To Close, or Not to Close…That Is The Question…

Ok, paraphrasing Shakespeare is a cheap shot, but it just seemed appropriate.

So, What’s The Problem?

I’m referring, of course, to the recent closure of a number of islands off the East coast of Johor, near the town of Mersing. There’s a whole bunch of islands there, only a handful of which are inhabited, but several (including Sibu and Aur) have been popular tourism destinations for years.

Recently, the growth market has been in island-hopping day trips – and that’s where the problem starts. Apparently not all operators have been observing best practices for sustainable marine tourism – hence the closure.

Why Now?

Why did I choose now to address this?

Because it’s been on my mind since last week, when a participant in a workshop we were attending challenged me with this question: “was it the right decision to close the islands?”.

It’s an increasingly important topic in Malaysia as tourism numbers grow and, let’s be honest, impacts from unsustainable tourism activities also increase. Particularly with next year being Visit Malaysia Year.

So here is my honest answer – and unfortunately, it’s Yes and No!!!

Cop out? No, I don’t think so.

I think it is a fair reflection of the challenges that must be addressed when economic needs meet conservation needs. As with so many things in life, the true picture is more nuanced than headlines sometimes suggest.

What Is The Conflict?

It’s a conflict of interests, and it is something that develops over a number of years.

It is widely accepted (including by me) that tourism is a good thing, bringing jobs, economic activity, etc., to a destination. BUT – it is also widely accepted (including by me!) that tourism growth can bring negative impacts to both ecosystems and local communities.

There needs to be a balance. An important question needs to be asked: how do we manage tourism activities and growth to ensure there is balance between livelihoods and sustainability? And – who is responsible for that?

A part of this problem is that users of natural resources (and there are many varieties of them) have, over the years, become used to having free and unrestricted access to those resources. Examples abound in the tourism industry, where natural resources – islands, reefs, mangroves, etc., are treated as a “common resource” – everyone is free to use them, but no-one is responsible for looking after them.

Fair enough, as long as the number of visitors stays within boundaries that don’t damage the very nature that they come to see. But what if that changes? That’s the conflict of interest.

It’s Not About Tourism…

Don’t get me wrong here – I’m not attacking the tourism industry; RCM is on record as being supportive of the tourism industry.

But there needs to be a better appreciation among the responsible government agencies and tourism operators of the negative impacts of tourism.

We need to understand that impacts need to be managed if tourism is to be sustainable in the long term – and is to continue delivering those very livelihoods that have come to rely on it.

Redang is facing overtourism problem (@imanredang)

…It’s About Sustainable Tourism

Here’s a simple question: which is better for a tourism destination: would you rather have 100 visitors per day paying RM 1,000 or 1,000 visitors per day paying RM 100? The revenue is the same, but the implications for a destination are huge.

We seem to be stuck in the “1,000 visitors per day paying RM 100” model. Perhaps it’s time to re-visit that position and look again at our tourism model. Yes, not everyone can pay RM 1,000 per day – not everyone can afford to visit the Maldives! But can we really afford not to at least consider the options?

Destinations like Mersing (and there are plenty of others around Malaysia) face a choice. Manage tourism so that it is sustainable, or face the consequences – first, declining ecosystems, then declining numbers of tourists…or to put it more bluntly, first the coral reefs go, then the tourists go.

I’ve heard reports that some destinations are already suffering this – destinations that have seen huge growth in tourism numbers over a period of years are now seeing declining visitor numbers because the destination is simply no longer attractive – trash, too many tourists, ecosystems damaged…

What’s The Solution?

First, we need better information. We need data on just how many tourists are visiting a destination, and how that is changing. Ironically Mersing is doing this, with the METOS system, which tracks visitor numbers.

We also need studies on the carrying capacity of a destination, perhaps using concepts such as Limits of Acceptable Change (LAC) – so we can introduce thresholds for managing numbers.

And we probably need better destination management, maybe using data on visitor numbers and patterns, combined with LAC studies, to spread the load around a destination, so everyone doesn’t go to the same site, or island. 

Integrating Management for Marine Ecosystems

This is going to need a more integrated approach to management of a destination’s natural attractions. Under the current situation, there are numerous agencies with overlapping jurisdiction.

For example, Department of Fisheries manages the Marine Parks that surround many tourism islands, but State agencies manage the land. Ministry of Tourism wants to promote increasing tourist numbers…but the local council may not have the capacity to provide the necessary services.

There is a tendency for agencies to work in silos, so there isn’t enough collaboration on these issues.

How about a new Protected Area Management Body (PAMB) that provides “a seat at the table” for all relevant stakeholders, providing a forum for discussion and shared decision-making. That way, conflict can be avoided by ensuring everyone has the necessary information to make informed decisions, and everyone’s interests are considered in decision making.

The PAMB module

What Was The Question Again?

So did I answer the question: “was it the right decision to close the islands?”

Yes – because it seems tourism is growing beyond what is sustainable, and the blame sits with everyone involved – tourism operators, management agencies, tourism promotion.

But also, no – because people’s livelihoods are at stake.  

Perhaps the above PAMB concept could introduce a more consultative and participatory approach, so that everyone can join in decisions that affect natural resources and livelihoods.

______________________________________________________________________________________

If you’d like to support us, you can follow our social media pages for any updates on our work and volunteering opportunities, or you could also donate towards our cause.