Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524 www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

What is small island sustainable development about?


Sandy A. Kerr
International Centre for Island Technology, Heriot-Watt University, Back Road, Stromness, Orkney, Scotland KW16 3AW, UK Available online 1 June 2005

Abstract Sustainable development is often stated as an objective of management strategies for small islands. However, relatively little work has explicitly considered what sustainable development means in the context of small islands. This article explores the nature of the development process on small islands and considers this in the context of different interpretations of sustainable development. A case study of the Galapagos is presented which considers the drivers and threats to development in these islands. The case study helps illustrate some of the multiple interpretations of sustainable development that are possible in a small island context. r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to consider the meaning of Sustainable Development in the context of small islands. To help answer this question some key interpretations of the sustainable development problem shall be considered in the context of island issues and the development pathways open to islands. A case study of the Galapagos Islands is presented including the results of a recent tourism study there. The case study is used to illustrate several points raised in the discussion.

E-mail address: s.kerr@hw.ac.uk. 0964-5691/$ - see front matter r 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2005.03.010

ARTICLE IN PRESS
504 S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524

2. Denitional issueswhat is an island? At rst sight the denition of an island is simple. Indeed, the apparent clarity of boundaries, the very insularity of islands, makes them a tempting object of study. Initially, islands may appear to be clearly denable units, where all inputs and outputs can be measured, providing a useful laboratory to test theories of sustainable development. Island communities that have survived for millennia with limited resources at their disposal may offer insights into sustainable development. On closer inspection things become less clear and we are presented with some difcult questions. When is a rocky outcrop an island? When is an island a continent? Analysts engaged in comparative studies of islands have frequently adopted arbitrary thresholds based on area and/or population [1,2]. In the case of small states, Selwyn [3] has long argued that such quantitative thresholds are meaningless, and King [4] suggests that such thresholds may make articial distinctions between islands that are qualitatively comparable. Attempts to set physiographic criteria are ultimately equally arbitrary [5]. Extending our denition to include social, economic and political parameters, questions become more complex. What is an island community? Does it include seasonal workers, islanders who travel for their work, expatriates who maintain family or economic ties? When does an island have political autonomy and the ability to determine its own future? When considering the nature of island autonomy it is perhaps useful to consider a continuum ranging from the smallest islands with the least political and economic autonomy through to the largest fully independent island states. Fig. 1 attempts to illustrate this continuum and some of the pressures acting upon it [6]. Fig. 1 attempts to illustrate different states of independence ranging from fully incorporated islands with little or no autonomy to large, fully independent states. In

Fig. 1. Island autonomy.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524 505

between we have a myriad of different levels of economic and political autonomy. Wharto and Overton [7] give an account of different constitutional arrangements in the context of Pacic Islands. While there are many exceptions, we do generally see greater political and economic autonomy with increasing size. However, at the start of the 21st century we can identify two opposing forces. (1) Globalizationwhich is eroding the power of sovereign states to act independently. The removal of global trade barriers makes it increasingly difcult for states to implement economic or labor policies signicantly different from the global norm. The proliferation of international treaties on everything from human rights to the environment, while laudable, limits scope for unilateral action. (2) Localizationwhat Bartmann [8] described as the power of localism is an increasingly relevant force in the world today. Devolving decision-making power to the lowest level of government is a key feature of the post-Rio world. Synonymous with this is increased interest in participatory processes and other forms of direct democracy when making resource management decisions. This is evident in both developed and developing nations [912]. Increasingly, islands identify with each other, creating political alliances in an attempt to inuence policy. This is visible at global (e.g. UN) and regional (e.g. EU) levels [13]. These alliances extend to social and cultural networks, for example, the International Island Games Association encourages sporting links between islands [14], irrespective of whether they are states or not. All these processes increase the effective autonomy of small islands. Pitt [15] notes that islanders identify very strongly with their island, which is often a key aspect of personal identity; the island becomes the center and other groups are often considered inferior. This strong identity might suggest the existence of welldened social boundaries. However, social systems have long been recognized as having ill-dened boundaries [16]. Social systems centered on islands often transcend the physical boundaries of the island [17]. Pitt [18] notes that social structures associated with islands should be considered as amorphous networks linked together by a wide range of contacts rather than independent, well-dened units. Indeed, it has been noted that large numbers of islanders may only be present for part of the year or indeed part of their lives [19,20]. Island economies are equally openfar from being self-sufcient closed systems, they tend to be characterized by high levels of specialization based around a small number of products or services. Islands then engage in trade to satisfy many of their actual needs. This led McElroy [21] to suggest that islands produce what they do not consume and consume what they do not produce. Dening the term island is clearly not straightforward. Concepts of island independence, autonomy, economy and society are all difcult to dene, yet they are of profound importance in the context of island sustainable development.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
506 S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524

3. Sustainable development The post-Brundtland era has seen a vast outpouring of literature seeking to explain sustainable development. It can be easy to forget that sustainable development is a contrivance. The Brundtland/Rio conception of sustainable development was contingent upon a number of key drivers, including: (i) The environmental crisescharacterized by a move from focused incidents (e.g. oil spills) to global issues (habitat loss, global warming, ozone depletion). (ii) Resource depletionneo-Malthusian concerns about the sustainability of growth-based economic policies reliant upon nite resources. (iii) The north south dividegrowing northsouth disparities. (iv) Globalizationthe emergence of market capitalism and democracy as the dominant political/economic ideology and the integration of global markets. (v) Post-modernist skepticismthis has been called the cultural rejection of the certainty of both science and conventional politics [22]. (vi) Institutional frameworkstransnational institutional structures which provided a stage for the sustainable development debate to evolve and which are also ideologically underpinned by market capitalism. These drivers set the agenda for the sustainable development debate and they also determine the policy responses to this agenda. For example, the work of the IPPC and institutional approaches to the climate change problem are an amalgam of drivers (i), (iv) and (vi). Local Agenda 21 (LA21) and the increasing interest in participatory processes have been inuenced by drivers (i), (ii), (iii) and (v).

4. Models of sustainable development 4.1. Optimization models Constant Stock (CS) approaches to sustainable development were amongst the rst to be embraced by the political establishment. Sustainable development is achieved if one generation bequeaths to the next a stock of resources equivalent to that which it has inherited [23]. Substitution from environmental to manmade capital allows the consumption of non-renewable resources, provided income is reinvested in new manmade capital. This is an attractive model for political decision-makers, legitimizing the continued consumption of non-renewable resources. Dobson [24] describes an important tension between different interpretations of the CS model. Weak interpretations driven by current human needs allow maximum substitution. Progressively stronger interpretations, inuenced by future needs and environmental concerns, place increasing restriction on substitution. The central difculty is identifying the level of substitution allowed between manmade and natural capital. An interesting case to consider is the almost complete exhaustion of phosphate reserves by environmentally destructive opencast mining on the Pacic island of

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524 507

Naru [7]. Rents from this exploitation have been invested in nancial markets, producing one of the highest GNPs per capita in the world. This could be said to be sustainable development according to the CS model. While they may seem progressive, CS models are essentially expert-driven optimization approaches. Once the appropriate rules concerning substitution have been established, the goal is to maximize utility without diminishing the total stock of resources. CS approaches can t with a modernist view of society and the conventional decision-making process, allowing the government to make rational, scientically informed policy decisions. 4.2. Sustainable decision-making The decision-making process itself was another concern of Rio/Brundtland. LA21 was a clear attempt to address a growing dislocation between society and conventional political decision-making (and the science that informs it). LA21 has been ofcially adopted by many countries, although considerable institutional resistance and an inertia to change exists [25,26]. This dislocation is also characteristic of the relationship between science and society. Societal skepticism towards science is seen as a profound challenge for environmental policy-makers [27]. Emerging issues, where science cannot give denitive answers, compound this problem. Funtowicz and Raventz [28] famously called this post-normal science. Global Warming is perhaps the best example where the same evidence is open to scientic interpretation. For society, science no longer presents simple facts but different interpretations, which may be inuenced by politicians, business, or other interest groups. Addressing this problem is profoundly difcult for institutions rooted in the conventional reductionist model [29]. An alternative contextualist view of society and the citizen sees decision-making as more than a simple optimization process [30]. According to this worldview, society should be engaged in seeking solutions through participatory processes. Stakeholder involvement in the decision-making process is more likely to engender consensus and understanding. Similarly, Davos [31] seeks solutions to resource allocation problems which achieve consensus or at least minimize value conicts between stakeholders. Sustainable development is therefore more to do with legitimizing the decisionmaking process rather than progressing towards a predetermined optimal state. Accepting this worldview is, however, much more challenging for conventional government. Some of these concepts are mirrored in island literature and several authors note an increasing dislocation between island societies and conventional political processes [3234].

5. The island development prole The literature contains many references to the limitations placed on small islands and their economies [3538]. These limitations can be divided into issues of scale and

ARTICLE IN PRESS
508 S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524

issues of isolation: (1) Issues of scale include: very limited natural and human resources; diseconomies of scale in infrastructure development, service provision and administration; and the monopolistic nature of island economies. Limited capacity to spatially segregate activities produces tight feedback loops between any environmental stressor and its impact [39,40]. (2) Issues of isolation include: the cost of transport, making manufacturing expensive; unreliability and irregularity of transport, making the just in time demands of the modern supply chain difcult to satisfy; and vulnerability to the impacts of natural disasters. These issues have created a particular development prole. Island economies tend to be highly specialized, based around a small number of export markets. Primary and tertiary sectors dominate. Manufacturing is seldom a major feature of island economies. Baldacchino [41] sees island manufacturing as an extension of the service sector, focusing on captured markets (e.g. tourists or ex-patriot islanders). Others conclude that island-based manufacturing can only succeed if there is an intense focus on niche markets [42]. It is the emergence of relative advantages in the provision of products, resources or services that allows trade to occur. The limited resource base of most islands means that if a relative advantage exists, it only does so in a small number of sectors. Trade with relatively wealthy continental partners can mean that the returns gained from specializing in the traded commodity far outweigh the return from effort in other sectors of the island economy. Consequently, island economies can quickly become highly specialized, to the virtual exclusion of all unrelated activities. Specialization in traded agricultural products can quickly crowd out food production for local consumption [43]. A complete response to emerging relative advantages may result in highly man-modied environments [17,44,45]. The smallness of islands in comparison to their markets means that there is often little prospect of the island output, on its own, inuencing prices. This lack of inuence extends further. The emergence of a relative advantage dependent upon: (i) demanda function of tastes, real incomes, the availability and cost of substitutes; (ii) the ability of the island to reach consumersa function of physical and political access to markets; and (iii) supply and price from competing sources. None of these factors are within the control of small islands. In a free market situation one would expect the emergence (and disappearance) of comparative advantages to be both unpredictable and uncontrollable. We would expect to see highly cyclical economies exhibiting a boom-bust development prole as relative advantages appear and disappear. There is much historical evidence to support this proposition [17]. However, contemporary studies suggest that the bustphase of the cycle is often missing [1,35,38]. Bertram and Waters [46] explained this phenomenon in their MIRAB model, where the downward swing of the cycle is ameliorated by remittances and aid payments, which often fund a burgeoning bureaucracy. It has been estimated that remittances from islanders working off the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524 509

island may account for in excess of 66% of the island of Tongas GDP [47]. Outside subsidy and preferential trade agreements are additional forms of aid common in many island economies [48].

6. Development strategies Development pathways presented in the literature fall into two camps. (1) Development focused on economic growth by means of: (a) import substitution; (b) the development of new export markets; (c) the pursuit of aid and remittance payments or economic rent as ends in themselves. (2) The encouragement of people-centered development activity that is driven by participatory processes and aimed at meeting basic needs. 6.1. Encouraging island-based economic activity For many newly independent island states in the 1950s and 1960s, import substitution was seen as the appropriate vehicle for economic development. Reduced reliance on old economic ties was also a political priority [49,50]. However, diseconomies of scale made industry unable to compete with imports, and reliant on government intervention [51]. The emergence of new export markets is ultimately driven by the appearance of relative advantages over which the island has little or no control. The development issue for islands becomes one of controlling activity when a relative advantage appears. Of all development opportunities, tourism is the one that has had the most impact on island communities in recent times. Of the 31 countries in the world with +20% of their GDP generated by travel and tourism, 27 are islands states, 17 in the Caribbean [52]. Tourism has long been recognized as an activity with positive feedback, effectively creating its own demand [53]. As tourism infrastructure develops, it creates additional demand from different groups of visitors [54]. Positive feedback means that development can go beyond the social and environmental capacity of the island. The control (rather than encouragement) of tourism activity is a widely recognized concern of islands wishing to develop the industry [43,55,56]. 6.2. Pursuit of aid and remittances Conventionally, it is suggested that aid should be targeted at measures which increase economic self-sufciency [1,57,58]. An alternative school of thought suggests that the pursuit of aid and remittances is a legitimate economic development activity in its own right [50,5961]. Conventional development opportunities may

ARTICLE IN PRESS
510 S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524

simply not exist and the only relative advantages may be political ones, including: ties with former colonial powers; the non-threatening nature of smallness; and, for island states, the inuence of sovereignty. These political advantages can be used as leverage when securing aid and developing remittance relationships. Bertram [60] suggests that island development policy should focus on (i) how to make remittances more secure and predictable and (ii) how to distribute remittances equitably. Good education may help emigrants achieve better-paid, more secure employment. Some suggest that island states should use favorable interest rates to encourage migrants to invest remittances in their native islands [47]. High levels of remittances may, however, keep local currencies articially strong, further militating against conventional island-based development (effectively a form of Dutch disease [62]). In the 1980s, the Convention on the Law of the Sea created Exclusive Economic Zones endowing many small islands with substantial oceanic resources. Small islands often lack the capacity to exploit these resources, and rights of access are leased to other countries. As pressure on global pelagic sh stocks increases, this puts islands in a strong bargaining position. The Falkland Islands, for example, are now nancially self-sufcient, leasing shing rights with a value of $60 m/p.a. [63]. Rents are secured in return for access to other resources including lumber and mineral resources [6466]. We noted above that MIRAB pathways might allow islands to mitigate the recessionary phases of the development cycle that would exist if these islands were dependent solely on their limited internal resources. Both remittances and aid are dependent on economic growth in metropolitan areas. It may well be the case that remittance incomes exhibit high elasticity in relation to economic performance in metropolitan areas. 6.3. People-centered development In a similar vein to the sustainable development literature discussed above, island development literature now includes a school which eschews top-down macroeconomic development policies in favor of more process-orientated development policies, with a strong emphasis on participatory decision-making. There appear to be two forces at work here: (1) An increasing focus on traditional decision-making processes and traditional methods of resource management as alternatives to conventional western planned development [67,68]. This is linked tobut not entirely synonymous witha desire for a more equitable distribution of wealth and the empowerment of marginalized groups and communities [33,48]. This involves the adoption of a positive perspective with islands at the centeradaptable, exible, in control, and surrounded by a world of opportunities [69,70]. This perspective is most frequently seen in Pacic island literaturelinked with the notion of a Pacic way, somehow separate from the western Marxist/capitalist polemic [71]. (2) The increasing adoption of participatory management as part of coastal zone management (CZM). In the 1980s, increasing calls for CZM were based on the

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524 511

belief that there was a need to consider the coast as a single unit and that existing sectoral management was inefcient [7274]. Multi-use patterns of exploitation; a lack of spatially discrete property rights; highly mobile resources; and a lack of scientic knowledge make traditional command and control management difcult [75,76]. The exploitation of natural resources by outside interests has become a key issue. For some, this is seen as an exchange in which the uneven balance of power inevitably means that local communities will fail to secure a fair return [64]. This process may be encouraged by westernized administrations in conict with the wishes of local communities [77,78]. In some Pacic islands NGOs now encourage communities to retain logging rights and undertake community-based logging projects [79,80]. It is true that, in some islands, customary sheries management has evolved in ways that ensure the sustainable use of coastal resources [67,81]. It has even been suggested that the introduction of western technology into traditional sheries may work against sustainable resource development [82]. The inference is that traditional resource management regimes, which have survived for many generations, must ipso facto be sustainable. This may point towards the attractive conclusion that community-based decision-making may be sustainable in terms of both the process (acceptability of decisions) and outcomes (maintenance of resources). However, there are dangers in assuming that customary management regimes are synonymous with sustainability. Traditional customs that have resulted in sustainable resource use have often emerged organically over time. This iterative process may have been aided by the short feedback loops that we see on islands allowing the impacts of poor practice to been seen and quickly reversed. However, there may have been many failures on the way. How many resources have traditional customs wiped out in the past? Easter Island is a case in point, where customary practices resulted in the clear felling of trees, environmental degradation, and the eventual starvation of the population. Dhal [34] notes that one of the biggest challenges for participatory decision-making is system perturbation when a new activity emerges. Arguably, here lies the role of scienceto inform the decisionmaking process when faced with change but not to make the decision itself. Filer [65] also pointedly notes that we should not assume that traditional communities actually want sustainable resource use; the lure of material wealth now is strong. It is important to recognize that islanders have aspirations inuenced by global as well as local culture. Ultimately, the only way to meet these aspirations may be to exploit resources and engage in trade (or aid).

7. The Galapagos: A case study The Galapagos Islands lie 1000 km to the west of mainland Ecuador. Reaching an altitude of 1700 m, the islands are an isolated volcanic outcrop rising from the ocean oor at a depth of over 3000 m. The archipelago is spread over a sea area of 45,600 sq

ARTICLE IN PRESS
512 S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524

km, with a land area in the region of 800 ha. There are 13 larger islands and over 100 smaller islands and outcrops. The mixing of cold water from the southern oceans and warm equatorial waters creates a highly productive marine environment. On land, colonizing plants and animals have in many cases followed a different evolutionary path from their mainland ancestors. The unique ecology of the Galapagos is the key to the lucrative tourism industry. 7.1. Governance First discovered by the Spanish in 1535, there is no evidence of aboriginal inhabitants on the islands. Exploitation of marine resources began in the 19th century by US and British whalers. These vessels also took large numbers of tortoise for food. The rst species introductions (rats and goats) occurred around this time and introductions continue to pose the most signicant threat to the indigenous wildlife. The islands became part of the Republic of Ecuador in 1832. The Galapagos National Park was established in 1959. The Galapagos Marine Resources Reserve was declared in 1986, extending to 15 nautical miles offshore. This was extended to 40 miles in 1998 as the Galapagos Marine Reserve (GMR). The Special Law for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Province of Galapagos (SLG) was declared in March 1998. Inter alia the law: restricted immigration; established the GMR; limited shing to locals using artisanal techniques; created an Authority for InterInstitutional Management (AIM) which established a management plan for the GMR; and vested responsibility for enforcement in the Galapagos National Park Service (GNPS). A Participatory Management Board (PMB) provides stakeholder input on the establishment of shing seasons and catch quota, and also helps regulate the movement of tourist vessels. Final authority, however, lies with the AIM. 7.2. Population and economy Economic opportunity, in shing and tourism, has been a powerful draw for immigrants from mainland Ecuador, resulting in a steady population increase since the 1950s (Table 1). Over the 1990s, population growth was approximately 6.7% p.a. National Ecuadorian population growth was 2.4% p.a. over this period. Ecuador is one of the poorest countries in South America, with the lowest GNP per capita in the region [86]. In 1994, 30.4% of the population was living below the poverty line (oUS$1 per person per day). Table 2 presents four quality-of-life indicators for the Galapagos and Ecuadorthe islands perform signicantly better for each indicator. The relative high quality of life on the islands is an important attraction for immigrants. 7.3. The shing industry Until the 1960s, dried sh was the main export from the islands. During the late 1960s and 1970s, mainland shers started to exploit lobster. Improved air transport

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524 Table 1 Galapagos population 19502003 Year 1950 1982 1990 1998 2001 Sources: [8385]. a Estimate based on 199098 growth rate of 6.7% p.a. Population 1346 6119 9785 15,311 21,000a 513

Table 2 Quality-of-life indicators for the Galapagos Indicator Houses without sanitation Illiteracy rate Infant mortality (per 1000 births) Annual mortality (deaths per 1000) Galapagos 2.6%a Males 1%c Females 2% 8.7a 1.2a All Ecuador 36%b Males 8%d Females 12% 34e 15a

Sources: [8587]. a Data for 1998. b Data for 1995. c Illiteracy rate for population over age of 10 years in 1998. d Illiteracy rate for population over age of 16 years in 1995. e Data for 1996.

opened access to markets in the US. The lobster shery expanded rapidly during the 1980s and 1990s, peaking at an estimated 100 tonnes in 1995 [88]. More recently, a lucrative sea cucumber (pepino) shery has provided an additional incentive for immigrants. Lobster and pepino shing is conducted by surface-demand diving. In 2001, 869 shers were registered with the GNPS. Dealers purchase frozen lobster tails, which are stored before batch export. Pepino are processed and dried before being sold to dealers and exported to the Far East. In 1999, the total nsh catch recorded was 223.3 tonnes; lobster 54.5 tonnes; and sea cucumber 86.3 tonnes (dry weight). Fig. 2 illustrates the principal ows and incomes for sheries in the Galapagos, clearly dominated by pepino and lobster. In the recent past, lobster was the most important export, supplying markets in the USA. However, pepino now dominates the shing economy, supplying markets in the Far East. The value of an individual sea cucumber to a sher is in the region of US$0.60.8 [89], with nal retail value in the Far East in the region of US$2.10 (2000 prices) [90]. The price paid for lobster in

ARTICLE IN PRESS
514 S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524

Fig. 2. Principal export markets for Galapagos sheries.

the Galapagos is in the region of US$19.9/kg, with a sale value in the US in the region of US$34/kg (2000 prices). The SLG established a comprehensive monitoring and regulatory regime for the sheries within the GMR. Fishing activities are regulated by a Fishing Calendar (FC), which is formulated through a participatory process. In recent years, the lobster shery has operated from September to December. The FC also sets minimum catch size, an annual quota and no-take zones; and prohibits landings of berried females. The pepino shery opened legally for the rst time in 1994, when an experimental shery opened for 2 months. Despite pressure from shers, it was only re-opened in 1999. In each subsequent year this shery has operated for 2 months sometime between April and August. With no closed season, size limit, or quota, the nsh shery focuses on reef shes and mullets. Small unregulated sheries exist for chitons, conch and octopus. There are two key instruments used to control the shery, both managed by the GNPS:

 

Fishery Monitoring Certicates (FMC) are given to shers once their catch has been recorded as part of the Fisheries Monitoring Programme. Fishers cannot sell their catch without FMCs. Export Permits are required before dealers can export to the mainland. Once quota has been reached, no further permits are issued. The system should ensure

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524 515

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

7.4. Tourism Tourism developed rapidly over the 1980s and 1990s, with a threefold increase in the number of tourists between 1985 and 1999. The increase in tourist numbers is partly a response to increasing incomes in North America and Europe, and also a shift in the tourism markets away from conventional sun/sand tourism towards activity-based holidays (cultural, nature, sport, etc.). Most Galapagos tourism is based around cruise vessels that provide accommodation for visitors and visit different islands. The activities of visitors are tightly controlled by ofcers of the GNPS who accompany the cruise vessels. Unless otherwise referenced, the data referred to in the following section was collected by a questionnaire survey conducted between January and March 2001. Face-to-face interviews produced a total of 448 usable questionnaires. The majority of the respondents were non-Ecuadorian (88%). This compares well with the data collected by GNPS for all of the 66,000 visitors in 1999, 82% of whom were nonEcuadorian [91]. The US was the single largest source of visitors (44%). For US visitors, the 5665 age group was the largest. For other visitors, the 2635 age group was most signicant. The majority of visitors in employment said that they held managerial or professional positions. The largest single group said they had no occupation, corresponding with visitors in older age groups who are likely to be retired. The average length of stay in the Galapagos was 7 days, with most visitors staying on the mainland for 2 days. Despite many visitors (73%) saying they would consider a return trip, there is a low level of actual returners, 93% of the sample, being on their rst visit. Vessel-based tourists accounted for 82% of all leisure visitors in the sample spending on average 1.6 nights on shore and 5.9 nights on board. Most visitors (60%) had been on nature-orientated holidays before (68% of the US sample). US visitors tended to have visited other Latin American countries (notably Costa Rica), while European visitors were more likely to have visited Africa (in particular Namibia and Kenya). The average US package cost US$3000, while the average non-American package cost was US$1650. Independent travelers purchasing their holiday as separate components spent on average US$115 per day (excluding travel cost) on their holiday in the Galapagos. The incomes of visitors varied greatly according to their origin. Latin American visitors showed the lowest incomes, mostly oUS$1k per month. US visitors had the widest-spread income distribution accounting for 70% of all respondents recording monthly incomes over US$4k per month. No ofcial estimates are available for regional GDP or the contribution made by tourism. It is possible to make a tentative estimate of contribution to the economy of the Galapagos by examining total holiday expenditure and making relevant deductions for spend outside the islands (particularly travel and the margin retained

ARTICLE IN PRESS
516 S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524

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

8. Discussion In the space of 30 years, the Galapagos have gone from largely uninhabited volcanic outcrops to the richest department in Ecuador. In 1996, Ecuador had the lowest estimated GNP per capita in South America at $1500, with 30% of the population living below the poverty line of $1/day. No estimates of regional GDP for the Galapagos are available. However, using the estimated export incomes for 2000, we can make a crude estimate.
fishing exports tourism exportsCestimated population export income per capita;

US$4:1 m US$71:5 mC18; 500 US$4000 per capita per annum: This gure will be a signicant underestimate of GDP/capita in the islands, as it fails to consider multiplier effects and any other productive activity in the islands. It should also be pointed out that this income is not evenly distributed. Nonetheless, it illustrates the relative wealth of the Galapagos compared to mainland Ecuador. The Galapagos illustrates the boom phase of the island development cycle with the appearance of relative advantages, high levels of specialization, economic growth and immigration. The economy is driven by export-orientated primary and tertiary sectors. But does this activity represent sustainable development? To help us explore this question further we need to consider Table 3. In Table 3, Column (A) identies the drivers that have caused relative economic advantages to emerge in the Galapagos. Columns (B) and (C) identify potential threats that might undermine that advantage. The rst point to note about (A) is that these drivers are outside the inuence of the Galapagos. Interestingly, it is also possible to argue that drivers A1, A3 and A4 are features of global unsustainability. The tourism survey established that the industry in the Galapagos is largely dependent on wealthy customers from developed countries. This wealthy elite is the pinnacle of a heavily skewed global income distribution, which for many commentators is either a cause or consequence of global unsustainability [92]. The uneven distribution of global wealth was a key concern of the World Commission on the Environment and Development, Agenda 21, and the more recent 2002 World Summit in Johannesburg [9395]. The

S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524

Table 3 Drivers and threats to economic development in the Galapagos (A) Exogenous drivers of economic development Threats to continued economic development (B) Non-controllable A1. A2. A3. A4. Improved transport Western fashion/taste Global economic growth and uneven income distribution. Over-exploitation of resources elsewhere B1. B2. B3. B4. Recession in trading partner country Competing locations Changing tastes Security issues (C) Controllable C1. C2. C3. C3. C4. Environmental degradation Over-exploitation of resources Species introduction Migration Population increase

ARTICLE IN PRESS

517

ARTICLE IN PRESS
518 S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524

emergence of valuable sheries in the Galapagos is largely a result of unsustainable exploitation in other parts of the world. The pepino shery, in particular, is a direct result of the unsustainable exploitation of sheries in the Far East. Both tourism and the export of high value shery products from the Galapagos are reliant on air transport. Expansion in air travel may become a major contributor to future climate change [96]. Column (B) indicates possible threats to the Galapagos economy that are outside the control of the islands. Tourism activity exhibits a high income-elasticity of demand. Consequently, demand for holidays will fall quickly in response to any decrease in incomes in countries of visitor origin. As luxury products, pepino and lobster markets may also be vulnerable to such effects. The tourist market has evolved in response to a fashion for nature tourism and changing market segmentation [97]. The tourist survey revealed that most visitors were engaging in an exclusive market, visiting various high-cost nature holiday destinations around the globe. The survey also pointed out that even satised visitors were unlikely to make return visits. This combination makes the Galapagos vulnerable to changes in tastes for nature tourism or the emergence of new fashionable locations. Finally in Column (B), security is a key factor. This is particularly the case for US tourists, who are the largest single contributors to the Galapagos tourist economy. US citizens are already relatively reluctant foreign travelers, with an annual outbound visitor rate per capita of 0.19 compared to an EU average of 0.58 [86]. While Ecuador is generally a safe country, any spread of guerrilla activity from the Colombian border could act as a deterrent to US visitors. Column (C) identies threats over which the island potentially has some control. These all relate to the management and conservation of natural resources. Clearly, the pressure of tourism has potential to degrade the environment and choke off future demand. As noted above, the GNPS monitors and restricts the movement of tourists. The SLG has instituted a stakeholder-driven regime for the management of sheries resources [98]. It is generally accepted that the single largest threat to the terrestrial ecosystem in the Galapagos is the introduction of new species. While efforts are underway to try and eradicate some alien species, the rate of new introductions appears to increase with population. Economic opportunity in the tourism and shing sectors is a strong draw for immigrants from the mainland. The introduction of the SLG has now limited the opportunities for further immigration. However, with a substantial population of recent immigrants, the islands will now begin to generate their own population growth.

9. Conclusions The recent colonization of the Galapagos is not typical of many islands. However, in many other respects (limited resources, specialization, etc.) the Galapagos are typical. So does the Galapagos represent an example of sustainable development or not? The answer to this question depends very much upon ones perspective. One can sustain an argument that the drivers of economic well being in the Galapagos are

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524 519

features of global unsustainability. Furthermore, experience from other islands suggests that the development bubble will burst. Various uncontrollable exogenous threats may extinguish the relative advantages currently enjoyed by the Galapagos. It could therefore be argued that current development in the islands may be unsustainable in terms of its longevity. On the other hand, at the purely local level much of what is being done in the Galapagos could be said to represent sustainable development. The increased autonomy granted by the SLG has resulted in many measures that t with a strong interpretation of the CS model (the control of tourism development, attempts to eradicate introduced species, control of immigration, etc.). The use of participatory management as part of the Islands management regime is also consistent with process-orientated approaches to sustainable development. Like many islands, the economic well being of the Galapagos is dependent on trade in an increasingly globalized market. At the same time there is an ongoing process of increasing local autonomy. The SLG has increased local control of resources. Arguably, this local control is against the interests of many citizens of mainland Ecuador now denied access to the Islands resources. The drive for protection of the Galapagos comes from international recognition of their ecological signicance, which has created a favorable scenario for the islanders. Models of sustainable development may have something to offer islands in terms of the internal management of resources. However, CS models assume a level of control and stability that may simply not exist on many islands. Islands have very limited control over exogenous threats or the economic drivers of development. The case study illustrates the complexity of sustainability in an Island context. The intriguing paradox that some islands may be managing local resources sustainably, while exploiting unsustainable patterns of global consumption, deserves further investigation.

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my colleagues at Heriot-Watt University (ICIT, Orkney), the Charles Darwin Research Station (Galapagos, Equador), Coralina (San Andres, Colombia) and the University of California and Los Angeles, who took part in the EU funded Islas Minga project, particularly those who helped with data collection. The views expressed in this article are, however, entirely the authors own. References
[1] Dolman AJ. Paradise lost? The past performance and future prospects of small island developing countries. In: Dommen E, Hein P, editors. States microstates and islands. London: Groom Helm; 1985. p. 4069. [2] Hess A. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. In: Beller W, dAyala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. New Jersey: Parthenon; 1990. p. 315.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
520 S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524

[3] Selwyn P. Development policy in small countries. London: Croom Helm; 1975 208pp. [4] King R. The geographical fascination of islands. In: Lockhart DG, Drakakis-Smith D, Schembri J, editors. The development process in small island states. London: Routledge; 1993. p. 1538. [5] Doumenge F. The viability of small intertropical islands. In: Dommen E, Hein P, editors. States microstates and islands. London: Groom Helm; 1985. p. 70118. [6] The idea for Figure 1 came from an illustration in Dommen E. What is a microstate. In: Dommen E, Hein P, editors. States microstates and islands. London: Groom Helm; 1985. p. 115. [7] Wartho R, Overton J. The Pacic islands in the world. In: Overton J, Scheyvens R, editors. Strategies for sustainable development experiences from the Pacic. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 3348. [8] Bartman B. Patterns of localism in a changing global system. In: Baldacchino G, Milne D, editors. Lessons from the political economy of small islands. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2000. p. 3856. [9] Arya S, Samara J. Participatory process and watershed managementa study of the Shiwalik foothill villages in Northern India. Asia Pacic Journal of Rural Development 1995;5(2):2735. [10] Boyer B. Institutional mechanisms for sustainable development: a look at national councils for sustainable development in Asia. Global Environmental Change 2000;10(2):15760. [11] Younis T. Bottom-up implementation after Rio: community participation in Scottish forestry. Community Development Journal 1997;32(4):299311. [12] Bouchy M, Race D. The twists and turns of community participation in natural resource management in Australia: what is missing? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2001;44(3):293308. [13] There are numerous examples of global and regional island networks including: the UN Small Island Developing States network (SIDSnet) at www.sidsnet.org; the Global Islands Network (GIN) at www.globalislands.net; the European Small Islands Network at www.europeansmallislands.net, The European Islands System of Links and Exchanges at www.eurisles.com; and the European Islands Network on Energy and the Environment at www.europeanislands.net. [14] The objective of the International Island Games Association is to foster and encourage friendship through sporting activities between Island communities. See IIGA, Constitution of the International Island Games Association, Isle of Man, August 2004, http://www.islandgames.net/. [15] Pitt D. Sociology, islands and boundaries. World Development 1980;8(12):10519. [16] Boulding K. General systems theory: the skeleton of science. Management Science 1956;2(3):197208. [17] Veronicos N. The study of Mediterranean small islands: emerging theoretical issues. Ekistics 1987;323/324:10111. [18] Pitt D. Anthropological and social theories and microstates. In: Dommen E, Hein P, editors. States microstates and islands. London: Groom Helm; 1985. p. 309. [19] Starc N. Managing sustainable development on the Croatian Islandsdocuments, problems and perspectives. Periodicum Biologorum 2000;102:199208. [20] Vernicos N. The islands of Greece. In: Beller W, dAyala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. New Jersey: Parthenon; 1990. p. 14168. [21] McElroy J, de Albuquerque K. Managing small island sustainability: towards a systems design. In: Beller W, dAyala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. New Jersey: Parthenon; 1990. p. 4356. [22] Brown D. An institutionalist look at postmodernism. Journal of Economic Issues 1991;XXV(4):1089104. [23] Pearce D, Markandya A, Barbier E. Blueprint for a green economy. London: Earthscan Publications Ltd.; 1989 192pp. [24] Dobson A. Environmental sustainabilities: an analysis and a typology. Environmental Politics 1986;5(3):40128. [25] Counsell D. Sustainable development and structure plans in England and Wales: a review of current practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 1998;41(2):17794. [26] Hales R. Land use development planning and the notion of sustainable development: exploring constraint and facilitation within the English planning system. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 2000;43(1):99121. [27] ONiel J. Ecology, policy and politics. London: Routledge; 1993 227pp.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524 521

[28] Funtowicz S, Ravetz J. Post-normal science: a new science for new times. Scientic European 1990;October:202. [29] Lawrence GJ. The future of Local Agenda 21 in the new millennium. London: UNED-UK; 1998 12pp. [30] Burgess J, Harrison C, Filius P. Environmental communication and the cultural politics of environmental citizenship. Environment and Planning A 1997;30(8):144560. [31] Davos CA. Sustaining co-operation in the coastal zone. Journal of Environmental Management 1998;52(4):37987. [32] Murray D. Public administration in the microstates of the Pacic. In: Dommen E, Hein P, editors. States microstates and islands. London: Groom Helm; 1985. p. 185200. [33] Purdie N. Pacic island livelihoods. In: Overton J, Scheyvens R, editors. Strategies for sustainable development experiences from the Pacic. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 6479. [34] Dahl C. Integrated Coastal Zone Management and community participation in small island settings. Ocean and Coastal Management 1997;36(13):2345. [35] Dommen E. Some distinguishing characteristics of island states. World Development 1980;8(12):93143. [36] UNCTAD. Examination of the particular problems and needs of island developing states. In: Dommen E, Hein P, editors. States microstates and islands. London: Groom Helm; 1985. p. 11851. [37] Hein P. Between Aldabra and Nauru. In: Beller W, dAyala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. Parthenon: New Jersey; 1990. p. 5776. [38] Briguglio L. Small island states and their economic vulnerability. World Development 1995;23(9):161532. [39] McElroy J, Potter B, Towle EL. Challenges for sustainable development in small Caribbean islands. In: Beller W, dAyala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. New Jersey: Parthenon; 1990. p. 299316. [40] Patterson R. The primary sector: problem and opportunity for islands. In: Baldacchino G, Milne D, editors. Lessons from the political economy of small islands. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2000. p. 15971. [41] Baldacchino G. The other way round: manufacturing as an extension of services in small island states. Asia Pacic Viewpoint 1998;39(3):26779. [42] Greenwood R, McCarthy S. Manufacturing development on the North Atlantic rim. In: Baldacchino G, Milne D, editors. Lessons from the political economy of small islands. New York: Palgrave Macmillan; 2000. p. 17292. [43] Potter RB. Basic needs and development in the small islands of the eastern Caribbean. In: Lockhart DG, Drakakis-Smith D, Schembri J, editors. The development process in small island states. London: Routledge; 1993. p. 92116. [44] Bayliss-Smith T. From taro garden to golf course? Alternative futures for agricultural capital in the Pacic islands. In: Burt B, Clerk C, editors. Environment and development in the Pacic islands. Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies, Research School of Pacic and Asian Studies, The Australian National University; 1997. p. 14370. [45] Shembri PJ, Lanfranco E. Development and the natural environment in the Maltese islands. In: Lockhart DG, Drakakis-Smith D, Schembri J, editors. The development process in small island states. London: Routledge; 1993. p. 24766. [46] Bertram IG, Watters RF. The MIRAB economy in South Pacic microstates. Pacic Viewpoint 1985;26(3):497519. [47] Brown RP, Ahlburg DA. Remittances in the South Pacic. International Journal of Social Economics 1999;26(13):32544. [48] Sawatibau S. Who controls development in the Pacic. In: Burt B, Clerk C, editors. Environment and development in the Pacic islands. Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies, Research School of Pacic and Asian Studies, The Australian National University; 1997. p. 3444. [49] Elek A, Hill H, Tabor SR. Liberalization and diversication in a small island economy: Fiji since the 1987 coups. World Development 1993;21(5):74969.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
522 S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524

[50] Connel J. Island microstates: development autonomy and the ties that bind. In: Lockhart DG, Drakakis-Smith D, Schembri J, editors. The development process in small island states. London: Routledge; 1993. p. 11750. [51] Chandra R. Breaking out of import substitution industrialization: the case of Fiji. In: Lockhart DG, Drakakis-Smith D, Schembri J, editors. The development process in small island states. London: Routledge; 1993. p. 20527. [52] WTTC. Tourism satellite accounts. London: World Travel and Tourism Council; 2001. [53] McEachern J, Towle EL. Ecological guidelines for island development. Morges: IUCN; 1974 62pp. [54] Cohen E. Towards a sociology of international tourism. Social Research 1972;39(1):16482. [55] Shera W, Matsuoka J. Evaluating the impact of resort development on an Hawaiian island: implications for social impact assessment policy and procedures. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 1992;12:34962. [56] Baum T, Mudambi R. Managing demand uctuations in the context of island tourism. In: Conlin MV, Baum T, editors. Island tourism management and principles. Chichester: Wiley; 1995. p. 11520. [57] Dolman AJ. The potential contribution of marine resources to sustainable development in smallisland developing countries. In: Beller W, dAyala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. New Jersey: Parthenon; 1990. p. 87102. [58] Hein P. Between Aldabra and Nauru. In: Beller W, dAyala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. New Jersey: Parthenon; 1990. p. 5776. [59] Baldachino G. Bursting the bubble: the pseudo development strategies of microstates. Development and Change 1993;24:2951. [60] Bertram IG. Sustainability and material welfare in small south Pacic Island economies, 19001990. World Development 1993;21(2):24758. [61] Bertram IG. Sustainable development in Pacic micro-economies. World Development 1986;17(7):80922. [62] Named after the effects of gas discoveries in the Netherlands, Dutch disease occurs where one export industry becomes disproportionately strong compared to other export industries in a country. This may cause a signicant appreciation in the value of currency, forcing up the price of all exports on foreign markets. This price rise can make exports uncompetitive compared to similar products from other countries. The export of labor from islands, and consequent inow of remittances, may increase the value of the local currency raising the export price of island-produced products on international markets. [63] Barton J. Commercial shing: opportunities and conservation striking a balance. In: Proceedings, Falkland Islands forumsustaining a future, 12 July 2000, The Brewery, Chiswell St., London. [64] Henderson M. Forest futures for Papua New Guinea: logging or community forest. In: Burt B, Clerk C, editors. Environment and development in the Pacic Islands. Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies, Research School of Pacic and Asian Studies, The Australian National University; 1997. p. 4568. [65] Filer C. Logging and resource dependency in Papua New Guinea. In: Burt B, Clerk C, editors. Environment and development in the Pacic Islands. Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies, Research School of Pacic and Asian Studies, The Australian National University; 1997. p. 6977. [66] Lagisa L, Scheyvens R. Mining in Papua New Guinea. In: Overton J, Scheyvens R, editors. Strategies for sustainable development experiences from the Pacic. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 12541. [67] Hviding E. Fisheries and coastal resources: knowledge and development. In: Burt B, Clerk C, editors. Environment and development in the Pacic Islands. Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies, Research School of Pacic and Asian Studies, The Australian National University; 1997. p. 12342. [68] Batibasaqa K, Overton J, Horsley P. Vanua: land people and culture of Fiji. In: Overton J, Scheyvens R, editors. Strategies for sustainable development experiences from the Pacic. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 1008. [69] Hauofa E. Our sea of islands. The Contemporary Pacic 1994;6(1):14761.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524 523

[70] Hallapua S. Harmonising resources for sustainable economic development in the Pacic Island context. In: Burt B, Clerk C, editors. Environment and development in the Pacic Islands. Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies, Research School of Pacic and Asian Studies, The Australian National University; 1997. p. 228. [71] Burt B, Clerk C. Environment and development in the Pacic Islands: introduction. In: Burt B, Clerk C, editors. Environment and development in the Pacic Islands. Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies, Research School of Pacic and Asian Studies, The Australian National University; 1997. p. 121. [72] Birnie P. The North Sea legal regime. Ocean and Shoreline Management 1991;16(34):17798. [73] OECD. Coastal Zone Management Integrated Policies. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development; 1993 142pp. [74] Knetch RW, Archer J. Integration in the US Coastal Zone Management Program. Ocean and Coastal Management 1993;21(1):18399. [75] Bloye Olsen S. Will integrated coastal management programmes be sustainable? Ocean and Coastal Management 1993;21(2):26084. [76] Liew J. Sustainable development and environmental management of atolls. In: Beller W, dAyala P, Hein P, editors. Sustainable development and environmental management of small islands. New Jersey: Parthenon; 1990. p. 7787. [77] Sheyvens R, Cassels R. Logging in Melanesia. In: Overton J, Scheyvens R, editors. Strategies for sustainable development experiences from the Pacic. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 10924. [78] Lagisa L, Sheyvens R. Mining in Papua New Guinea. In: Overton J, Scheyvens R, editors. Strategies for sustainable development experiences from the Pacic. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 12541. [79] Cassels R, Sheyvens R. Sustainable forestry options in the Solomon Islands. In: Overton J, Scheyvens R, editors. Strategies for sustainable development experiences from the Pacic. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 199211. [80] Schep J. International trade for local development; the case of Western Solomon Islands fair trade. In: Burt B, Clerk C, editors. Environment and development in the Pacic Islands. Canberra: National Centre for Development Studies, Research School of Pacic and Asian Studies, The Australian National University; 1997. p. 7890. [81] Samou S. Marine resources. Strategies for sustainable development experiences from the Pacic. London: Zed Books; 1999. p. 14254. [82] Ifeka C. Women in sheries, why women count: prospects for self-reliant sheries development in the South Pacic compared to the Indian Ocean. In: Couper AD, editor. Development and social change in the Pacic Islands. London: Routledge; 1989. p. 3248. [83] Erikson A, Ospina P. Estimated population, poverty, labour market, public policies and migration, Galapagos Report 19971998. Quito: WWF-Fundacion Natura; 1998. p. 134. [84] Borja R. La Migracion A Galapagos: Una Lectura Desde Los Censos 1990 y 1998, Informe Galapagos, 19992000. Quito: WWF, Fundacion Natura; 2000. [85] INEC. Censo de Galapagos. Quito: INEC; 1998. [86] World Bank. World development indicators. New York: World Bank; 1998 390pp. [87] SEDEH. Sistema Integrado de Indicadores Sociales del Ecuador. Quito Secretaria de Estado de Desarrollo Humano, 2000. [88] Bustamante RH, Reck G, Ruttenberg B, Polovina J. The Galapagos spiny lobster shery. In: Phillips BF, Kittaka J, editors. Spiny lobsters: shery and culture. Oxford: Fishing News Books; 2000. p. 21020. [89] Noble T. Fisheries management in the Galapagos marine reserve a look to the future. MSc thesis. Edinburgh: Heriot-Watt University, 2001. 84pp. [90] Conand C. Sea cucumber retail market in Singapore. Beche-de-mer International Bulletin 2001;14(1):123. [91] GNPS. Data supplied by the Galapagos National Park Service. November 2003. [92] Korten D. When corporations rule the world. London: Earthscan; 1995 402pp. [93] World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1988 398pp.

ARTICLE IN PRESS
524 S.A. Kerr / Ocean & Coastal Management 48 (2005) 503524

[94] United Nations. Agenda 21: programme of action for sustainable developmentthe nal text of agreements negotiated by governments at the United Nations conference on environment and development (UNCED), Rio De Janeiro, Brazil, 314 June 1992. 295pp. [95] United Nations General Assembly. Environment and sustainable development implementation of Agenda 21 and the programme for further implementation of Agenda 21. United Nations A/57/532/ Add1. December 2002. 8pp. [96] Penner JE, Lister DH, Griggs, Dokken DJ, McFarland M. Aviation and the global atmosphere, special report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2001 373pp. [97] Ryan C. Island, beaches and life-stage marketing. In: Conlin V, Boulm T, editors. Island tourism: management principles and practice. Chichester: Wiley; 1995. p. 7994. [98] Baine M, Howard M, Kerr S, Edgar G, Toral V. Coastal and marine resource management in the Galapagos Islands and the archipelago of San Andres: issues, problems and opportunities. Ocean and Coastal Management, under review.