Unique Island Livelihoods

Continuing work which has been published as:

• Kelman, I. 2005. "Unique Island Livelihoods". Poster at An Overview of Canadian Rural Research, Twillingate, Newfoundland, Canada, 12 October 2005, abstract (9 kb in PDF).

• Kelman, I. 2007. "Sustainable Livelihoods from Natural Heritage on Islands". Island Studies Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 101-114, full text (447 kb in PDF).

With thanks to Sandy Abrahams, Godfrey Baldacchino, Bob Conrich, James Lewis, Nadine McCarthy, Iain Orr, and UNESCO for material and discussions.

Abstract
Introduction
Definitions
Framework
Issues Arising
Conclusions
References

Contemplating river island livelihoods in Ljubljana, Slovenia.
(Copyright Ilan Kelman 2016.)

In contrast, kinship-based communities prevalent on many islands can rapidly make and implement decisions based on interpersonal trust--which, in turn, can have its own disadvantages. James Lewis on 23 June 2009 writes:

Another approach, if implemented properly, is that unique island heritage can be used to generate livelihoods without ruining that heritage. Yet attempts to do so, at times, end up forgetting the limitations and do end up ruining the heritage.

In proposing, debating, developing, testing, and fully implementing livelihoods which might be unique to islands, trade-offs, ethical issues, ironies, risks, and opportunities emerge. Determining which unique island livelihoods might promote sustainability and which would be more harmful than helpful requires careful analysis while considering how to integrate such livelihoods with opportunities not unique to islands.

This topic is explored here. First, definitions are given in order to understand the meaning and context of "unique island livelihoods". Then, a framework is proposed for describing potentially unique island livelihoods followed by descriptions of examples. Issues emerging from these examples are summarised followed by conclusions putting the material into a wider perspective.

Feedback, critique, and further examples regarding the information on this page would be welcome.

Bird watching on Chatham Island, New Zealand.
(Copyright Ilan Kelman 2004.)

Finally, as James Lewis (personal communication; see also Lewis, 1999) explains, "A common misconception is that islands are single entities. Island countries include both island groups and archipelagos under one national identity (though not necessarily with common ethnicity). For example, it is often put that Fiji or Tonga are each an island, whereas they both contain several hundred islands." Dispersiveness and number of entities forming an island political entity, conglomerate, archipelago, or group are important considerations to address when trying to define an island or island entity.

In the end, it is perhaps best to answer the question "What is an island?" with an intuitive concept of a comparatively small landmass, generally without an adequate land transportation network connecting with a larger land mass. This statement is not a definition but an attempt to describe an intuitive concept. Obvious examples of islands are the Chatham Islands (New Zealand), Kiribati, Lakshadweep (India), the Philippines' constituents, St. Lucia, Sardinia (Italy), Tasmania (Australia), Tristan da Cunha (U.K.), and Vancouver Island (Canada). Africa, Brazil, Galicia, Kamchatka, Nebraska, and Tanzania are clearly not islands, at least in the sense of physical geography. Brazil and Galicia, for example, are arguably cultural and linguistic islands.

Plenty of ambiguities emerge, such as Andorra, Antarctica, Australia, Ceuta (Spain), Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland), Sri Lanka, Madagascar, Malaysia, Vatican City, and Venice. Monaco is certainly a small state, but could it really be considered to be an island or an isolated geography, other than one of decadence and ugly development? Despite the questions which may not have lucid answers, none of these locations detracts from the intuitive approach, the list of obvious islands, and the list of obvious non-islands. The fairest way of dealing with these ambiguities is to suggest that if a location or people feel part of the global island community or wish to become involved in the global island community for a specific issue, then they should not be excluded. The onus is not on the island community either to legalistically and irrefutably define itself or to include and exclude members at its whim. Instead, the onus is on any physical or human geographical entity to decide to be part of the island community. Anyone who asks would be accepted as part of the standard and essential exchange process which must pervade sustainability, development, environmental management, and vulnerability management activities.

Monaco is certainly a small state, but is it an isolated geography?
(Copyright Ilan Kelman 2009.)

Livelihoods

Livelihoods are the ways in which people manage to obtain needed and desired resources, individually and communally (e.g. Chambers, 1995; Chambers and Conway, 1992; Moser et al., 2001). Examples of resources are food, water, clothing, and shelter. Livelihoods are not just forms of waged employment, but encompass formal and informal activities undertaken in order to meet basic needs or to expand beyond subsistence living to more luxuries.

A livelihoods approach tries to understand the contexts of resources available and resources used to yield the standard of living observed. The livelihoods approach defines “poverty” not as a lack of financial means, but as a lack of opportunities, choices, and flexibility for using resources and for developing different livelihoods. This approach includes the following factors to determine state of affluence:

• The context of vulnerabilities and resiliences observed.


• Strategies adopted to support themselves individually and communally.


• Capital assets possessed to maintain livelihoods.


• Preferred or sought outcomes in terms of long-term survival.

Fishing livelihood in Malta
(Copyright Ilan Kelman 2008.)

Unique Island Livelihoods

In exploring island livelihoods, the modifier of "unique" is important for understanding island characteristics and how those might differ from non-island locations. Many island livelihoods are readily transferable to non-islands, while many non-island livelihoods are readily transferable to islands. Natural resource-based livelihoods including farming, fishing, mining, and forestry frequently fall into this category.

This project, though, is particularly interested in possibilities which use island characteristics to generate opportunities that might not be feasible in the absence of island characteristics. Hence, “unique island livelihoods” refers to livelihoods being undertaken on islands which would not be viable elsewhere, particularly outside of an island environment.

Another class of unique livelihoods exists, that of livelihoods which would not be viable outside of a local context. For example, one mountain in the world is the highest place on Earth, which is currently Mount Everest, drawing in tourists, both trekkers who wish to visit Everest Base Camp and climbers who wish to reach the mountain’s summit. The appeal, and income generated from it, would not exist outside of the local context of the place where the highest point on Earth exists.

Some islands have similar appeal, such as the ecology and biology of the Galapagos Islands, the historical site of Pearl Harbour in Hawai’i, and the statues of Easter Island. Those phenomena lead to unique livelihoods for specific islands. These situations somewhat overlap with the unique island livelihoods explored for this project and are important. Therefore, they are considered here, but the main focus for “unique” refers to livelihoods which apply to many island contexts but which would not be viable outside an island context.

Twillingate, Newfoundland island conference, October 2005.
(From the website of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation.)

Dangerous industries including waste management

Implementation	Remote islands could accept waste from other places, toxic in order to reduce danger to the waste generator or non-toxic to provide a storage space. Dangerous industries or industries with low probabilities but high consequences of failure--for example nuclear power plants, chemical factories, rocket launching, or genetic engineering laboratories (e.g. Wells, 1896)--could be located on islands. Pacific islands were used by the U.S.A. and France for nuclear bomb testing, although the first nuclear bomb was exploded at an isolated, inland site: Los Alamos, New Mexico. Similarly, the USSR used the Semipalatinsk Test Site in Kazakhstan. Several Pacific islands have been involved in debates about whether or not to accept nuclear waste in exchange for money.
Uniqueness	Could be done anywhere. The main criterion would be remoteness, for health/safety and protection/access reasons, rather than insularity.
Ethics	Significant fundamental ethical issues exist with islands adopting this livelihood. Rather than active interest in it, islands have actively opposed waste management and dangerous industries, from the Chagos Archipelago objecting to the military base to Caribbean islands opposing nuclear waste shipments to Pacific islanders furious at the use of their land for nuclear tests. Even if the livelihood were accepted, implementing it could lead to long-term health and safety issues for the islanders and potentially make the island uninhabitable or unliveable. This livelihood is not recommended.

Conventional waste landfill on Upolu, Samoa. Imagine toxic waste.
(Copyright Ilan Kelman 2004.)

Information services (with island-wide broadband, possibly wireless).

Implementation	An island-wide business is set up for people to contract out research queries regarding internet access; for example, academic research queries, an encyclopaedia-type question-and-answer service, or corporate contracts for clients who need information summaries, bibliographies, or other information resources.
Uniqueness	Could be done anywhere.
Ethics	No inherent ethical difficulties should result as long the company has a robust ethics policy and refuses jobs which might violate that policy. As people become more web- and search-engine-literature, demand for this service might decline. Additionally, the cost of building and maintaining the internet infrastructure, particularly in remote locations, might exceed the livelihoods possibilities for income generation.

Internet businesses

Implementation	Island states could provide refuge for less reputable internet businesses or internet sites banned in many countries such as pornography, gambling, revisionist history, violence advocacy, hacking instructions, mail-order drug sales, or credit card number lists.
Uniqueness	Any country could gain income from this livelihood, but the smaller and more isolated states such as islands might be better placed to make it succeed.
Ethics	Significant fundamental ethical concerns arise, such livelihoods might become illegal under international law, and conflict with other countries might result, such as if a site described how to release toxic gas on the Paris Métro, detailed security arrangements for a head of state, or site denied the Rwandan genocide of 1995. Due to the violation of basic ethics, but also noting that such activities would probably yield more trouble than gain, this livelihood option would likely not be viable and would be strongly recommended to avoid.

Internet domain names (top-level).

Implementation	Examples: .ai for Antigua to point to artificial intelligence (AI) systems. .as for American Samoa has been used for Scandinavian companies because A/S represents the Scandinavian language form of "Inc" or "Ltd". .dc has been proposed for Tristan da Cunha to appeal to businesses in the U.S.A.'s capital. .fm for Federated States of Micronesia has been used for radio companies. .gl for Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) because people can use goo.gl and it is frequently used for Google Forms. .io for British Indian Ocean Territory is being used by groups.io, notably for email lists, which might be used to refer to input/output (I/O, i/o, IO, and io) in terms of online discussion. Should one of Jupiter's moons ever be settled... .nu for Niue because "nu" means "now" in several European languages, so https://[word].nu yields "News Now", "Furniture Now", or "Concert Tickets Now". .to for Tonga has been used as a preposition, e.g. https://come.to/[specific name] and https://go.to/[specific name] .tv for Tuvalu has appeal for television companies. .vc for St. Vincent and the Grenadines because it is for Venture Capital.
Uniqueness	Location specific, but not unique to islands.
Ethics	Islanders would need to be able to purchase top-level domain names with their island's extension at a reasonable price, well below what off-island businesses should be charged. Therefore, islands gain from income with loss of local opportunity while off-island businesses gain from having attractive domain names.

Prisons

Implementation	Examples are Alcatraz (U.S.A.), Devil's Island (France), Elba (Italy), Robben Island (South Africa), Rock Island (U.S.A.), and St. Helena (U.K.). Australia was used by the U.K. as an island prison. Some island prisons have been used for convicted criminals. Some island prisons have been used for people deemed undesirable by contemporary standards at the time, such as lepers, those accused of but not charged with terrorism offences, asylum seekers, indigenous children who (it was claimed) needed to be "modernised", and people with mental health challenges. Other island prisons were inadvertent when sailors became shipwrecked. In 2009, Pacific islands were suggested as places to relocate people accused by the USA but not charged with terrorism offences. Some of the people objected to being relocated to those locations.
Uniqueness	Could be done anywhere, but islands' remoteness and access issues have clear advantages.
Ethics	Ethical advantages and disadvantages exist with islands adopting this livelihood. If the water surrounding the island creates the prison, then prisoners might have the possibility of more humane treatment including skill development. Rehabilitation in a near-normal environment would be easier than one with stone walls and metal cells. In contrast, if an inhabited island builds a prison to accept overseas prisoners in exchange for payment, then ethical concerns arise. This livelihood could be implemented appropriately, but would be open to significant possibilities for abuse.

Overseas aid in exchange for votes in international fora

Implementation	Examples: Several small island developing states have accepted aid from Japan in exchange for joining the International Whaling Commission and voting in favour of Japan. Several small island developing states have accepted aid from Taiwan in exchange for officially recognising Taiwan. Others have accepted aid from China in exchange for declining to officially recognise Taiwan. Possibilities exist for islands to auction off their votes in international debate, to require payment to ratify treaties, or to extend or withhold diplomatic recognition according to the highest bidder. Rights to natural resources, such as fishing or mining, could be auctioned.
Uniqueness	Any country could gain income from this livelihood and significant political and diplomatic trading occurs at all levels, by all countries, for all reasons.
Ethics	Significant fundamental ethical concerns arise from this approach and conflict are likely to result with other countries or agencies. For example, voting for whaling could disrupt a neighbour's eco-tourism or could lead to tourism boycotts by environmentalists. Organisations have run boycotts of islands for political reasons. Due to the violation of basic ethics, but also noting that such activities would probably yield more trouble than gain, this livelihood option would likely not be viable and would be strongly recommended to avoid. The main concern is that the majority of countries, organisations, and agencies are involved in such activities, for instance diplomatic dancing regarding recognition and diplomatic relations, trading votes in international fora, exchanging aid for environmental and social activities, and withholding approval of international treaties until non-related issues are clarified. Some activities are legal and ethical under existing international law and ethics treaties while others are a violation of those treaties. Demanding that islands entirely avoid this lucrative income generator without tackling the shenanigans of other countries would be hypocritical and unfair.

Tonga banned humpback whale hunting in 1978, is currently not a member of the International Whaling Commission, and according to Orams (2002) was considering the potential economic gains and possible impacts from whale watching tourism.
(Copyright Ilan Kelman 2004.)

Overseas financial services

Implementation	Jersey, Isle of Man, and the Turks and Caicos Islands are examples of island jurisdictions offering financial service havens, including banking with lower taxes, banking for secrecy, credit cards, and investments. Companies pay a fee to the country for this service in exchange for advantages which could include minimal monitoring accountability, lower taxes, and laxer consumer protection regulations.
Uniqueness	Any country could gain income from this livelihood, but the smaller and more isolated states such as islands might be better placed to make it succeed. The non-islands of Switzerland and Liechtenstein have implemented this livelihood to some degree.
Ethics	In principle, this livelihood would provide a useful service while generating income. In practice, it would be used for mainly tax evasion, money laundering, fraud, consumer exploitation, and businesses illegal elsewhere. Any system of investigating applicants would be beyond the resources of most island states and would be open to abuse. Due to the violation of basic ethics, but also noting that such activities would probably yield more trouble than gain, this livelihood option would likely not be viable and would be strongly recommended to avoid, unless only certain aspects were adopted. For example, Switzerland's banking secrecy laws have been eroded in recent years suggested that offering secrecy is inappropriate. Similarly, national and international law enforcement agencies are increasingly requesting and gaining access to financial records anywhere in the world, suggesting that any financial services must aim to actively reduce the possibilities for illegal activities. In contrast, tax havens appear to be acceptable, at least by the power brokers and more affluent members of society who have the options of gaining from such tax havens. Therefore, while noting the long-term damage which tax evasion, legitimised or otherwise, causes to societies trying to achieve a balance between adequate government services and incentives for business achievement, tax havens might be one aspect of this livelihood which is currently acceptable and which could be pursued.

Ship and aircraft registrations

Implementation	For a fee, companies can register ships or aircraft with an island state.
Uniqueness	Any country could gain income from this livelihood, but the smaller and more isolated states such as islands might be better placed to make it succeed. The non-islands of Panama and Liberia already implement this livelihood.
Ethics	In principle, this livelihood would provide a useful service while generating income. In practice, it would be used for mainly evading safety, labour, and tax laws and for covering up businesses illegal elsewhere. Any system of investigating applicants would be beyond the resources of most island states and would be open to abuse. Due to the violation of basic ethics, but also noting that such activities would probably yield more trouble than gain, this livelihood option would likely not be viable and would be strongly recommended to avoid.

Telecentres

Implementation	In places with good phone connections, through the internet or otherwise, call centres could be located on islands.
Uniqueness	Could be done anywhere.
Ethics	No inherent ethical difficulties should result as long the company has a robust ethics policy and refuses jobs which might violate that policy. Two concerns to consider are (a) the lack of skill required for, and potential for exploitation of, the employees in most telecentres and (b) the challenge of providing a high level of customer service through a remote telecentre approach.

Telecommuting and telebusiness centres (see Bibby, 1995).

Implementation	With island-wide broadband internet, possibly wireless, along with good phone connections, many islands could market themselves as being ideal through an attractive lifestyle combined with one's own telebusiness. Supply issues, such as printer ink cartridges or computer repair parts, could inhibit business operations along with the speed of mail, if the business relies on that. If tax incentives are considered, the trade-offs become more complicated.
Uniqueness	Could be done anywhere.
Ethics	No inherent ethical difficulties should result as long the telebusinesses were ethical. The cost of building and maintaining the internet infrastructure, particularly in remote locations, might exceed the possibilities for generating telebusinesses.

Tourism (could be eco-tourism or sustainable tourism)

Implementation	Examples: The Maldives have adopted a one island, one resort policy. The Galapagos Islands' tourism industry is heavily controlled and a high fee exists for non-residents entering the park. The Faroes and two British islands have been examined regarding Managing Vulnerabilities of Small Island Heritage, one aspect of which is tourism.
Uniqueness	Location specific, but not unique to islands.
Ethics	In principle, this livelihood can work and has worked. In practice, many issues arise, as listed in the next section, which suggest that tourism is often not a viable livelihood or, at minimum, it must be implemented with immense case.

Spectacular scenery, hiking, and bird watching on Rathlin Island, Northern Ireland.
(Copyright Ilan Kelman 2003.)

Lewis, J. 2009. Perfidy in Paradise? Islands' Exogenous Appropriation and Indigenous Maladministration. Some Recent and Continuing Reported Cases, full text (74 kb in PDF).

Questions emerging from the examples include:

• How many of the livelihoods suggested are purely for income generation rather than for better living, improved livelihoods, or improved livelihoods choice? Is the bias towards income generation a concern considering that the livelihoods in more affluent locations are based almost exclusively on income generation?

• How many of the livelihoods create a strong dependency on off-island consumers? Is such a strong dependency on external factors dangerous or does it acknowledge that no location is a complete island and that all island livelihoods would be impacted by external factors, including environmental change, economic change, social change, and waxing and waning interest in islands?

• How many of the livelihoods would pave the way for over-exploitation, by outsiders or by islanders, thereby harming island livelihoods and communities in the long-term?

• Could trade-offs be better articulated? For example, livelihoods in many affluent countries do not meet the ethical standards suggested here as being appropriate for island livelihoods. Would it be appropriate to try to raise non-island ethical standards, to uphold island ethics irrespective of non-island ethics, or to lower island ethical standards? As well, some island livelihoods, such as reaching eco-tourism destinations through long jet flights, produce short-term gains for long-term costs. How could the gains and costs be balanced? How could internal gains and costs be compared with external gains and costs? Should greater weight be given to internal gains and costs or to external gains and costs? Communities might prefer lower standards of living and poorer economies in exchange for preserving culture, values, people, and islandness. How could such trade-offs be determined and analysed?

• The current paradigm of globalisation aims for reduced economic and legal barriers to international trade along with increased flow of goods, services, and labour. Does this paradigm serve unique island livelihoods? In particular, the approach currently taken to trade globalisation assumes economies of scale, yet this assumption rarely applies in the island context because an absolute maximum exists for the scale and that ceiling is relatively low compared to the global context. What new theories and practices regarding trade and globalisation emerge given the practical constraints which exist for island economies of scale?

• How many of the livelihoods suggested would result in one-industry islands which creates significant vulnerabilities? For example, a call centre exists or disappears at the whim of the company owning it. A conference-centred island could suffer if teleconferencing becomes more popular or if travel-related health and safety concerns overcame people's interest in travelling and in conferences. Before implementing livelihoods or creating choices, the potential to increase vulnerabilities and to decrease resiliences must be considered.

Such issues must be addressed before final recommendations and conclusions could be reached for a specific island, island site, or island organization.

Learning about Barbados' supergun: does heritage tourism create dependency?
(Copyright Ilan Kelman 1999.)