|
|
|
Another Summer Of
False Protection by Jim Curtis (1999) (PLEASE NOTE: Since the
writing of this article in 1999, the Victorian Department of Sustainability
and Environment has introduced limits on the number of dolphin swim tour
licenses, as well as other amendments that have contributed to the
development of one of the most advanced systems of dolphin tourism regulation
in Australia) Few people would dispute
the claim that dolphins are the world's most popular, symbolic and
recognisable creatures. Their universal appeal is hard to ignore given that
they have become attractive marketing tools to sell a range of consumer
products, advertisements for 'new age' and alternative lifestyles, emblems of
environmental protection and fashionable images for decorating school
classrooms, household bedrooms and company walls. It would therefore be easy
to assume that we as a society would do everything in our power to ensure the
protection of these majestic mammals because of our numerous dolphin
'fetishes'. But sadly, this is not the case, and there are countless examples
throughout the world illustrating our poor attitude towards dolphin protection.
One of these examples is provided by Victoria's own dolphin-based tourism
industry in Port Phillip Bay. In January 1996, The Age printed an article entitled
'Harassment will force dolphins from Bay: Experts'. A similar article, 'Call
for tough line on dolphin distress', appeared about twelve months later. Such
features have almost become annual events within Melbourne's print media
during recent summers. But instead of being familiar 'fluff' pieces which
readers have invariably become accustomed to in relation to the topic of
dolphins, these articles described how the Bay's resident population of
bottlenose dolphins is subject to appalling instances of harassment, and
highlighted the obvious lack of proper regulation and enforcement. These
problems have plagued the dolphin-based tourism industry in Port Phillip Bay
for many years and are likely to continue unless significant changes are made
to the regulatory process. Some of the local tour operators have been actively
involved in trying to get the Victorian
State Government to implement these changes in recognition that their
future livelihood depends on the dolphins' long-term protection. But they
have so far had limited success, and this begs the question why the
government is so reluctant to provide appropriate and responsible protection
for the Bay's dolphin population. In October 1998, the Department of Natural Resources and Environment
released a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) in relation to the proposed, and
recently declared, Wildlife (Whales) Regulations 1998. The purpose of the
document was to outline the objectives and impacts of the regulations, and
invite the public to comment on them. Given that one of the objectives is to
'provide for the long-term protection of whales and dolphins', the RIS claims
that the 'benefit of the proposed regulations to the community is an
ecologically sustainable industry that does not affect the overall well-being
of the Port Phillip Bay dolphins'. But there is one essential ingredient
missing from the regulations that will prevent this claim from coming to
fruition. It relates to the fact that there is no limit on the number of
people who can run dolphin tours. Operators can choose to either purchase a
permit, which allows them to approach dolphins within a distance of 50 metres
but are subject to additional conditions such as no more than 50 swimmers per
day, or they can conduct their tours without a permit provided they do not
approach dolphins any closer than 150 metres. Whether an operator owns a
permit or not, the fact remains that there is no limit on either scenario. In
the absence of such restrictions, how can an environmentally dependent
tourism industry be described as 'ecologically sustainable' when we have no
knowledge of the tolerance levels of dolphins to withstand the impacts of
human activities? Ecological sustainability
embraces notions such as integrating economic and environmental goals,
biodiversity conservation and intergenerational equity. Although it is
undoubtedly a desirable, but often obscure, aspiration for the future, the
concept of 'sustainability' has been criticised for being used as an argument
to encourage rather than to limit growth. Such a criticism could justifiably
be directed at the RIS. The idea of a limitless but sustainable environmental
tourism industry is a dangerous contradiction that could have disastrous
environmental repercussions. The RIS also fails to supply any evidence of the
so-called 'ecological carrying capacity' of the Bay's dolphin population to
suggest that they can tolerate an increase in the number of operators and
remain a sustainable resource. Although this sort of evidence is unlikely to
ever be produced, it does not excuse describing a poorly managed industry
that relies on a fragile natural resource as sustainable. The RIS seems to
naively believe that market forces can provide appropriate protection for the
dolphins. But the ultimate cost of this belief is the sacrifice of any
genuine intention of achieving sustainability. Although today's society is
undoubtedly committed to competition as a means of aspiring to higher levels
of economic growth, the quest to be competitive has all too often led to
instances of irreversible environmental deterioration. Humans have no right
to consider their own short-term economic aspirations as being more important
to the long-term survival of an entire species or ecosystem. Over the past ten years,
one of the most popular catchphrases within the environmental movement has
undoubtedly been ecological sustainability. However, its application to the
dolphin-based tourism industry in Port Phillip Bay illustrates that it has
gradually become more of a hindrance to the success of environmental
protection campaigns. This is because idealistic reassurances of
sustainability have tended to be used by governments as an alternative to
more immediate and practical measures of protection. But given that we know relatively
little about marine mammals and their levels of susceptibility to the impacts
of human activities, it is essential that regulations are designed in a way
so that they anticipate the potential repercussions of these impacts rather
than creating a false sense of environmental security and knowledge. This is
why the 'precautionary principle' has become an important tool in the area of
resource management. It has taken over its predecessor's mantle as one of the
most popular catchphrases within the environmental movement, and stipulates
that if human activities pose a serious or irreversible threat of
environmental damage, then a lack of conclusive evidence should not be used
as an excuse to delay the implementation of appropriate preventative measures.
The underlying foundations of the precautionary principle are therefore based
more on the use of simple common sense. Although inadequate proof has often
been used in the past to defend decisions not to embrace such measures, the
precautionary principle turns this scenario around by focussing on the lack
of evidence to argue and justify the need for preventative management
regimes. For once, it is a case of giving the environment the benefit of the
doubt by acknowledging the unknown risks and repercussions associated with
the impacts of human activities. Although the Victorian government is obliged to protect the Bay's dolphin population, it seems to be more concerned with protecting the potential economic rewards that may emerge from expanding the industry. The dolphins are therefore likely to become a hapless victim as part of the government's pursuit of the mass tourism dollar. Exploiting the dolphin's universal and valuable marketing appeal is obviously more important than providing them with appropriate protection. The use of a term such as 'sustainability' to describe the regulation of the dolphin-based tourism industry is therefore merely a distraction to help create a false image of environmental responsibility. But if the current short-sighted attitudes continue, the next headline to appear may well be 'Dolphins gone forever', and this will simultaneously be an economic and environmental disaster for the government, the industry and the community. It is an issue that requires the government to be precautious instead of presumptuous of the dolphin's continuing existence in Port Phillip Bay. |
|
|
