forest governance frameworks and community-based forest management, for policy reform and capacity building at national and sub-national levels (Bolin, 2010). “There are concerns that little is known about the demand side of carbon markets and REDD+ could end up like the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which has yielded few benefits for the country so far” (Yanda, 2009). It is important that Tanzania try to embrace those measures that will be most advantageous for the country, especially for the many people living in poverty, in terms of improving development and subsequently conservation.
