Tioman Airport Decision: A Watershed in Biodiversity Conservation?

The decision last week by the Malaysian government to shelve the proposed airport development on Tioman island is both welcome, and timely, for many reasons.

Conserving Tioman’s natural resources

The most immediate and important reason, of course, is that it paves the way for conserving Tioman Island in its current, largely pristine state. This in itself is a good thing considering the island’s abundant biodiversity resources which, as the world is now (belatedly?) realising, need to be protected.

Tioman Island's beautiful coral reef.

This endeavour would be challenging with a new airport bringing more visitors, and all the consequent impacts that would result from more resort development, more roads and infrastructure, more waste…you get the picture.

So, it is a great start.

But perhaps this opens up so many other opportunities to review old decisions, made with old information and out-of-date thinking, that are just not appropriate in the world as it is today.

If that sounds like hyperbole, then consider the following.

Tourism trends in the post-COVID world

Whither tourism? I’ve talked about this before, particularly focusing on the impacts of large numbers of visitors on people and places.

We saw this in Mantanani Island, where visitor numbers increased, over a 10-year period, from around 50 per day to as many as three thousand per day: clearly not sustainable, with huge impacts on ecosystems and the local community.

Numerous industry surveys tell us that “tourists” are now looking for more “authentic” experiences, less crowded, with intact nature, the whole thing. Quiet, private, pristine.

But which “tourists” are those?

Last week I saw a video of an “island” crawling with tourists. All there for the ultimate Instagram Moment – white sand, perfect blue sea, islands in the distance…and with careful camera angles, the 200 other people sharing the sandbank can be kept out of the shot!!

Apparently, when asked about such crowded destinations, many respondents said, “it’s ok, we don’t mind – we are used to it”. So clearly, not all tourists are seeking a “private commune” with nature.

I am probably over-simplifying, but can we really segment the tourism industry in this way?

Can we separate out tourists looking for the quiet, nature-focused getaway and tourists who don’t mind more crowded destinations?

And if we can, what are the characteristics of each group in terms of expectations, duration of stay, and spending, for example? Are people looking for the authentic experience willing to pay more – and if so, how much more?

Such an experience suggests more intensive management efforts and limits on visitor numbers – it’s going to be expensive.

So, the tourist will have to pay for it. Thailand is certainly moving in this direction, away from beach/sea holidays to more nature-based tourism. There must be a value proposition for them.

Tourism in Malaysia

Which leads us to the question: which of the above groups is Malaysia targeting?

Because it seems to me that if the division is real, then targeting one group or the other should be a deliberate choice.

You either cater for small-scale, niche market tourists, with appropriate facilities and infrastructure – and charge accordingly. Or you go large-scale, mass tourism, again with appropriate facilities and infrastructure – and charge accordingly for that, too.

Clearly, there are huge implications in this choice for destinations, and the East Coast islands are among the most popular destinations in Malaysia.

Is the plan to drastically increase tourism numbers? Or is it to target the group looking for an authentic experience? Because islands like Tioman have that – in spades. If the former case, yes, we will probably need new infrastructure, including resorts and transportation. If the latter – maybe less development. 

Who makes the decision? On what basis? What research has been done?

I guess what I’m saying is that now might be a good time for Malaysia to rethink its tourism strategy and decide which of these markets to target. Because I don’t think you can cater to both in the same destination; it has to be a deliberate decision.

After all – from a revenue perspective, a hundred tourists paying RM 1,000 per trip brings in the same revenue as one thousand tourists paying RM 100 per visit…but with different challenges.

Managing Marine Parks

While we are reviewing our approach to tourism, maybe it is an appropriate moment to review the approach to Marine Park management. This is because the islands that are surrounded by Marine Parks are popular tourism destinations, and they have what both groups are looking for.

Under the current regime, the Federal government looks after the Marine Park – the doughnut of water surrounding the island; the State governments are responsible for managing the islands themselves.

Which introduces a conflict situation.

State governments don’t have much incentive to protect the sea because they aren’t responsible for it, so perhaps they want to develop tourism. But the Federal government doesn’t have control of development on the islands that might damage the marine resources in the sea…you can see where that ends up.

Perhaps the time has come to review this system.

How about integrating the management of the Marine Park and the islands? How about inviting State governments to participate in managing the Marine Parks so they also get some benefit from that?

In this way, development on the islands can be coordinated with protecting the marine resources – not to mention the terrestrial resources, too.

And while we are at it – let’s give a seat at the table to the local communities living on the islands, too! There is plenty of evidence that local communities make an important contribution to marine resource management where they have a chance to do so – and our own experience on Tioman reflects this.

The Tioman Marine Conservation Group (TMCG) is made up of local islanders.

Biodiversity financing

The final piece of the jigsaw: financing.

The recently signed Kunming-Montreal Post 2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (the GBF) calls for urgent action to protect biodiversity. Importantly it speaks at length about funding for biodiversity conservation, acknowledging the estimated funding gap of US$ 700 billion per year that has been highlighted as one of the key challenges facing us.

There are emerging biodiversity-based financing mechanisms that could release significant funds for biodiversity conservation from the private sector – funds that government just don’t have themselves.

These so-called “biodiversity credits” could be a game-changer in funding biodiversity conservation. Yes, there are risks, and yes, much work needs to be done to introduce appropriate regulations and standards, but on balance, I would say there are some interesting things happening that we are following very closely.

A catalyst for change

All the above ideas and suggestions are strongly supported by policies in Malaysia.

On a national level, the National Policy on Biological Diversity 2016 – 2025 speaks about Malaysia’s commitment to conserving its biodiversity; the 12th Malaysia Plan includes commitments to safeguard natural capital.

In addition, Malaysia has adopted two international agreements: the Sustainable Development Goals, which call for sustainable management of ecosystems, and the recently-signed Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which includes commitments to increase protected areas and reduce biodiversity loss.

The above agreements and policies talk extensively about funding for conservation and the role of local communities.

And here’s what that made me think.

Looking at through this lens of change I am outlining; the bigger context of the brave decision announced last week by the Environment Minister, YB Nik Nazri, starts to look even more important.

Imagine it leading to this scenario – a new paradigm in which:

• Fewer tourists visit protected areas but bring the same economic value as mass tourism;

• Protected areas are sustainably managed by all stakeholders, including local communities, for long-term conservation goals;

• Private sector funds are invested alongside government funds.

Joined up, collaborative management.

What’s not to like?

Why should we care and where do marine protected areas fit in?

This article is the third of a six-part bi-weekly series culminating in an editorial piece advocating for an integrated ocean policy for Malaysia.

PART 3: FISHERIES MANAGEMENT AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

The hunt for fish escalates as global consumption climbs risking the collapse of fisheries

The UN SOFIA 2020 Report published by the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) revealed that the yearly growth rate (between the period of 1961-2017) of global fish consumption is 3.1%, far outpacing both the world population expansion rate of 1.6%  and the 1.1% for meat consumption.

In per capita terms, global food fish consumption rose from 9.0kg in 1961 to 20.3kg in 2017; and has risen to an estimated 20.5kg in 2018.

However, people in developing countries have a larger share of fish protein in their diets, with the highest per capita fish consumption found in small island developing states (SIDs), particularly in Oceania. In Southeast Asia, Malaysia’s per capita consumption is double in comparison to the global average at 40.9 kg, the second-highest after Cambodia at 63.2kg per year.

As the world surpassed the 7 billion people mark and heading towards 8.5 billion in 10 years, a sustainable supply of seafood is critical to global food security.

Already, due to overfishing and rampant illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, over a third of global fisheries (34.2%) are operating at biologically unsustainable levels. Without proper management, it is courting potential collapse of fisheries that will expose those working throughout the fisheries supply chain to serious socio-economic risk.

The collapse of the Atlantic Northwest cod fishery

We hope to learn from the collapse of the Atlantic Northwest cod fishery when in 1992, the cod biomass fell to 1% of the 1980s level. It forced the Canadian Government to declare a total shut-down (moratorium) on the fishery, until now. The collapse was due to simply poor fishery management. The technological advances allowed vessels to trawl in bigger areas, more in-depth and for a longer time. Electronic tracking systems enabled crews to locate fish with unparalleled success. The Canadian catches peaked in the late-1970s and early-1980s.

Predictably, rampant overfishing means cod stocks were depleted at a much faster rate than they could be replenished. The government had overestimated how many cod there were and did not act when it first became clear the fish were disappearing. Overnight, 38,000 people found themselves out of work. It was the single largest layoff in Canada’s history.

Closer to home, in the Eastern Indian Ocean, Indian mackerels and anchovies stocks are either fully exploited or overexploited.

If we are to learn from past mistakes and meet future demands, we must accelerate sustainable fisheries management and consistently explore effective conservation approaches on a global scale without sidelining the local communities.

Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) and sustainable fisheries management

Coupled with fisheries management, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) is a proven approach towards sustainable use of the oceans, increasing long-term production of fisheries.

In a published article by Nature, researchers observed that to provide benefits to fisheries, successful MPAs across the globe must share all or most of the following five key conditions: whether or not the zones were fully protected, enforced, old (more than 10 years), large (more than 100 km2) and isolated (for example, a remote island or a patch of reef surrounded by large sandy areas). They further observed that conservation value was nearly absent in MPAs with fewer than three of these factors, and then increased exponentially when it meets three to five factors.

The correlation of these factors with the proposed increase of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) current 10% coastal and ocean protection target (by 2020), to 30% of the planet by 2030 shows that the international commitments made by governments are now based on good science.

With the current rate of ocean protection hovering at 7% of the total ocean, the call to meet the 30% protection target is a tall order, nonetheless, vital to ensure significant transformation.

Implementation must secure serious commitments from all parties, akin to the level of commitment shown to combat the Covid-19 pandemic.

When the world came to a standstill due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it highlighted the fragility of the MPA funding model. The majority of the MPAs are almost fully dependent on tourism-related fees and taxes as a primary source of funding. With the loss of this income, management capacity has taken a huge hit with many conservation programs, infrastructure and personnel expenses kept at a minimum. Critically, the collapse of tourism severely affected the livelihoods and food security of the local communities.

In several countries, government funds are diverted to funding pandemic emergency-related expenses. This translates to a declining capacity for monitoring, enforcement and other management activities and has left MPAs vulnerable to illegal fishing, poaching and other prohibited activities.

Moving Forward

On a positive note, the pandemic has created opportunities to revisit and improve current approaches through good and proven practices, that will also meet local needs. It is creating a space for needed local leadership in marine conservation and scientific efforts. Innovations in conservation, good models, and a shift in global economic investments are emerging.

From a fisheries resource management perspective, the current Ecosystem-based Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) approach must improve and embrace the full extent of integration for co-management and other forms of shared governance approach with all stakeholders, especially the local and indigenous communities.

Co-management and participatory approach are also at the heart of any successful MPA management. The IUCN Green List of Protected and Conserved Areas is a standard of best practice for area-based conservation.  It is a certification program aimed to increase the number of protected and conserved areas around the world that deliver successful conservation outcomes, including the sustainability of fisheries resources. One of the requirements of the Standard that reflects the importance of a participatory approach is that management plans must take into account information on natural values and associated ecosystems services and cultural values provided by the local and indigenous communities when developing spatial restriction areas.

As the main economic driver in MPAs, tourism industry players must evaluate their business development models factoring in the impact of the industry on the surrounding environment. We strongly recommend the tourism industry players, particularly the public policy-managers and destination managers; and hotels (and tour operators) to explore the Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) Criteria. It provides for minimum requirements that any tourism business or destination should aim for while maintaining the sustainability of the world’s natural and cultural resources and supporting tourism to meet its potential as a tool for conservation and poverty alleviation.

Coral reefs at Tioman Island, Malaysia. Photo by Alvin Chelliah.

Ocean resources have long been taken for granted. They are natural assets from which humans derive a wide range of goods and services. However, this value has not been factored in through the traditional economic indicators. Fortunately, there is a growing case for why investing in nature should be a viable proposition for the private sector. In November 2020, the IUCN launched the Nature+ Accelerator Fund, a private sector-focused nature conservation fund offering investment capital for nature-based solutions (NbS) projects.

In essence, all of these solutions can be implemented now.

What is missing, at least for Malaysia, is the acceptance of the fact that decisive action in the form of a cohesive national ocean resources policy is required to resolve many cross-cutting issues and challenges. This will require cooperation from multiple authorities and stakeholders. We also must meet the international commitments that have been made. Leaders must demonstrate strong political will for change and the tenacity to see it through despite any political changes for the sake of the future generation.