Eco-certification of Cruises: Greening the Cruise Industry

Amanda Christine Cardenas Sophia Garcia

Karen Kamprath Ashley Wilson

1

Background Information

Ecotourism is defined as “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the

environment and improves the well-being of local people” (TIES, 2004). Two components are

crucial to ecotourism’s ultimate sustainability. When any business or activity is referred to as

“ecotourism,” it must meet the following criteria:

Preservation and conservation of local biodiversity and habitat is paramount, because that is the [natural] capital wealth that sustains the business.

Local populations must participate in and gain economic benefits from ecotourism projects, not only because they are also part of the landscape, but because benefits will give them incentives to participate in conservation and preservation.

Commonly viewed as a sustainable form of tourism, ecotourism has the potential to bring

numerous rewards to both developed and developing countries. However, one of the most hotly

debated issues over the last few years has been the impact of the booming cruise industry on

ecotourism as an ideally positive market strategy.

Globally, the cruise industry is growing at a faster rate than any other segment of the travel

industry (an average of at least 7% per year (Lester and Weeden, 2004)). A study commissioned

by the ICCL shows that the total economic impact of the cruise lines, their passengers, and their

U.S. suppliers jumped from $11.6 billion in 1997 to $15.5 billion in 1999 (NOAA 2001).

According to the General Accounting Office, 9.5 million people took cruises in 1998. U.S.

residents are about 82% of passengers on cruises (Oceana 2004). The profile of the average

passenger is a 50 year old married person with a household income of approximately $80,000.

The global ship fleet numbers around 250.

Environmental, Social and Economic Impacts of Cruises and Ecotourism

The mass growth of the cruise industry is our call to attention; major cruise lines have

increasingly become the target of negative environmental campaigns. We must address the

environmental, economic, and social impacts wrought by its proliferation and realize the role of

ecotourism, which can potentially serve as both a contributor to and a beneficiary of the cruise

industry.

2

Environmental/Ecological Harm from the Cruise Industry

Cruise ships are a two-edged sword. There is no question that cruises and tourism make up

a tremendous share of some local economies. Cruise companies are quick to point out the number

of jobs and amounts of public income that are a direct result of money generated by cruises. On

the other hand, it is challenging to operate luxurious, mobile accommodations for tens of

thousands of people without having some environmental impact. The luxury promised by the

cruise lines requires large amounts of fuel, food, chemicals, and materials. Cruise ships are like

floating cities that generate mass quantities of wastewater, solid waste such as food and garbage,

and air pollution. A statistic from the BlueWater Network notes that “a typical cruise ship on a

one-week voyage generates more than 50 tons of garbage, one million gallons of graywater (waste

water from sinks, showers, galleys, and laundry facilities), 210,000 gallons of sewage, and 35,000

gallons of oil-contaminated water” (BlueWater Network, 2003(b)). Most of this waste is dumped

directly into the ocean, some treated, some not.

Luxury liners also emit a variety of pollutants into the air that contribute to acid rain and

global warming (BlueWater Network, 2003(b)). A single cruise ship produces smokestack and

exhaust emissions equivalent to 12,000 automobiles every day (Oceana, date unknown). Most

large ships use the dirtiest and least expensive diesel fuel available. This bunker oil is the

collection of residue from the production of higher grade fuels and contains significant

concentrations of toxic compounds banned from use in most other industrial and consumer

applications. In addition to acid rain and global warming due to exhaust from ships, tiny soot

particles found in diesel exhaust have been linked to lung and other types of cancer and account

for thousands of premature deaths in the U.S. each year as well as increased cases of asthma and

other respiratory ailments (American Lung Association). Cruise ships can also spread invasive

species by dumping untreated ballast water in coastal zones (Blue Water Network 2003(a)).

The rapidly expanding size and number of cruise ships in U.S. waters has triggered a

national cruise ship pollution crisis. Environmental laws have not kept pace with growth of the

industry. Cruise lines travel the most pristine waters of America, yet repeatedly violate the law by

dumping dirty water and trash into oceans and coastal waters, without regard to the serious

environmental impacts of their actions (Blue Water Network 2003(a)).

In addition to these repeated dumping and pollution violations, around the world, cruise

ship “strikes” are causing the unnecessary deaths of alarming numbers of whales. The death count

3

is predicted to rise with the expansion of global shipping, vacation cruising, and fast-ferry

systems. When combined with other human-related causes of death, ship strikes could endanger

the long-term survival of the more numerous humpback, fin, and California gray whales (Blue

Water Network, 2003(e))

The cruise industry has not only created major water pollution problems, but has also

negatively influenced land and shore resource management. The cruise industry has left some

countries with enormous amounts of waste, whether from cruise ships themselves (as occurs with

off-shore dumping violations) or as a result of increased business in coastal communities. Many

tourism locations have become overpopulated and unsustainably managed, with increased

pressures put on local communities to expand tourist destinations for the cruise industry. For

example, in the 1970s, 12 families lived on the 20km-long island of Cancun, Mexico. Today,

Cancun has more than 20,000 hotel rooms, 2.6 million visitors a year and a permanent population

of 300,000, only 30 per cent of whom have homes with treated sewage. Each day, 450 tons of

waste are dumped into Cancun’s landfill site. Studies on the Caribbean have found that up to 70

percent of beaches are eroded (Mann, 2004). Coral reefs, which are prime tourist attractions, have

been damaged by the development of resorts built to meet the increasing demand. A disease

called white pox, which often results from bacteria found in human sewage, has already damaged

some of the world’s most toured coral reefs off Key West and the Caribbean, including Jamaica,

Belize, St. Croix and the Bahamas (Oceana, 2002). Reefs are also excessively fished to meet

tourist demands and destroyed to reclaim offshore land for building. Even with ecotourism in

many countries, much of the environment has been harmed as a result of increased cruise tourism.

Not only is the environment impacted by increasing cruise tourism, but the economy and culture

of eco-tourist traps also face threats.

The Economic/Social Lure of Ecotourism and the Expanding Cruise Industry – Problems

Addressed and Problems Created

There are a number of stakeholders involved in protected area management and local

communities dealing with ecotourism. They all seek economic benefits from ecotourism whether

from sales and profits for operators, user fees, increased political support, jobs or income for local

communities. Ultimately, the question we must face is whether cruise line tourism can bring

4

sustainable development (a sustainable environment and livelihood) to coastal and island

communities, especially to countries with weak economies. How compatible is it with

ecotourism?

To begin with, it must be stressed that ecotourism addresses the economic problems that

many poorer countries face. First, it helps to diversify a country’s economy. Second, the

surrounding culture can also benefit. Ecotourism generates jobs for local people. For example,

local people can serve as tour guides to educate tourists about the natural environment and local

peoples’ cultural heritage. This motivates locals to take more of an interest in their natural

surroundings. Ecotourism also stimulates incomes and enhances peoples’ standard of living.

Money generated from ecotourism can induce the local government to make infrastructure

improvements such as better water and sewage systems, roads, electricity, telephone and public

transport networks, all of which can improve the quality of life for residents as well as facilitate

tourism. Third, ecotourism revenue helps contribute to the conservation of habitats, through the

creation of wildlife preserves and the maintenance of national parks and reserves. It is considered

a sustainable form of tourism, for both developed and developing countries.

Because cruise tourism is often expanding in areas where ecotourism is strong, is growing,

or has potential and because many of these coastal communities have little political or economic

clout, it is appropriate to consider not only the environmental impacts above, but also social and

economic impacts. Coastal and island communities and national governments are grappling with

the promise of rapid economic development via the cruise industry. The allure of cruise tourism

can be great. The Washington Post recently ran a profile of the tiny native village of Hoonah, on

an island in southeastern Alaska that is suddenly “swimming in cash” (Harden 2004). There the

newly arrived cruise industry has appeared as a savior in the wake of sharp declines in logging

jobs and salmon fishing. However, the desired economic benefits from ecotourism driven by the

cruise industry are not fully achieved and poorly documented.

It is important to note that rich countries are often better able to profit from ecotourism

than poor ones. Whereas the least developed countries have the most urgent need for income,

employment, and general rise of the standard of living by means of ecotourism, they are least able

to realize these benefits. Among the reasons for this is the large-scale transfer of ecotourism

revenues out of the host country. Significant leakages are associated, for example, with imports of

materials and equipment for construction, or imports of consumer goods, particularly food and

5

drinks. Tourists often demand standards of equipment, food, and other products that the host

country cannot supply and instead must import.

Another threat to local businesses is the “all-inclusive” vacation packages, which lessen

the opportunities for local people to profit from ecotourism. The majority of tourists also travel in

organized groups, and private businesses that organize such groups receive a large chunk of

revenue compared to the local people. The cruise industry exemplifies this problem. On many

cruise ships, especially in the Caribbean (the world’s most popular cruise location), guests are

encouraged to spend most of their time and money on board, and opportunities to spend in some

ports are closely managed and restricted. As an example, in Cancun, Mexico, for every dollar a

tourist spends, only ten cents remains in the country (Tierramerica, 2004). Money spent by tourist

goes away from local economies, and people and conservation efforts both suffer. This significant

monetary “leakage” is a problem that must be addressed. The core question is: What is the

leakage effect of revenue and costs related to cruise-driven ecotourism or to what degree can best

practice in the economic benefits gained from ecotourism be identified?

Various social considerations must be made if ecotourism is to be sustainable in the face of

a growing cruise industry. Direct and indirect costs must be accounted for. Direct impacts have

already included: cultural and social intrusion, erosion of local control, displacement of people,

and disruption of local social relationships (Northern Arizona University, 2002). Presently, in

Xcaret, Mexico, there is a battle against Puerta Cancun-Xcaret, also known as Home Port, a joint

venture between the theme park’s owners and Carnival Cruise Lines. Over three million tourists

each year visit the coast’s 220-mile Great Maya Reef (the second largest after Australia’s Great

Barrier Reef), and the shore has become encrusted with resorts all the way from Cancun to the

overrun Maya ruins at Tulum. Environmentalists, Maya rights activists, and entrepreneurs have

all waged battle against the proposed pier and terminal that would bring in additional “day-

trippers” by the thousands (Los Angeles Times, 2003). Aniseto Caamal Colon of the indigenous-

rights group Yuxcuxtal (meaning “green life” in Mayan) said, “Our entire ecology has been

‘concessionized.’” The group strongly feels that the pier project threatens the sea life, as well as

the land and their lifestyles: “The indigenous people who are supposed to benefit from

development are being left along the wayside. We can’t even go to the beaches anymore because

the only access is from private resorts” (Los Angeles Times, 2003).

6

Indirect costs may also include potential for local resentment and tourist opposition to

local culture and lifestyle. It must be made certain that the developing cruise-ecotourism market

promotes socio-cultural sustainability (i.e. community stability), and that this is one of the key

features of “ecotourism” certification. Overall, the essential challenge for land managers is to

assure that “ecotourism” certification protects the ecological and socio-cultural integrity of coastal

communities and the land and waters surrounding them.

The more general strategy of ecotourism can best be served by a more specific

environmental strategy aimed at “greening” the cruise industry: a system of eco-certification.

“Ecotourism” labeling for cruise ships is a potential strategy to be used by the ecotourism market

in states and countries that have experienced the expanse of cruise tourism in recent years. Under

this ecotourism certification strategy, numerous ecological, social, and economic problems (both

ocean-based and land-based) are to be addressed.

Government Regulation vs. Market Innovation

In response to all the above concerns, it is clear that there is a need for good, strong

legislation to prevent the problems that cruise ships pose to the environment and to the port city

societies and economies.

Fortunately, there are numerous legislative acts which are designed to protect the

environment from pollution from cruise ships. One piece of legislation, MARPOL, is a piece of

legislation regulating oil and other chemical pollution from ships. It was put out by the

International Maritime Organization in 1973, and modified in 1978. There are various applicable

federal regulations such as the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Act to Prevent Pollution

from Ships, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In addition to these, there are still

more state regulations that limit what ships can dump into the water, particularly in California.

California’s governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, recently passed legislation that prevents dumping

of gray water and sewage into the waters three miles from the coast (BlueWater Network 2003(f)).

Even more legislation was put into place that applies against the falsifying of records that occurs

on cruise ships: the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability

Act, both of 2002 (Ocean Blues Foundation Blowing the Whistle Report).

There are significant problems with the legislation, however. Much of applicable

jurisdiction is unclear for several reasons. Firstly, it was often created before business became so

7

global, and is outdated—as a result it is incapable of dealing with an industry beholden to no one

country, and that has grown so quickly only relatively recently. Also crucial in this context is that

there is no legislation regulating international waters, because they are a common property. This

means that even if cruise ships respect the legislation concerning the dumping of garbage and gray

and black water in the coastal waters, they are free to dump it, treated or not, once they have gone

three miles from the coast (or whatever the regulated distance may be in their particular region of

travel). Another problem with the current legislation is that the legislation is difficult to enforce

because cruise ships are not based in one particular country. Many cruise ships are registered in

other countries, which makes prosecution of environmental and social infractions (based on U.S.

legislation and policies) very difficult if not impossible. (BlueWater Network 2003(d)).

Additionally, since the ships cruise the open ocean, the sheer geographical scale of this industry

makes it almost impossible to regulate by physical observation in order to enforce regulations.

Ports of call have even tried using Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s), which are

not legally binding but more of an honorable agreement that a ship will abide by certain standards

while in a certain port. These agreements are often violated by the cruise ship, and companies

often claim that they “simply broke a promise but violated no laws” (Klein 2003). Right now the

cruise industry is attempting to put forward an ecological face, when they really do not officially

comply with any standards. Judging by the underhanded methods with which cruise ships deal

with current legislation, a new system is needed.

Evidently what is needed is not merely more legislation, because the legislation that exists

is not effective. What would perhaps be more effective is an eco-certification process that cruise

lines and/or cruise ships can obtain by complying with certain regulations. Once one cruise line

can display a certification label, the other cruise lines will ideally follow in those footsteps in

order to save face with their customers. And while tourists do mention the desire for an

ecologically friendly tourism experience, they do not outright demand it, but rather, passively

expect it. By making it clear and easy for tourists to choose an ecologically friendly cruise as

opposed to a non-ecologically friendly cruise, the tool for compliance with environmentally

friendly practices becomes competition rather than regulation.

8

Existing Cruise Certification Programs

Various certification programs are in existence, although they are not part of an

overarching program to certify all cruise lines. Some of the programs are discussed below.

Green Globe 21 is an example of a certification program that is up and running, although

its focus is spread over several objectives (Company; Community; International Ecotourism; and

Design & Construct). It was developed by the World Travel and Tourism Council and is a three

level certification label (“awareness”, “benchmarked” and “certified”). It has members on all

continents and 50 countries, but is not yet widespread enough to be an effective global strategy. It

is also unclear how stringent the standards for this program are, and for any certification strategy

to be meaningful, it cannot serve as a weaker alternative for industry than regulation would be.

Another example is The International Ecotourism Society (TIES), a non-profit

organization that promotes uniting conservation, communities, and sustainable travel. Recently

TIES recognized that although certification has strong detractors and supporters, it is important to

their organization’s bylaws and mission because it is a topic of real and sustained interest to the

industry (International Ecotourism Society, 2004). TIES has recently become engaged in exposing

the cruise industry’s environmental impacting practices and the need for adopting eco-certification

programs. TIES has two member cruise companies that run boutique or ‘pocket’ cruises to unique

destinations and to same destinations used by mega ships. These two companies, Canodros and

EcoVentura, are the only two companies that have their vessels certified under the SmartVoyager

program. The other TIES cruise companies members that practice responsible environmental

business practices are Lindbald Expeditions and Clipper Cruise Line.

The SmartVoyager Program (Rainforest Alliance, 2004) is a relatively small-scale,

voluntary certification program created by the Rain Forest Alliance which grants their seal of

approval to tour boat operators visiting the Galapagos Islands that meet strict standards to protect

the environment, wild life, well-being of workers and local communities. The program was

designed by scientists, conservation experts and tour operators. The program promotes green

practices in the following ways:

• Improves the quality of life for local residents.

• Reduces ecological impacts of tourism

9

• Gives tour operators a way to directly contribute to the local economy and to the

environment

• Offers travelers the chance to help people and wildlife while visiting natural treasures.

The certification program is outlined in a 45 page document. It requires strict regulations

of local laws and international laws as mandated by MARPOL and IMO, emergency plans,

treatment of workers as labor laws require, training of workers on certification motive and

requirements, storage and use of materials on and off board, maintenance of electrical equipment

on board, storage and disposal of waste must comply with respective regulations, as well as

method of promotion of certification label. The application is a four page packet with vessel and

worker information. Success of the program is catching on, in December of 2000, 5 of 20 large

vessels that tour the Galapagos Islands were evaluated and certified.

Proposed Environmental Strategy

The problem with these certification programs is that they are not big enough and do not

encompass enough of the problem to be effective. A necessity is to establish a single certification

program that is clear and somewhat difficult to earn, using rigorous standards obtained by

gathering input from stakeholders most affected by the cruise industry.

The proposition put forth by the Oceans Blue Foundation is the beginnings of just that

kind of program (Oceans Blue. 2002). As of yet, the proposal is still just that, and does not exist,

but its ideology is reasonably sound. By developing a very strong, overarching organization to

standardize and enforce eco-labeling for ecotourism, and cruise ships in particular, perhaps the

problems that legislation has not yet solved can be addressed. The Oceans Blue Foundation put

out a report entitled “’Blowing the Whistle’: The Case for Cruise Certification.” The report details

the above-mentioned problems with the cruise industry and proposes a “Voluntary third party

verification under a transparent and open stakeholder based vessel certification program.” It

suggests that the stakeholders put forth the requirements for certification, and that the certification

addresses the following environmental issues that occur on board the ship: hazardous waste, air

emissions, gray water systems, ballast water systems, black water sewage systems, bilge water

systems, garbage management procedures, preventative measures (for oil spills, etc.), and

ecological sensitivity to the location of the cruise. The social issues that are proposed to be

10

addressed under this certification system are as follows: local economic benefit for ports, the best

available technology on all ships, fair and healthful work conditions, racial discrimination

policies, and aboriginal coastal communities.

By using stakeholders to negotiate the regulations, the general policy extends beyond the

legislation issued by one country or another. Stakeholders for these issues are as follows:

ICCL

The ICCL represents the business interests of major cruise lines such as Royal Caribbean,

Carnival, Holland America, Disney Cruise Lines, and Princess Cruise Lines. “The mission of the

International Council of Cruise Lines (ICCL) is to participate in the regulatory and policy

development process and promote all measures that foster a safe, secure and healthy cruise ship

environment. Under the direction of the chief executives of its member lines, ICCL advocates

industry positions to key domestic and international regulatory organizations, policymakers and

other industry partners. The ICCL actively monitors international shipping policy and develops

recommendations to its membership on a wide variety of issues. Based in Virginia, ICCL's

members include the largest passenger cruise lines that call on hundreds of ports in the U.S. and

abroad. ICCL Associate Members represent industry suppliers and strategic business partners”

IMO

The International Maritime Organization is the United Nations' specialized agency

responsible for improving maritime safety and preventing pollution from ships. With a staff of

300 people IMO is one of the smallest of all United Nations agencies. According to the IMO

itself, it has achieved “considerable success.” The IMO’s input would be valuable in putting the

certification regulations in light of current regulations and legal obligations that cruise ships

already have.

Coast Guard

The United States Coast Guard enforces the laws on all domestic and international vessels

that operate or call on U.S. ports while in U.S. waters. It is also responsible for inspection of

marine sanitation devices.

11

Cruise Lines International Association

CLIA calls itself the official trade organization/travel agent of the cruise industry. It

mainly spends effort on training travel agents, marketing and promoting “the cruise experience”.

Around 17,000 travel agents are associated with CLIA. The CLIA should be involved in the

certification development process in order to become more knowledgeable about the marketing

possibilities for the new certification label.

Regional Stakeholder Organizations

These organizations usually serve to try to coordinate a region’s policies on cruise ships, in

order to present a unified and consistent position for a large enough destination category that the

cruise industry will take note and comply. One example of such a group is the Association of

Caribbean States. These particular stakeholders, along with environmentalists, are the most

important in voicing their input to the certification program.

Environmental NGO’s

Calling for increased standards for cruise industry practices on all subjects, these

organizations serve to disseminate information on negative impacts of cruises, support proposed

legislation, and pressure the industry to improve. These include the Blue Water Network, Oceana,

Oceans Blue Foundation, etc.

These organizations would together be capable of designing a fair and acceptable

certification program, which would ideally provide incentives for the cruise industry to “green”

itself according to the standards set forth in the certification program.

Addressing the Problems: Incentives for Certification

The purpose of designing an eco-certification program of the cruise industry as an

environmental strategy is to create a shift in the current economic, social and governmental

markets that have been tied with a high degree of degradation and minimal conservation

initiatives. We propose an eco-certification program that will promote responsible environmental

practices by the cruise industry to be implemented in their ecological tours of local ecology and

12

communities on coastal towns and inland, by holding them accountable to the impacts they cause

and commending them for positive outcomes.

Environment

The easiest concerns to address via certification are those of the environment. It would be

relatively simple to set numerical figures on emissions, on the dumping of garbage, gray and black

water, ballast water, etc. Most of these regulations would be beneficial to the cruise lines in terms

of their public image, procurement of certification, and preservation of the ecological resource

base upon which they depend.

Economy

I. Public Image

Eco-certification improves the reputation of a company in the eye of clients, government,

and the general public. There is a growing concern for accountability of industry on

environmental practices. The market has responsive potential from eco-certification programs due

to the endorsement of eco-certification programs by non-profits. By recommending or demanding

that industry sectors adopt eco-certified standards, it creates an external pressure on industry to

become environmentally aware, that if adopted, it raises the bar on eco-industrial practices, thus

causing a shift in the market towards natural capitalism.

Although there is some cruise company interest in adopting eco-certification programs, it

is a slim minority. The challenge for our eco-certification program is clearly to get the main cruise

companies that make up 90% of the industry: Carnival, Royal Caribbean Cruises, and Star

Cruises, to implement our program.

II. Unique Geographical Region

The cruise industry has significant economic effects because it is concentrated in

economically challenged areas of the world. A 2004 study by TIES observed 90% of the

worldwide cruise capacity go to six regions: 15% to the Mediterranean, 6.7% to Alaska, 6.6% to

the Mexican Riviera, 5% to Western and Northern Europe, 5% to the Asia/Pacific region, and the

most significant region to which 50% of the cruise industry goes is the Caribbean/Bahamas.

Countries in this region are considered developing countries, several of which have experienced

substantial economic growing rates because of tourism, such as the Bahamas. Sixty percent of the

13

economy in the Bahamas is from tourism due to the opportune climate which can sustain cruise

ships and tourists year around (Europa 2004). The Bahamas is one of the most affluent countries

in this region with a GDP per capita of approximately $15,000 (barely above the poverty level in

the U.S.). Most of the tourism in the Caribbean/Bahamas is attracted to the natural resources of

the region; therefore the countries’ economies are closely dependent on the well-being of the

natural ecology. Environmental degradation can cripple the economy of these countries. Our

strategy would address the problems with the economic situations by identifying specific ways

that cruises should support the local economy and ecology in port cities, and identifying

reasonable levels required for certification. For instance, perhaps in order to be certified, a cruise

line must offer at least one ecotourism option for its passenger at each port.

III. Financial Sustainability

Clean oceans are as essential to the cruise experience, as well as vibrant ecosystems to an

expedition in the jungles of Costa Rica. Leaders in the cruise industry and in ecotourism must

realize that any level of environmental degradation can have a return effect on their business.

Companies with vision want to insure the future of their business. Objectives such as cost

reduction, income growth, improved management practices and continuity of tourism can be

realized with a certification program. Under the certification program, cruise companies would be

expected to invest some money and time into better environmental practices. For example,

investing in wastewater purification systems may be a large principal cost, but in time it will

promote environmental responsibility and avoid future dumping fines. Improving fuel efficiency

also makes sense for the cruise industry. Save the initial cost of the engines, improved fuel

efficiency will reduce pollution and save money for the cruise lines. Certified cruise ships and

ecotourism companies can also be viewed favorably by banking institutions if they are taking

measures such as these. It demonstrates the business is socially and environmentally responsible

and gains a competitive edge for opportunities for credit.

IV. Possibilities

There are a number of economic incentives that could be created by an environmental

strategy. If a port of call chose to tax polluting ships for docking in their harbor, this

money could then be turned around as funding for a discount for environmentally friendly

14

cruises. A certification program could encourage taxation in the “polluter pays” mindset,

and in turn use this income for rewarding more conscientious ships. This could eventually

filter down with the result of subsidizing environmentally friendly cruises and making

them cost no more or even less than the status quo.

Social

I. Impact on Local Communities

Social impact can be measured by economic contribution, infrastructure contribution and

employment contribution to local communities. Also it is important to maintain the cultural and

environmental integrity of the local communities. The former is easier to measure since it can be

traced back to U.S. dollars. The latter is what deserves a close analysis and attention when

designing an eco-certification program. By setting standards with the objective of promoting the

native language, unique culture and celebration of the local communities as a part of the

certification program, sustainable development both social and economic can be achieved.

According to Laura Ell of ecotourism.org, there are not yet strategies initiated by the large

ship cruise companies that protect the mistreatment of workers. Also, it is common to have cruises

come close to the coasts, drop anchors and damage coral reefs. The coastal communities do not

benefit from the ship’s visits to shore since they do not always get the tourists down; leaving only

damaged coastal eco-systems (Ell, 2004).

Some communities do not have the capacity to sustain large cruise ships such as the case

in Tenakee Springs, AK, where town members had to persuade cruise operators to turn around

and stop in another port. The community members recognized that there was a problem in

planning and regulating the numbers of tourists and the capacity of their town. They handed out

leaflets to the tourist saying, “come again, but please, not in organized tours” (Tide Pool, 1999).

Recognizing communities’ needs and carrying capacity is crucial in creating sustainable and

successful tourism programs that benefit everyone.

The incentive here again lies in preserving the resource base the industry depends on.

II. Local Knowledge Is Key to Ecotourism

A strategy in creating employment for local communities while conserving natural

resources of ecotourism spots is to employ the local people as artisans to sell memorabilia, to give

15

tours, talks, and demonstrate first hand knowledge of the area while promoting the culture of the

local community. Lindbald expeditions has specialized teams of historians, geologists, botanists

and biologists on board their ships with destinations to Alaska, Costa Rica and Panama that

provide a 15 to 1 ratio guests to expedition staff (Lindbald Expeditions, 2004). Certification

programs could address the necessity to hire local experts of the ecosystem in order to support

their economy and the local naturalists at the port cities.

III. Educating the Cruise Enthusiasts

Eco-certification labels and practices on cruise ships and ecotourism businesses offer

visibility of the companies practices. Most uncertified large cruise lines promote the luxury behind

their cruises, without offering any opportunity for educating their passengers on their

environmental practices. In a survey of U.S. travelers, it was observed one third of the passengers

would consider environmental responsible practices by the tourism companies in selecting

vacation options (Wight 1994). Eco-certification would offer a transparent image of the business

therefore building trust with its clients and other business sectors.

Government

I. Need for Transoceanic Regulations

As mentioned earlier in this report, there are few regulations on cruise waste disposal into

the ocean due to non-existing transoceanic regulations. It is unknown when an international

organization will prohibit any ocean dumping, so it is important to implement better

environmental stewardship by the cruise industry now. Governments have the incentive to

support a certification program to supplement their own regulation, in this way simply an act of

defense of the country’s resources. The certification program we propose will cross international

borders that have not yet been efficiently crossed by legislation alone.

II. Mandatory Certification?

Eco-certification is a voluntary process that is not used as a safety, or regulatory program.

Instead it is implemented by a third party with extensive research on all possible environmental

effects and solution strategies. Companies are then encouraged to participate. Certification cannot

be made obligatory because no certification-requiring government body exists which is adopted

16

by law. The public sector may not view ecotourism or the cruise industry as a critical problem,

however it is only in due time that companies will become more responsible for fear of losing

their ability to perform, due to their dependency on the well-being of natural resources; or before

the government does intervene more strictly. Meanwhile national governments can set policies on

ships that land on their shores, and public awareness can create more pressure on government to

put incentives and regulations in the right places, while encouraging the cruise industry and

ecotourism companies to adopt better environmental practices.

Incentives that don’t already exist can be created through strategies such as tax shifting,

creative use of subsidies, systems thinking, and looking to other successful (or more successful)

similar initiatives.

Conclusion

There are several potential problems specific to establishing a cruise eco-certification

standard.

There is certainly competition for business among ports of call in various regions. It is

important that certification not pit them against one another, or become a disadvantage to

the port which wants to be protective of its environment, culture and economy. Any

market strategy must seek to align or harmonize the objectives of its various stakeholders,

and the cruise industry has to this point demonstrated that it is in no respect a team player.

The successful strategy will either effect change or demonstrate to the industry that it is in

everyone’s best interest to enforce standards of practice.

To be powerful or effective, a certification must also be recognizable, trusted, and

meaningful. In fields such as the timber industry, we have seen that perhaps the public

may not have to know about a certification for that certification to still be expected by

most companies or their customers. However, with cruise tourists, there is some evidence

that their confessed willingness to pay more to comply with certain standards can be used

as a marketing focus. In this case, these ideas of trust and efficacy must be part of the

image the public sees and buys into. This is a function of marketing or advertising which

may need to be aggressively pursued by the certification company.

17

This trust, which is crucial to perceived legitimacy of the certification, may be hard to

earn, as a market strategy like this can be subject to bribery or corruption (evidenced by

coffee certification examples). The certification company must carefully consider who it

is involving and attaching its name to, how many ‘middle-men’ may become involved, and

how vulnerable its label is to fraud.

Also, the market may not yet be ready for eco-certified cruises. When a local travel agent

was asked about such a thing, she remarked that most people with environmental priorities

generally don’t choose 4,000 passenger cruises for their vacations. The certification

company must be aware of the consumer demographic it is most likely going to reach

(most cruisers are middle aged married people with an annual income of ~80,000 (Lester

and Weeden 2004)). Perhaps these people would be receptive to this kind of marketing,

but if not, the cruise industry must be motivated to participate independent of passenger

enthusiasm. One thing the certification company does have working in its favor is a

majority of passengers stating a willingness to pay more for a more ‘ethical’ vacation.

Perhaps the biggest problem faced by any attempt to fix an environmental problem is the

lack of awareness about the existence, magnitude and relevance of the issue. Some cruise

passengers do observe trash being thrown overboard, or trails of oil out the back of a ship,

and are outraged, but in a vacation setting most people may not be focused on the waste

and pollution generated in the name of such luxury. The majority of cruise passengers are

U.S. citizens, who unfortunately have a reputation for being more ignorant and apathetic

regarding environmental problems than the rest of the world.

Just as importantly, the eco-tourism/cruise sector has several factors that could be an asset in

the creation of a certification program:

The worldwide fleet is ~250 vessels. This is certainly a manageable number to certify

globally. If the coffee industry can make a respectable inroad here, with its thousands of

18

growers, a number such as 250, which are owned by fewer than 10 large companies, could

be a fairly concrete target.

The demographic that supports the cruise industry is generally wealthy, perhaps well

educated. This is a group with financial freedom for many choices, including the ability to

pay more (if that is even necessary) for an environmentally and socially friendly cruise. It

may simply be a matter of bringing the issue more into the public eye in order for the

wealthy to start making these choices, but the important point is that it is a choice.

The global climate is one of increasing corporate accountability and the reduced role of the

nation-state. Outcry against the cruise industry could potentially grow very loud, such as

in the case of old-growth timber logging, or rainforest clear cutting. Most companies

today will at least make some effort to change public perception of harmful practices.

Additionally, the reduced emphasis on individual countries as a result of globalization

means that a global consciousness must evolve. This is just the right setting for an

industry that cannot be efficiently regulated by many different countries with individual

laws.

The cruise ship industry is well defined and not fragmented. There are very clear targets

here- ICCL, CLIA- these associations provide a focused ear into which NGO’s,

governments, and citizens can yell.

There are some regional alliances already in place to present a more unified front to stand

up to the cruise industry. Because these companies have the choice to simply take their

business elsewhere if they don’t want to deal with environmental regulations, it is essential

that regional alliances arise to eliminate the possibilities of “elsewheres”. The main

obstacle here is that initial ‘cost barrier’, a sort of all or nothing paradigm. The majority of

cruise destinations hopefully can realize this is in their best long-term interest, and that

cooperation among them can give them the freedom to insist that the cruise industry’s

objectives are in line with their own.

There are some certification programs already established. They are not as widespread or

established as they must eventually become, but this demonstrates that the necessity of a

change has been recognized, and that certification may be an answer.

19

The case presented here is that the current dynamics of the eco-tourism cruise industry are

unacceptable in terms of environmental, social and economic standards. Thus far, legislation has

proven unsuccessful in a global arena so hard to regulate- the nation-state has little authority here.

Market based schemes, such as a certification program, offer new options for the way the industry

operates. Challenges include getting global support and participation and establishing one

certification that is recognizable, meaningful and comprehensive. The call for a market solution

has been issued, and there have been some responses. Certification has had mixed success in

other industries, and there are no concrete answers to whether or not it will work for the cruise

industry.

20

Literature Cited

Acosta, Dalia. 2002. “Promises and Challenges of Ecotourism,” Tierramerica, Medio Ambiente y Desarrollo, http://www.tierramerica.net/2002/0519/iarticulo.shtml. BlueWater Network 2003(a). “Ballast Water and Cruise Ships,” http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/reports/rep_ss_cruise_ballastfacts. BlueWater Network 2003(b).“Cruise Ships: Cruising for Trouble in our Ocean and Ports,” http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/campaign_ss_cruises.shtml. BlueWater Network 2003(c) “Ship Emissions: Air Pollution Across the Oceans,” http://bluewaternetwork.org/campaign_ss_ships.shtml. BlueWater Network 2003(d) “Cruise Industry Environmental Record,” http://bluewaternetwork.org/campaign_ss_cruisesfact.shtml. BlueWater Network 2003(e) “Whale Strikes: An Emerging Crisis,” http://www.bluewaternetwork.org/campaign_ss_whales.shtml. BlueWater Network 2003(f) Press release: “Cruise ship dumping and trash burning banned in California” http://bluewaternetwork.org/press_releases/pr2004sep24_cv_dumpingbills.pdf Ell, Laura. Ecotourism.org, email interview. Europa Gateway to the European Union. Country Overview – Bahamas. Online source: http://europa.eu.int/comm/development/body/country/country_home_en.cfm?cid=bs&lng=en&status=new

General Accounting Office. 2000. “Marine Pollution; Progress Made to Reduce Marnie Pollution by Cruise Ships, but Important Issues Remain”. United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requesters. GreenGlobe21. 2004. “Green Globe Essentials” http://www.greenglobe21.com/Documents/General/GG%20Essentials%2030%20June%202004.pdf accessed 23 October 2004. Harden, Blaine, “Tourists Buoy Economy of Tiny Alaskan Village,” Washington Post, 7 August 2004, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46655-2004Aug6.html. International Council of Cruise Lines.2004. “What is the International Council of Cruise Lines” www.iccl.org. Accessed 5 October 2004. The International Ecotourism Society. Eco Currents. First Quarter 2004. pg 1. Online source: http://www.ecotoursim.org/pdf/newsletters/Q1_2004.pdf

21

Klein, Ross. 2003. “The Cruise Industry and Environmental History and Practice: Is a Memorandum of Understanding Effective for Protecting the Environment?” www.bluewaternetwork.org. Accessed 21 October 2004. Lester, Jo-Anne and Clare Weeden. 2004. Stakeholders, the Natural Environment and the Futureof Caribbean Cruise Tourism. International Journal of Tourism Research 6, pp.39-50. Lindbald Expeditions. 2004. “Americas, Ancient Views of the New World”. Travel Brochure. Mann, Mark. 2004. “Coastline and Cruises,” People and EcoTourism, http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1115. NOAA. “Cruise Ships: Testing the Waters in Alaska,” Coastal Services. July-August 2001, http://www.csc.noaa.gov/magazine/2001/04/alaska.html. .Oceana. 2003. “Cruise Line Industry and Cruisers Fact Sheet” http://environment.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stopcruisepollution.com%2F . Accessed 20 October 2004. Oceana. Date unknown. “Protect Our Oceans: Stop Cruise Ship Pollution,” http://northamerica.oceana.org/uploads/!ProtectOurOceans-StopPollution.pdfwww.imo.org OceansBlue. 2002. “Cruise Ship Stewardship Initiative” http://www.oceansblue.org/bluetourism/chartacourse/cruiseship.html. Accessed 10 October, 2004. Rainforest Alliance website. Sustainable tourism, SmartVoyage Certification. Online source: http://www.rainforest-alliance.org/programs/tourism/smartvoyager/ Tide Pool website. 1999. Article “Come Again, But Leave Your Tour At Home.” Online source: http://www.tidepool.org/dispatches/tenakee.cfm Wall, Roland. 2002. Academy of Natural Sciences “Environmental Protection on the High Seas,” http://www.acnatsci.org/education/kye/hi/kye52002.html. Wight P. (1994), Environmentally Responsible Marketing of Tourism pp 39-56 in Cater, E. and Lowman, G. (Eds), Ecotourism: A Sustainable Option? Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Williams, C. J., “An Ugly Fight at Pretty Site,” Los Angeles Times, January 2003, http://ceakumal.org/bcruise_project_hits_barrier_in_sunny_mexicob.html#.

22