A new invasive species

There will soon be a new invasive species arriving on Rarotonga’s shores. Expected in high numbers come July, this new species is commonly known as the Australian tourist. Their arrival, coupled with visitors already expected from elsewhere, could prove disastrous without proper environmental planning.
Rarotonga already has a dirty face – litter-strewn beaches, broken bottles and piles of burning rubbish are an all-too-common sight. With reports showing sewage seeping into the very lagoons the island trumpets as its main tourist attraction, something needs to be done to ensure that both an environmental and economical disaster is averted.
With great numbers of tourists comes a great amount of sewage, waste and power consumption, as well as water usage. Yes, these visitors do add to the island’s coffers, but how much of that is offset by the environmental damage those increasing numbers will cause?
In environmental science, a commonly utilised concept is that of ‘carrying capacity’; that is, the capacity of an ecosystem to support a given species determined by such environmental factors as the availability of foodstuffs, water resources and so forth. When we talk about human carrying capacity, other factors, including sewage facilities and availability of medical aid, are often included. If we were to examine Rarotonga’s carrying capacity, would it be capable of coping with a dramatic rise in tourist numbers?
As more tourists arrive, more sewage will be produced. Will the island’s rapidly-filling septic tanks and treatment ponds be able to cope?
Power use will skyrocket, causing an increase in capacity at the power station, which will, in turn, vastly increase the pollution emitted. If smaller diesel generators are used, this will only amplify the problem. Will Te Aponga Uira pay for this increased pollution release?
With much of Rarotonga’s supplies being imported, it’s obvious the island’s capacity for food production has already been surpassed under the contemporary system of agriculture. Shipping delays are common and, with more mouths to feed on the island, food shortages could occur. Importation via air freight will only increase the already high costs of foodstuffs for locals and visitors alike. Will the supermarkets lower their profit margins to keep goods affordable?
The potential rise in foodstuff consumption means the sheer volume of refuse will also increase. With the Rarotonga Waste Facility already predicted to be full before its due date, the disposal of refuse will be a major issue. Simply burning it does not solve the problem. Burning refuse releases toxins into the air and soil, and could have potentially devastating effects on our health in the long term.
Imagine the traffic if tourist numbers doubled? With public transport limited and expensive, visitors will continue to rent cars and scooters. Emissions from these vehicles are forced onto the road surface by their exhaust pipes. The toxic byproducts of petrol and diesel combustion coat the road surface and wash away into the lagoons and gardens when the rain comes, further polluting the region. Will the car rental companies pay for this?
The intention of this article is to point out that, on a small island, the ecological tipping point is more easily reached. If the Cook Islands already experiences water shortages, sewage disposal problems, expensive fuel costs and high-priced foodstuffs, won’t these situations only worsen as the number of people visiting the island increases?
The keyword here is sustainable tourism, and the solution is a long-term/slow-growth of the industry with services built up at the same time. For example, reservoirs constructed to capture more water, new septic systems installed to treat sewage, and environmentally-friendly power supplies. Solar energy, for example, and perhaps large offshore wind farms to provide power and less reliance on imported fuel.
These schemes combined would enhance the lives of every Cook Islander, meet the needs of added tourism and slow the damage being inflicted on the country.
Perhaps a shift of focus to the temporal tourism offered by cruise ships rather than the infrastructure and consumption of intensive land-based tourism would have beneficial effects. Tourist money would still come into the economy but without some of the negative environmental penalties.
In a recent interview, Nick Henry, ship’s agent for the cruise ship Paul Gauguin, stated, “cruise boat tourism is perfect for us because the infrastructure that is required here is very little. We don’t need to build more resorts. They put very little pressure on our roads or our sewage systems or our water demands. There’s a floating hotel out there – they bring everybody ashore for the day and so our tour operators do extremely well”.
Henry’s comments demonstrate a growing awareness of the necessity for changing the face of tourism on Rarotonga to a less ecologically-demanding practice.
Current visitors to the island can minimise their impact by bearing in mind the limited supplies available. Practices such as switching off unnecessary lights and electrical appliances, making short journeys on foot, and using public transport as much as possible would all prove beneficial. Residents can follow the same guidelines, perhaps remembering they are the ones who have to actually live with the consequences of increased pollution long after the visitors have gone home.
Perhaps most importantly, a way to pay for the environmental damage needs to be found. This is not only the responsibility of the tourist, but also the tour operators, hotels, government and residents. Perhaps a system of levying taxes on the busiest hotels, say a few dollars a day per tourist, a cost that shouldn’t be passed on to visitors but given as a bond to show the hotels’ commitment to the betterment of island life. Perhaps a fee on car rental prices could go directly to the National Environment Service.
Call these environmental taxes if you will, but if someone doesn’t start paying for these necessary repairs to infrastructure and cleanup operations then the island’s attractions of white sandy beaches and clear lagoon waters won’t hold true anymore. It’s a sobering thought, but it’s a cold hard fact that no one will travel thousands of miles to visit polluted beaches.

Herald Issue 463 10 June
- World famous activist assisting residents
- Budget will decide if residents prosecute Government over landfill
- Forestry project sucking Mangaia dry
- Budget 2010 – fiasco or disaster?