Policy Analysis: Redefining Costa Rica’s Certification for Sustainable Tourism (CST) Program
Historical Solutions
CST was developed in 1995 by the Costa Rican Tourism Institute (ICT) and has been successful in reducing greenwashing in Costa Rica by large corporations. It has however, been criticized for overlooking smaller businesses and failing to protect the environment and local communities within its promotion of ecotourism.
The policy attempts to address these shortcomings, noting that in South Africa evaluation criteria for a similar program were developed with scientific and local input and contributed significantly to the overall success of the program as well as creating more equitable distribution of economic benefits among the local community (12).
Social and Political Impacts
This policy change is motivated at its core to improve the socioeconomic status of monolingual spanish-speakers in Monteverde.
CST has been a stable and generally supported program since its inception. There has been discussion of making CST self-supporting via a cost for certification review, although this is not supported by small ecotourism businesses (5). The National Liberation Party currently has the most seats (seventeen) in the Legislative Assembly, while president Carlos Alvarado belongs to the Citizens Action party. Both parties are generally socialist in stance, prioritizing welfare, progressive tax reform, and environmental protection. Costa Rica is a progressive nation with a strong record of environmental protection measures and a public sentiment of exceptionalism. This is the self-perception among Costa Ricans that they are significantly different (better) from other Central American people because of their social and environmental responsibility (10). Combined, this creates a political environment inclined towards change that benefits the environment and disadvantaged persons, even to the detriment of business interests.
With any ecotourism policy the environment itself is a stakeholder. Additionally, international, large, small, and local ecotourism businesses; the ICT; workers in the ecotourism industry; and residents outside of but near the ecotourism industry are all stakeholders.
The environment is given a voice by interested groups, especially the Costa Rican government, environmental NGOs, and those that profit from environmental goods and services (ex. the ecotourism industry). Improved protection of the environment is one of the stated goals of the CST program especially through conversion of greenwashing businesses to true environmental benefactors (2,5).
Considering that this policy aims to increase ecotourism, it will doubtless come with some environmental degradation.
Ecotourism businesses want to maximize their profits. CST certification is free and increases their revenue, and they pay taxes to fund the program whether or not they chose to participate (4). Small businesses often are not adequately notified about the CST option, meaning that they effectively pay for the certification of other, larger, companies. Thus, larger businesses are often more in favor of CST than smaller (6).
Part of the proposed policy includes an effort to better reach small, local ecotourism businesses in order that they might take advantage of the CST program.
The ICT developed and implements the CST program. CST is a draw on their budgetary resources, and they have considered charging certification fees to make CST self-sustaining and liberate funding for other departmental functions (5,7). However, ICT also touts CST as one of their achievements and would not be in favor of its abolition.
Proposed changes would meet resistance within ICT from those whose programs are reduced in favor of CST alteration/expansion. Alternatively, if ICT decides to increase revenue rather than re-allocating their funds, the Legislative Assembly would have to be convinced to support the measure. Given the progressive and socially and environmentally conscious zeitgeist of Costa Rican politics it is likely that the Legislative Assembly would support such a measure. Additionally, business lobbies would likely pressure the government to include increased tax breaks for CST Certified businesses in any legislation raising taxes to fund CST improvement. Such a business incentive would likely find approval, since most tax revenue supporting CST comes from international tourists rather than businesses.
Workers in the ecotourism industry benefit from CST because it increases visitation to their employer’s businesses. Increased visitation not only creates more opportunity for gratuity collection, but can cause hiring expansion and possibility for promotion (5).
Residents outside the ecotourism industry but in close proximity to its attractions and businesses are harmed by CST when increased tourist visitation raises their cost of living and land values (1). CST attempts to provide cultural and economic benefits to local communities, but especially in the case of monolingual residents often falls short (2,6) (E. Cruz, Personal Communication, May 2017).
The changes within this policy would attempt to address this situation so that monolingual residents were provided with adequate opportunities for socioeconomic advancement. They would be able to equally benefit from the ecotourism boom without falling behind the rising tide of cost of living and land rent.
Operational Impacts
CST draws on financial resources from the ICT, as well as technical expertise from social, environmental, and economic scientists to develop evaluation criteria. Marketing is also needed for successful CST operation (4).
Proposed policy would include work by social scientists to develop guidelines for how to better serve monolingual citizens around the ecotourism industry. Additionally, marketing specifically aimed at smaller businesses would be required.
The ICT began developing CST in 1995, with full implementation achieved by 1997, and the first program expansion from original in 2005. Changes and expansions to CST would likely take about 2 hours to develop and implement (4).
CST is a national policy implemented on a per-business level. It has been replicated in other Central and South American nations (4,5).
Economic and Budgetary Impacts
The total budget of the Costa Rican Tourism Institute is approx. 32,360,000,000 colones per year. The CST Program falls under the Services division, whose annual expenditure is approx. 14,040,000,000. Within the Services, CST is part of Commercial and Financial Services whose annual budget is 360,000,000 (7).
Improvements to CST certification criteria, transition away from a tier system, and program expansion through increased marketing would likely increase CST’s requested budget share by 10–15%. This could either be covered by transfer of funds away from other programs, or increased tax revenue.
Costs of the CST program are covered by tax revenue. Tax revenue from the consumption and production of services brings in 3,500,000 colones per year. Taxes on international travel generate 25,000,000,000 annually (8). Tax revenue more than covers the total CST budget share, meaning that the ecotourism industry (tourists and businesses that serve them) effectively fund the CST program. Increases in travel and patronage that are due to CST help to fund CST through tax revenue. On the scale of small businesses, increased patronage from CST certification outweighs tax costs because taxes are already collected on their profits anyway. Citizens of Costa Rica outside of the ecotourism industry do not pay to fund the CST program.
Proposed CST program changes would increase costs but also could increase tourism. The increases in tourism tax revenues could indirectly make the proposed CST changes at least partially self-funding.If tourism responds strongly to proposed policy then cost burden will fall primarily on tourists (especially international). If tourism does not show strong response, then the majority of program cost would fall to ecotourism businesses.
Additionally, on the scale of businesses applying for the CST label under proposed changes, there will be a greater cost to achieve certification because of requirements for either training, educating, or simply hiring of monolingual individuals.
Environmental Impacts
The central paradox of ecotourism is that the more tourists one has, the less of the isolation and natural beauty will necessarily be available for everyone. This is because in terms of ecotourism the environment is what economists call a “rival good”- each person’s utility from using the good is reduced by another person’s use of the good. Not only is anthropogenic utility reduced, but increased ecotourism, no matter how sustainably planned, will always have some negative environmental impacts.
The saving grace of ecotourism is that its negative effects are often less than the negative effects of other land uses, and thus a relative environmental benefit remains.
As a policy that looks to increase ecotourism, CST will invariably cause some environmental degradation, especially via resource and infrastructure exploitation by tourists. Development of marketing and transportation has moved faster than lodging and amenities so that more tourists arrive than the area can reasonably support, causing local electric, septic, water, and transportation systems to become overwhelmed and faulty in many areas. In order to address these affects, the Costa Rican government and Hotel and Resorts Association have both issued restrictions on development meant to increase sustainability (9).
Although the proposed policy attempts to address the socioeconomic impacts of CST, it does not tackle the environmental impacts of CST certification. Here we operate under the assumption that in areas such as Monteverde, increased ecotourism has a relatively lesser negative impact than the other dominant land uses such as cattle farming. Cattle farming is the main cause of deforestation in Monteverde, and also significantly contributes to erosion which reduces future soil potential as well as reducing water quality in montane streams (10).
Public Health
CST may contribute to a reduction in quality of life for monolingual spanish speakers in Costa Rica. Monolingual spanish-speakers are therefore at a higher risk for poverty-related health problems. Conversely, those employed by the ecotourism industry generally experience higher quality of life, giving them greater access to preventative and treatment measures (11).
Policy implementation should reduce the relative economic injury experiences by these monolingual residents and facilitate their socioeconomic advancement, thereby reducing their risk factors for disease as well as increasing their access to medical care and a prevention-oriented lifestyle.
Data on the actual CST impact on local populations and the environment is nonexistent. Especially in the case of the socioeconomic status of monolingual spanish-speakers, the census does not record language acquisition status and so scientific review of ecotourism impacts is near impossible without field research (3).
References
(1) Blackwood, Janet. “Language Choice Motivations in a Bribri Community in Costa Rica.” (2013).
(2) Certification for Sustainable Tourism. “What CST is all About” Certification for Sustainable Tourism. 2018. Accessed September 27, 2018. https://www.turismo-sostenible.co.cr/en/sobrecst/about-cst.shtml.
(3) Costa Rica. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos. Censos 2000–2011. Costa Rica, 2011.
(4) Haaland, Hanne, and Øystein Aas. “Eco‐tourism Certification–Does it Make a Difference? A Comparison of Systems from Australia, Costa Rica and Sweden.” Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism 10, no. 3 (2010): 375–385.
(5) Honey, Martha. “Giving a grade to Costa Rica’s green tourism.” NACLA Report on the Americas 36, no. 6 (2003): 39–47.Honey, Martha. Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise?. Island Press, 2008.
(6) Honey, Martha. Ecotourism and sustainable development: Who owns paradise?. Island Press, 2008.
(7) Instituto Costarricense De Turismo. “Composicion Egresos 2016.” Instituto Costarricense De Turismo- Financial Department. 2016. Accessed September 29, 2018. https://www.ict.go.cr/en/our-work/financial-department.html.
(8) Instituto Costarricense De Turismo. “Composicion Ingresos 2016.” Instituto Costarricense De Turismo- Financial Department. 2016. Accessed September 29, 2018. https://www.ict.go.cr/en/our-work/financial-department.html.
(9) McPhaul, John. “Tourism Boom Threatens Costa Rica Eco-Paradise”. Reuters. June 19, 2008. Accessed September 17, 2018. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-costarica-environment/tourism-boom-threatens-costa-rica-eco-paradise-idUSN1733128420080620
(10) Miller, Andrew. 2012. Ecotourism development in Costa Rica : the search for oro verde. n.p.: Lanham, Maryland : Lexington Books, 2012., 2012. UGA GIL-Find Catalog, EBSCOhost (accessed September 10, 2018).
(11) Staff, The Costa Rican News. “Ecotourism Benefits the Costa Rican Economy by 16%”. The Costa Rican News. March 3, 2014. Accessed September 17, 2018. https://thecostaricanews.com/ecotourism-benefits-the-costa-rican-economy-by-16/
(12) Van der Merwe, P., M. Saayman, and L. A. Bothma. “What should be included in an ecotourism rating system for protected areas?.” (2017).
