Integrating Scientific and Socio-Economic Factors for Workable Environmental Management

§Introduction

This chapter provides a synthesis of the ideas examined throughout the first section of this document in the form of an examination of important issues for environmental management in the Suva Barrier Reef, Fiji, and the Port of Honduras, Belize. In chapter one I presented a broad argument for the necessity of environmental conservation based on consideration of human beings as part of their environment. Chapter two examined the influence of colonialism on the social, cultural, and environmental history of Belize and Fiji. Chapters three and four were presentations of environmental case studies of benthic distribution on the Suva Barrier Reef, and seagrass and mangrove interactions in the Port of Honduras, Belize.

In this chapter I will integrate these different chapters by arguing the necessity of bottom-up management. Grass roots management is enacted by those most closely affected by and linked to their environmental resources. As a result such management will not have the environmental separation problems that might result from colonial or any third party rule. I believe that this is not only feasible economically, but ultimately the only sustainable option both for the environment and it’s inclusive human inhabitants.

Here I will integrate the other chapters and then focus on the potential for tourism, in both areas, and elsewhere. I begin by briefly examining the different environmental management problems and some potential strategies in both case study areas (chapters three and four). In the next section I examine the need for local involvement in environmental management and sustainable development (chapters one and two). Due to the rapid growth of tourism in both Fiji and Belize, I conclude with an examination of the viability of the incorporation of tourism in environmental management strategies.

§Theory for Establishment of Protected Areas

In this section I provide a general background on marine protected areas, including examples of primary threats. Then I briefly state some of the primary factors, which are important in establishing a protected area with some thoughts about how these factors relate specifically to the two case study sites. Following this I show what the Belize Center for Environmental Studies (BCES) is currently doing to establish a real protected zone. I then conclude this section with a discussion of the Biosphere model which the proposed protected area in Belize is based on with a brief examination of it’s limitations for use in protecting impacted areas such as in the Suva Barrier Reef.

§Definition of Marine Protected Areas

The idea of large marine protected areas, especially as an extension of terrestrially protected corridors is relatively new. Their theoretical foundations are currently being developed. Marine protected zones, in principal, have a similar logic to land-based protected areas but terrestrial models can not be adapted because the ocean is not as clearly defined; water parcels in any given area are much less consistent in location and containment than terrestrial counterparts. (U.S. Dept. of Regional Development 1988). By examining what threats protected areas must deal with and then one of the potential management structures I hope to add some definition to the theoretical foundations of marine protected areas.

§Threats to Marine Systems

§Direct

Slow reproduction rates in large marine species: Species such as sea turtles, pinapeds, and whales are very sensitive to destructive practices such as fishing because they are slow to recover from losses. Animals with shorter gestation rates can quickly rebound following intensive fishing efforts but over fishing or other detrimental population effects have a much greater impact for such large animals with long reproductive rates. The Port of Honduras houses the West Indian Manatee and large sea turtles (BCES 1990). Any management strategy must incorporate their acute survival needs.

Technology: Increases in fishing technology allow unprecedented efficiency for extraction of large numbers of fish resulting in large scale over fishing. Along with large scale fishing, modern technology tends to use large amounts of packaging materials, resulting in proportional increases in pollution per unit product. Similarly, population increases have resulted in over fishing using traditional artisenal technology. When previously small numbers of fishermen would use low impact technology, small numbers of fish were taken. Today, increasing populations using the same technology are capable of causing the same devastating impact typically associated with large scale commercial fisheries.

In Belize, lobsters and conch are currently being harvested at or beyond maximum sustained yield levels. Current regulations are not enforced and illegal fishing, particularly from Honduran and Guatemalan fishing vehicles is having a strong impact. A management strategy in Belize must incorporate more stringent protective strategy to enforce regulations and reduce harvesting of over-impacted taxa (Ministry of Tourism and Environment 1994).

§Indirect

Cow Pastures: Cow pastures have strong indirect influence from sedimentation and organic input. When an area is deforested and animals are allowed to graze, extensive erosion can occur. The vegetation, which previously held soil in, is freed; grazing animals quicken this process. As a result sediment can be pushed into coastal systems decreasing illumination and resulting in seagrass and coral death. Chemicals from animal waste can also be pushed to coastal areas, resulting in increased organic nitrogen or phosphorus and resulting in eutrophic conditions. As shown in chapter three sedimentation resulting from deforestation, and possibly cow pastures, might be one of the primary damaging factors for the Suva Barrier Reef.

Eutrophication: Eutrophication occurs when chemical inputs, including fertilizer result in higher concentrations of nitrogen or phosphorous in aquatic environments. Aquatic plants tend to be limited by one of these two nutrients and thus their input can cause rapidly growing algae to cloud waters. Algae clouding waters can prevent sea grasses and coraline algae from receiving light and result in their death. Corals’ symbiotic zooxanthellae algae can also grow too rapidly, causing over-growth and resulting in rapid coral death. In chapter three I provide preliminary evidence that eutrophication might be degrading the Suva Barrier Reef.

§Sufficient Ecological Knowledge for Environmental Management?

Though we have little knowledge about our world’s eco-systems, we do have enough to work with. Effective management plans have provided benefits for the environment and the included peoples. Due to our limited knowledge, the key watchword is caution. If one is unsure about a particular development practice, caution should be vigorously used when possible.

§Important Elements for Environmental Protection

The world conservation strategy (WCS) states that there are three objectives for conservation: the maintenance of essential ecological processes, preservation of genetic diversity, and the sustainable development of species and ecosystems (Adams 1990). I argue that achieving a sustainable conservation program requires that the needs of the local human populace must be addressed before these other purely “environmental” issues the WCS

At certain times this is an ideal that can not be met - a local population, which is already in dire straits, must work to get out of the situation immediately. In such cases future-sacrificing development might be necessary if no other options exist. The countries of the developed world must work to help people in such situations to help save the future of others as well as their own.

§The Maintenance of Essential Ecological Processes and Genetic Diversity

The Port of Honduras is considered a hot zone that is extraordinarily rich in animal and plant species. This area also contains several nesting and feeding areas for migratory turtles, birds, and fish. Of special significance are the nesting beaches for hawksbill sea turtles and the relatively abundant West Indian manatee (BCES 1990). Nearly the entire coastline is mangrove dominated and over a third of Belize’s vegetation is represented in this area (Wright et al 1959). Certain animals living in this area may also fit into a regional wildlife management strategy where areas of urbanization or agricultural development and recreational areas are intermingled with wildlife protected zones.

Barrier reefs, in general, and Pacific island reefs in particular, are extremely diverse but the biodiversity in the Suva Barrier Reef has certainly already suffered. There may still be organisms in this area that are unknown elsewhere. A biodiversity survey of this reef area would certainly be helpful to determining the extent to which it has suffered and its current “worth” for biological conservation. Possibly certain fishes or other organisms that connect this reef with other eco-systems (including humans through food sources) are worthy of conserving to maintain both eco-system function and levels of extant biodiversity. .

§Economic resources potential

What is the impact on economic activity in the regions adjoining the protected area that may benefit from the status of the region as a protected zone? This includes such factors as the beneficial impact of nutrient flows from mangrove to seagrass and eventually fish, and their respective usage of mangrove areas as nursing grounds in the marine protected zone that contribute to increased yields both in the immediate protected area, and potentially in adjoining areas.

What are the implications for an area like the Suva Barrier reef in Fiji that is currently used for shellfish and other organisms that can accumulate bio-toxins but is still used by local inhabitants as a main food source? Will continued input into this area cause further damage? Is there even any point in expending the money (if it really is an expenditure instead of a gain) to protect the area when it’s already largely destroyed? Reefs can serve many important functions, including erosion control, food sources, and are also interconnected with other eco-systems such as mangrove swamps, sea grasses, open ocean systems, and potentially “unnatural” systems constructed by humans. The potential consequences of continued degradation of this reef system are grave and thus these issues must be thoroughly considered.

§Preservation of economic, political and social status

How can the status be conserved or raised for people living in the region whose lifestyle is dependent upon retention of the biological resources that exist in the region either directly for fishing/hunting/gathering or indirectly through usage of the fisheries, mangrove woods, and tourist industry? Any management plan must incorporate not only conservation of the eco-systems, but interconnected humans as well. Those people that use the managed eco-systems must retain their ability to harvest and use these systems in a way which is environmentally, culturally, and economically sustainable.

Any plan that ignores the local inhabitants and focuses completely on the environmental aspects will fail or result in unethical detriment to livelihood of the population. On the other hand, a plan that fails to incorporate the environment can result in over-exploitation and eventually collapse of the environment with resultant detriment to quality of life for local inhabitants. An integrative plan will combine the needs of the people with the needs of the environment of which they are part, allowing for continued, and balanced, sustainable existence. The primary point is that humans must be considered as part of their surrounding environments and must live within them with respect for their balance to survive and flourish.

§Environmental Management for the Case Studies

The nature conservancy is currently working with the Belize Center for Environmental Studies (BCES) to establish a corridor of protected areas in the Maya-Mountain-Port Honduras area of the Toledo district in Belize. This project is a multi-disciplinary approach to management, including integrated socio-economic and biological studies of the entire project area. The eventual goal is establishment of a large corridor of protected areas that will allow sustainable development while retaining high biologic diversity and productivity. One area of focus for this project is the establishment of Port Honduras as the marine component in this series of protected corridors.

To achieve an ideal protection strategy, productivity of mangrove and seagrass systems are being measured, local fishermen are being interviewed, and the hydrological flux of connected watersheds is being modeled. The studies presented in chapter four demonstrate the dramatic influence of mangrove and seagrass systems on the productivity in this area. Long term management and conservation in Port Honduras seems feasible and ideal. This area is still in a relatively pristine state but current development of the Southern Highway and increased illegal pressure on local fisheries indicate a likely rapid increase of environmental stressors and the resultant need for environmental management.

Local populations are closely interlinked with their environment and rely on fish and agricultural products to survive. Not protecting these resources will threaten the future potential for economic independence of local populations. Environmental protection, which includes closely monitored tourism, might have the potential for sustainability and even increases in local economic independence and growth.

Currently the BCES (1990) is working on a modification of the Man and the Biosphere model to establish an integrated approach to management in the Port of Honduras area shown in Figure 1 (BCES 1990).

§The Biosphere Reserve: Limitations and Prospects

Potentially conservation in both Fiji and Belize would use a modified concept of the biosphere reserve (BCES 1990; Brookfield 1980). The concept of a marine protected area defined as a biosphere reserve would include large coastal or open ocean areas that incorporate humans in areas zoned for multiple different uses based on ecological principles. The prime objectives of such a reserve are to conserve biological resources, strengthen understanding of the system, perpetuate small scale sustainable development, and foster regional cooperation(Brookfield 1980; Batisse 1982).

A bio-sphere reserve is different from a traditional reserve in that, implicitly, it includes humans in the environment to be protected; as Batisse (1982: 101) states, “...conservation of the environmental resources could and should be achieved alongside of their utilization for human benefit.” Furthermore, the biosphere reserve is an open system in which management must consider both problems within the protected zone and the interactions in the surrounding area (Brookfield 1980).

This idea was originally envisioned to be used to establish a world-wide network of protected areas to ensure genetic conservation. According to UNESCO, the originators of this concept, the criteria for establishing such a reserve are at least one of the following (Batisse 1982: 102):

(I) Representative examples of natural biomes;

(ii) Unique communities or areas with unusual features of exceptional interest;

(iii) Examples of harmonious landscape resulting from traditional patterns of land use and/or

(iv) Examples of modified or degraded eco-systems that are capable of being restored to more-or-less natural conditions

According to these guidelines, the Port of Honduras definitely qualifies for requirements of establishment of a Biosphere Reserve. The plan in the Port of Honduras is to use the Biosphere Reserve structure to allow local communities to gather sufficient income from the resources while retaining the functional integrity of the surrounding eco-systems. Once an area has been chosen as for protection using the biosphere structure, the planning stage begins using the following stages for multiple use management:

Stages for Establishing a Multiple Use Management Plan (based on Agardy 1996)

Identify user groups

Work with groups to identify objectives for reserve

Delineate target area

Describe area

Develop zoning plan

Modify plan for socio-economics

The BCES is working on a modified version of these stages. User groups have been identified as primarily local fishermen. The target area has been delineated and is currently under description using studies such as the one preliminary version presented in chapter four. Ultimately this plan will incorporate stage six and will be modified for available socio-economic resources.

In the Port Honduras are, a wide group of different long-term studies are already in effect. These include the mangrove and seagrass productivity studies, which I discussed in chapter four, as well as hydrological models, water chemistry studies, and socio-economic studies which are currently focusing on the needs of local fishermen.

The Port of Honduras Marine Protected Area will probably greatly benefit from the four terrestrial connected protected areas, Bladen Nature Reserve, Maya Mountain Forest Reserve, Deep River Forest Reserve, and Paynes Creek National Park (Figure 1). This connection will prevent terrestrially related degradation from impacting the marine area and visa-versa. Unfortunately nearby terrestrial areas of the Suva Barrier Reef are not protected and this is likely one of the potential reasons for it’s barren state. It receives large amounts of sediment and potentially toxic compounds from the Suva area and the large Rewa river.

The possibility of an increase in sports fishing industry is being considered as a potential preventative of fisheries over-exploitation. In traditional fishing, a high impact results because fish are actively removed and consumed. In sports-fishing the fish are typically thrown back in and thus it is presumed that a largely reduced fish death rate results.

Well respected sports fisherman currently consider areas of the Port of Honduras to have some of the best sport-fishing in the world (Heyman personal communication). Such an industry, along with other tourist related industries, could potentially be highly beneficial for the Port of Honduras area. Decreased environmental impact and increased local standard of living is possible if local populations retain control over their resources and the resultant tourist trade.

The BCES is a local organization concerned about the local populations. I recommend that actions currently undertaken by the BCES continue as planned but stress local involvement even more. The surveys of fishermen are an important first step towards local involvement. I believe future steps should focus on a wider group of local people and should provide ways where they can get involved both economically and environmentally. As expected in any real world example, this project is a hybrid of “top down” and “bottom up” approaches. Many international organizations are involved, including The Nature Conservancy, as well as many Belizean government organizations, but the focus has been on economic empowerment of the local populations.

Currently the local involvement may not be adequately representative of all local needs. As I examined in chapter two, Belize has a wide diversity of ethnic groups. This diversity is most apparent in the Toledo District. To adequately achieve management, all of the affected groups must be incorporated. The BCES is involved in educational outreach programs to public schools. Possibly this outreach could include a discussion of the Port Honduras area which includes the ways that these children, and their parents can benefit economically from protection and sustainable tourism. Negative case studies from other locations should be understood to signify the possible faults. Positive case studies should also be outlined to provide some guidance as to how the greatest sustainable benefit can be achieved. Potentially, with a representative local body planning for protection in this area, long term socio-economic and environmental sustainability is possible.

In Suva, one of the primary immediate conservation issues is retention of the reef’s geologic structure. Destruction of this reef could mark the demise of areas of Suva that currently benefit from its protection. The biologic diversity is probably beyond hope of easy renewal. As I showed in chapter two, this reef is primarily composed of dead coral. My strongest recommendation for this area is to continue baseline studies such as I began in chapter two to establish an accurate assessment of current “normal” reef state and continue to reach out to locals by actively involving them in the decision making process to best fulfill their needs. How dependent are they on local fisheries? Will they greatly benefit from a protection strategy? How can they be involved?

A highly modified biosphere reserve structure could possibly be used in the Suva Barrier Reef area in Fiji as well as in the Port of Honduras. The Suva Barrier Reef needs more surveys for determination but I am not even sure that it qualifies for the fourth requisite stated above regarding restoration to “normal conditions”. The Suva area is already highly impacted by humans as was shown in chapter three. Unfortunately my survey of the reef was conducted relatively soon after a hurricane so it is difficult to accurately determine the “normal” condition of the reef, without further studies, at this time. The reef must first be surveyed on a longer term and more extensive basis. This will allow a more accurate “baseline” assessment. Following this, water chemistry, wave and tide profiles, and sedimentation studies could be used to test the different causative hypothesis I mentioned in chapter three. If pollution or sedimentation are identified as strong negative factors the effect on geomorphology of the reef must be determined. If a serious reduction in reef barrier protection is resulting from a known causative factor, I recommend actions to prevent further erosion. These actions can not be determined without further work but might include pollution control or upstream terrestrial protection on the Rewa river to prevent increases in sedimentation.

§Important Development Issues

This section examines some important development issues for the Port of Honduras area. This is a brief summary of what kind of development is most favorable geographically and geologically. The poor soils in Toledo limit the potential for agriculture and increasing fisheries pressure limits the potential for their increase. From my preliminary research it appears that tourism holds the most promise for Belize. This analysis is not as necessary for the Suva Reef area because the surrounding area is already extensively developed; thus following a short depiction of these issues in Fiji, I focus on Belize.

§Environmental Development Issues of the Suva Barrier Reef

The Fiji reef area is already extensively developed and thus more drastic “band-aid” environmental management is the only option. Ecological studies should be performed and the organisms in this area should be monitored. Many people still sustain themselves through feeding on organisms of this reef. From examination of my study in chapter three, my sense is that this area might be suffering from chemical pollution. The potential for bio-amplification or other human impacts should be examined. The most important factor for the Suva Reef might be retention of the structural viability of the reef system. Any serious degradation could result in tidal destruction of the Suva area resulting from the lacking protection. Further development should be postponed until the effects on the reefs structure are determined.

§Environmental Development Issues of the Port of Honduras

The primary industries of Belize point to its dependence on natural resources. Most income in Belize derives from agriculture, fisheries, and ecologically based tourism. Due to low population density, most of Belize is still in a relatively pristine state, with over 60% still under closed forest canopy. The Belizean economy, and resultantly the standard of living can only grow if these precious natural resources are conserved (Belize Ministry of Tourism and Environment 1994).

Currently the most serious threats to these natural resources are: 1) Solid and liquid waste, 2) over fishing, mangrove destruction, dredging, and land reclamation in the coastal zone, 3) increases in deforestation and unsustainable agriculture, and 4) outbreaks of environmentally related diseases. The causes of coastal zone problems are a lack of regulation and enforcement for fishing regulations and mangrove clearance. The Ministry of Tourism recommends that the government of Belize increase the price of fishing licenses, tighten fishing regulations, and allow fishing organizations to participate in enforcement measures (Ministry of Tourism and Environment 1994).

The Belize Lands and Surveys Department (1994) has looked at the possibility for tourism specifically in the Monkey River area, which is in the Northern edge of the proposed marine protected area. Many residents in this town were forced move to the Nearby community of Mango Creek for employment when the banana industry dwindled. The remaining 200 inhabitants primarily survive by fishing. Currently survival issues are complicated by restrictions on hunting and net fishing. Along with fishing and hunting restrictions, local hawksbill turtle nesting grounds are currently protected. Potentially adopting a plan of integrated tourism, agriculture and reallocation of abandoned lots would allow for sustainable protection. The development plan structured by the Belize Lands and Surveys Department (1994) calls for local involvement in management and resource protection.

Agriculture development is not a good option for the Toledo District, Belize. Geologically, Belize is a country dominated by the quartz rich Maya mountains formed from ancient Paleozoic rock and the nutrient poor, but highly productive lowland soils. Due to the complexity of soil types, unless large-scale fertilization was attempted, small scale agriculture is the only viable in option in Belize (Wright et al. 1959). King et al. (1986) recommend only diversified small scale agriculture in Toledo because most land drains poorly and subsoils are compacted. Rice might have potential for development but low world prices decrease it’s utility as a trade crop. Citrus could be expanded in some small areas, notably on the foot slope of the Stopper Escarpment, but most soils are inappropriate. The best agricultural development options are probably small scale managed timber harvests (King et al. 1986).

As long as forests are protected, coastal damage due to sedimentation will likely be minimal (King et al. 1986). Rivers in the Toledo district of Belize produce little outflow of sand, clay, or silt sediments because headwaters are directly in limestone (Wright et al. 1959). Low out-welling of soils might be partially responsible for the high productivity of near shore coral reefs and sea grasses that are dependent on minimized sedimentation and increased ultra-violet radiation for photosynthesis (Valiela 1995). This factor shows the primary importance of having coastal protected areas linked to terrestrially protected areas. In the Great Barrier Reef much damage has occurred due to sedimentation from erosion in non-protected adjoining terrestrial areas (Agardy 1996). Similarly, in Montego Bay, Jamaica, the un-protected coastal connection to the marine park is resulting in water-shed induced eutrophication. If this park would have been planned, as in the Port of Honduras, to have a terrestrial component, eutrophication and resultant destruction might not be a problem (Sullivan and Chiappone 1994).

§The Potential for Sustainable Tourism

Sustainability is in the interests of all parties involved in tourism. Tourists visiting other destinations are interested in seeing natural environments and experiencing different living cultures. Few tourists would be interested in exploring environmentally degraded areas with large numbers of hostile inhabitants who dress and act just like the tourists. On the other hand, a local inhabitant is interested in having a pleasing environment that can be used sustainably for both input of tourism dollars and continued ability to traditionally interact with the environment. Why is it then that, as Cater (1995: 22) states, “Given the multitude of interests involved, however, a completely sustainable outcome is likely to remain more of an ideal than a reality?” What is the other option? A somewhat sustainable outcome? This depends on the definition of sustainability of course, but from my perception, nothing short of a truly long-term sustainable outcome should be tolerated. If we continue to think in a mindset that a half-hearted sustainability would be tolerable because achieving any ideal is impossible, what will we end up with? Eventually all such systems would likely gravitate towards non-sustainability and increasingly larger groups of people would become marginalized.

Tourism has the potential to supply benefits for both the host community and the venturing tourists. A quote from Ryan (1991: 115) shows though that this is often not the case:

On the one hand there exists a valid longing for escape, for the pleasures found in skiing down the slopes, or sailing in blue seas, to commune with nature within isolated areas, or simply to share beauty with family and friends and so reinforce the feelings of togetherness of any given social group, whilst on the other hand, such desires, when translated into the wishes of thousands if not millions wishing to share the same experiences, become a threat not only to the sought after experience, but also to the flora and fauna, and as water become poisoned, and air polluted, to the host communities themselves.

In the following discussion I examine the issues Ryan’s quote brings up regarding sustainability. I attempt to define what factors result in environmental and cultural detriment and how they can be alleviated through a well planned locally controlled environmental management strategy.

§Ecotourism and Environmental Conservation

Is tourism an answer that allows needed economic growth while addressing environmental conservation? The Toledo district of Belize faces the problem of having large areas of unscathed habitat with little ability to prevent future environmental destruction, while the Suva area in Fiji is relatively environmentally degraded. If conservation is considered for both areas, the Suva bay requires a bandage approach, while the Port of Honduras is more pristine and is in need of primary preventative measures. The real challenge in Belize is to continue economic growth without resulting in environmental degradation characteristic of technological advancement. Can tourism address these issues?

Belize might hold the potential for true sustainable eco-tourism. Stringent logging regulations have existed in Belize since the 1920’s. Early loggers had learned the potential threat of massive deforestation through observation of surrounding countries and primarily practiced controlled logging, extracting only species of interest, as opposed to the massive clear cutting, which was found throughout the rest of Central America. Because Belize is not yet completely over-run by multi-national cattle or fruit industries, possibly a controlled tourist-based economy can function. The greatest obvious economic resource evident in Belize is the abundance of pristine environments. Ballick and Mendelsohn (in Zimmerman 1995) have already shown that it is possible to use natural resources sustainably and achieve economic growth. They worked with local herb gatherers to collect herbs from two small forest plots in Belize and sold them in a market to pharmacists and healers with a higher profit than might be generated in other less sustainable practices, such as deforestation. Possibly tourism could also provide a viable option for decreased environmental degradation and increased economic growth.

If tourism can provide sufficient income for the majority of the population in Belize, it may be possible to continue this practice sustainably. The final decision to adopt tourism as the nation’s primary source of income is a complex one which should only be made by a representative group of the local population. Before adopting such a strategy it is important to see the many faults of previous tourism developments.

§Problems of Tourism and Eco Tourism

Tourism, known as the “smokeless industry” has become the most widely touted sustainable development option for economically poor countries that are rich in environmental resources. International tourist visitation to developing countries has doubled since 1976. Tourism, now the world’s largest industry, is growing 23 per cent faster than the overall world economy. Tourism manufactures nothing itself and relies on exploitation of an already existing product to support hundreds of millions of consumers (Wheat 1994).

Recently however, these claims are being found to fall far short of their mark, where even “eco-tourism” is being found as a major purveyor of environmental and cultural destruction (Wheat 1994). Eco-tourism was supposedly supposed to give people of the developing world a viable option for environmentally destructive practices, allowing the locals to (Padgett and Begley 1996), “..earn more by preserving nature than by using it up...”.

Problems of eco-tourism abound. The most notable are environmental impacts and the lack of tourism revenue benefiting local populations. The Galapagos has recently been opened by the government of Ecuador and the tourism industry is growing faster than the ability to control it. Tourists in the Galapagos have brought introduced species, and cases of biological eco-system simplification are already apparent (Naeringsliv 1993). Large scale fleeing of human-phobic Cheetahs in Kenya has resulted in serious inbreeding problems. Turtles in Mexico become disoriented by hotel lights and fail to lay eggs. Manatees are mangled by propellers of eco-tourists in Costa Rican speedboats. Beaches are becoming polluted, reefs degraded, wild-life parks deprived of wild-life, and indigenous cultures are disappearing... This is but a brief list of the many negative consequences resulting from over-extension of tourists who are so interested in seeing the local ecology that they don’t realize their own destructive influence (Steele 1995; Wheat 1994; Padgett and Begley 1996).

Eco-tourism and other alternatives to large scale commercial tourism are proving economically, as well as environmentally, costly to local inhabitants. Despite 4.7 million dollars of revenue from tourism in Baja’s Magdalena Bay, local salaries and businesses only realized $33,000. Tour companies primarily based in California exploited local people for low-level labor to attain this massive profit share (Padgett and Begley 1996).

Wheat (1994) explains that Belize has become the world’s most famous eco-tourist destination, resulting in it’s ranking of 26 per cent of the gross national product (GNP). Belize is caught in a large-scale version of what it’s inhabitants have historically suffered. Much like historically indigenous populations of Belize were kept in virtual slavery through taxation, Belize’s debt of US$103 million prevents it from establishing socio-economic independence. Approximately 90 per cent of coastal building developments in Belize are under foreign ownership. Local people that do get jobs usually work in low paid, menial, and seasonal positions. Managerial jobs nearly universally go to expatriates who work for multi-nationals. These multi-national companies, such as airlines, hotel chains, and building giants, often have turnovers that are greater than the gross domestic product of the host developing country. Tourists also usually purchase things that must be imported from the developed world. As a result of such imports of labor and foreign items, over 55 and up to 70 per cent of foreign exchange earned from tourism is effectively leaked back into the developed countries (Hohl and Tisdel 1995; Wheat 1994).

This leakage results in severe economic impacts. For example, on island resorts of Thailand, indigenous populations have been forced to migrate due to increases in prices of basic necessities that are raised beyond their purchasing power. Fishermen are often prevented from using beaches that are controlled by multi-national hotels. The Masai in Tanzania have been forced by Tourist outfits from their homelands and now can only support themselves by acts such as posing for photographs. In West Java, “farmers have been harassed, imprisoned, and their homes burnt down after peacefully demonstrating against their illegal eviction by a company planning a tourist resort and golf course on their land” (Wheat 1994: 19).

I witnessed the same phenomenon when I was in Costa Rica. Local people were incapable of paying for rents in apartments in San Jose because the cost had increased dramatically due to the influx of tourists who can afford high prices. I spoke with people that said tourism had influenced prices of other items; surviving was becoming more difficult because wage increases were out of proportion with the rapid increases in food and housing prices.

At the same time, coastal development in Belize is rapidly degrading the environment. This still pristine country is rapidly undergoing mangrove clearing and infilling with top-soil shaved off of nearby wetland savannas. The irony of the current state of the eco-tourism situation is expressed by the fact that the hotel for the 1991 Caribbean Eco-Tourism conference stands on a former wetland (Wheat 1994).

Though Wheat (1994) states that, “Belizeans may already be permanently alienated from their own land...”, he also provides some hope in the form of potential future local involvement. Coral Caye Conservation is currently working closely with local government departments to provide scientific training in the hope that eventually the project will be Belizean run. As Susan Flint (in Wheat 1994: 17) states, “We are there to protect the Biodiversity of Belize, but the last thing we want to do is to say that tourists can come and look but the fishermen can’t fish”. Unfortunately, more often than not, eco-tourism is simply a marketing label. For example, Ambergris Caye in Belize houses a US$50 million tourism development that was supposed to be an ecologically sound reinvestment in the Belizean people. Unfortunately this development houses large international hotels, luxury homes, and golf courses, making the distinction between “sustainable development” and traditional development blurred, to say the least (Wheat 1994).

Tourism also has the potential for rapid cultural change resulting in serious societal consequences. Dearden (1991) cites several sources that suggest that increases in affluent foreigners trekking in northern Thailand have coincided with increases in prostitution and opium production. Furthermore these foreigners generally contribute little economically to the local populations. On the other hand, Dearden shows that many of the people in the villages in this area of Thailand are so poor that they often are malnourished and that any potential income is cherished. Some of these villages have managed to capitalize on the incoming trekkers and have attained a significantly higher standard of living by selling handicrafts, renting transport or accommodations, and begging.

Examples like this where the local population obviously wanted increased income from somewhere and have now attained it provide a solid argument for the potential integrity of tourism. Furthermore, though “negative” cultural consequences such as fixation on western goods and money are common, equally common is the revitalization of traditional ceremonies, dress, and way of life. Tourists showing an interest in such traditions give the hosts a new interest in retaining them. Tourism is obviously not a simple issue; it has the potential to provide either the bountiful gift of life or the impoverished curse of death (Dearden 1991).

Padgett and Begley (1996) believe that environmental issues should be addressed by requiring tourists to be educated and hotels and tourist facilities should be held to stricter environmental regulations. Unfortunately they fail to address another point they raise regarding the importance of increased local profit shares. How can the local population realize a larger amount of income from the foreign tourists that come to their land? Is it environmentally or culturally sustainable for tourists to use “third world” environments and inhabitants to effectively enlarge their own countries world dominance? The act of tourism whereby locals lose their skilled jobs to become bus-boys for rich foreigners who exploit their environment in the process is no different than early colonial practices where people were forced from their jobs to become slaves for early European colonizers. This masked relic version of exploitation is not sustainable in any way precisely because it continues the colonial tradition of human and environmental separation.

§The Hope of Locally Controlled Sustainable Tourism

§Three Working Models of Local Control

While alternative tourism has generally failed to live up to it’s name, their are exceptions which put a hopeful light on the possible future of tourism. Village communities in Zimbabwe have recently acquired a new admiration for local wildlife. These people had previously developed hatred for the animals that colonial rule had given 20 per cent of the land, nearly as much as given to 95 per cent of their population. Recently an organization called the Communal Areas Management Program (CAMPFIRE) has allowed these locals to acquire ownership of the local wildlife and profit. Local communities now gain economically by charging tourists for sustainable hunting and photo safaris. This grass roots organization has decreased poverty and allowed local communities to fund a school, a clinic, and a grinding mill (Wheat 1994; Lindberg and Enriquez 1994).

In Mafia Island, near Tanzania, a grass roots environmental movement, aided by the World Wild Life Fund (WWLF) has proven very successful. Residents of this island became very concerned because reef and mangrove decline were leading to increased erosion; villages were falling in the water. The islanders sought out a representative for the WWLF and asked if they would help design an environmental management plan (Agardy 1996).

These islanders explicitly stated that they wanted to design the park but wanted expert scientific advice from the WWLF. The WWLF were pleasantly surprised by the depth and foresight of the plan. The local people had established a complex, but usable plan that had larger areas of protection than even the WWLF would have proposed. Furthermore, this plan incorporated ideas of varying degrees of protection and included environmentally sensitive areas of no use. This plan incorporates eco-tourism but sets stringent limits for amount of tourists and permissible tourist behavior. With much foresight, they designated zoning limits for currently unknown devices that might become potential future environmental impacts, such as jet-skis and windsurfers (Agardy 1996).

Nearby coastal terrestrial areas are protected as well, reducing common terrestrial connection problems such as found in Australia with the Great Barrier Reef where sedimentation from non-protected terrestrial regions is destroying large sections of coral. At this point the Mafia Island plan seems highly successful. Local people who formulated the plan benefit from protected environments and money derived from sustainable eco-tourism (Agardy 1996).

Another example of working eco-tourism is found within the Toledo district in Belize, where the second case study is located. A grass roots organization composed of indigenous Mayans has launched the Toledo Ecotourism Association (TEA). This group is organizing village stays in settlements built with local materials by the Mayan inhabitants. Tourists are cared for by Mayans and all financial gains are kept within the community. TEA is aware of the economic and social dangers of mono-cultures and thus has decided to integrate their tourism business with continued development of cocoa based agriculture which they sell to a UK company for organic chocolate (Wheat 1994).

§Other Important Factors for Sustainable Tourism

All of these cited examples of working models have the commonality of a grass roots basis but what are the other elements to a successful tourist venture? I believe that a localized regional bottom up approach is the most important element for any protection strategy; one has to have some close contact with their environment and the resources used to seriously be interested, or even capable of, workable protection. I will now examine why local involvement is important and then point to how this can be integrated with the other factors often cited in the literature of sustainable development and tourism for workable management plans:

§The Need for an Environmental Connection through Local Involvement

Viable sustainable development requires the involvement and consideration of all socio-economic constituents of a population. It is easy to theoretically define sustainable development as a cure-all to rebuke past developmental faults. In practice, the term is often used as a justification for projects that benefit only the rich elite (Thrupp 1990). Shiva (1994) states that the environment as external is a patriarchal construct which defines the environment to be like it’s definition of women, as a passive and inert thing to be used. Shiva further states that environmental issues are clearly and directly issues of survival; the “Thai community forestry movement that emerged in the mid 1980s is not just a fight for the rights of the forest. It is a fight for survival...the survival of their families and communities is synonymous with the survival and preservation of the environment” (Shiva 1994: 1,5). Shiva (1994) discusses how environmental and health issues are the same because we our directly and indirectly inextricably dependent on our environment for our survival. Shiva summarizes the reasons for this with (1994: 9):

There is no insular divide between the environment and our bodies. Environmental hazards are also health hazards, as was so brutally revealed in Bhopal and at Love Canal. Environmental hazards are also health hazards in food systems. Pesticides do not merely pollute fields, they end up polluting our bodies. Destruction of Biodiversity does not merely impoverish nature, it impoverishes tribal and peasant societies. These links exist in the real world even though they have been denied by fragmented and divided worldviews. Beginning with women’s experiences, analysis and actions we will rebuild the connections between ecology and health, for a more holistic approach to the contemporary crisis of survival.

This quote provides insight to the importance of the connection to the environment. Such a connection can not be present when a colonial power is emplace which destroys an environment which indigenous inhabitants are dependent upon. Only when a connection is allowed to be re-established through an empowerment of local populations will sustainable environmental management be feasible.

I believe the success of the grass roots management plans summarized before is based on their antithetical nature to colonialism. These were all based on local initiated action and empowerment. As I argued in chapter one, in the past, much of development planning has considered the environment as external from human beings. As a result, it has been considered a storehouse of raw materials to be freely mined. The wilderness has no value unless a direct economic benefit can be perceived (Dearden 1989 in Ryan 1991; Cater 1995).

Environmentalism has traditionally suffered from a similar flaw of disassociation; the environment has been considered something separate to be protected away from human disturbance. As I discussed in chapter one, I believe this past environmental disassociation by both environmentalists and developers is a prime flaw which is resulting in increasing environmental degradation and alienation with unknown future consequences.

If development plans incorporate human beings and the environment as living in a natural sustainable cycle, then potentially both environmental destruction can be limited, and human livelihood can increase. Thus, as I alluded in chapter two, the bonds of colonialism must be shed because colonialism intrinsically results in externalization of the environment. As long as a third party is controlling an environmental resource the resource will have little direct connection to it’s manipulator. The manipulator will thus not be concerned about degradative effects and might not even be aware of them. On the other hand, a local population which is dependent on the surrounding environment for their livelihood will daily be reminded of their connection and resultant effects. I believe this connection results in an innately more sustainable system.

A reserve should not be opened for tourism until local people are firmly emplaced in managerial and administrative positions. The region should be linked to other regions through a governmental network to make sure that developmental pressure does not enact problems for surrounding areas. Having higher government to act as a monetary and political support structure also allows locals that feel under-represented to appeal to higher levels. Ultimately though, decisions should be made locally. A structure of small bio-regions that are linked to increasingly encompassing political levels which are, ideally also biologically sectored, allows a continuous discussion between different regions (Hohl and Tisdell 1995; Birch and Diffenderfer 1995).

§Further Benefits of Local Control

Local control has many benefits. A locally run management strategy will be more socially sustainable because the local culture is more integrated into the process; an example of this is the Toledo Ecotourism Association where the Mayans integrate the tourists through village stays (Wheat 1994). Another benefit is that all locals are guaranteed access to their own facilities; an internationally run national park might make a generic park fee that is too high for the local population to afford but a locally controlled park would actually give the locals economic benefit instead of extracting payment. Furthermore, if locals are integrated at all levels, enforcement of imposed rules will have reduced transaction costs because those enforcing are also those benefiting from enforcement. Local control also will enhance resource conservation because the local people are the ones directly affected by environmental degradation; it is in their immediate self interest to foster sustainable policies. The biggest advantage, and the one which establishes the possibility of sustainability, is that in a locally controlled management initiative, a substantial profit share is ensured from ecotourism revenue (Steele 1995).

§Over-Simplification and Local Control

The idea of local control as an ultimate ideal can be over-simplified. The prime interest of a local population will probably be centered around their improved standard of living in the short and long-term. Short term needs of a local population might not necessarily fit with the interests of higher levels of government, or even global needs. Especially with poor populations, often the immediate economic benefits of conservation are far less than in environmentally destructive actions. In such a situation, alternatives and incentives should be provided by any third party interested in conservation. The local group should not be restricted from any practice if such restriction hinders their livelihood. Furthermore, this can only be decided by the local people (Cater 1995).

For example, a local group might prefer hunting an endangered species rather than conserving it due to traditional values and lacking obvious alternatives. In such an instance, the higher level of government, or potentially an international group, would communicate their desire for protection. This interest group would then have to provide an incentive for conservation; the local people must not suffer due to environmental protection restraints. This need for incentives is of prime importance. I believe that it is elitist and a further continuation of colonial dominance to tell a specific group of people that they have no right to use a species because it is endangered. I also believe such third parties should provide accessible education and alternatives to the use of endangered species.

The local population must be truly representative of the local area. The island of Langkawi in Malaysia has many Malaysian entrepreneurs but most of these are from the mainland. Those truly affected by tourists do not receive the rewards but do suffer the negative consequences. To prevent such occurrence, the managing “local population” should be one that is truly representative of people of the region directly affected by the environmental management. Small scale locally owned tourism ventures generally provide a greater benefit to enhanced living standards and sustainability (Cater 1995).

One issue that I found interesting in my literature review on tourism and sustainable development is that the language used, even when speaking of the need for “local involvement” seems to assume that real management will be done by a third party (presumably a reader of the journal). For example, Ryan (1991: 106) states that, “It may be difficult to persuade communities that restrictions need to be determined at an early stage when currently there appears to be little need for such restrictions.” The use of the word persuade implies that a different parties interests are the ones to be satisfied. In the same paragraph Ryan states that “the host community will be asked to make difficult decisions that might imply a restriction upon economic returns from tourism when the costs of future tourism flows are difficult to assess”. Again, the host community is “asked” to do something. Shouldn’t the host community be doing the asking? It’s their environment that is affected after all. If others are interested in some specific conservation, let them provide incentive.

Ryan (1991) rightly states that charges of elitism could be leveled against third parties insisting on protective measurements for communities. I believe that such decision making made on a localized small scale level has greater potential for environmental and social protection. Certainly there are many complications within such a small level but, by the same token, they are implicitly reduced and more appropriate to the location than those made by a larger governing body. One problem associated with planning for local involvement, according to Ryan (1991), is that it implies a homogenous community that is capable of making decisions that are in its own self interest and the interest of others. Ryan (1991: 111) further states that this is “perhaps a questionable assumption...”. I fear that a community that truly is not capable of making its own decisions is in an even worse position if a larger governing body is making their decisions for them.

My argument for local involvement could be charged as being idealistic, romantic, or over simplistic. All three of these are certainly appropriate descriptors but they don’t necessarily nullify the validity of the concept. The three stated examples of small scale localized involvement provide hope that variations of such a strategy can work elsewhere (Ryan 1991).

§Other Important Factors for Sustainable Tourism

§Open Access

One of the primary ways to allow a local community to benefit from incoming tourists is to prevent open access to tourist destinations. Open access limits the funds provided to a community because often tourists will use foreign tour companies who repatriate their profits abroad. In such a system, the local community gains little by the incoming tourists and potentially suffers from environmental and cultural degradation. In the end, even the international tour operators lose from an open access model because environmental degradation eventually results in a lower tourist interest. With restricted access, tourists spend money to use areas and their number is limited. The money can thus be used to help keep the integrity of the park and to provide increased local standard of living (Cater 1995; Steele 1995).

To increase bio-economic efficiency, both the number of tourists and the damage done per tourists has to be controlled. Damage done per tourist can be limited through education. Individual tourists can also be kept on certain paths, penalized for throwing away rubbish, and tour operators can have limits on total number of people at a specific site in a given time. Restriction on total number of tourists can be realized in the form of designated parks (Cater 1995; Steele 1995). To designate parks requires zoning as outlined below.

§Spatial And Temporal Management and Restrictions for Eco-System Use

Spatial and temporal management is the restriction of use in the form of zoning regulations on space and time. Restricted zones can be arranged so that an internal highly restricted area is surrounded by buffer zones of restricted use, and ultimately the outside zones would have only limited protection. These areas would be designed to allow for multiple use. A model based on the previously discussed biosphere reserve might allow incorporation of such different zones that incorporate humans and other parts of the environment (Hohl and Tisdell 1995).

One such idea that Steele (1995) speaks of is the “honeypot”. Honeypots are basically the centralization of development areas to relieve pressure on more fragile distance areas. An example of this would be a recreational parkland structured near the center of a population area or a centralized tourist resort. According to popular use of this concept, explorer-type tourists would be deterred by the resort’s gaudiness, and more typical mass-tourists would be content to remain contained to revel in the luxurious resort surroundings. Unfortunately such ideals have not been as successful as hoped; often the mass tourists venture far into the somewhat remote fragile areas and cause large amounts of destruction. Defining simple caricatures of tourists to fulfill ones planned expectations is inherently unproductive. A further problem of “honeypots” is that the economic gain is centralized. As a result, a diverse assemblage of local people is much less likely to acquire benefits from the incoming tourists. A realistic development plan must be structured such that a wide variety of potential actions are accounted for (Ryan 1991).

An alternative to centralized tourism development is dispersing tourist facilities. Dispersal initially appears favorable because it seems to spread the potential impact of incoming tourists and thus relieve any great strain on a particular system. Unfortunately this ideal has also had problems historically. For example, if overcrowding on a beach area is considered problematic, one might design a system of dispersal by providing tourist facilities in a nearby forest park. On sunny days, the majority of tourists might still overcrowd the beach area, thus continuing environmental damage. Opening up more facilities might also bring greater numbers of tourists into each area, effectively creating a system of closely linked environmentally damaged honeypots (Ryan 1991).

Their is no all encompassing strategy which proves that dispersion or concentration is always better. Generally systems operated on dispersal will allow a larger local share of economic involvement, and thus I believe would usually provide a slightly better solution, but the ultimate decision must be tailored to the specific area (Steel 1995). In my studies, the Suva area is already a major “honeypot” so this kind of management decision is really impossible at this point. In the Port of Honduras, I believe spreading the tourist facilities is the only workable option. The population in this area is already scattered in small groups and thus establishing one major area would likely alienate many citizens from any tourist benefit.

§Carrying capacity based on Social and biological factors

Traditionally carrying capacity for tourists has been measured using biologic measurements that aren’t necessarily valid. Different users impact in different ways. As a result, carrying capacity varies and can not be based on total volume of “generic” tourists. For example, a large scale international motel would impact a community and environment in a different way than many smaller locally owned hotels; even if the number of people occupied by the international hotel was exactly the same as the total for the different local accommodations. Everything in the international hotel would be more concentrated and the people drawn to the hotel would probably tend to have different levels and types of resource use than those frequenting local establishments (Tobias 1989; Ryan 1991).

As a result, a completely biologically based carrying capacity for humans is inappropriate. In determining the gross number of people allowed in any given time, one must plan for the potential impact expected by the socio-economic and environmental conditions of the area. Using a literature search of previous studies that matched closest with the area to be planned for would allow for a more appropriately determined carrying capacity. These numbers for carrying capacity would then be adjusted for specific fluctuations in conditions (Zurick 1992; Steel 1995).. For example, if a group of rare bird species was to be nesting during a three month period of the year, the carrying capacity might be lowered because the birds might require a certain area in which to breed. If an already crowed human population stayed at the same level during the breeding season they might prevent the birds from breeding. Eventually fewer tourists might come because the rare birds no longer arrived. If the carrying capacity was flexible, different numbers of tourists would be allowed depending on their potential impact and the current ecological conditions (Zurick 1992; Steel 1995).

§Tariffs on tourism service

Tariffs, in the form of increased park and hotel fees for foreign tourists, for natural resource use can help limit impact and provide money to pay for local needs, including environmental protection. Such tariffs can overcome problems involving over-taxation for local tourists by defining a variable tariff structure. Local tourists would have zero or very low tariffs and foreigners would have high tariffs, based on an assessment of costs for relieving their impact (Steele 1995).

Potentially reduced tariffs could be negotiated for certain non-local groups, such as students, who might not have the resource base to pay the higher tariffs. Such negotiations or exceptions would only make sense if the reduced tariff group substantially benefited local needs in some way that was approximately equivalent to the normally imposed tariff. The locals are already paying for their parks through taxes and, at least for countries such as Belize and Fiji, most international tourists come from a much higher standard of living.

I propose that people that are of the region directly encircling a protected area have no park fees; they live within the area and thus, I believe that forcing them to pay will result in environmental separation and reduced concern about degradation. The people immediately near the resources should profit from them, not be charged. Ultimately though, such decisions should be decided by those affected.

§Education and guidelines

Potentially tourists educated towards low impact usage and their potential cultural and social impact will be less prone to damage. Unfortunately many tourists’ understanding of the environment are based on romantic literature of the late nineteenth century. The countryside is considered an unspoiled area that serves the purpose of renewing the human spirit. This is an oversimplification and resultantly, tourists entrenched in such myths lack the education to understand the impact of their actions. One must understand the amount and consequences of other tourists enjoying the same destination to truly fathom the magnitude of one’s own impact when visiting a tourist destination (Ryan 1991).

Tourists who are educated regarding their environmental and socio-cultural impacts are more likely to be concerned. Base level education can occur from having guides follow practices and give short presentations to posted signs detailing environmental risks (Bottrill and Pearce 1995).

Local business owners should be provided education on the potential environmental consequences of their actions. Education programs should focus on the potential benefits of increased environmental awareness and protection. Practices such as effective waste disposal, recycling, minimization of non-renewable fuel, and maintaining distance from sensitive wildlife, allow a continuous long-term supply of business. Business that encourages sustainable environmental practices effectively encourages sustainable business practices (Bottrill and Pearce 1995).

§Discourage leakages

Leakages back to tourist homelands or other areas are one of the primary causes of limited local economic gain for local populations. Often tourists use products produced in other locations and frequent internationally owned tourist facilities. As a result, locals often see little of the money that tourists spend during their excursions. To discourage such leakages, limits on the number of foreign operated hotels and businesses should be imposed. Incentives for the purchase of local goods and services should be provided. Restrictions might be shaped in the form of requirements for local labor in managerial positions for non-locally owned establishments (Bottrill and Pearce 1995).

§Summary and Conclusions

While tourism may have potential to be sustainable in Belize, observation of current degradation indicates that a change must be made soon. The barrier reef parallel to Belize is probably the primary attraction for tourists. The reef is currently in poor condition, particularly in areas heavily visited by tourists (Barry 1992: 134). Much of the most significant damage results from pollution and boat anchor damage. Pollution primarily stemming from agriculture floods into the reef and causes damage to the environmentally sensitive organisms in this delicate eco-system. Deforestation for cattle and fruit, and mangrove depletion, usually resulting from artificially created beaches, have extremely detrimental effects. Soil is washed over the reef systems, killing the symbiotic zooxanthellae, which require light for photosynthesis. This results in wide scale coral death and eventually total destruction of these eco-systems. Furthermore, forests and mangrove systems are important for biodiversity and fisheries. Scuba divers also cause some damage but whether or not this damage is primarily aesthetic or not is currently under debate (Allen 1992).

The biggest problem facing both Belize and Fiji are that policy is primarily based on the interests of the local and foreign economic elite. In recent years, the citrus trade has expanded it’s operations in Belize. This has potential for causing massive deforestation evident in other countries. The short-term economic gain for the elite controlling Belize will eventually destroy the economy and the environment. If tourism is to be implemented sustainably, the needs of the general populace and their connected environments might be met.

Unfortunately, government environmental programs in Belize are grossly under funded. As Barry (1992: 136) states, “How can a one man hydrology department mount a serious study of water quality?” The entire push is towards generating money now, through tourism and other industry, ignoring long-term effects and sustainability.

If the general populace were more involved and a greater focus were placed on sustainability of current practices, through supplementation and implementation of environmental initiatives, Belize would have potential for a truly sustainable tourist based economy. Action is necessary now before bandage-like programs become necessary as they are in other Central American countries.

While both Fiji and Belize, particularly the areas studied, display different surface issues for environmental conservation and sustainable development, the most fundamental root for both stems from the same problem. Both suffer from continuing colonial influence and multi-national dominance. Local elites are generally supportive of these external powers because their livelihoods are fundamentally enhanced by the current power-situation.

Though initial steps towards environmental conservation have been taken in Belize and Fiji, a shift towards an economy based on the needs of the majority is necessary for sustainable economic, social, and environmental health. Tourism, when complemented by other development, as in agriculture for the Mayan TEA cited above, might provide the best sustainable strategy.

Though tourism generally has minor environmental impacts compared to those of other development industries, these impacts are still formidable and potentially damaging. As previously discussed, tourism also has potentially very damaging cultural influences (Dearden 1991). Attempts to prevent a complete focus on tourism are necessary unless prevalent environmental practices are sustainable and the general populace feels comfortable supporting a tourist based economy. A focus away from multi-nationals that allows the shedding of colonial bonds is needed. If environmental detachment can be reversed, a truly worldwide sustainability might be achieved.

§Literature Cited

• Adams, W. 1990. Green Development. New York: Routledge. pp. 42-65.
• Agardy, T. 1996. Using Marine Protected Areas to Promote Ocean and Coastal Conservation. Lecture at Smith College on March 11th, representing the World Wildlife Fund.
• Allen, W. 1992. Increased Dangers to Caribbean Marine Ecosystems. Bioscience (42): 5. pp. 330-335
• Barry, T. 1992. Inside Belize. Albuquerque: The Inter-Hemispheric Education Resource Center.
• Batisse, M. 1982. The Biosphere Reserve: A Tool for Environmental Conservation and Management. Environmental Conservation (9): 2. pp. 101-106
• Belize Center for Environmental Studies. 1990. Critical habitat Study. unpublished report.
• Belize Center for Environmental Studies 1992. Monkey River Special Development Area Management Plan. BCES. Prepared for the United States Agency for International Development Mission to Belize, CA. 37 pp.
• Belize Ministry of Tourism and Environment. 1994. Belize National Environmental Report. Government of Belize. 30 pp.
• Belize Land and Surveys Department. 1994. An Account of the Development Plan for the Monkey River Special Development Area. Belmopan: Ministry of Natural Resources. 13 pp.
• Botrill, C., and Pearce, D. 1995. Ecotourism: Towards a Key Elements Approach to Operationalising the Concept. Journal of Sustainable Tourism (3): 1 pp. 45-54.
• Brookfield, H. 1980. Population-Environment Relations in Tropical Islands: The Case of Eastern Fiji. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. 226 pp.
• Cater, E. 1995. Environmental Contradictions in Sustainable Tourism. The Geographical Journal (161): 1. pp. 21-28.
• Dearden, P. 1991. Tourism and Sustainable Development in Northern Thailand. The Geographical Review (81): 4. pp. 400-413.
• Hohl, A., and Tisdell, C. 1995. Peripheral Tourism: Development and Management. Annals of Tourism Research (22): 2. pp. 517-534
• Ives, J. 1992. The Export of Hazard. Boston: Routledge & Keagan Paul..
• King, R., Baillie, I, Bissett, P., Grimble, R., Johnson, M., and Silva, G. 1986. Land Resource Survey of Toledo District, Belize. Surbiton: Land Resources Development Center. 177pp.
• Lindberg, K., and Enriquez, J. 1994. An Analysis of Ecotourism’s Economic Contribution to Conservation and Development in Belize. Volume 1: Summary Report. World Wildlife Fund (US) and the Ministry of Tourism and the Environment (Belize). 46 pp.
• Naeringsliv, D. July, 1993. Saving the Galapagos. World Press Review (40): 7 pp. 44.
• Padgett, T, and Begley, S. February 5, 1996. Beware of the Humans. Newsweek. pp. 52-54.
• Ryan, C. Recreational Tourism: A Social Science Perspective. London: Routledge. pp. 107-129.
• Shiva, V. 1994. Close to Home: Women Reconnect Ecology, Health and Development Worldwide. Philadelphia: New Society Publishers. pp. 1-9
• Steele, P. 1995. Ecotourism: an Economic Analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism (3): 1. pp. 9-24.
• Sullivan, K., and Chiappone, M. 1994. A Tale of Two Marine Parks.
• U.S. Department of Regional Development. 1988. Inventory of Caribbean Marine and Coastal Protected Areas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of the Interior. pp. 1-146.
• Thrupp, L. 1990. Environmental Initiatives in Costa Rica: A political Ecology Perspective. Society and Natural Resources. 3:243-256.
• Tobias, D. 1989. Biological and Social Aspects of Eco-Tourism: The Monteverde Case. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies: Masters Thesis. pp. 1-66
• Valiela, I. 1995. Marine Ecological Processes. New York: Springer. pp. 3-87.
• Wheat, S. April, 1994. Taming Tourism. The Royal Geographical Society Magazine Geographical (LXVI):4 pp. 16-19.
• Wright, A., Romney, D., Arbuckle, R., and Vial, V. 1959. Land in British Honduras: A report of the British Honduras Land Use Team. Colonial Research Publication No. 24. London: Her Majesties Stationary Office. 327 pp.
• Zimmerman, M. 1995. Science, Nonscience, and Nonsense: Approaching Environmental Literacy. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Zurick. 1992. Sustainable Tourism in Nepal. Annals of the Association of American Geographers (82): 4. pp. 608-628.

§Figures and tables in this chapter

The captions as listed in the manuscript. The plates themselves are in the figure appendix.

• Figure 62: The Proposed Port Honduras Marine Protected Area