Chapter 4

Cruise Tourism

Overview—Cruise Ship Holidays and Climate Change: The Lure of Playgrounds at Sea

Martha Honey

Today, the Caribbean is “the dominant cruise destination, accounting for more than a third (35.5 percent) of global deployment capacity market share,”¹ according to the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association (FCCA). Cruises represent a key pillar of the Caribbean tourism industry, competing toe-to-toe for travelers with sun-and-sand resorts. Indeed, cruise ship vacations are the fastest growing sector of the leisure travel industry,² with ship size and numbers, passengers, ports, and profits all on the rise. The number of cruise passengers globally jumped nearly 50-fold in the past five decades—from 500,000 in 1970 to 1.5 million in 1980, 4 million in 1990, and 24 million in 2016.³

As with other sectors of the tourism industry, cruise ships and their activities (both at sea and on land) contribute to climate change, and have become increasingly vulnerable to its impacts. In terms of the industry’s contribution to climate change, a study by the Swedish Environmental Research Institute found “that shipping [both cargo and cruise] is one of the fastest growing sectors in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions” and that “GHG emissions from ships in the port are projected to increase by 40 percent to 2030 in a business as usual (BAU) scenario.”⁴ At the same time, the cruise industry is also being forced to cope with damage and disruptions linked to climate change. According to an analysis by researchers at the Caribbean Maritime Institute in Jamaica, “Over the last 35 years, the intensity of hurricanes in the Caribbean has been increasing. In the last 15 years, extreme events resulting from climate change have produced widespread damage to infrastructure, housing, and hotel and recreational facilities, including the shoreline for accommodating cruise activities.”⁵ Increasingly, cruise ships are also forced to delay or cancel departures or divert course and alter itineraries to avoid extreme weather events. Despite the cruise sector’s enormous investment in ships and supporting infrastructure, it is somewhat surprising that, at least until recently, efforts by the cruise lines to either reduce their own carbon footprint or to find ways to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change have been relatively modest and piecemeal. Large cruise lines have “lagged behind hotels and airlines when it comes to sustainable travel,” Randy Durband, CEO of the Global Sustainable Tourism Council, told The New York Times in January 2017.⁶

History and Growth of Caribbean Cruise Tourism

In the mind of most Americans, international cruise tourism most probably dates from the Titanic’s star-crossed 1912 transatlantic voyage. However, the creation story of the modern cruise industry, writes Elizabeth Becker in Overbooked: The Exploding Business of Travel and Tourism, really dates from 1966. That is the year that Ted Arison, the son of a multimillionaire shipping magnate, emigrated from Israel to Miami and founded what became Carnival Cruise Lines. Southern Florida was, as Becker details in her popular examination of the tourism industry, “the petri dish for developing mass tourism,”⁷ and Miami’s retirees and snowbirds from the north flocked on board the first cruise ships heading for sun-and-fun Caribbean holidays. Today, in addition to the Caribbean (including Central America and Mexico), the other leading cruise destinations are the Mediterranean, Alaska, Western and Northern Europe, and the Pacific/Asia.

The cruise industry continues to grow in the number and size of cruise ships. By 2016, there were 448 cruise ships operating globally, with another 26 ocean, river, and specialty ships scheduled to be launched in 2017.⁸ According to Cruise Critic, when it comes to cruise ships, “This is the year for superlatives—the biggest, the most luxurious, the most technologically advanced.”⁹ Indeed, ship size increased from an average of 500–800 passengers in the 1970s to today’s newest ships, dubbed “floating cities,” which accommodate from 3,000 to 6,780 guests, with crews of 2,000 or more.¹⁰ In addition to ships, the cruise industry owns, leases, or uses an array of onshore infrastructure, including cruise terminals and port facilities; cruise villages or shopping complexes; sightseeing buses, and occasionally, boats and trains; and a growing number of small private islands and enclaves across the Caribbean, including ones in The Bahamas, Haiti, Belize, and the Dominican Republic.

Cruise tourism is dominated by three mega-lines—Carnival Corporation, Royal Caribbean Cruises Limited, and Star Cruises (often referred to as Norwegian Cruise Line)—making it the most consolidated sector of the tourism industry. Together, these three corporate conglomerates control 90 percent of the U.S. market.¹¹ The largest is Carnival, with more than 100 ships, nine distinct cruise lines, and revenues in 2011 of $15.8 billion;¹² it accounts for over 50 percent of the North American market. Next is Royal Caribbean (RCL), with five distinct lines plus TUI Cruises (a joint venture with the large German tour operator, TUI), making up 25 percent of the North American market. The third, Star Cruises, includes Norwegian Cruise Lines (NCL), which it acquired in 2000, and several subsidiary lines, with eight distinct classes of ships and accounting for some 14 percent of the North American market. Beyond the “Big Three,” the rest of the market is made up of independent cruise lines, niche operators, pocket cruise ships (usually under 200 passengers), and river cruises. The cruise sector overall is segmented into four main classes—luxury, premium, contemporary, and budget—with the mass-market premium and contemporary categories accounting for 70 percent of passenger capacity between 2006 and 2010.¹³

The growth of the Caribbean cruise tourism industry has both mirrored worldwide trends and been subject to its own economic, geographic, and political forces. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, cruise lines pulled some ships out of the Mediterranean and redeployed them in the Caribbean, capitalizing on the region’s image as a safe, terror-free travel destination. Responding to the public’s post-9/11 fear of flying, cruise lines opened new ports along U.S. coastlines, including Baltimore, New York, Houston, Galveston, New Orleans, Bar Harbor (Maine), San Francisco, and Charleston (South Carolina). As one cruise executive who worked on establishing these new home ports explained in an interview, “After 9/11 we realized there [was] an opportunity. We [could] move our ships to home ports located near large population centers. This is an advantage of having a moveable asset (a ship). So, the industry moved ships to some 30 new North American home ports. This meant that passengers no longer had to fly to South Florida, the hub of the industry. They could instead drive to a home port closer to home.”¹⁴ In addition to establishing new home ports, cruise lines offered discounts to attract a wider clientele, and expanded the ports of call in Mexico and the Caribbean.

To protect its economic position and public image, the cruise sector has become increasingly consolidated in its public relations and advocacy (lobbying) associations. The Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) was founded in Washington, D.C. in 1975 by the major cruise lines to serve as “a unified voice and leading authority of the global cruise community.”¹⁵ For decades, CLIA worked closely with its 15,000 travel agents to promote cruises as less expensive and more glamorous alternatives to land-based Caribbean hotels. A major regional trade organization, the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association (FCCA), was founded in 1972 and is composed of lines operating in the waters surrounding Florida, the Caribbean, and Latin America. According to its website, “The FCCA works with governments, ports and all private/public sector representatives to maximize cruise passenger, cruise line, and cruise line employee spending, as well as enhance the destination experience and the amount of cruise passengers returning as stay-over visitors.”¹⁶ Its widely-cited research and publications are designed, the association says, “to create a better understanding of cruise passengers; improve the landside product delivery; and maximize cruise tourism’s benefits.”¹⁷

The Cruise Industry’s Economic Model

Cruise tourism is the most profitable sector of the tourism industry, generating US$40 billion in revenue annually.¹⁸ Carnival Cruise Lines and other mega-lines sell vacation packages using a highly competitive business strategy that depends on the U.S. market, but avoids many U.S. laws and regulations through legal loopholes in maritime law. To appeal to the mass market, the cruise sector “developed a business model reflecting the mobility of its assets: the cruise industry sells itineraries, not destinations, implying a greater flexibility in the selection of ports of call and adaptability to changing market conditions.”¹⁹ In addition, it adjusts its prices to keep occupancy close to full. In 2013, after a string of accidents at sea sent consumer confidence tumbling, Carnival’s chief executive officer explained how the cruise line could afford to drastically slash fares: “It’s not what the passengers pay to book their cruise that counts,” CEO Arnold Donald told CBS News, “It’s what they spend once they’re on board that moves the bottom line.”²⁰

The sector’s economic success is made possible, in part, by a legal loophole—the flag of convenience, which has become a centerpiece of its business model. Although cruise ships are floating hotels, they have successfully exploited this maritime practice, originally intended for commercial cargo ships.²¹ Carnival, Royal Caribbean, and Norwegian Cruise Lines, while headquartered in Florida and carrying mainly American passengers, have registered their ships in Liberia, Panama, Bermuda, and increasingly, The Bahamas. According to Caitlin Burke, “Cruise lines have been circumventing U.S. statutes and regulations since as early as the 1920s.”²² In practice this means, writes Elizabeth Becker, that the major cruise lines “essentially have no minimum wages, labor standards, corporate taxes or environmental regulations and [the countries registering the ships have] only a flimsy authority over the ships flying their flags. All these countries require is that ship lines pay a handsome registration fee.”²³

As a longtime cruise industry executive put it, “There are very few U.S.-flagged cruise ships for several reasons, mostly related to finances.”²⁴ To be classified as a U.S.-flagged ship, according to this executive, there are several criteria: the ship must be built in a U.S. shipyard, owned by a U.S. company, registered in the United States, and staffed by a U.S. crew paid according to U.S. minimum wage laws. Only one major cruise ship, NCL’s Pride of America, was built in the United States (in 2005) and is registered there; it is currently being used in Hawaii.²⁵

A 2012 Lynchburg (Virginia) College Business School case study looked at the advantages that Carnival Cruise and RCL get from both foreign flags and U.S. maritime laws. The report stated:

Both trade on the New York Stock Exchange and pay millions in stock incentives to American executives and they reported combined profits of more than $2 billion in their most recent annual reports to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. However, Carnival and Royal Caribbean take advantage of maritime laws to avoid paying U.S. taxes, gain immunity from American labor laws, avoid U.S. courts in workplace disputes, and fend off new environmental regulations. . . . This gives tiny tropical countries regulatory power over one of Florida’s major industries. At stake are hundreds of millions of dollars in cruise ship revenues. Both companies caution investors that their tax privileges are key to future profit growth.²⁶

The flag of convenience loophole has allowed the cruise industry to circumvent U.S. labor laws and policies. Because cruise lines are not subject to local hiring laws, ships can hire from wherever they choose, and therefore have one of the most globalized labor markets in the world. Even though over one-third of cruise ships operate in the Caribbean, “only a smattering of staff is from around the Caribbean basin,” explained one cruise industry official.²⁷ Enduring confined quarters and constant exposure to passengers, crew members are required to work an average of 80 hours a week and are expected to provide a higher level of service than is typical within most land-based hotels.²⁸ While cruise ship officers, entertainers, and retail workers may receive wages comparable to those paid for equivalent jobs in the United States, the bulk of the staff earn far below average U.S. salaries. Cleaning staff and engine room crew earn as little as US$400 a month, while waiters typically receive US$50 a month in salary and are expected to earn the bulk of their income from tips, which can be up to US$1,500 a month.²⁹

The International Transport Workers Federation (ITF) works on behalf of seafarers to set global standards for employment conditions, recruitment, and training and safety at sea; they also track cruise labor policies and practices. According to the ITF, some 200,000 people work on cruise ships around the world. “Many are drawn to the industry, as it is a way to visit distant places, meet new people, and earn money at the same time. But the job isn’t always as glamorous as it sounds,” writes ITF Seafarers.³⁰ “Below decks on virtually all cruise ships,” states the ITF, “there is a hidden world of long hours, low pay, insecurity, and exploitation. Those who work continuously below deck, like in the galleys (ship kitchens), rarely see the light of day, let alone the shimmering sea of the Caribbean.”³¹

Cruise line profits have also been facilitated by a growing emphasis on onboard entertainment, shopping, and spending. While the image is that cruise vacations are both reasonably priced and paid for in advance, the reality is that onboard passenger spending is enormous.³² According to the FCCL’s 2010 study, cruisers spend an average of US$1,770 per person per week for their cruise, including on-ship and onshore expenditures, while non-cruise vacationers spend an average of US$1,220 per week.³³ The United Nations’ World Tourism Organization (UNWTO) finds, “On-board spending is an increasingly important part of cruise line income, ranging between 25 percent and 35 percent of total income,” with gambling and beverages accounting for half the total.³⁴

Costs and Benefits of Cruise Tourism for Caribbean Destinations

The UNWTO finds that cruises operating in the Caribbean “are often considered as destinations in themselves,” with ports of call being “merely added attractions.” This creates, according to the UNWTO, “a significant rivalry between cruise ships and their shore side destinations.”³⁵ This is compounded as coastal cities and island states compete with one another to attract cruise tourism, and cruise line negotiators have become adept at playing off one destination against another. While the terms vary from port to port, in most cases in the United States and Caribbean, port authorities finance infrastructure and facilities, including dredging harbors and building the docks and terminals needed to attract and maintain cruise lines.³⁶ In recent years, cruise corporations have also gotten into the business of port facility construction and ownership, sometimes with local governments or other partners. Examples include Carnival’s terminals at Turks and Caicos,³⁷ Amber Cove in the Dominican Republic,³⁸ and plans for a $70 million facility on Tortuga Island, Haiti.³⁹ According to Canadian cruise expert Ross Klein, “The positive is that cruise ships and their passengers have modern facilities, however, the negative is that the economic impact on the local economy is further reduced as income from these terminals go[es] to offshore, foreign-registered corporations.”⁴⁰

Operating cruise ports can potentially gain from cruise tourism in five different ways: 1) cruise passenger and crew spending; 2) cruise line employment for onshore offices, marketing, and tour operations; 3) purchases of goods and services; 4) port services, taxes, and fees; and 5) cruise ship maintenance.⁴¹ Lured by the combination of direct, indirect, and induced economic benefits, many coastal and island governments and communities seek to attract cruise tourism as a way of quickly increasing visitor numbers and stimulating economic development. As a report by the World Monuments Fund explains, “Viewed in isolation, cruise ship tourism [has] had demonstrable economic benefits that make plain why policy makers turn to cruise ship tourism as a source of economic development.”⁴²

In addition, home ports where cruise ships start and end voyages are considered to provide more economic gains for the destination. Compared with ports of call, home ports have the potential to generate additional revenue because ships may purchase provisions locally and passengers may spend extra days in this port. According to a Canadian study, “Economic output impacts per cruise ship visit are about eight times larger at home ports, like Vancouver or Seattle, than at ports of call, like Victoria, because ship provisioning, refueling, and hotel stays occur at home ports but not at ports of call.”⁴³ Home or drive to ports, which expanded dramatically in the United States after 9/11, are relatively rare in the Caribbean. The Bahamas, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico are among the few Caribbean destinations with home ports as well as ports of call. In late 2015, Havana, Cuba, the Caribbean’s newest cruise destination, became a home port for MSC Cruises, a family-owned Italian company with a fleet of 15 mid-sized ships with capacities of 2,000 to 4,000 passengers (see Image 4.0.1).⁴⁴

Image 4.0.1 The MSC Opera at home port in Havana, Cuba, June 2017⁴⁵

In the rivalry between cruise ships and shoreside destinations, cruise companies strive to maximize the flow of onshore spending back to the ship. Within a typical cruise port, a sizable portion of businesses and real estate are owned or leased by the cruise lines, thereby helping them to capture a greater percentage of the tourist dollar. “Cruise corporations benefit from economies of scale and offer goods at competitive prices, making it difficult for local business owners to compete,” explains an analysis of cruise tourism in Alaska. “They also have established contractual relations with local firms to provide tours to cruise guests, who book these tours online before the cruise or on board the ship, with the cruise lines taking a commission. The onboard advertising of these partner companies gives the firms a significant comparative advantage over other tour operators selling their services on shore.”⁴⁶ To promote onshore tours and shopping, cruise lines employ outside firms such as Onboard Media⁴⁷ to run their marketing and sales program and ensure standardized delivery systems. The goal, according to another study, is to ensure that “[t]he majority of these expenses are captured within the cruise ship.”⁴⁸

Both independent and industry-commissioned studies find that most onshore tours are purchased onboard the ship and include a hefty commission. A 2015 study of 35 destinations by Business Research and Economic Advisors (BREA), commissioned by the FCCA, found that the cruise lines’ commissions are usually 100 percent of the base cost (Table 4.1). This means that for a $120 tour that a passenger buys onboard, only about $60 goes to the onshore tour operator; the cruise line and its agent retain the other $60. Tours purchased from tour operators via the Internet sell for about the same amount, while tours bought onshore from independent operators sell for about half the price, or approximately the base price without the commission.

Table 4.1 Passenger onshore visits and expenditures by destination, 2014/2015⁴⁹

^aIncludes purchases made through travel agents and purchases made through an unspecified channel.

^bOnly includes passengers onboard cruise ships making transit calls.

Similarly, onshore shops promoted by the cruise lines also pay a commission, which again is typically up to 100 percent. The BREA study calculated that “Average per passenger expenditures ranged from a low of US$42.58 in Trinidad to a high of US$191.26 in St. Maarten and averaged US$103.83 per passenger visit across the 35 destinations.” While shore excursions were the most popular expenditure, in terms of total spending, passengers spent more for “watches and jewelry” than any other category. Nearly 20 percent of passengers purchase watches and jewelry from duty-free shops, spending on average US$187.64 per person.⁵⁰ Very little of expenditures from duty-free shops are retained by the destinations, however, since most are owned by international chains.

Cruise Passenger Head Tax, and Other Taxes and Fees

There is often a tug-of-war between cruise lines and destinations over the passenger or “head tax,” a fee paid by cruise lines to the port authority or government for each passenger on board. Cruise lines incorporate head taxes for all ports on an itinerary into what passengers pay for the cruise, even if they do not go ashore.⁵¹ The amount and terms of head taxes vary widely, as they are negotiated individually between cruise lines and each port. In 2016, Caribbean head taxes ranged from US$1.50 in Guadeloupe and St. Kitts & Nevis to US$15.00 in Jamaica, US$18.00 in The Bahamas, and a high of US$60.00 in Bermuda,⁵² with the average being $8.92. Generally, home ports do not receive head taxes from cruise lines, since it is argued that these destinations receive other significant economic advantages.

Over the years, cruise lines have bargained hard to keep down head taxes, successfully forcing, for instance, Alaska to reduce its head tax from US$46 to US$34.50 in 2010.⁵³ In late 2001, following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, The Royal Gazette newspaper in Bermuda reported, “The Florida Caribbean Cruise Association and individual companies have been pressing governments throughout the Caribbean to reduce passenger [head] taxes to help an industry that has been crippled since September 11.” In fact, as a UNWTO report explained, the 9/11 attacks caused a repositioning of ships to the Caribbean and an opening of dozens of new ports along U.S. coastlines, which brought “a boon for destinations close to the United States.”⁵⁴ Under pressure, several destinations, including Puerto Rico and Costa Rica, did agree to reduce their already modest head tax, and Bermuda agreed to drop plans to raise its head tax from US$60 to US$80.⁵⁵

The head tax is typically used to directly build or upgrade onshore cruise infrastructure and to help destinations and cruise lines recoup their onshore investments. For instance, the US$7 head tax in Belize is split, with US$3 going to the Belize Tourism Board and US$4 going to the Tourism Village, a duty-free shopping complex co-owned by Royal Caribbean and Diamonds International.⁵⁶ According to press reports, cruise lines do not always pay head taxes to ports, even though they are embedded within what passengers pay for the cruise. In 2011, an expose in the Jamaica Gleaner revealed that although the head tax had already been collected from passengers, “the cruise lines mostly honour this obligation in the breach. They owe Jamaica more than US$12 million.”⁵⁷

Caribbean governments have long discussed the possibility of creating a common cruise policy in an effort to increase economic benefits to ports of call. A 2003 report proposed that Caribbean states should develop a regional policy toward cruise ship tourism with several key objectives: “to increase the collective bargaining power of destinations in the negotiations with cruise ships and maximise [sic] on-shore expenditures by cruise ship passengers, establish environmental standards for cruise operations, and [create] mechanisms to increase the benefits of cruise activities to national economies.”⁵⁸ That year, the CTO also proposed that all the countries in the region involved in cruise tourism impose a common $20 per passenger head tax, with revenues to be placed in a fund that would be spent on marketing, security, and environmental protection.⁵⁹ However, even this modest proposal “caused an uproar” from cruise lines, forcing the CTO Chairman to announce in 2004 that the proposal was being withdrawn due to unspecified “problems regarding legality and compliance.”⁶⁰

Revenue from Cruises versus Overnight Tourism

In assessing the economic value of the cruise industry in the Caribbean, it is instructive to compare the contributions of cruise tourism and stay-over tourism. Studies have consistently found that overnight visitors spend more per day, more in taxes, and more overall, because they stay far longer in the destination. A 2005 Bermuda government report stated, for instance, that while cruise tourism made “a significant contribution to the Bermuda economy,” air passengers outspent cruise ship passengers by a ratio of 7 to 1.⁶¹ The Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO) estimated in 2003 that 19 Caribbean countries generated US$7.3 billion from overnight tourism, and only US$1.1 billion from cruise tourism, even though the total number of arrivals in each sector was about the same (just over 18 million). Total in-country expenditures averaged $994 per overnight visitor and only $77 per cruise passenger, or 13 times more for overnight visitors.⁶² In terms of taxes, stay-over visitors typically pay considerably more as well. The Caribbean Tourism Organization (CTO) estimated that government income from taxes for each cruise passenger per visit in the early 2000s was US$17 ($9 in head tax plus about $8 in sales tax), while governments collected on average US$133 in taxes from each overnight tourist per visit—meaning eight times more revenue from each overnight visitor.⁶³

One example from a Caribbean nation helps to shed light on the relative benefits of cruise versus stay-over tourism. In the 2014–2015 cruise season, Antigua & Barbuda received 527,000 cruise visitors, but “continue[d] to have one of the lowest spends by cruise passengers in the region,” just US$67 per passenger or about US$40 less than the regional average.⁶⁴ That season, according to the BREA study described earlier, Antigua & Barbuda’s total earnings from cruise tourism were US$34.2 million.⁶⁵ In contrast, in 2014, the country received 249,300 stay-over visitors (less than half the number of cruise visitors), who generated about US$283 million, or over eight times more than cruise tourists.⁶⁶ This is on par with the Caribbean as a whole, where, as noted earlier, the Caribbean Tourism Organization calculated that stay-over tourism generated almost seven times more than cruise tourism for roughly the same number of visitors, and 13 times more per stay-over tourist when compared with cruise passengers.⁶⁷

Environmental Footprint of the Cruise Industry

While cruise tourism brings relatively modest economic benefits to destinations, the industry has created a range of environmental problems at sea and in port. These include air pollution (see Image 4.0.2), sewage, gray water, hazardous waste, and solid waste at large scales (Case Study 4.1). According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a ship carrying upwards of 3,000 passengers and crew produces about 210,000 gallons of raw sewage a day, or enough to fill ten backyard swimming pools.⁶⁸ Every year, the North American cruise industry generates an estimated 50,000 tons of food waste and 100,000 tons each of glass, tin, and burnable waste.⁷⁰ And, as Teri Shore of the Bluewater Network writes, “Inadequate and poorly enforced U.S. federal laws allow cruise ships to legally dump treated sewage and dirty water from laundries into ports, harbors, and coastal waters. Raw sewage, food wastes, and garbage can be dumped offshore at three miles or more, depending on the size and type of waste. . . . Only plastics and oil are clearly forbidden from overboard disposal.”⁷¹

Image 4.0.2 A cruise ship emits pollution while coming into port⁶⁹

For several decades, NGO, media, and government attention focused most squarely on the environmental impacts of cruise ships discharging their waste at sea. An international treaty called MARPOL, or the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, was first enacted in 1973 and has been revised over the years. MARPOL was designed to regulate the dumping of waste, including oils, lubricants, fecal sewage, solid waste, and gas emissions, by both cruise and cargo ships in international waters and waters under national jurisdiction. In international waters, cruise ships are subject to the regulations of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which includes both MARPOL and SOLAS, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. Initial enforcement of these agreements was weak, however, and by the 1980s, alarm bells sounded when garbage dumped by cruise ships started washing up on Florida’s beaches and the Gulf of Mexico’s coastlines. A 2003 report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) stated that “the shipping industry [both cruise and cargo] had strong financial incentives to circumvent MARPOL regulations” because it was cheaper to pay fines than stop dumping.⁷² As one cruise official recalls, “The maritime world in the ‘80s and ‘90s thought of the ocean as bottomless, and they could dump their trash into it.”

Monitoring of cruise industry practices is notoriously difficult because of the nature of ocean travel, leading to companies and employees trying to skirt environmental rules. In 1993, Princess Cruises was fined $500,000 after a couple on a cruise videotaped several crew members dumping 20 plastic bags of garbage off the Florida Keys. This led to more surveillance—by passengers, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and others—and to more fines. Between 2003 and 2013, four cruise ships received fines ranging from US$200,000 to US$2 million for illegal dumping of oil, fuel, sewage, untreated wastewater, and ballast water.⁷³ In the Caribbean, the number of prosecutions has been less than in the United States, which probably reflects the latter’s greater enforcement capacity.⁷⁴

Despite the fines, the cat-and-mouse sea chase between cruise lines and enforcement agencies has continued, with increasingly innovative methods to avoid detection. In December 2016, Princess Cruise Lines agreed to pay US$40 million, the largest penalty of its kind to date, after discovery of a “magic pipe” that had been used since 2005 to illegally dump raw bilge waste from the ship’s engines and fuel systems directly into the ocean. Under federal law, ships are supposed to properly dispose of oily wastewater and sludge by passing it through an oil-water separator on board, burning it in an incinerator, or offloading it when a ship is in port to be taken to a waste facility. Court documents showed illegal practices by four other Princess ships, with ships’ officers and crews, motivated by cost savings, conspiring to cover up what was going on. As part of the settlement, the U.S. federal court in Miami also required parent company Carnival to submit 78 cruise ships across its eight brands to a five-year environmental compliance program.⁷⁵ The court also ordered the cruise line to pay the engineer who exposed the “magic pipe” a $1 million reward. “Without the courageous act of a junior crewmember to alert authorities to these criminal behaviors of deliberately dumping oil at sea, the global environmental damage caused by the Princess fleet could have been much worse,” U.S. Coast Guard official Scott Buschman said in a statement.⁷⁶

In addition to illegal dumping of waste, legal dumping can also cause problems. Current U.S. federal law requires that cruise ships dump only treated wastewater if they are within three nautical miles of shore,⁷⁷ while international wastewater regulations allow cruise ships and other commercial vessels to discharge untreated sewage into the ocean when they are beyond 12 nautical miles from shore and moving at designated speeds.⁷⁸ These rules, which were designed mainly to reduce the amount of nuisance pollution affecting ship passengers and coastal communities, assume that the ocean has nearly unlimited capacity to absorb and treat chemical and biological waste. They do not reflect current scientific knowledge about the lasting impacts of pollutants on marine and coastal environments, including fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs. An estimated 70 percent of cruises take place in biodiversity hotspots, including environmentally sensitive areas in the Caribbean and Alaska. Existing rules also do not pay much attention to the climate change impacts of ocean dumping, which have little to do with ship speed or distance from coastlines. And they certainly do not consider the number and size of vessels within the cruise industry, both of which have grown enormously in the past few decades.

Increasing attention is also being paid to the environmental impacts of cruise tourism on land, including ports of call, home ports, and the coastlines and islands where cruise ships dock and discharge passengers. Concerns include the degradation and destruction of coral reefs by anchoring cruise ships, large numbers of snorkelers and divers, and sunscreen pollution; cutting of shoreline mangroves and seagrasses to build cruise docks and other coastal infrastructure; costly dredging of harbors to accommodate increasingly large cruise vessels; air and noise pollution from cruise engines kept running when ships are in port; improper disposal of black water, gray water, and hazardous waste; and oily waste from accidental collisions, groundings, fueling spills, and bilge pumping (Case Study 4.1). In general, environmental impacts are greatest in ports located in sensitive or fragile areas, while vessels berthing at already established urban ports cause less harm. There is, however, growing recognition that historic cities such as Venice and Barcelona in Europe; Charleston, South Carolina, in the United States; and Havana, Cuba, in the Caribbean; can also suffer damage from large numbers of cruise visitors.⁷⁹

The FOE Report Card and Environmental Monitoring

According to Friends of the Earth (FOE), which issues periodic Cruise Ship Report Cards, the environmental record of all large cruise lines is uneven. Its 2016 Report Card compared the environmental impacts of 17 major cruise lines and 171 cruise ships.⁸⁰ It ranked major cruise lines according to three environmental criteria—sewage treatment, air pollution reduction, and water quality compliance—plus overall transparency. FOE then averaged the grades for each of the criteria to calculate the final grade for each cruise line.

To determine a cruise line’s Sewage Treatment grade, FOE highlights the gaps between cruise ships that have adopted the most advanced sewage treatment systems and those that still use decades-old technology. In addition to calling for an upgrade to the almost 40 percent of cruise ships that use old technology, FOE continues to push the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to update the ship sewage treatment standards under the U.S. Clean Water Act to bring these polluting ships into the twenty-first century. Under the current American administration, this appears highly unlikely to happen. To determine the Air Pollution Reduction grade, FOE looked at whether ships have installed shoreside power hookups for use when docking at a port, if they have smokestack scrubbers designed to remove the sulfur from ships’ emissions to comply with North American standards (see more discussion below), and if they use cleaner fuel than required by U.S. and international law. In determining the Water Quality Compliance grade, FOE examined each ship’s level of compliance with Alaska’s water quality regulations to protect the state’s coastal waters.

In 2016, both Norwegian Cruise Lines (with 14 ships) and Disney Cruises (with 4 ships) received the highest grade of “A” in both the Sewage Treatment and Water Quality Compliance categories. For Air Pollution Reduction, Princess Cruises (with 17 ships) received B+, the highest grade awarded to any cruise line. The Transparency grade was based upon how well the cruise lines responded to FOE’s request for information. Disney was the only cruise line in 2016 to earn an “A” for transparency by responding fully to information requests.⁸¹ Every other cruise line, as in previous years, refused to confirm its current environmental technologies, resulting in failing grades for transparency.

The FOE Report Card aims to both educate the traveling public and encourage more reforms within the cruise industry. According to The Guardian, “FOE’s report card offers a clear, apples-to-apples comparison that makes it easy for consumers to find the most responsible vacation bet.”⁸² Increasingly, however, FOE’s survey has been criticized by the cruise industry for not presenting a full picture of performance and environmental initiatives. In 2014, and again in 2016, the Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA), mentioned previously, announced it would not work with FOE because the survey’s methodology was “misleading and inaccurate,”⁸³ and the report card “does not advance the public’s understanding in a meaningful or objective manner.”⁸⁴ The cruise lines followed suit, refusing to provide information to FOE, even though they had voluntarily done so for earlier surveys. Many cruise lines do publish annual sustainability reports, which not coincidentally contain most of the information that FOE used for its analysis.⁸⁵

The cruise industry’s criticism of the FOE survey is not isolated; cruise associations and corporations have repeatedly challenged independently produced data, and at times, have threatened legal action. In May 2016, for instance, Royal Caribbean International made a legal complaint against The Guardian for an article describing the “supersized pollution problem” posed to the port of Southampton by RCL’s newly launched Harmony of the Seas, the world’s largest cruise ship.⁸⁶ And in a debate at the 2017 ITB Berlin Convention, the world’s largest travel industry meeting, a CLIA official vigorously disputed data produced by academic and scientific institutions and NGOs.⁸⁷ Both CLIA and FCCA produce a steady stream of reports on the economic contribution and environmental stewardship of cruise lines, which are, in turn, often viewed skeptically by academic and NGO researchers.⁸⁸ As a World Monuments Fund report on cruise tourism notes, “[A]cademic and professional literature on cruise ship tourism and its impacts is surprisingly limited.”⁸⁹

Cruise Industry Responses

Dogged by bad press, government fines, and NGO campaigns, cruise lines have recently taken a series of steps to try to clean up some of their practices. As Cruise Critic, an industry watchdog group, writes, “[C]ruise lines continue to make important strides to improve their environmental policies—some lines more extensively than others. . . . Green technologies are being incorporated into newly built ships and are sometimes retrofitted onto older ones,” including solar panels, exhaust scrubber systems to reduce emissions, and advances in hull design so ships cut through water more efficiently. “Some cruise lines also collaborate with nonprofit organizations and government agencies to collect data about the ocean’s health and climate changes (Case Study 4.3).”⁹⁰ The cruise industry has also developed a voluntary code of conduct, placed environmental officials on many of their ships, and instituted a range of other sustainability practices.⁹¹ Royal Caribbean, for instance, has been working with international NGOs, including Conservation International and World Wildlife Fund, to develop a range of environmental programs (Case Study 4.2).

In addition to significant GHGs (as described later in this essay), fuel emissions from cruise ship smokestacks also contain sulfur and other harmful pollutants. Cruise ships typically burn bottom-of-the-barrel bunker fuel, which is what remains of crude oil after gasoline and distillate fuel oils are extracted. These dirty fuels release high levels of a number of noxious gases when burned, including many known carcinogens.⁹² While new scrubber technology (described below) brings cruise ships into compliance with North American emission rules, the cruise industry lags well behind the land transportation sector in terms of basic diesel fuel standards. For instance, international shipping rules allow use of fuel with up to 35,000 parts per million of sulfur (3.5 percent), and Emission Control Area rules limit sulfur to 1,000 parts per million (0.1 percent); in contrast, on-road diesel truck fuel has been limited to 15 parts per million (0.0015 percent) of sulfur.⁹³

According to Daniel Rieger, a transport officer at the German environment group Nature and Biodiversity Conservation Union (NABU), “Cruise companies create a picture of being a bright, clean and environmentally friendly tourism sector. But the opposite is true. One cruise ship emits as many air pollutants as five million cars going the same distance because these ships use heavy fuel that on land would have been disposed of as hazardous waste.”⁹⁴ A study by the environmental organization Oceana found, “These emissions add to the smog in the air, create dead zones and algae blooms in the ocean, and contribute to acid rain, global climate change and respiratory diseases like asthma. Yet, cruise ship air emissions are almost entirely unregulated.”⁹⁵ The EPA calculates that “each day an average cruise ship is at sea it emits more sulfur dioxide than 13 million cars and more soot than 1 million cars.”⁹⁶ While sulfur is not a direct greenhouse gas, it has impacts on human health and the marine environment. Take, for instance, the scathing 2016 article in The Guardian on the maiden commercial voyage by the world’s largest cruise liner. According to the article, “As [Royal Caribbean’s] Harmony of the Seas sets sail from Southampton docks on Sunday she will leave behind a trail of pollution—a toxic problem that is growing as the cruise industry and its ships get even bigger.”⁹⁷ While in port and close to U.S. and some European coasts, the Harmony and other cruise liners must burn low-sulphur fuel or use abatement technologies, Southampton residents contend that fumes from cruise liners and cargo ships are contributing to the port city’s highly polluted air.

The solution promoted by a growing number of U.S. and Canadian ports is electric plug-ins, which allow ships to hook up to city power grids and turn off their engines in port. According to the Port of Vancouver’s EcoAction brochure, the electrical hookup program for cruise ships is eliminating 3,000 tons of GHGs annually, the equivalent of “taking 770 cars off the road for a year.”⁹⁸ Princess, Holland America, Disney, Norwegian, and Celebrity have retrofitted some or all their ships to use onshore hookups.⁹⁹ But there has been industry pushback to this seemingly elegant solution. Cost has been the biggest stumbling block—CLIA estimates that retrofitting costs $1 million per cruise ship, while shoreside facilities cost many times more, and often accommodate only one or two vessels at a time.¹⁰⁰ In addition, for Caribbean island states dependent on fossil fuel-based electricity, shore hookup is not a practical or eco-friendly solution.

The major cruise lines, as well as industry associations, all report that cruise corporations are investing a lot in new technologies and practices to ensure the sector’s sustainability. As Helge Grammerstorf, National Director for CLIA in Germany, said at the 2017 ITB Berlin trade show, “Our industry is investing a lot to make it more environmentally friendly.”¹⁰¹ That same month, CLIA released a study detailing the cruise industry’s “leadership in environmental performance” in air emissions and wastewater treatment practices. The study, written by two independent U.S. academics and commissioned by CLIA, “found that although cruise ships represent less than 1 percent of the global commercial maritime fleet, the industry’s actions have substantially contributed to the maritime community’s initiatives in environmental stewardship.”¹⁰² Many cruise experts, however, argue that the sector can, and must, do more in terms of air emissions, wastewater treatment, and many other areas in order to play a leadership role in greening the entire industry. Cruising’s continued prosperity depends on a healthy, resilient, and sustainable environment. Indeed, as another panelist at ITB Berlin, Dietmar Oeliger from NABU, told the audience, “We believe that the cruise industry must be and should be the innovation driver going forward.”¹⁰³

Impacts of Climate Change on the Cruise Industry

Like other sectors of the tourism industry, cruise tourism is both impacted by and contributes to climate change. Cruise tourism’s onshore facilities are particularly vulnerable because they are concentrated along low-lying coastlines and in coastal waters. Assets include beaches, coral reefs, and other natural ecosystems; constructed assets such as port facilities and marinas, restaurants, bars, and shops; and onshore cultural and historic sites. In addition, climate change has indirect and secondary impacts on the flow of tourists, as well as goods and services (Figure 4.1).

Figure 4.1 Impacts of climate change on cruise tourism¹⁰⁴

As Ivor Jackson writes in an early study of climate change impacts in the Caribbean, “Cruise tourism like yachting is water dependent and so its infrastructure is largely coastal. Cruise ship piers (or cargo piers used for cruise ships) are designed to accommodate large vessels and structurally should be less vulnerable than hotel or yachting infrastructure to hurricane waves and storm surge.” However, Jackson notes, “Damage by Hurricane Georges [in 1998] to the cruise ship pier at Port Zante, St. Kitts indicates that impact can be extensive where design flaws exist. Loss of docking revenue and passenger revenue resulting from damage to the pier was significant.”¹⁰⁵ The pier was rebuilt in 1999, but again destroyed that same year by Hurricane Lenny. When rebuilt again, the cruise pier was redesigned with “massive revetments” (barricades) at both ends to protect cruise ship bulkheads.¹⁰⁶ In a similar case, Hurricane Wilma (2005) caused extensive damage to two of Cozumel, Mexico’s three piers and forced cruise ships to divert to alternative destinations (Case Study 4.3). From 2000 to 2009, the Caribbean experienced more category 5 hurricanes than during any other 10-year period, with 27 named tropical storms in 2005 alone. Apparently as a result of climate change, hurricanes are now developing at lower latitudes and becoming more intense in shorter times with increased maximum wind intensity.¹⁰⁷

Jackson contends that a major impact from increasingly frequent and fierce hurricanes is disruption to the flow of cruise sector goods and services, and the forced rescheduling of cruise ship itineraries.¹⁰⁸ In recent years, a growing number of cruise ships have been diverted or otherwise affected in the face of unpredicted or underestimated storms. During the 2014–2015 cruise season, for instance, Royal Caribbean was forced to divert a half dozen or more vessels due to hurricanes: Liberty of the Seas was rerouted from Bermuda to Saint John, Canada, due to Joaquin;¹⁰⁹ a number of vessels had to change their itinerary routes in the Eastern Caribbean to avoid Danny;¹¹⁰ Adventure of the Seas had to alter its itinerary two weeks in a row because of first Danny, and then, Erika;¹¹¹ and Explorer of the Seas switched course as Gonzalo bore down on Bermuda.¹¹² That same year, Carnival Cruises also diverted ships due to Hurricanes Joaquin and Erika.¹¹³ While Port Saint John reported an economic boon from the unexpected arrival of 11 diverted cruise ships,¹¹⁴ the altered itineraries upset passengers and cost the cruise lines and scheduled ports financially. With climate change-induced storms, heavy rainfall, and higher-than-normal temperatures all predicted to intensify, researchers are warning that travelers may well begin to move away from the Caribbean, to the detriment of the islands and their cruise and other tourism sectors.¹¹⁵

Impacts of the Cruise Industry on Climate Change

In terms of impacts on climate change, the cruise industry’s contributions are primarily of two types—GHG emissions into the atmosphere and waste effluents into the ocean. According to the International Maritime Organization, shipping globally (both cruise and cargo) contributes about 2.4 percent of manmade GHGs.¹¹⁶ The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that this includes nearly one billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO₂)¹¹⁷ and 870,000 tons of nitrogen oxide each year.¹¹⁸ According to British science writer Fred Pearce, “Ships are as big a contributor to global warming as aircraft—but have had much less attention from environmentalists.”¹¹⁹ George Monbiot of the British-based Climate Outreach Information Network calculated that every passenger traveling round-trip from Southampton, UK, to New York, NY on the Cunard Line’s Queen Elizabeth II is responsible for 9.1 tons of GHG emissions, which amounts to “almost 7.6 times as much carbon as making the same journey by plane.”¹²⁰ Both international shipping and aviation are exempt from Kyoto Protocol rules on carbon emissions.¹²¹ But while “green pressure,” plus efforts to cut fuel costs, have led airlines to pledge to cut emissions by 50 percent by 2050, “shipping companies are keeping their heads down,” according to Pearce. Amazingly, he notes, they also plead poverty, arguing before the International Maritime Organization (IMO) that because the cruise lines are registered in poor developing countries, they should not have to cut carbon emissions.¹²²

Recently, the cruise industry has made modest progress toward reducing GHG and other emissions. In 2015, the United States and Canada implemented cleaner fuel standards for large ships, both cruise and cargo. But rather than using cleaner fuel, many cruise ships have installed technology that “scrubs” the sulfur from ship smokestacks, sometimes using seawater pumped through the stacks to do so. (By 2017, for instance, 60 Carnival ships had been retrofitted with such scrubber systems.¹²³) This process, known as exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS) technology, removes sulfur and other contaminants from a ship’s airborne emissions, but often dumps the water back overboard, where it contributes to the release of GHGs. A study by Swedish and British researchers determined that “when sulfuric acid is added to seawater by scrubbers, carbon dioxide is freed from the ocean surface. Each molecule of sulfuric acid results in release of two molecules of carbon dioxide as the ocean attempts to retain its alkaline balance.”¹²⁴ In other words, seawater scrubber technology robs Peter to pay Paul, reducing the amount of noxious emissions, but adding to climate change impacts of the cruise industry.

Other technologies are being employed on an experimental basis to both improve efficiency and reduce GHG emissions. Beginning in the late 1990s, for example, Royal Caribbean became the first cruise line to use gas turbine engines on a number of its ships. This marked a considerable improvement over conventional diesel-guzzling cruise ship engines in terms of reducing sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions. It is an expensive alternative, however, and also produces higher volumes of CO₂.¹²⁵ In any case, by 2014, gas turbine engines were on the cusp of being, according to one German study, “quickly superseded by more viable solutions.”¹²⁶ According to the cruise industry, experiments are underway to test liquid natural gas (LNG) as a new cleaner type of engine fuel. At the ITB Berlin travel show in March 2017, CLIA’s Helge Grammerstorf expressed on a panel on cruise tourism and climate change, “There have been several ships ordered that will use liquefied gas engines,” and they are expected to be ready no later than 2020. He stated that LNG supplies are sufficient to last the lifetime of ships, which can be up to 40 years. “It’s an investment in the future and we’re ahead of this,” the executive added. Others on the panel, while welcoming this initiative as “laudable” because it will reduce CO₂ emissions, argued that “LNG is just a transition” and that the long-term solution must be found in renewable energy sources.¹²⁷

Conclusion: Building a Sustainable Caribbean Cruise Industry

For countries in the Caribbean, cruise tourism has long raised a host of environmental, social, and economic concerns. Over the years, a handful of politicians, academics, NGOs, and tourism associations have questioned the region’s deep dependence on cruise tourism, especially given its relatively modest economic contributions when compared with stay-over tourism. As Ivor Jackson has noted, “Some may argue that the level of investment in deep water basins, berths and shopping complexes for cruise tourism is not justified when compared to the level of return in visitor expenditure and revenue to governments.” He cites, for example, the US$22 million-plus investment by the government of Antigua & Barbuda to deepen and extend the St. Johns Deep Water Harbour basin, and to build additional piers to accommodate larger cruise ships.¹²⁸ The statistics tend to bear out Jackson’s concerns about the level of government investment in cruise infrastructure, as described earlier in the section on economic benefits.

In the mid-2000s, the Center for Responsible Travel (CREST) and INCAE, a Costa Rican-based business school, conducted cruise tourism studies in Belize, Costa Rica, and Honduras. The studies included a set of recommendations for how governments in Central America could better manage cruise ship tourism to mitigate “adverse social and environmental effects” while “increasing the economic benefits for a wide sector of the local population.”¹²⁹ The proposed reforms recommended that governments negotiate collectively with cruise lines to:

1. Coordinate policies on such issues as the passenger or head tax, port use fees, duty-free sales, selection of local vendors, and payment of commissions, to “eliminate the descending spiral of competition” that pits ports against one another;
2. Ensure that cruise ship tourism “complies with international, regional, and national norms related to health, safety, and protection of the environment”;
3. Establish regional zoning policies to prevent port and wharf construction for cruise ships in fragile and pristine areas such as near coral reefs and wetlands, restrict tourism numbers in pristine natural or culturally sensitive areas, and separate cruise passengers and stay-over tourists;
4. Ensure that public funds collected via the head tax or other cruise surcharges are not invested “in infrastructure that directly favors the cruise lines” such as tourist “villages” and other port concessions; and
5. Provide training and establish policies to help local vendors more effectively market their crafts, cuisine, and cultural attractions to cruise passengers.¹³⁰

The CREST/INCAE studies also stressed that countries should focus on strengthening the facilities, attractions, infrastructure, and quality of the tourism experience for higher-value onshore stay-over tourism, because this puts far more revenue into the local economy than does cruise tourism.¹³¹

In December 2009, tourism ministers from the Association of Caribbean States (which includes Central America) met and formed an Ad-Hoc Working Group for the Creation of the Association of Caribbean Cruise Ship Destinations to “contribute to the exercise of greater leverage in discussions with the [cruise] industry.” The tourism ministers defined their goals as moving toward “regional unification” of the Caribbean cruise ship destinations, and establishing “a united front to develop policies and strategies to increase the benefits of Cruise Ship Tourism in their destinations.”¹³² This initiative represented the first successful effort to create a Caribbean and Central American-wide association of cruise states to work collectively to increase the benefits of cruise tourism. While it was an important step, however, so far it has had no concrete achievements in terms of collective action. As of 2017, the larger goal, as summarized in a 2003 report, “to increase the collective bargaining power of destinations in the negotiations with cruise ships and to . . . establish environmental standards for cruise operations [while increasing] the economic benefits of cruise activities to national economies” remains unmet.¹³³

Given the vulnerability of cruise ships and their coastal port facilities to the impacts of climate change, destinations need to work together to craft mitigation and adaptation strategies and sustainability standards. As maritime experts Fritz Pinnock and Ibrahim Ajagunna put it, “The survival of cruise tourism in the Caribbean requires regional governments to find a more creative way for adaptation of the industry to the effect[s] of climate change.”¹³⁴ Pinnock and Ajagunna are among a small but growing number of analysts examining what Caribbean destinations must do to reduce the climate-related impacts of cruise tourism. Their recommendations include the following:

1. Adopt and enforce coastal land-use planning strategies that include cruise and yachting sectors. The St. Kitts & Nevis Tourism Master Plan was one of the earliest and most comprehensive such plans in the Caribbean.
2. Improve protection of existing installations, redesign at-risk facilities, and where feasible, build flexibility into design so that adjustments can be made as more reliable data and resources are available. Ports should reduce waste of water and electricity in all aspects of operations. For instance, some ports are already using desalination and solar photovoltaic panels to reduce fossil fuel consumption.¹³⁵
3. Ensure coastal structures incorporate design and construction techniques to withstand increasingly frequent and fierce storm winds and sea surges. Planning regulations and building codes should include coastal engineering design standards such as minimum ground-floor elevations for buildings and warehouses, and incentives for use of renewable energy.
4. Establish effective early warning and evacuation systems for people, and emergency planning with designated safe shelters from storms for cruise ships and yachts. Trinidad has become a regional hurricane shelter, and while both Trinidad and Grenada are considered outside the hurricane belt, both need to develop comprehensive hurricane emergency plans.
5. Protect coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrasses from damage caused by construction of new cruise terminals, dredging of harbors for larger ships, and illegal cruise ship mooring. Cruise lines need to pay for damage, as well as replanting lost corals and seagrasses. Given that replanting often fails, however, ports must be vigilant in preventing damage and protecting these fragile ecosystems as important economic assets and as GHG sinks and storm buffers.
6. Beware of the effects of construction, maintenance, and upgrading of cruise ports on other economic activities, particularly fishing. For instance, bottom dredging to accommodate larger cruise ships in the Key West Harbor Channel destroyed coral and sponges, including within the protected Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. This reduced habitat for bait fish for tarpon, a key attraction for the local sport fishing industry, and led to an economic downturn in Key West’s sport fishing tourism.¹³⁶
7. Regulate and reduce GHG and other harmful air emissions in port and near shore. Cruise ships have typically kept their engines running in port, causing both air and noise pollution. At a minimum, North American emissions rules should be extended to cover the Caribbean as well.

The bottom line is that Caribbean states would benefit from a coordinated region-wide policy that takes steps to increase cruise tourism’s economic benefits and reduce its environmental impacts, including air emissions, waste dumping, and dredging in coastal waters that contribute to climate change while lessening coastal resilience. Caribbean states may find that by limiting and regulating cruise tourism, while also increasing and strengthening higher-value stay-over tourism, they will retain more tourism revenue, decrease climate impacts, and protect and maintain healthy coastal and marine ecosystems.

Notes

  1.  Florida-Caribbean Cruise Industry Association. (2015). “Cruise Industry Overview – 2015.” Pembroke Pines, Florida. http://www.f-cca.com/downloads/2015-Cruise-Industry-Overview-and-Statistics.pdf

  2.  Florida-Caribbean Cruise Industry Association. (2015). Op cit.

  3.  Cruise Lines International Association, Inc. (December 2016). 2017: Cruise Industry Outlook. p. 7. https://www.cruising.org/docs/default-source/research/clia-2017-state-of-the-industry.pdf?sfvrsn=0

  4.  Hulda Winnes, Linda Styhre, and Erik. Fridell. (2015). “Reducing GHG Emissions from Ships in Port Areas.” Research in Transportation Business & Management, 17. Gothenburg, Sweden: Swedish Environmental Research Institute, 73–82. http://ac.els-cdn.com/S2210539515000590/1-s2.0-S2210539515000590-main.pdf?_tid=40b5838e-2459-11e7-96ee-00000aab0f01&acdnat=1492535321_b6584bb2bc9d737ed7811f4a052c6c26

  5.  Ibrahim Ajagunna and Fritz Pinnock. (2016). “The Impact of Climate Change on Cruise Tourism: A Case Study from the Caribbean.” Unpublished paper prepared for the Center for Responsible Travel.

  6.  Shivani Vora. (January 8, 2017). “Going Green Picks Up Steam.” The New York Times. Travel Section. p. 9.

  7.  Elizabeth Becker (2013). Overbooked: The Exploding Business of Travel and Tourism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 141.

  8.  Cruise Lines International Association, Inc. (December 2016). Op cit., 15.

  9.  Colleen McDaniel. “New Cruise Ships in 2016.” CruiseCritic. http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=2089

10.  Cruise Critic. “The Biggest Cruise Ships in the World.” http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=1431

11.  Ross Klein. (September 2003). “Charting a Course: The Cruise Industry, the Government of Canada and Purposeful Development.” Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. http://www.policy.ca/policy-directory/Detailed/558.html

12.  Caroline Cheong. (2012). “Cruise Ship Tourism: Impacts and Trends. A Literature Review.” Draft paper, World Monuments Fund, New York City, 4.

13.  United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2010). Cruise Tourism–Current Situation and Trends. Madrid, Spain: United Nations World Tourism Organization, 61–66.

14.  Off the record telephone interviews with author, 2013 and 2017.

15.  PRNewsire. (March 15, 2016). “FCCA and CLIA Announce Strategic Partnership: The Cruise Industry's Leading Associations to Produce Quarterly Magazine.” http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fcca-and-clia-announce-strategic-partnership-300233923.html

16.  Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association. http://www.f-cca.com/about.html

17.  PRNewsire. (March 15, 2016).

18.  Statista. “Revenue of the cruise industry worldwide from 2008 to 2015 (in billion U.S. dollars).” https://www.statista.com/topics/1004/cruise-industry/

19.  Jean-Paul Rodriguez and Theo Notteboom. (2012). “The Cruise Industry: Itineraries, Not Destinations,” Port Technology International, 54, 13–16. http://people.hofstra.edu/jean-paul_rodrigue/downloads/PT54-17_3.pdf

20.  CBS News. “After Recent Cruise Disasters, Carnival Tries to Right the Ship.” September 6, 2013. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57601051/after-recent-cruise-disasters-carnival-tries-to-right-the-ship/

21.  Ninety percent of commercial vessels calling on U.S. ports fly foreign flags. Bill McGee. “Why are Cruise Ships Registered in Foreign Countries?” USA Today, January 8, 2013. http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2012/12/11/why-are-cruise-ships-registered-in-foreign-countries/1760759/

22.  Caitlin E. Burke. “A Qualitative Study of Victimization and Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships. Senior Honors Thesis. Recreation, Parks and Sport Management.” University of Florida. http://www.cruiseresearch.org/Legal%20Issues%20Relevant%20to%20Cruise%20Ships.html

23.  Elizabeth Becker. (2013). Op cit., 139.

24.  Off the record interviews with author, 2013 and 2017.

25.  Bestcruisebuy.com. “Norwegian Pride of America.” http://www.bestcruisebuy.com/ship/76/Pride_of_America.html

26.  Atul Gupta and Aaron Cox. (May/June 2012). “Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.: Innovation at a Cost?” Journal of Business Case Studies. 8(3), 274–76. https://www.cluteinstitute.com/ojs/index.php/JBCS/article/view/6987/7062

27.  Off the record interviews with author, 2013 and 2017.

28.  Caroline Cheong. (2012). Op cit., 6.

29.  Elizabeth Becker. (2013). Op cit., 127–28.

30.  ITF Seafarers. “Inside the Issue: Cruise.” http://www.itfseafarers.org/ITI-cruise.cfm

31.  Ross Klein. (December 2001/January 2002). “High Seas, Low Pay: Working on Cruise Ships.” Our Times: Canada’ s Independent Labour Magazine. http://www.cruisejunkie.com/ot.html

32.  Elizabeth Becker. (2013). Op cit., 146–47.

33.  Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association. (2011). “Cruise Industry Overview - 2011. State of the Cruise Industry.” Pembroke Pines, Florida. http://www.f-cca.com/downloads/2011-overview-book_Cruise%20Industry%20Overview%20and%20Statistics.pdf

34.  United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2010). Op Cit., 16.

35.  Ibid., 33.

36.  Off the record interviews with author, 2013 and 2017.

37.  Pamela Weiler. (2015). “Perspectives of Cruise Tourism by Stakeholders: A Case Study of Grand Turk, Turks and Caicos.” Masters dissertation. Oxford, UK: Oxford Brookes University.

38.  D.G. Molyneaux. (September 17, 2015). “New Cruise Port to Open in Dominican Republic.” Miami Herald. http://www.miamiherald.com/living/travel/cruises/article3562694.html

39.  Travel Weekly. (August 4, 2014). “Carnival to build port on Haiti’s Tortuga Island.” http://www.travelweekly.com/Cruise-Travel/Carnival-to-build-port-in-Haiti

40.  Christina Kamp. “Crusade Against the Environment.” Tourism Watch. https://www.tourism-watch.de/en/content/crusade-against-environment

41.  Juan Gabriel Brinda and Sandra Zapata-Aguirre. (2008). “The Impacts of the Cruise Industry on Tourism Destinations.” Monza, Italy.

42.  Harbouring Tourism: Cruise Ships in Historic Port Communities. Report of an International Symposium held in Charleston, South Carolina. February 6–8, 2013. New York: World Monuments Fund. http://www.jbna.org/IS%20-%20Charleston-Report.pdf

43.  Brian L. Scarfe. (2015). “Cruise Ships in Historic Ports: Victoria as a Port of Call.” Harbouring Tourism: Cruise Ships in Historic Port Communities. Report of an International Symposium held in Charleston, South Carolina. February 6–8, 2013. New York: World Monuments Fund, 57. http://www.jbna.org/IS%20-%20Charleston-Report.pdf

44.  Deborah Stone. (July 6, 2015). “MSC Cruises to Homeport in Cuba’s Capital Havana.” The Express. http://www.express.co.uk/travel/cruise/589232/MSC-Cruises-homeport-Havana-Cuba

45.  Image Source: Samantha Hogenson, Center for Responsible Travel.

46.  Lee K. Cerveny. (July 2005). “Section 3: Southeast Alaska and the Emergence of Tourism.” Tourism and Its Effects on Southeast Alaska Communities and Resources: Case Studies from Haines, Craig, and Hoonah, Alaska. The Forest Service, USDA Research Paper PNW-RP-566, 26.

47.  Onboard Media. http://www.onboard.com/

48.  Jean-Paul Rodriguez and Theo Notteboom. (2012). Op cit., 13–16.

49.  Table Source: BREA. (October 2015). Economic Contribution of Cruise Tourism to the Destination Economies, Volume 1, 41.

50.  Business Research and Economic Advisors (BREA). (October 2015). Economic Contribution of Cruise Tourism to the Destination Economies: A Survey-based Analysis of the Impacts of Passenger, Crew and Cruise Line Spending. Vol. 1: Aggregate Analysis Prepared for Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association and Participating Destinations, 8–12.

51.  Center for Responsible Travel (formerly Center on Ecotourism and Sustainable Development). (2006). Cruise Tourism in Belize: Perceptions of Economic, Social & Environmental Impact. CREST: Washington, DC, 11.

52.  National Tourism Offices. (May 2016). “Tourism Related Taxes.” Obtained from Caribbean Tourism Organization; Government of Bermuda. (2017). “Passenger Taxes.” https://www.gov.bm/print/12856; Keith Archibald Forbes. (2017). “Bermuda’ s Cruise Ship Calls in 2017.” Bermuda-Online. http://www.bermuda-online.org/cruises.htm. This document mistakenly lists Bermuda’ s head tax as $48, but in email correspondence, the Bermuda government stated that it is $60.

53.  Cruise Critic. (June 24, 2010). “Alaska Cruise Head Tax Reduction Signed into Law.” http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=395

54.  United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). (2010). Op cit., 21.

55.  Stephen Breen. (January 25, 2002). “Cruise Lines Warn Tax Hike May Deter Tourists.” The Royal Gazette. http://www.royalgazette.com/article/20020125/NEWS/301259971

56.  Center for Responsible Travel (formerly Center on Ecotourism and Sustainable Development). (September 2006). Op cit., 11.

57.  Jim Walker. (May 22, 2011). “Cruise Lines Owe Jamaica More Than $12,000,000 In Unpaid Taxes?” Cruise Law News. http://www.cruiselawnews.com/tags/head-tax/

58.  Adam Dunlop. (December 21, 2005). “Issues and Challenges in Caribbean Cruise Ship Tourism.” Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), limited LC/CAR.L.75, 20. http://www.eclac.org/publicaciones/xml/5/39735/L.075.pdf

59.  IPS Correspondents. (September 26, 2003). “ECONOMY-CARIBBEAN: Cruise Ship ‘Head Tax’ Makes Waves.” Inter Press Service News Agency.

60.  Gay Nagle Myers. (June 26, 2004). “CTO Drops Cruise Head Tax Plan.” Travel Weekly. http://www.travelweekly.com/Destinations2001-2007/CTO-drops-cruise-head-tax-plan/

61.  Ministry of the Environment, Government of Bermuda. (2005). State of the Environment Report, 161. https://wedocs.unep.org/rest/bitstreams/16276/retrieve

62.  Caribbean Tourism Organization Statistical Compendium. (2004). Table 5.1. Cited in CREST-INCAE. (January 2007). Cruise Tourism Impacts in Costa Rica & Honduras: Policy Recommendations for Decision Makers. Commissioned by the Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC, 10. http://www.responsibletravel.org/projects/documents/cruise_tourism_impacts_in_costa_rica_honduras.pdf

63.  Caribbean Tourism Organization Statistical Compendium. (2004). Table 5.1. Cited in CREST-INCAE, (January 2007). Op Cit., 10.

64.  Antigua Observer. (October 9, 2015). Cruise Visitor Spend in Antigua Among the Lowest.” http://antiguaobserver.com/cruise-visitor-spend-in-antigua-among-the-lowest/

65.  Business Research and Economic Advisors (BREA). (October 2015). Economic Contribution of Cruise Tourism to the Destination Economies: A Survey-based Analysis of the Impacts of Passenger, Crew and Cruise Line Spending. Vol. 2: Destinations Report, 3–4. http://www.f-cca.com/downloads/2015-cruise-analysis-volume-2.pdf

66.  Eastern Caribbean Central Bank. Working Paper Series. Volume 1. Special Edition of the 2015 Interns. December 2015, 4. http://www.eccb-centralbank.org/PDF/working/WP_Special_Editition_2015_Interns.PDF

67.  Caribbean Tourism Organization Statistical Compendium. (2004). Table 5.1. Cited in CREST-INCAE, (January 2007). Op cit., 10.

68.  Jeff Spross. “Here’s What Happens to Sewage On Cruise Lines.” ThinkProgress. December 4, 2014. https://thinkprogress.org/heres-what-happens-to-sewage-on-cruise-lines-333d026c8481

69.  Govan001. [CC BY 3.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en)].

70.  Ross Klein. (2002). Cruise Ship Blues: The Underside of the Cruise Ship Industry. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers,7, 84–85.

71.  Teri Shore. (2004). “Cruise Ships—Polluting for Fun & Profit.” Cited in Martha Honey. (2008). Ecotourism and Sustainable Development: Who Owns Paradise? Washington, DC: Island Press, 50–51.

72.  OECD. (2002). “Cost Saving Stemming from Non-Compliance with International Environmental Regulations in the Maritime Sector.” STTI/DOT.MTC, 8/Final. OECD, Paris. Quoted in Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). (December 21, 2005). “Issues and Challenges in Caribbean Cruise Ship Tourism.” Limited LC/CAR/L.75, 16–17

73.  Ross Klein. “Large Environmental Fines ($100,000 or More),” and “Pollution and Environmental Violations and Fines, 1992 – 2012.” Cruiseshipjunkie.com.

74.  Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC). (December 21, 2005), 17.

75.  Associated Press. (December 2, 2016). “The $40m ‘Magic Pipe’: Princess Cruises Given Record Fine for Dumping Oil at Sea.” The Guardian. London. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/02/the-40m-magic-pipe-princess-cruises-given-record-fine-for-dumping-oil-at-sea

76.  “Princess Cruise Lines fined $40M for intentionally polluting ocean.” UPI, Apr. 20, 2017. https://www.choice102.com/princess-cruise-lines-fined-40m-for-intentionally-polluting-ocean/

77.  Jeff Spross. (December 4, 2014). Op cit.

78.  CLIA. (March 30, 2017). “New Study Shows Cruise Industry’s Leadership in Environmental Performance.” https://www.cruising.org/about-the-industry/press-room/press-releases/pr/new-study-shows-cruise-industrys-leadership-in-environmental-performance

79.  Harbouring Tourism: Cruise Ships in Historic Port Communities. Op cit.

80.  Friends of the Earth. (2016). “2016 Cruise Ship Report Card.” http://www.foe.org/crucise-report-card. FOE has issued Report Cards in 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016

81.  Friends of the Earth. (June 9, 2016) “Disney Cruise Line Regains A Grade for Pollution Transparency.” http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2016-06-disney-cruise-line-regains-a-grade-for-pollution-transparency

82.  Brian Watson. (January 5, 2015). “Murky Waters: The Hidden Environmental Impacts of Your Cruise.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jan/05/cruise-ship-holidays-environmental-impact

83.  The Maritime Executive. (June 9, 2016). Cruise Industry Says Report Card “Regrettable.” http://www.maritime-executive.com/article/cruise-industry-says-report-card-regrettable

84.  Brian Watson. (January 5, 2015). Op cit.

85.  Ibid.

86.  John Vidal. (May 21, 2016). “The World’s Largest CruiseShip and Its Supersized Pollution Problem.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/21/the-worlds-largest-cruise-ship-and-its-supersized-pollution-problem

87.  Helge Grammerstorf. (March 14, 2017). “The Hot Seat: Climate Fanaticism vs. Losing Touch with Reality!? – The Cruise Industry.” CLIA Germany. ITB-Berlin conference presentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDg_ECvAl0s. Eugene Kim, a researcher with CREST, attended ITB and provided written notes from this panel discussion

88.  Among the most widely cited are Economic Contributions of Cruise Tourism to the Destination Economies studies by BREA, which are commissioned by the Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association (FCCA). These studies, conducted every few years, show that cruise tourism in the Americas contributes impressively to national economies and employment. An analysis of BREA’s 2015 edition by the Center for Responsible Travel found that BREA’s methodology is, in crucial areas, questionable and obscure. In addition, BREA fails to compare, country by country or for the region, the economic impacts of cruise vs. stay-over tourism for 35 Caribbean destinations it covers. Unpublished analysis by Santiago Herrera-Triana, Ph.D. candidate in Economics, Colorado State University, February 2017. Research reviewed by professors Lawrence Pratt, INCAE, Costa Rica and Andrew Seidl, Colorado State University and commissioned by the Center for Responsible Travel. It will appear in a forthcoming (July 2017) CREST publication.

89.  Caroline Cheong. (2012). Op cit., 1.

90.  Melissa Paloti and Elissa Poma. “Green Cruising.” Cruise Critic. http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=528

91.  Ibid.

92.  Paul Evans. (April 23, 2009). “Big Polluters: One Massive Container Ship Equals 50 Million Cars.” New Atlas. http://newatlas.com/shipping-pollution/11526/

93.  Friends of the Earth. (2016). Op cit.

94.  John Vidal. (May 21, 2016). Op cit.

95.  Oceana. (2003). “Needless Cruise Pollution: Passengers Want Sewage Dumping Stopped.” Oceana: Washington, D.C., 4.

96.  Friends of the Earth. (2016). Op cit.

97.  John Vidal. (May 21, 2016). Op cit.

98.  Larry Pynn. (August 19, 2014). “Most Cruise Ships Not Tapping into Vancouver Shore Power.” Vancouver Sun. http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Most+cruise+ships+tapping+into+Vancouver+shore+power/10129179/story.html

99.  Erica Silverstein. “The Earth Thanks You: More Cruise Ports Are Going Green.” Cruise Critic. http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=1214

100.  Larry Pynn. (August 19, 2014). Op cit.

101.  Helge Grammerstorf. (March 14, 2017). Op cit.

102.  CLIA. (March 30, 2017). Op cit.

103.  Dietmar Oeliger. (March 14, 2017). “The Hot Seat: Climate Fanaticism vs. Losing Touch with Reality!? – The Cruise Industry.” NABU. ITB-Berlin conference presentation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDg_ECvAl0s. Eugene Kim, a researcher with CREST, attended ITB and provided written notes from this panel discussion

104.  Kennedy Obombo Magio and Elisa Guillén Arguelles. (2016). Adapted from Ivor Jackson. (2002). “Potential Impact of Climate Change on Tourism.” Draft. Prepared for the OAS (Organization of American States). Mainstreaming Adaptation to Climate Change (MACC) Project.

105.  Ivor Jackson. (2002). Op cit., 14.

106.  Leonard Nurse. (April 15–18, 2012). “Climate Change Impacts and Risks: The Challenge for Caribbean Ports.” PowerPoint presentation. STC-13. Georgetown, Guyana.

107.  Ibid.

108.  Ivor Jackson. (2002). Op cit. 15.

109.  Gene Sloan. (October 2, 2015). “Carnival, Royal Caribbean Drop Bermuda Cruises as Joaquin Turns Northward.” USA Today. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/cruises/2015/10/02/hurricane-joaquin-cruise-ships/73243174/

110.  CBS Channel 10 News. (August 22, 2015). “Tropical Storm Danny Changes Royal Caribbean Itinerary.” Tampa Bay and Sarasota. http://www.wtsp.com/news/tropical-storm-danny-changes-royal-caribbean-itinerary/235290033

111.  Royal Caribbean Blog. (Aug. 26, 2015). “Tropical Storm Erika’ s Path Forces Royal Caribbean to Change Itinerary of Adventure of the Seas.” http://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/2015/08/26/tropical-storm-erika-changes-itinerary-royal-caribbeans-adventure-of-the-seas

112.  Cruise Critic. (October 17, 2014). “Update: Hurricane Gonzalo Bears Down on Bermuda, Impacts Cruise Itineraries.” http://www.cruisecritic.com/news/news.cfm?ID=6031

113.  Gene Sloan. (October 2, 2015). Op cit.; Atom Bash. (October 2, 2015). “Hurricane Joaquin Update: Bahamas Battered, Cruises and Flights Greatly Affected.” http://atombash.com/hurricane-joaquin-update-bahamas-battered-cruises-and-flights-greatly-effected/

114.  CVC News. (October 15, 2015). “Saint John Prepares for Influx of Cruise Ship Activity.” New Brunswick, Canada.

115.  Ibrahim Ajagunna and Fritz Pinnock. (2016) “The Impact of Climate Change on Cruise Tourism: A Case Study from the Caribbean.” Unpublished paper prepared for the Center for Responsible Travel.

116.  Hulda Winnes, Linda Styhre, and Erik Fridell. (2015). Op cit., 73.

117.  Fred Pearce. (November 21, 2009). “How 16 Ships Create as Much Pollution as All the Cars in the World.” The Daily Mail. London. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html

118.  United States Environmental Protection Agency. (December 2007). “Control of Emissions from New Marine Compression-Ignition Engines at or Above 30 Liters per Cylinder.” http://www.epa.gov/EPA-AIR/2007/December/Day-07/a23556.htm

119.  Fred Pearce. (November 21, 2009). Op cit.

120.  “Is Cruising Any Greener than Flying?” (December 20, 2006). The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2006/dec/20/cruises.green

121.  Gard News. (January 16, 2013). “Shipping Emissions Regulations.” Insight 209. http://www.gard.no/web/updates/content/20734079/shipping-emissions-regulations

122.  Fred Pearce. (November 21, 2009). Op cit.

123.  Melissa Paloti and Elissa Poma. “Green Cruising.” Op cit.

124.  Christina Montgomery. (October 7, 2007). “Cruise-ship Pollution Initiative Actually Contributes to Problem.” The Province. www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=438279ef-ec5e-42b0-a582-3cce6a54df75. Cited in Ross A. Klein. (December 1, 2009). Getting a Grip on Cruise Ship Pollution. Washington, DC: Friends of the Earth, 47.

125.  Justin Schamotta. (2016). “How Are Cruise Ships Powered?” USA Today. http://traveltips.usatoday.com/cruise-ships-powered-30089.html; Chavdar Chanev. (November 26, 2015). “Cruise Ship Engine Power, Propulsion, Fuel.” CruiseMapper. http://www.cruisemapper.com/wiki/752-cruise-ship-engine-propulsion-fuel

126.  Tony Peisley and A.R. Peisley. (December 29, 2014). “Shore Power Not the Real Solution to Cruise Ship Emissions.” Rostock Port. http://www.rostock-port.de/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/Presse/englisch/2014/PM_2014_12_29_Landstrom-Engl-E-Mail-2014.pdf

127.  Helge Grammerstorf. (March 14, 2017).

128.  Ivor Jackson. (2002). p. 14; Official Website of the Antigua and Barbuda Port Authority. “Deep Water Harbour.” http://www.port.gov.ag/content_page.php

129.  CREST (formerly Center on Ecotourism and Sustainable Development) and INCAE. (January 2007). Op Cit., 30–40.

130.  Ibid.

131.  Ibid.

132.  Association of Caribbean States, “Cruise Ship Tourism under the ACS Framework.” 19th Meeting of Special Committee on Transport. Paramaribo, Suriname. Apr. 23, 2010.

133.  Adan Dunlop. (August 2003). Tourism Services Negotiation Issues: Implications for Cariforum Countries. Caribbean Council, for the Caribbean Regional Negotiating Machinery (CRNM), 46. http://cms2.caricom.org/documents/10185-tourism_and_services_study.pdf

134.  Ibrahim Ajagunna and Fritz Pinnock. (2016). Op cit.

135.  Leonard Nurse. (April 15–18, 2012). Op cit.

Case Study 4.1

Environmental Impacts of Cruise Tourism

---

by Julia Lewis

Cruise tourism, the dominant type of marine-based tourism in the Caribbean, poses a range of negative impacts on oceans. This case study describes nine different environmental impacts caused by cruise ships, ranging from oil pollution to reef damage. Each of these carries a unique threat to the health of oceans and contributes, directly or indirectly, to climate change. There are, fortunately, real-world solutions and management approaches to help mitigate the damage caused by these dangers and protect marine environments (see also Case Study 4.2). There are also a growing number of laws and regulations, mostly covering U.S. territorial waters, designed to address these environmental issues.¹

The major environmental impacts of cruise tourism (Figure 4.2) described in this case study include: the release of liquid effluents, including sewage, gray water, bilge and ballast water, and sunscreen; hazardous wastes, including fluids, vapors, and solids; solid waste, including garbage, as well as macerated food waste; air pollution; and physical damage to reefs. Each of these impacts has its own sources and pathways, and each requires different strategies and tools to reduce or eliminate. Some of these will be explored in this case study. The above impacts are also summarized in the illustration below.

Figure 4.2 Infographic of the environmental impacts of cruise ships³

Sewage

Sewage, also referred to as black water, includes waste from ship toilets and medical facilities. It is estimated that a cruise ship with 3,000 passengers can produce about 15,000 to 30,000 gallons of sewage per day, or 5 to 10 gallons per person. In 2013, cruise ships discharged more than 1 billion gallons of sewage into the oceans, harming fish, shellfish, and the marine environment.² Sewage discharge from ships is less diluted, and therefore, can be much more potent, than sewage runoff from land.⁴ Untreated or improperly treated sewage can lead to viral or bacterial outbreaks that can contaminate shellfish and other food supplies, and pose a serious risk to human health. While New England, California, and Alaska have prohibited sewage discharge close to shore, most U.S. shorelines remain unprotected from this form of pollution.

There are two general technologies for treating sewage aboard vessels: Advanced Wastewater Treatment Systems (AWTS) and Marine Sanitation Devices (MSDs). While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has not updated its regulations on marine sanitation devices since 1976, Alaska has enacted its own sewage treatment regulations that require vessels to utilize high-class AWTS technology. However, even with AWTS technology, treated waste can still discharge increased levels of nitrogen, phosphorous, copper, zinc, fecal coliform, and ammonia in the surrounding waters.⁵ In 2009, 72 percent of the ships granted permission to discharge treated waste within Alaskan waters were found to be in violation of the state’s legal discharge limits.⁶ The environmental organization Friends of the Earth, which has petitioned the EPA to require more suitable regulations for cruise ships’ sewage discharge within U.S. waters,⁷ has identified numerous technological advancements that would improve treatment of fecal coliform, suspended solids, particulate metals, and volatile/semi-volatile organics.⁸

Gray Water

Gray water is the wastewater runoff from operations such as cooking, showering, and laundry. It is the largest category of liquid waste and may contain fecal coliform, food waste, oil and grease, detergents, shampoos, cleaners, pesticides, heavy metals, and dental waste. On a 3,000-passenger cruise ship, gray water output ranges from 30 to 85 gallons per person per day, or a total of 90,000 to 255,000 gallons per day.⁹ Because gray water is not currently regulated under either U.S. law or MARPOL (the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships), some states, including Alaska, have developed their own regulations requiring that gray water is treated prior to any discharge.

Bilge Water and Oil Pollution

Petroleum hydrocarbons have negative effects on both egg and larval forms of marine species, as well as on birds and fur-bearing marine species. A ship’s oily waste stream can originate from vessel collisions, groundings, fueling spills, and routine bilge pumping, which removes oily wastewater, including runoff from machinery operations, from the bottom compartment (bilge) of the ship. An estimated one-third of the roughly 300 million gallons of petroleum products that reach the world’s oceans each year are directly related to routine marine waste removal.¹⁰ Individual cruise ships have the ability to generate 1,300–37,000 gallons of this oily bilge water every day, based on the size of the vessel.¹¹

In the United States, bilge water is regulated by the Clean Water Act. These regulations forbid the release of harmful quantities of oil or hazardous substances within 200 miles of the coast. Additionally, the U.S. Coast Guard requires that any discharge within 12 nautical miles of shore be passed through a 15 parts per million (ppm) oily water separator. Beyond 12 nautical miles, vessels en route can discharge oily substances with an undiluted oil content less than 100 ppm. Oily bilge waste is typically pumped through a filter and directly into the water. However, it is hard for enforcement agencies to monitor the proper use of these filters. Oily substances can also be disposed of by using an oil separator device, then incinerating the oil or removing it from the vessel in port.

Regardless of the disposal method, all vessels are required to track their oil disposal in an Oil Record Book. Without continuous monitoring, however, it is extremely difficult to locate and track any missteps that may occur within the oil record book. In April 2002, Carnival Corporation pled guilty to six felony charges for polluting the ocean with oily waste as a direct violation of the Clean Water Act. In addition to the plea, Carnival also agreed to pay $18 million in fines and penalties.¹² In order to keep these illegal releases hidden, the company was found guilty of altering the ship’s oil record book and rigging the ship’s oil content meters, which then allowed the discharge to occur.

Ballast Water

Ballast water is the water taken on by cruise ships and other ocean vessels in order to properly distribute buoyancy during transport.¹³ Ballast water has been found to contain marine plants, animals, viruses, bacteria, and invasive species.¹⁴ It is estimated that ballast water transports at least 7,000 marine species each day around the world, and is the leading source of invasive species in marine waters.¹⁵ Ballast water not only poses a threat to biodiversity, but to human health as well. The transported water can carry strains of cholera and introduce toxic algal blooms to the surrounding waters upon discharge.¹⁶

Globally, there are no regulations applicable to the quality standards of ballast water. Within the United States, ballast water is unregulated beyond 3 miles from the shoreline.¹⁷ California recently adopted measures to regulate the use and quality of ballast water within 3 nautical miles from shore, including requiring ships to be responsible for treating their ballast water¹⁸ and to have a level of “zero detectable living organisms for all organism size classes by 2030.”¹⁹ In addition, the U.S. Coast Guard is required to sample ballast water, biofouling, and sediment from a minimum of 25 percent of vessels to ensure they meet the state’s requirements.²⁰

Hazardous Waste

Hazardous waste usually accounts for the smallest quantity of waste aboard cruise ships, but it can cause significant damage. A cruise ship’s hazardous waste can include photo processing chemicals (silver), print shop waste (hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, and heavy metals), dry cleaning waste, paint waste, light bulbs (mercury and fluorescent vapor), batteries, and pharmaceuticals. A 3,000-passenger ship can generate an estimated 15 gallons of photo processing chemicals, 1.5 gallons of tetrachloroethene (PERC), and 1.5 gallons of paint waste every day. In addition, tributyltin (TBT), an anti-fouling agent in marine paint used on boat hulls, has been proven deadly to marine species in high concentrations, and has caused unnatural physiological changes within crustaceans in concentrations as low as 2 parts per trillion.²¹ Additionally, TBT can accumulate in sediments and has the ability to bioaccumulate in fish and marine species, eventually reaching the humans who consume them. TBT has been linked to damage within the endocrine system, reproductive system, central nervous system, bone structure, and gastrointestinal tract.

The cruise industry has responded to these concerns by developing a Cruise Industry Waste Management Practices and Procedures plan that recommends hazardous waste be incinerated or disposed of onshore, which requires that additional infrastructure be built at the destination country.²² However, because these recommendations are voluntary, some states, including Alaska, have adopted additional measures to protect their waters from hazardous chemicals, including a prohibition on the sale and use of any TBT-based marine antifouling paint.²³

Solid Waste

Solid waste on cruise ships consists of plastics, paper, wood, cardboard, food waste, cans, and bottles, plus any additional waste generated by passengers.²⁴ It is estimated that each passenger produces about 3.5 kilograms of solid waste per day.²⁵ Within the United States, the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act prohibits transporting garbage from the United States for the purpose of dumping into the ocean without a permit.²⁶ In addition, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) bans the discharge of any garbage within 3 nautical miles of U.S. shores, and specific forms of garbage within 12 nautical miles. Under APPS, the dumping of plastics is not permitted anywhere within U.S. waters.²⁷

There is a lack of clarity when it comes to incinerating or macerating solid waste and disposing of it within gray water or other waste or discharge streams. Although MARPOL “generally prohibits the discharge of all garbage into the sea,”²⁸ monitoring and enforcement are needed by individual countries to adequately protect the marine environment. While regions such as the Antarctic, Baltic Sea, and North Sea have already adopted bans on dumping solid or macerated waste, in-port infrastructure is needed for such bans to be a success.²⁹ Most cruise ships have the capacity to collect and sort solid waste, but they often report a lack of adequate waste treatment centers once in port. In the Caribbean, the lack of in-port waste treatment facilities has delayed the adoption of a ban for the dumping of garbage into the ocean.³⁰

Air Pollution

On cruise ships, air pollution originates from the burning of high-sulfur fuel, as well as the use of on-board incinerators, both of which release into the atmosphere a range of harmful gases including sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), particulate matter, carbon monoxide, CO₂, and hydrocarbons.³¹ Carbon dioxide is a direct greenhouse gas (GHG)³² while nitrogen oxide³³ is classified as an indirect GHG; both contribute to climate change. The nitrogen released in these processes contributes to nutrient overloading, dead zones, and algal blooms. Both smog and particulate matter also have adverse effects on human health, causing respiratory problems, asthma, and even death. Incinerators also discharge other toxins, such as dioxin and furans. Studies in California found that air emissions from onboard incinerators can travel as far as 100 miles back to shore and can negatively impact surrounding air quality.³⁴ California has, therefore, banned the use of onboard incinerators within state waters, that is, within three miles of the coast.

In general, there are three approaches to combating air pollution from cruise ships and other vessels: using low-sulfur fuel, drawing on shore power while in port, and employing onboard emissions capture technology (e.g., “scrubbers”). In terms of fuel quality, national and international air pollution regulations can limit the amount of sulfur ships are permitted to use in their fuel within a specified region. In 2010, for example, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) created the North American Emission Control Area (ECA), which includes the waters off North American and Canadian coasts. The North American ECA includes a 200-nautical-mile low-emission zone where stricter international emissions standards apply to ships.³⁵ Beginning in 2015, ships were required to shift from 1 percent sulfur fuel to 0.1 percent sulfur fuel inside of the ECA region. Although cruise lines were made aware of these changes in 2009, many complained of the high cost of achieving cleaner fuel standards.³⁶

Smokestack scrubbers,³⁷ which are designed to trap escaping pollutants and keep them from entering the atmosphere, are perhaps the most common form of onboard capture technology. Both Royal Caribbean and Carnival applied for exemptions from ECA fuel standards, stating that they planned to pursue scrubber technology that would allow them to continue to burn old fuel types while treating emissions on board.³⁸ Carnival was also granted an exemption that stated that its scrubber technology would only need to be used while its ships were within the designated ECA zone.³⁹ One major challenge to the use of scrubbers and other emission control systems is the cost of installing and maintaining the technology. In addition, while reducing levels of sulfur oxides and other noxious gases, the use of seawater in some types of scrubbers actually contributes to the release of additional GHGs (Chapter 4 Overview).

Increasingly, ports are reducing pollution by providing shore power (high-voltage electrical hookups), which permits cruise ships to turn off their engines and generators while docked. While this can significantly reduce the amount of air pollution within a port, the impact on regional GHG and other emissions depends to a large extent on where the power comes from. Most small island states in the Caribbean get the bulk of their electricity from generators using imported oil, so the net impact of shore power on air pollution and GHG emissions may be negligible.⁴⁰ In places where renewable energy from solar, wind, and other sources is available, the use of shore power can have a positive impact not only on air pollution, but on the net carbon footprint of the cruise industry.

Reefs and Sedimentation

According to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), an estimated 58 percent of the world’s reefs are potentially threatened by human activity.⁴¹ Cruise industry impacts on reefs include increased sedimentation and breaking of corals, caused primarily by snorkeling, diving, boating, and anchoring.⁴² Volume I of this series contains more information on coral reef threats and the impacts of dive tourism, including guidelines for industry.⁴³ Anchoring and boat groundings have been found to leave severe impacts on coral reefs, with slow recovery for the damaged coral. Anchor damage is directly related to the size of the vessel and length of the anchor’s chain, which means that large cruise ships can be much more destructive (see Image 4.1.1).⁴⁴ In December 2015, divers videotaped an anchor chain from the Pullmanter Zenith, owned by Royal Caribbean Cruises, as it destroyed part of a coral reef in the port of George Town, Cayman Islands.⁴⁶ According to local officials, the ship was in a legal anchorage, and therefore, could not be fined. This was just the latest in a long list of anchor-related coral reef destruction involving the cruise industry; most incidents, however, are not witnessed or videotaped. Accidental groundings can be equally destructive. In March 2017, for example, the 90-meter Caledonian Sky, operated by Noble Caledonia, grounded at low tide on a popular reef within a national park at Raja Ampat in Indonesia.⁴⁷ An area of some 1,600 square meters was destroyed, which experts say will cost between US$1 and $2 million to eventually restore.

Image 4.1.1 A ship’s anchor after damaging coral reef in the NOAA Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in 1997⁴⁵

Damage from anchors can be significantly reduced with the implementation of permanent moorings, designated anchorages, and proper education regarding anchoring and mooring in the specified area.⁴⁸ Critical or biologically significant habitats should be protected from cruise ship anchoring and travel routes.⁴⁹ In 2009, Florida approved a new law called The Florida Coral Reef Protection Act (CRPA),⁵⁰ which promotes the ecological and economic importance of the Florida Reef Tract, an area of 330 nautical square miles. The law authorizes the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to “protect coral reefs through timely and efficient assessment and recovery of damages, including civil penalties, resulting from vessel impacts to coral reefs.”⁵¹ The law applies to all vessels (commercial and recreational) and requires that any impacts be reported to the FDEP within 24 hours, that grounded or anchored vessels be removed by the responsible operator within 72 hours in a fashion that prevents additional damage, and that parties involved must cooperate with FDEP in completing a damage assessment.⁵² CRPA also outlines a fee structure for damaged reefs as well as best practices for removing anchors and/or vessels that have impacted coral reefs.

Increased sediment loading caused by the construction of ports, resorts, marinas, and shipping has also damaged coral reefs and other marine and coastal ecosystems, as described earlier in this volume. Sedimentation results in increased turbidity, which reduces the photosynthetic ability of coral colonies, seagrass beds, and mangroves.⁵³ The Chapter 3 Overview describes these and other negative impacts of marinas and ports, while Case Study 3.1 offers recommendation for sustainable marina design and construction practices.

Sunscreen Pollution

While not specifically related to the cruise industry, the effect of sunscreens on marine environments has recently become more widely understood. In many tourist destinations, including cruise ship ports of call, locals have noticed a lingering oily sheen around popular diving areas, as well as declining coral reef health in frequently visited areas.⁵⁴ Oxybenzone, a UV-blocking ingredient commonly used in sunscreen lotions, can reach the ocean through direct contact as it washes off swimmers and divers. It is also found in sewage sludge and discharge from treatment plants, from where it can enter coastal waters.⁵⁵ Oxybenzone may cause coral bleaching, has the ability to damage coral DNA, leads to fatal deformities within coral species, and is an endocrine disruptor, causing defects in coral larvae. Oxybenzone has also been found to affect the embryonic development of algae, sea urchins, fish, and mammals. Other sunscreen ingredients found to be adverse to coral health include noncoated zinc oxide, noncoated titanium dioxide, neem oil, eucalyptus oil, lavender oil, beeswax, oil alternatives (silicone polymers and cyclic siloxanes), parabens, and preservatives.⁵⁶

In terms of preventing sunscreen pollution to protect reefs and other marine life, there are a variety of approaches. One is through pro-reef tourism policies for divers in densely populated recreation areas. In Xcaret and Xel-Ha, Mexico, for example, visitors are asked to wear either biodegradable sunscreen or no sunscreen while swimming.⁵⁷ In 2011, the parks associated with Xcaret ran an educational campaign that distributed over 150,000 samples of biodegradable sunscreen.⁵⁸ The United States National Park Service (NPS) launched a campaign, “Protect Yourself, Protect the Reef,”⁵⁹ to educate visitors in South Florida, Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and American Samoa about sunscreen pollution.⁶⁰ NPS suggests that swimmers look for sunscreen products that use natural, mineral-based ingredients such as titanium oxide and zinc oxide, or use sun clothing such as hats and rash guards as an alternative to sunscreen.⁶¹ It is estimated that a behavioral shift in favor of more sun clothing protection could decrease sunscreen pollution in the ocean by as much as 90 percent.⁶²

Conclusion

While each of these impacts influence the environment in different ways, they all have a connection to climate change. Some contribute directly, while others duplicate or strengthen negative effects from other factors. Air pollution is perhaps the impact most directly correlated with climate change. As noted earlier, cruise vessels release an array of emissions, but their CO₂ emissions are direct contributors to climate change. In addition to being a GHG, atmospheric CO₂ also contributes to ocean acidification, whereby the pH of seawater is decreased by the ocean’s absorption of atmospheric CO₂.⁶³ While burning fuel actively pumps CO₂ into the atmosphere, sewage, hazardous waste, reef damage, and sunscreen pollution all amplify the impacts of ocean acidification. For example, ocean acidification has been shown to negatively impact calcifying species by restricting their ability to produce or replenish their calcium carbonate shells and skeletons.⁶⁴ When this impact is combined with sewage contamination, shellfish stocks could be severely threatened as both an ecological component and a local food source. As another example, sunscreens and hazardous waste both contribute to the destruction of coral, and possibly, to coral bleaching.⁶⁵ Lastly, physical damage from anchors and groundings poses a clear threat to coral as both an ecosystem and a tourist attraction, including in currently pristine locations such as Cuba.

Moving forward, it is critical for cruise tourism destinations and cruise lines to consider both their direct and indirect impacts on climate change. Caribbean nations need to properly value, monitor, and protect these resources as they strive to combat the effects of global climate change, in part to protect their valuable tourism industry.

Notes

  1.  This case study is drawn from a 2016 research paper, Cruising to Cuba: Environmental Impacts of Cruise Ships, prepared for the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), which highlights key environmental issues that Cuba, as the Caribbean’s newest international cruise destination, might consider as it moves to develop its tourism industry. The paper was written and researched by Julia Lewis and supervised by Dan Whittle (Senior Attorney and Senior Director, EDF Cuba Program) and Valerie Miller (Manager, EDF Cuba Program).

  2.  Friends of the Earth. (October 2013). “Cruise Ships Flushed More Than 1 Billion Gallons of Sewage into the Oceans Last Year.” http://www.foe.org/news/news-releases/2013-10-cruise-ships-flushed-more-than-1-billion-gallons-of-sewage-last-year

  3.  Image Source: Julia Lewis. (July 2016). Infographic of the Environmental Impact of Cruise Ships. Created with Piktochart Software.

  4.  Michael Herz and Joseph Davis. (May 2002). Cruise Control: A Report on How Cruise Ships Affect the Marine Environment. Washington, DC: The Ocean Conservancy. http://www.cruiseresearch.org/Cruise%20Control.pdf

  5.  Ross Klein. (2009). “Getting a Grip on Cruise Ship Pollution.” Published by Friends of the Earth.

  6.  Ibid.

  7.  Earthjustice. (2013). “Cleaning Up Sewage Flows from Cruise Ships.” http://earthjustice.org/cases/2014/cleaning-up-sewage-flows-from-cruise-ships#

  8.  Earthjustice. FOE vs. US EPA: Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. 2014. http://earthjustice.org/sites/default/files/files/MSDComplaint04302014.pdf

  9.  Michael Herz and Joseph Davis. (May 2002). Op cit.

10.  Ibid.

11.  Ibid.

12.  Martha Brannigan. (April 22, 2002). “Carnival Admits Guilt, Will Pay Pollution Penalties of $18 Million.” The Wall Street Journal. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB1019428261294696440

13.  Ross Klein. (2009). Op cit.

14.  Ibid

15.  Michael Herz and Joseph Davis. (May 2002). Op cit.

16.  Ibid.

17.  Ross Klein. (2009). Op cit.

18.  U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2016). “Invasive Species State Laws and Regulations.” https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/laws/ca.shtml

19.  California State Government. (2015). Assembly Bill No. 1312 Chapter 644. http://ct3k1.capitoltrack.com/Bills/15Bills/asm/ab_1301-1350/ab_1312_bill_20151008_chaptered.pdf

20.  Ibid.

21.  Alaska Report. (2016). “Unregulated Pollution Threatening Resurrection Bay.” http://alaskareport.com/science2.htm

22.  Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA). (2016). “Waste Management.” http://www.cruising.org/about-the-industry/regulatory/industry-policies/environmental-protection/waste-management

23.  Stephanie Showalter and Jason Savarese. (October 2004). Restrictions on the Use of Marine Antifouling Paints Containing Tributyltin and Copper. White Paper commissioned by the California Sea Grant Extension Program. http://nsglc.olemiss.edu/Advisory/Antifouling.pdf

24.  Ross Klein. (2009). Op cit.

25.  Michael Herz and Joseph Davis. (May 2002). Op cit.

26.  Ross Klein. (2009). Op cit.

27.  Ibid.

28.  International Maritime Organization. (2016). “Prevention of Pollution by Garbage from Ships.” http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/Environment/PollutionPrevention/Garbage/Pages/Default.aspx

29.  Mike Melia. (2009). “Caribbean Cruise Ships Dump Garbage at Sea.” SFGATE. http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Caribbean-cruise-ships-dump-garbage-at-sea-3169729.php

30.  Ibid.

31.  Michael Herz and Joseph Davis. (May 2002). Op cit.

32.  Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2017). “Air and GHG Emissions.” https://data.oecd.org/air/air-and-ghg-emissions.htm

33.  GreenHouse Gas Online. “Other Indirect Greenhouse Gases – Nox.” http://www.ghgonline.org/othernox.htm

34.  Ross Klein. (2009). Op cit.

35.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). “Ocean Vessels and Large Ships.” https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/oceanvessels.htm

36.  Cruise Critic. (2016). “ECA and the Cruise Industry: What Cruisers Need to Know.” http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=1700

37.  Stop Cruise Ship Pollution. (2016). “Cruise Ships Emissions in Sydney Harbour Must Be Brought in Line with International Best Practice.” http://www.stopcruiseshippollution.org/solutions.html

38.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). Letters Between U.S. Government and Carnival Corporation. https://www3.epa.gov/otaq/documents/oceanvessels/carnival-letter-epa-uscg-response-8-8-13.pdf

39.  Ibid.

40.  U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. (2017). “Island Energy Snapshots.” https://energy.gov/eere/island-energy-snapshots

41.  United Nations Environment Programme. (2016). “Tourism’s Impact on Reefs: An Ecosystem Under Threat.” http://www.unep.org/resourceefficiency/Business/SectoralActivities/Tourism/Activities/WorkThematicAreas/EcosystemManagement/CoralReefs/TourismsImpactonReefs/tabid/78799/Default.aspx

42.  Ibid.

43.  Kreg Ettenger, ed., with Samantha Hogenson. (2017). Marine Tourism, Climate Change, and Resilience in the Caribbean, Volume I: Ocean Health, Fisheries, and Marine Protected Areas. New York and Washington, D.C.: Business Expert Press and the Center for Responsible Travel.

44.  United Nations Environment Programme. (2016). Op cit.

45.  Image Source: NOAA, Creative Commons.

46.  Caribbean360. “Investigation Launched as Video Shows Cruise Ship Damaging Cayman Islands Reef.” 2015. http://www.caribbean360.com/news/investigation-launched-as-video-shows-cruise-ship-damaging-cayman-islands-reef#ixzz4iVBJrulD

47.  Basten Gokkon. (March 10, 2017). “British-Owned Cruise Ship Wrecks One of Indonesia’s Best Coral Reefs.” The Guardian, U.S. Edition. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/10/british-owned-cruise-ship-wrecks-one-of-indonesias-best-coral-reefs

48.  United Nations Environment Programme. (2016). Op cit.

49.  Michael Herz and Joseph Davis. (May 2002). Op cit.

50.  Brett Godfrey. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Coral Reef Conservation Program. (June 2010). Management Options to Prevent Anchoring, Grounding, and Accidental Impacts to Coral Reef and Hardbottom Resources in Southeast Florida – Phase 1. Completed for Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative (SEFCRI) Maritime Industry and Coastal Construction Impacts (MICCI) Focus Team and Florida Department of Environmental Protection. http://www.reefresilience.org/pdf/Godfrey_2009.pdf

51.  Ibid.

52.  Ibid.

53.  Michael Herz and Joseph Davis. (May 2002). Op cit.

54.  Craig Downs, E. Kramarsky-Winter, R. Segal, J. Fauth, S. Knutson, O. Bronstein, F.R. Ciner, R. Jeger, Y. Lichtenfeld, C.M. Woodley, P. Pennington, K. Cadenas, A. Kushmaro, Y. Loya. (October 20, 2015). “Toxicopathological Effects of the Sunscreen UV Filter,Oxybenzone (Benzophenone-3), on Coral Planulae and Cultured Primary Cells and Its Environmental Contamination in Hawaii and the U.S. Virgin Islands.” Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. doi: 10.1007/s00244-015-0227-7

55.  Zifeng Zhang, Nanqi Ren, Yi-Fan Li, Tatsuya Kunisue, Dawen Gao, and Kurunthachalam Kannan. (2011). “Determination of Benzotriazole and Benzophenone UV Filters in Sediment and Sewage Sludge.” Environmental Science and Technology 45, 3909–16. dx.doi.org/10.1021/es2004057

56.  Craig Downs. (2016). “Sunscreen Pollution.” Alert Diver Online. http://www.alertdiver.com/Sunscreen-Pollution

57.  Frommer’s. (2016). “Sustainable Travel and Ecotourism.” http://www.frommers.com/destinations/mexico/713380

58.  Lori Robertson. (2012). “Travelers’ Impact on Coral Reefs.” BBC. http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20120802-travellers-impact-on-coral-reefs

59.  National Park Service. “Protect Yourself, Protect the Reef!” https://cdhc.noaa.gov/_docs/Site%20Bulletin_Sunscreen_final.pdf

60.  Ibid.

61.  Ibid.

62.  Craig Downs. (2016). Op cit.

63.  NOAA. (June 2016). “What is Ocean Acidification?” http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/acidification.html

64.  NOAA. PMEL Carbon Program. “What is Ocean Acidification?” http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F

65.  Craig Downs. (2016). Op cit.

Case Study 4.2

How are Cruise Lines Addressing Sustainability and Climate Change? A Look at Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.¹

---

by Samantha Hogenson

Introduction

There is no shortage of bad press about cruise lines when it comes to sustainability. For a cruise line, however, environmental stewardship both at sea and in port is not only critical in the global fight against climate change, but also for a much more practical reason—to protect the products on which the business is built, including pristine marine environments and healthy port destinations. In this case study, we look at positive actions taken by one of the “big three” Caribbean cruise companies, Royal Caribbean Cruises, for a snapshot of where cruise line sustainability is today. It is important to note that most of the material for this case study comes from Royal Caribbean itself, especially its annual Sustainability Reports, rather than from independent reports or investigations. In addition, the significant negative environmental impacts of cruise tourism, as discussed in Essay 4.0 and Case Study 4.1, are not considered in this case study, which focuses instead on positive efforts of one cruise company.

Royal Caribbean Sustainability Programs

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (RCL) is one of the three largest cruise companies in the world, with a 2015 market share of 23.1 percent.² The company currently operates six brands with a combined 47 ships,³ including the three largest cruise ships in service: Harmony of the Seas (see Image 4.2.1), Allure of the Seas, and Oasis of the Seas, each with a capacity of over 6,000 passengers.⁴

Image 4.2.1 Royal Caribbean’s Harmony of the Seas, which sails in both the eastern and western Caribbean, is the world’s largest cruise ship⁵

Royal Caribbean was one of the first major cruise lines to have a sustainability department, with an onboard recycling initiative begun in 1992 that eventually became its “Save the Waves” program.⁶ Major topics on RCL’s radar have included GHG emissions reduction, wastewater and solid waste management, and destination and ocean stewardship.⁷ According to RCL’s website, “For nearly 40 years, our company has carried out a strong commitment to environmental stewardship by following strict company policies, practices, regulations and special initiatives that we call Above and Beyond Compliance.”⁸ In 1997, RCL met the voluntary standards of ISO 9001:2000 for quality and became the first cruise line to meet ISO 14001:2004 for the environment.⁹ Beginning in 2013, it became one of the first organizations in the United States to file its annual Sustainability Report using the internationally recognized GRI G4 (Global Reporting Initiative, 4th generation) reporting guidelines, which Royal Caribbean uses to cover a wide range of social, economic, and environmental issues.¹⁰

Save the Waves

RCL launched environmental efforts through a program called Save the Waves in 1992.¹¹ Initially created in partnership with Conservation International to simply reduce, reuse, and recycle waste, Save the Waves initiatives have expanded through the years. RCL states, “As our knowledge of the oceans grew, so did our program, which evolved into a broader sustainability platform aimed at preserving the oceans and protecting coastal communities. In 2015, we took a step back and formalized that program into an official platform that spans all operations from our new building to our charitable giving.”¹² Save the Waves involves collaboration with educational institutions, conservation-focused NGOs, and agencies that help develop and strengthen policy for environmental stewardship. To help monitor and enforce Save the Waves guidelines, an environmental officer has been present on each RCL ship since 1996.¹³ Environmental officers are “responsible for training crewmembers in the company’s policies and procedures, and the ways in which Save the Waves affects each employee.”¹⁴

Supplier Guiding Principles

Recognizing the supply chain’s large role in cruise operations, RCL created Supplier Guiding Principles in 2014 to help suppliers adhere to standards in a number of areas, including environmental performance. The principles apply to transport, appliances and consumer goods, and food-sourcing components of the cruise line’s supply chain.¹⁵ According to RCL’s 2014 Sustainability Report, “We also set forth the following environmental expectations of our suppliers: use energy and natural resources efficiently; support activities that reuse and recycle materials; and continually look for ways to minimize their environmental impact and improve environmental performance.”¹⁶

Philanthropic Efforts

RCL strives to support marine conservation through The Ocean Fund, which was established in 1996. The Ocean Fund’s primary objectives are to “support efforts to restore and maintain a healthy marine environment, minimize the impact of human activity on the marine environment, and promote awareness of ocean and coastal issues and respect for marine life.”¹⁷ Between 1996 and 2015, the Ocean Fund “contributed $13.7 million to 81 non-profit organizations and institutions around the world for projects that relate to ocean science and marine conservation, climate change, key marine species, education, and innovative technologies.”¹⁸

Examples of projects with implications for the Caribbean, as listed in the 2014 Sustainability Report,¹⁹ include:

• CARIBSAVE program in Jamaica to establish climate change-resistant coral in nurseries and transplant them into protected areas to foster growth;
• Central Caribbean Maritime Institute program that uses environmental monitoring data and climate simulation experiments to understand the resilience of corals in the Cayman Islands impacted by climate change;
• North American Marine Environment Protection Association (NAMEPA) program that educates K-12 students in the Caribbean Basin about the harmful effects of marine debris and how to mitigate the impacts;
• University of Miami’s OceanScope program, which measures atmospheric and oceanographic data from cruising RCL ships.²⁰

GHG Emissions

According to Royal Caribbean Sustainability and Corporate Responsibility Manager Miguel Peña, minimizing carbon emissions is one of the cruise line’s main challenges.²¹ Cruise ships consume most of their energy in propulsion, and improving the efficiency of how ships move has been a focus for RCL. As a result, RCL claims to have developed some of the lowest emission-producing ships in the industry.²² Its new ships are incorporating designs that allow for air lubrication²³ and reconfigured hulls that reduce drag. RCL reports its newest ships generate 20 percent less CO₂ than ships only 5–10 years old, while existing ships have been upgraded to improve propulsion efficiency by up to 10 percent.²⁴ For over two dozen of RCL’s older ships, “hydrodynamic improvements and speed management measures,” as well as HVAC and mechanical upgrades, have removed an estimated 50,000 metric tons in annual emissions.²⁵

RCL continues to commit millions of dollars every year toward testing and implementing new technologies and initiatives to help meet emission reduction goals. According to 2014 and 2015 Sustainability Reports, accomplishments have included:

• Nearly 25 percent reduction in GHG emissions per available cruise passenger day since 2005.²⁶
• 52 percent reduction in refrigerants consumption since 2008.²⁷
• Advanced Emission Purification systems installed on 19 existing and five new ships,²⁸ with four full ship installations and fully certified emissions abatement²⁹ systems.³⁰
• Over 30 ships covered by advanced wastewater purification systems,³¹ and 90 percent better performance than International Maritime Organization standard for discharged bilge water.³²,³³
• 100 percent of operational waste repurposed on 17 ships,³⁴ and nearly 32 million pounds of recycled waste in 2015. According to RCL, “The benefits from avoided landfill greenhouse gas emissions are estimated to be similar to that of saving nearly 23 million trees.”³⁵

Destination Stewardship

Royal Caribbean has established partnerships with a number of international organizations to strengthen destination sustainability and stewardship programs. Contribution to the well-being of port destinations is often an area where the cruise industry is criticized for lack of action, although Royal Caribbean has attempted to make strides, with varied levels of success. In 2010, RCL launched the Sustainable Shore Excursion Program in partnership with Sustainable Travel International. The goal is to help operators align with globally recognized best practices and obtain certification from a Global Sustainable Tourism Council (GSTC) accredited program. By the end of 2015, nearly 70 tour operators had participated in the program.³⁶ Among its 2020 Sustainability Goals, RCL has pledged to increase the number of sustainable tours offered to guests by certifying 1,000 RCL tours to GSTC standards.³⁷ A source close to the project, however, shares that this admirable goal is ambitious, given that only 70 operators had participated in the program in the first five years.³⁸

In 2014, Royal Caribbean became a founding member of a public-private partnership called the Sustainable Destinations Alliance for the Americas, along with the Caribbean Tourism Organization, the Organization of American States (OAS), and Sustainable Travel International. According to the 2014 report, the Alliance “seeks to improve the way tourism is managed and to enhance the global competitiveness of the [Caribbean] by embedding sustainability into the day-to-day management and marketing of destinations.”³⁹ Following successful pilots in St. Kitts, Cozumel, and Roatán, 7 destinations in the Caribbean were selected for the first implementation phase, and the Alliance plans to expand to over 30 destinations.⁴⁰ Again, while this goal is admirable, no major update was provided by Royal Caribbean in their 2015 Sustainability Report, nor in other literature. A source with knowledge of the Alliance notes that the U.S. State Department did not provide funding to the OAS to continue the project.⁴¹

Most recently, in 2016, RCL and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) announced a promising five-year global partnership. According to WWF, “Through the partnership, Royal Caribbean will aim to achieve ambitious and measurable sustainability targets that reduce the company’s environmental footprint, raise awareness on the importance of ocean conservation among Royal Caribbean’s more than 5 million passengers worldwide, and support WWF’s ocean conservation work.”⁴² Their detailed targets, among others, include addressing supply chain sustainability, emissions reductions, and implementation of destination stewardship initiatives through 2020.⁴³ Destination Stewardship goals established through the partnership are described in Table 4.2. Jim Sano, WWF’s Vice President for Travel, Tourism and Conservation, says, “The travel industry can either be a threat or an opportunity to protect and restore our planet. Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. is the first major cruise line to endorse the Global Sustainable Tourism Tour Operator and Destination certification program, and identify an actionable plan to implement it through its supply chain. By mobilizing all the stakeholders, including industry, government and travelers, across the tourism industry, we have the opportunity to achieve conservation at scale.”

Table 4.2 WWF/RCL partnership destination stewardship 2020 targets⁴⁴

Beginning in 2016, RCL will support up to three WWF ocean tourism and coastal conservation projects per year to advance ongoing conservation efforts and continue to drive sustainability within the tourism industry.

By the end of 2017, working with partners such as WWF & GSTC, RCL will support the implementation of GSTC’s destination assessment in two destinations, as well as RCL private destinations, to identify sustainability and environmental threats and develop corrective action plans in concert with destination managers and local stakeholders.

By 2018, RCL will set a target for RCL private destinations to become GSTC-certified to the applicable GSTC standard.

WWF and RCL will continue to pursue alignment with WWF ocean conservation priorities and WWF’s Marine and Coastal Tourism Strategy.

Conclusions

Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. is working to help destinations plan for a sustainable future, fund marine science projects, and lessen their own contribution to climate change. The 2015 Sustainability Report states that stewardship goals for 2015–2020⁴⁵ include:

• 35 percent reduction in carbon emissions from 2005 levels.
• 85 percent decrease in waste to landfills from 2007 levels.
• Discharged processed bilge water will be purified to an effluent quality three times more stringent than international standards.
• 125 percent reduction of waste recycled from ships from 2007 baseline.
• Responsibly source 90 percent of its global wild-caught seafood by volume.
• 100 percent sourcing of cage-free eggs and gestation crate-free pork by 2022.⁴⁶
• 80 percent of guests and 100 percent of crew and key people in RCL destinations will be familiar with the Save the Waves program and The Ocean Fund.”⁴⁷

But is this enough? Climate change, pollution, lack of sustainable energy options, and other problems are already impacting the tourism industry in the Caribbean. More intense and erratic storms are threatening destinations and the travelers who visit them, including cruise ship passengers. RCL experienced this firsthand in September 2016, when the Anthem of the Seas, en route to Bermuda, was caught in the middle of tropical storm Hermine, featuring 90 mph winds and huge storm swells.⁴⁸ There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done by cruise lines in terms of climate change and contributing to a sustainable future. There does seem to be an understanding within RCL, however, that the very essence of their business depends on the health and vibrancy of the oceans and the overall environment. A glimmer of hope is found in Royal Caribbean Cruises’ recognition that business as usual is no longer an option for cruise lines, and in their efforts to move their operations toward a more climate-friendly and resilient future.

Notes

  1.  This case study was largely drawn from Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.’s 2014 Sustainability Report, 2015 Sustainability Report, and the Environment section of the corporate website, all accessed via http://www.rclcorporate.com/environment/. Facts and figures that are not cited as other sources can be found in these sources

  2.  Cruise Market Watch. (2016). “2015 World Wide Market Share.” http://www.cruisemarketwatch.com/market-share/

  3.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2016). 2015 Sustainability Report, 33. Downloadable at http://www.rclcorporate.com/environment/

  4.  Cruise Critic. (2016). “The Biggest Cruise Ships in the World.” http://www.cruisecritic.com/articles.cfm?ID=1431

  5.  Image Source: FaceMePLS from The Hague, The Netherlands (Harmony of The Seas) [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

  6.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2017). Royal Caribbean and the Environment. http://www.rclcorporate.com/environment/

  7.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. “Environment.” http://www.rclcorporate.com/environment/

  8.  Ibid.

  9.  Royal Caribbean International. “Outreach and Achievements.” http://www.royalcaribbean.com/ourCompany/environment/envOutreach.do; For specifics on ISO 9001:2000 quality management systems, visit http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=21823. For specifics on ISO 14001:2004 environmental management systems, visit http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=31807

10.  Royal Caribbean International. (2014). “Royal Caribbean and the Environment.” http://www.royalcaribbean.com/ourCompany/environment/rcAndEnvironment.do. To learn more about the Global Reporting Initiative G4 guidelines, visit https://www.globalreporting.org/resourcelibrary/GRI-An-introduction-to-G4.pdf

11.  Royal Caribbean Blog. (August 29, 2011). “Royal Caribbean Brings to Spain Its Environmental Policies.” http://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/category/category/save-waves

12.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. “Environment: Save the Waves.” http://www.rclcorporate.com/environment/

13.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2015). 2014 Sustainability Report, 66. http://www.rclcorporate.com/content/uploads/2014-RCL-Sustainability-Report.pdf

14.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2015), 66. Learn more about the Environmental Officer’s role at https://www.royalcaribbeanpresscenter.com/video/634/an-advocate-for-the-environment-the-role-of-royal-caribbeans-environmental-officers/

15.  Ibid., 81.

16.  Ibid.

17.  Royal Caribbean International. “The Ocean Fund.” http://www.royalcaribbean.com/ourCompany/environment/oceanFund.do

18.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2015). Op cit., 48.

19.  Ibid.

20.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2016). Op cit., 31.

21.  Author’s interview with Miguel Peña, Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Responsibility Manager, July 1, 2016.

22.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2015). Op cit., 59.

23.  Air lubrication is when air bubbles are created at the front of the ship’s hull, which reduce resistance or drag as it moves across the ocean.

24.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2015). Op cit., 59.

25.  Ibid.

26.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2016). Op cit., 4.

27.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2015). Op cit., 55.

28.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2016). 2015 Sustainability Report, 13. http://www.rclcorporate.com/environment/

29.  Abatement refers to technologies applied or measures taken to reduce pollution and/or environmental impacts.

30.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2015). Op cit., 55.

31.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2016) Op cit., 4.

32.  Bilge water is oil-contaminated water collected from engine spaces.

33.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2015). Op cit., 55.

34.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2016). Op cit., 15.

35.  Ibid., 6.

36.  Ibid., 28.

37.  Ibid., 5.

38.  Anonymous interview with author, 2017.

39.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2015). Op cit., 53.

40.  Ibid., 53.

41.  Anonymous interview with author, 2017.

42.  World Wildlife Fund. (March 29, 2017). “WWF and Royal Caribbean Partnership: 2016 Annual Report.” https://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/1003/files/original/Royal_Caibbean_WWF_Annual_Report.pdf?1490799218

43.  World Wildlife Fund. (2016). “Partnerships: Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd.” http://www.worldwildlife.org/partnerships/royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd

44.  World Wildlife Fund. (June 30, 2016). “WWF and Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (RCL) Increase Commitments to Long-Term Ocean Health.” http://www.worldwildlife.org/blogs/on-balance/posts/wwf-and-royal-caribbean-cruises-ltd-rcl-increase-commitments-to-long-term-ocean-health

45.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (2016). Op cit., 5.

46.  Royal Caribbean Blog. (December 3, 2015). “Royal Caribbean Commits to Using Cage-Free Eggs and Gestation-Crate Free Pork.” http://www.royalcaribbeanblog.com/2015/12/03/royal-caribbean-commits-using-cage-free-eggs-and-gestation-crate-free-pork

47.  Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. (November 24, 2015). “More Bubbles Mean Better Mileage: 7th Annual Report Shows How Innovation Drives Environmental Gains.” http://www.rclcorporate.com/more-bubbles-mean-better-mileage-7th-annual-report-shows-how-innovation-drives-environmental-gains/

48.  Daily Mail. (September 5, 2016). “Not Exactly Smooth Sailing! The Moment Cruise Ship is Battered by Hermine’s 90mph Winds and Huge Waves as the Tropical Storm Veers Away from the US.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3773620/Tropical-storm-Hermine-drifts-slightly-sea-continues-path-east-coast.html

Case Study 4.3

Climate Change and Cruise Tourism in Cozumel, México

---

by Kennedy Obombo Magio and Elisa Guillén Arguelles

Introduction

Since at least 2012, the Mexican Caribbean island of Cozumel has vied with The Bahamas as the Caribbean’s leading international cruise tourism destination. Cruise tourism is, in fact, the main source of income for Cozumel’s local government.¹ Yet, Cozumel is experiencing major challenges to this industry, including security concerns, socio-economic and environmental problems, and climate change impacts, including stronger storms, higher temperatures during summer, and rising sea level. Understanding the relationship between climate change and cruise tourism is important so that key stakeholders, including policymakers, the cruise industry, scientists, and academics, can formulate appropriate strategies to address potential impacts and protect Cozumel’s leading position as a cruise destination.

Cozumel is a 30-mile-long island located off the eastern coast of Mexico’s Yucatán Peninsula, opposite the coastal town of Playa del Carmen and close to the Yucatán Channel. It has a population of about 80,000 permanent residents. Cozumel is home to a mix of tourists, including cruise ship day trippers who spend from five to nine hours onshore; all-inclusive, stay-over hotel guests, mainly from the United States, who typically stay three to four days; low-budget backpackers from Europe and other parts of Mexico; and long-stay expatriates and retirees with homes in Cozumel.² The main attractions include more than 30 nearby Mayan archeological sites, as well as unique biodiversity, including coral reefs, mangroves, wetlands, salt marshes, and wildlife including manatees, stingrays and other marine life (see Image 4.3.1).

Image 4.3.1 Sites seen while snorkeling in Cozumel, Mexico³

In 2016, Cozumel set a new record with 4.3 million visitors, a 7.5 percent increase over 2015 according to SECTUR, Mexico’s Ministry of Tourism.⁴ This included 3.7 million cruise passengers and 843,221 stay-over visitors, most of whom arrived by plane through Cancun’s international airport; a smaller number of day visitors arrive via ferry from Riviera Maya.⁵ Tourism and related commerce accounts for 78 percent of the island’s economic activities, with the remaining 22 percent comprised mainly of fishing, agriculture, ranching, manufacturing, and construction.⁶ There are 45 hotels on Cozumel with 4,098 rooms and an average occupancy rate of 46.6 percent.⁷ According to the port authority, investments in new hotels and megaresorts on the island’s east coast are currently underway to accommodate growing visitor numbers and expand the island’s tourism-dependent economy.⁸

Economic Importance of Cruise Tourism in Cozumel

Cozumel’s cruise infrastructure includes three piers, which receive about 1,600 ships a year (see Image 4.3.2).⁹ Virtually all (96 percent) of Cozumel’s cruise passengers come from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada.¹⁰ In 2012, cruise passengers spent on average US$89, while stay-over visitors spent an average of US$538 for their total visit,¹¹ generating a combined total tourist spending of US$44.89 million.¹² According to a 2016 SECTUR study, cruise passenger spending had increased to an average of about $120,¹⁴ while overnight tourists spent $538 for an average stay of three days.¹⁵ In other Mexican ports, cruise passengers spent on average only $75. Cozumel is higher, SECTUR concludes, because of its “natural attractions and the growing number of providers of tourist services.”¹⁶ The findings of a 2014–2015 cruise season study by Business Research & Economic Advisors (BREA) are similar. This study, commissioned by the FCCA, determined that from May 2014 to April 2015, 2.97 million cruise passengers arrived in Cozumel, and 2.54 million (85 percent) disembarked. On average, those who disembarked spent $120,¹⁷ or virtually the same as SECTUR’s 2016 findings.

Image 4.3.2 Multiple ships at Puerta Maya Port in Cozumel, Mexico¹³

The BREA study also determined that Cozumel generated US$366 million in direct cruise sector expenditures from passenger, crew, and cruise line purchases, making it the third highest among the 35 destinations covered in this study.¹⁸ The study identified three principal sources for the economic benefits Cozumel derives from cruise tourism: onshore expenditures by passengers, including shore excursions and retail purchases of clothing and jewelry; onshore spending by crew, which mainly comprises purchases of food and beverages, local transportation, and clothing and electronics; and expenditures by the cruise lines for supplies, such as food and beverages, port services (navigation and utility services), and port fees and taxes, such as wharfage and dockage fees.¹⁹ The BREA study also found that cruise tourism in Cozumel generated direct employment for 6,114 residents, paying US$37.9 million in annual wages, or just over US$6,000 per employee. These were the highest employment numbers among the 35 destinations BREA studied.²⁰

Climate Change Impacts on Cruise Tourism in Cozumel

Given Cozumel’s economic dependence on cruise tourism, addressing climate change is crucially important. Climate change will directly impact core tourism resources (hotels, ports and marinas, airports, and other infrastructure), cultural sites, and natural assets, and indirectly, the flow of tourists, goods, and services (see the Chapter 4 Overview and Case Study 4.1 for more information on such impacts). The Geography Institute at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) has identified Cozumel as one of five areas most vulnerable to sea level rise in the Mexican Caribbean.²¹ Much of the island’s tourism infrastructure and attractions are located along the shoreline and nearshore, including three cruise ship piers, more than ten boat yards and marinas, roads, restaurants, hotels and resorts, as well as beaches and coral reefs. In 2005 alone, three hurricanes—Emily, Stan, and Wilma—caused losses in Cozumel of more than four billion pesos (about US$400 million) and generated 7,400 insurance claims.^22,23

Wilma, a category 5 hurricane, was declared the most intense tropical storm ever recorded in the Atlantic.²⁴ The hurricane made landfall in Cozumel, moving over the island from south to north, with the eye passing directly over the northern tip. The strength of the storm, coupled with its slow movement, created catastrophic winds, wave action, and rain, which caused tremendous damage to both beachfront and inland areas. (There were, for example, as many fallen electricity poles on Avenue 65, which is 12 blocks inland, as there were on Melgar Street, which runs along the beachfront.²⁵) In the aftermath of Wilma, César Patricio Reyes Roel, the general coordinator of Mexico’s ports and marinas, urged cruise ships scheduled for Cozumel to use alternative destinations such as Progreso in the Yucatán Peninsula.²⁶

Overall, the hurricane caused an exodus of about 9,000 tourists from Cozumel and damaged 98 percent of the island’s hotels; 15 required complete reconstruction, including eight in the downtown area that were swept away during the storm.²⁸ In addition, one of the island’s three main cruise piers was completely destroyed (see Image 4.3.3), and another was extensively damaged and shut down for several months to allow for repairs. With temporary repairs, this pier was able to resume operations, but eventually a new one had to be built.²⁹ Although Cozumel’s cruise ship piers, and cargo piers used for cruise ships, should be able to withstand large hurricane waves, their destruction may be explained by inadequacies in the original design and construction, making them susceptible to powerful storms.³⁰ As the 2005 hurricane season dramatically demonstrated, Cozumel needs to become much better prepared to withstand the impacts of hurricanes and tropical storms.

Image 4.3.3 The pier in Cozumel destroyed by Hurricane Wilma²⁷

Beach erosion caused by storms and rising sea level is another major concern for the cruise tourism industry. Since many tourists visiting Cozumel are attracted by the white sand beaches, warm blue waters, and coral reefs, the island becomes less attractive when the sand is washed away. On average, sea level in Cozumel rises about 2.0 mm per year.³¹ According to Elio Reyes Novelo, the Director of Ecology at Cozumel´s municipal government, sea level rise has eroded strips of up to 200 meters of beach.³² In an interview, the port’s manager noted that years ago, Cozumel had a lively downtown beach area just a few steps from the island’s ferry pier. However, the area has since been adversely impacted by storms and strong currents.³³

Climate change is already bringing increased costs for both governments and the tourism industry. According to a study by the InterAmerican Development Bank, “Climate change will have an impact on the operating costs of tourism operators, such as insurance, heating and cooling costs, pest management, and the need to augment the water supply for drinking and irrigation needs.” The study continues, “Of significant importance to tourism will be the effects of extreme events on infrastructure and insurance costs. The Association of British Insurers suggests that insurance premiums for the Caribbean region could increase by 20–80 percent by mid-century. Private sector insurance coverage may no longer be available in particularly high-risk areas.”³⁴

Mitigation and Adaptation

In their attempts to keep customers, Cozumel hotel managers have undertaken beach replenishment and restoration, sometimes without the permission of government authorities like SEMARNAT (Environmental and Natural Resources Ministry) and the PROFEPA (Federal Environmental Protection Office). Previous municipal governments have tried to restore the area: in 2009 and 2010, for example, the government carried out beach restoration and maintenance in Cozumel, Playa del Carmen, and Cancun.³⁵ The project was, however, highly criticized by some environmentalists for harming and destroying coral reefs. A local newspaper reported that Cozumel divers, accompanied by biologists and members of the Department of Civil Defense, obtained photographs and videos of the damage caused by dredging for sand on the north bank. The article stated that the “images revealed the destruction of coral, conch, and oysters, and that the sand had been taken down to the sandstone substrate. Uprooted coral and sponges were covered with crushed conch and shells, and coral beds were covered with sand.”³⁶ The north bank is one of the last sanctuaries of the endangered queen conch, and the divers reported finding only shell remnants and no live conch. They estimated that it would take 10 years to restore the area to its original condition and to repopulate it with queen conch.

In 2013, another beach restoration project was launched by the Municipal Department of Public Works, National Polytecnic’s research center (CINESTAV or Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Avanzados del Politécnico Nacional), and ZOFEMAT (Federal Terrestrial Marine Zone) to restore the downtown zone.³⁷ The project entailed bringing in 33,000 cubic meters of sand from the northern end of the island to Playa Las Casitas. Seeking to improve on previous projects, the Beach Restoration and Maintenance Trust (Fideicomiso para la Restauración, Sostenimiento y Mantenimiento de la Zona Federal Marítimo Terrestre de Quintana Roo) managed to restore an additional 1.5 kilometers of beach in Cozumel.³⁸

Another issue is that most hotels and other tourism structures on the island are built in front of the sand dune, and within Mexico’s maritime zone (see Image 4.3.4). In Mexico, the Federal Terrestrial Marine Zone is defined as a strip 20 meters wide above the high tide mark.³⁹ In other Caribbean countries, the maritime zone ranges from 5 to 152 meters.⁴⁰ Based on projections published in an article by the Union of Concerned Scientists, some 90 percent of major tourism resorts in Cozumel could be damaged or destroyed by a combination of 1–2 meters of sea level rise (SLR), storm surges, and SLR-enhanced erosion.⁴¹ Recent studies have shown that the average storm surge during hurricanes in the Mexican Caribbean is now 0.89 to 1.3 meters above sea level.⁴² If scientific predictions are accurate, it is clear that adaptation strategies to mitigate these projections are urgently required.

Image 4.3.4 View of Cozumel from the cruise ship pier⁴³

The Way Forward: Resilience Strategies for Cozumel

There are no shortcuts or silver bullets for addressing climate change, just a suite of good practices developed over several decades through careful research and experimentation. The range of climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies that Cozumel should consider include hurricane shelters (emergency evacuation centers); improved design of piers, marinas and boatyard infrastructure; and setting dry docks and other facilities back from the coastline. Additionally, the local government needs to update its environmental policies and strictly enforce design and building regulations covering building height limits, installation of alternative sources of energy for generators and other important equipment, safe storage of harmful or hazardous substances, and appropriate design and siting of waste treatment plants.⁴⁴

One of Cozumel’s primary challenges is to collect adequate and specific meteorological data that can assist in planning and forecasting climate-related occurrences. However, discussions with municipal authorities, hotel managers, representatives of tourism associations, residents, and cruise travelers revealed that they are not sufficiently aware of the potential impacts from climate change on the island’s tourism businesses, including the cruise sector.⁴⁵ Based on interviews with local officials and experts, and a review of regional and local development plans,⁴⁶ it is evident that most key government agencies involved in tourism regulation and development are not even using the information available on climate change for planning purposes. For instance, local government officials in charge of environmental issues at the Municipal Council of Cozumel are not familiar with climate projections made by regional researchers,⁴⁷ or the storm surge atlases and climate change risk atlases produced for most destinations by CARIBSAVE.⁴⁸ This information is particularly important for land use planning and for regulation of new tourism development projects. In addition, there are no signs of federal and local governments preparing climate change adaptation and mitigation measures targeted for the tourism industry. Rather, key government agencies have issued broad statements with little detail on how Cozumel and other destinations will overcome potential climate-related challenges.⁴⁹

For planning and forecasting purposes, consolidated, harmonized, and accurate climate information is crucial to both cruise business operators and cruise travelers, as well as government agencies and tourism businesses in Cozumel. Cozumel needs to establish a meteorological center, or improve the accuracy and efficiency in existing climate recording stations. Telecommunications infrastructure needs to be strengthened so that the island can transmit and receive data on climate through satellite links. Given the importance of Cozumel to the cruise industry, and vice versa, Cozumel’s municipal authorities might approach the cruise lines to help fund such data collection facilities.

Another critical mitigation strategy for Cozumel is to build human capacity and systems for emergency management, disaster planning, and preparedness. Destination disaster management agencies should be adequately equipped to handle hurricanes as destructive as Wilma, and planning and policy making for disaster management should be based on scientifically rigorous vulnerability studies. Both the OAS⁵⁰ and the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF)⁵¹ have longstanding disaster response and preparedness programs that work with communities, governments, and the private sector in the Caribbean to address climate change impacts. Some important cruise destinations such as Puerto Rico have already undertaken climate-related disaster preparation and training.⁵²

Dr. Alejandro Palafox Muñoz, a professor of tourism at Quintana Roo University who has done extensive research on cruise tourism, has proposed a Climate Change Management Unit (CCMU) or Coastal Zone Management Unit (CZMU) for Cozumel, with scientists, planners, and adequate budgetary allocation from the local government.⁵³ As a model, Cuba has succeeded in integrating coastal tourism management with climate change mitigation strategies.⁵⁴ Cuba has teams of technicians, scientists, and environmentalists dedicated to management and monitoring of the country’s 3,000 miles of coastline. It has also committed resources to create the appropriate legal, institutional, and political frameworks to forecast and mitigate impacts associated with climate change.

Shoreline protection and beach improvement based on environmentally sensitive and successful techniques (See Chapter 2 in Coastal Tourism, Sustainability, and Climate Change in the Caribbean, Volume 1: Beaches and Hotels) are required in Cozumel, and will become more critical in the next 20 years.⁵⁵ Ideally, the cost of protecting private property—both hotels and cruise tourism infrastructure—would be borne by companies, and the burden for protecting beaches and other public spaces would be the responsibility of the government. A good example of a destination that has significantly invested in coastal management and protection is Barbados.⁵⁶ Since 1983, the government there has invested over US$17.1 million in feasibility and planning studies and beach improvement plans. Another US$28 million has been committed for about seven major beach and shoreline improvement projects.⁵⁷ Cozumel should establish a Coastal Risk Assessment and Management Program similar to the one in Barbados to ensure a healthy environment and continued economic development through improved management and conservation/protection of the coastal zone. The program should include a range of coastal management activities related to the following main objectives: shoreline stabilization and erosion control; restoration of coastal habitats; improvement of public coastal access; and institutional strengthening for coastal management.

Addressing impacts of climate change is critical to the future of cruise destinations such as Cozumel, since the industry depends on attractive and healthy coastal marine resources, as well as adequate tourism infrastructure in ports. This requires a holistic integrated management plan involving public and private sectors as well as host communities at the destination. Cruise lines need to invest in and promote climate change research and impact mitigation techniques. Additionally, local and federal governments need to demonstrate political will to safeguard Cozumel from potential impacts of climate change that may affect the most important economic activity for the island.

Notes

  1.  Universidad de Quintana Roo, SECTUR, and Gobierno del Estado de Quintana Roo. (December 2013). Agendas de Competitividad de los Destinos Turisticos de Mexico: Estudio de Competitividad Turística del Destino Cozumel. www.sectur.gob.mx/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/PDF-Cozumel.pdf

  2.  Ibid.

  3.  Corey Balazowich, Creative Commons: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/legalcode

  4.  National System of Statistical Information for the Mexican Tourism Sector (Sistema Nacional de la Información Estadística del Sector Turismo de México – DATATUR). (2015). “Cruise Tourism Activity.” Originally from The General Directorate of Ports (Dirección General de Puertos), Ministry of Communication and Transport (Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes). http://www.datatur.sectur.gob.mx/SitePages/Actividades%20en%20Crucero.aspx

  5.  Novedades Quintana Roo. (2016). “Cozumel’s Tourism Arrival Grows by 16% (Aumenta 16% el Flujo Turístico hacia Cozumel).” http://sipse.com/novedades/turismo-hacia-cozumel-2015-164585.html

  6.  Universidad de Quintana Roo, SECTUR, and Gobierno del Estado de Quintana Roo. (December 2013). Op cit., 42.

  7.  Secretaría de Turismo, Quintana Roo (SEDETUR). Indicadores Turísticos: Estadísticas. (January – September 2016). Department of Planning and Development (Dirección de Planeación y Desarrollo). http://sedetur.qroo.gob.mx/estadisticas/indicadores/2017/Indicadores%20Tur%20-%20Enero%20-%20Septiembre%20%202016.pdf

  8.  Gabriela Rodríguez. (September 22, 2015). “Cozumel, Looking for a Better Hotel Investment.” In Meetings & Events, Venues Hosted by Exhibitions Cargo. Originally posted in gruposyconvenciones.info. https://exhibitionscargo.com/2015/09/cozumel-looking-for-a-better-hotel-investment/

  9.  Alejandro Palafox Muñoz and Adalberto Velázquez Méndez. (2008). “Impactos Económicos Originados por el Huracán Wilma en el Empleo Turístico de la Isla de Cozumel.” In Turismo: Desastres naturales, sociedad y medioambiente. Universidad de Quintana Roo, Mexico. http://www.academia.edu/7257745/Impactos_econ%C3%B3micos_originados_por_el_hurac%C3%A1n_Wilma_en_el_empleo_tur%C3%ADstico_de_la_isla_de_Cozumel

10.  Business Research & Economic Advisors (BREA). (October 2015). Economic Contribution of Cruise Tourism to the Destination Economies: A Survey-Based Analysis of the Impacts of Passenger, Crew and Cruise Line Spending, Volume 1: Aggregate Analysis and Volume II: Destination Reports. Prepared for Florida-Caribbean Cruise Association and Participating Destinations. http://www.f-cca.com/downloads/2012-Cruise-Analysis-vol-1.pdf and http://www.f-cca.com/downloads/2015-cruise-analysis-volume-2.pdf.BREA

11.  Universidad de Quintana Roo, SECTUR, and Gobierno del Estado de Quintana Roo. (December 2013). Op cit.

12.  Secretaría de Turismo, Quintana Roo (SEDETUR). Indicadores Turísticos: Estadísticas. (January –September 2016). Op cit.

13.  Image Source: Whiskey5jda (Own work). (January 28, 2016). [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

14.  Ibid.

15.  Ibid.

16.  Ibid.

17.  BREA. (October 2015). Vol. 11: Destination Reports.

18.  Ibid., 253–57.

19.  BREA. (October 2015). Vol. 1: Aggregate Analysis. 5–7.

20.  BREA (October 2015). Vol. II: Destination Reports. “Cozumel,” 255–56.

21.  Alejandro Palafox Muñoz and Adalberto Velázquez Méndez. (2008). Op cit.

22.  Ibid.

23.  Grant Thornton. (2005). “El Impacto Economico de los Huracanes Stan y Wilma esta Calculado en Poco Mas de 30,000 Millones de Pesos.” Economía, 11. http://www.nafin.com.mx/portalnf/get?file=/pdf/herramientas-negocio/Economia1105.pdf

24.  John C. Bardi, Bruce I. Ostbo, S. Fenical, and M. Tirindelli. (2007). “Cozumel’s International Cruise Terminal: Hurricane Wilma Recovery and Reconstruction.” Presented during the 11th Triennial International Conference on Ports. http://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/40834%28238%2971

25.  Cozumel Insider. (2005). “Hurricane Wilma Recovery Update.” http://www.cozumelinsider.com/wilma 

26.  Authors’ interviews with government officials, tourism businesses, tourists, and experts. (2016–17). Cozumel, Mexico.

27.  Image Source: bato93 [CC BY 2.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.

28.  Alejandro Palafox Muñoz and Adalberto Velázquez Méndez. (2008). Op cit.

29.  Cozumel Insider. (2005). Op cit.

30.  Murray Simpson, Daniel Scott, Ulric Trotz. (2011). Climate Change’s Impact on the Caribbean’s Ability to Sustain Tourism, Natural Assets and Livelihoods. Technical Notes No. IDB-TN-238. Environmental Safeguards Unit. Inter-American Development Bank. Washington, D.C., 4. http://www19.iadb.org/intal/intalcdi/PE/2011/07903.pdf. Though the authors do not make any direct reference to Cozumel, their findings offer a valid explanation of the probable causes of the destruction witnessed in the aftermath of Wilma.

31.  Z.D. Tessler, C.J. Vörösmarty, M. Grossberg, I. Gladkova, H. Aizenman, J.P.M. Syvitski, E. Foufoula-Georgiou. (August 7, 2015). “Profiling Risk and Sustainability in Coastal Deltas of the World.” Science 349(6248), 638–43. doi:10.1126/science.aab3574

32.  Authors’ interviews with government officials, tourism businesses, tourists, and experts. (2016–17). Cozumel, Mexico.

33.  Ibid.

34.  Murray Simpson, Daniel Scott, Ulric Trotz. (2011). Op cit.

35.  Top Mexico. (2008). “Beach Recovery Approved for Cozumel, Playa del Carmen and Cancun.” http://www.topmexicorealestate.com/blog/2008/12/beach-recovery-approved-for-cozumel-playa-del-carmen-cancun/

36.  POR ESTO Quintana Roo. (2010). “Devastador Dragado de Arena.” http://www.poresto.net/ver_nota.php?zona=qroo&idSeccion=2&idTitulo=25842

37.  Ayuntamiento del Municipio de Cozumel. (2013). “Cozumel Municipal Development Plan” (Plan Municipal de Desarrollo 2013 - 2016 del Municipio de Cozumel). http://www.islacozumel.gob.mx/uvtaip/pdfs/PMD2013-2016.pdf

38.  The Trust was established in 2009 by the Government of Quintana Roo with a budgetary allocation of over a billion pesos; however, its efforts were largely focused on Cancún and Playa del Carmen. Source: Novedades Quintana Roo. (2015). “Restaurarán Fideicomiso de Mantenimiento de Playas.” http://sipse.com/novedades/reestructuraran-fideicomiso-de-mantenimiento-de-playas-172245.html

39.  Alejandro Palafox Muñoz and Adalberto Velázquez Méndez. (2008). Op cit.

40.  Judi Clarke. (2017). “Overview—Protecting Shorelines from Impacts of Climate Change.” Chapter 2: Beach and Shoreline Projection. In Martha Honey and Samantha Hogenson, eds. Coastal Tourism, Sustainability, and Climate Change in the Caribbean: Volume 1.

41.  Union of Concerned Scientists. (2011). “Sea-level Rise Threatens Yucatán Peninsula, Cancun, Mexico.” Climate Hot Map: Global Warming Effects Around the World. http://www.climatehotmap.org/global-warming-locations/cancun-mexico.html

42.  Oscar Frausto Martínez, Thomas Ihl, Justo Rojas López. (2016). “Atlas de Riesgos de la Isla de Cozumel, México.” Teoría y Praxis, 74–93.

43.  Image Source: Kennedy Obombo Magio.

44.  Authors’ interviews with government officials, tourism businesses, tourists, and experts. (2016–17). Cozumel, Mexico.

45.  Ibid.

46.  Universidad de Quintana Roo, SECTUR, y Gobierno del Estado de Quintana Roo. (December 2013). Op cit.

47.  Oscar Frausto Martínez, Thomas Ihl, Justo Rojas López. (2016).

48.  Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre. (2012). The CARIBSAVE Climate Change Risk Atlas (CCCRA) 2009-2011. http://www.caribbeanclimate.bz/closed-projects/2009-2011-the-caribsave-climate-change-risk-atlas-cccra.html

49.  Official Federal Bulletin – DOF. (2013). Special Program of Climate Change 2014-2018 (Programa Especial de Cambio Climático –PECC- 2014-2018). http://www.semarnat.gob.mx/sites/default/files/documentos/transparencia/programa_especial_de_cambio_climatico_2014-2018.pdf

50.  Organization of American States. Risk Management and Adaptation to Climate Change. http://www.oas.org/en/sedi/dsd/riskmanagement/default.asp

51.  Pan American Development Foundation. “Disaster Response and Preparedness.” http://www.padf.org/disaster-response-and-preparedness/

52.  Jenniffer M. Santos-Hernández, Havidán Rodríguez, and Walter Díaz. (2008). “Disaster Decision Support Tool (DDST): An Additional Step Towards Community Resilience.” Disaster Research Center (DRC). University of Delaware and Center for Applied Social Research (CISA), University of Puerto Rico-Mayagüez. http://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/3253/Misc%2057.pdf;jsessionid=A050DF6CF313D8EA253B5FA49666BFC3?sequence=1

53.  Authors’ interviews with government officials, tourism businesses, tourists, and experts. (2016–17). Cozumel, Mexico.

54.  Alejandro Palafox Muñoz, Arturo Aguilar Aguilar, Julia Sderis Anaya Ortiz. (2015). “Cozumel y la Transformación de su Paisaje por el Turismo de Cruceros.” Revista de Ciencias Sociales (Cr), 3(149), 103–15. Universidad de Costa Rica: San José, Costa Rica.

55.  María de Jesús Moo Canul, Carlos Alonso Estrella Carrillo, Romano Gino Segrado Pavón, and Lucinda Arroyo Arcos. (December 2015). “Estudio de un Destino de Cruceros a Partir de la Estimación del Efecto Multiplicador: Caso Cozumel (México).” Études caribéennes. 31–32. http://etudescaribeennes.revues.org/7522

56.  Coastal Zone Management Unit. (2016). “History of Integrated Coastal Zone Management in Barbados.” http://www.coastal.gov.bb/?q=content/history-integrated-coastal-zone-management-barbados