Hello and welcome back to the 2nd part of Boracay, Boranotokay! This blog post will continue the exploration of Boracay’s  tourism impacts on environmental pollution through the focus on the government measures implemented, and more specifically, the island closure in 2018.

With the aggravation of the island’s environmental condition, President Rodrigo Duterte enacted a 6 month islandwide closure in 2018 in efforts to rehabilitate the environment of Boracay (Reyes et al., 2018). During this period, no tourists were allowed to enter the island and an extensive clean up was initiated by the government. Furthermore, more regulations were for enforced to mitigate the reoccurrence of such devastating environmental pollution on the island. One major source of the marine pollution that occurred in Boracay was the lack of sewage infrastructure which resulted in a direct dumping of sewage water into the ocean. To tackle this, Boracay establishments that have over 50 rooms have been mandated by the government to have their own sewage treatment plans before the re-opening, as well as an accreditation of a tourism facility before they can operate (Cable News Network, 2018). In a study done about the detection of algal bloom in the coastal waters of Boracay, it was subsequently found that there was a reported decrease in the amount of coliform bacteria after rehabilitation (Visitacion, 2019) (figure 1.). This suggests an improvement in the water quality after the rehabilitation process, illustrating the effectiveness of the island closure.

 

Figure 1.

 

However, the island closure has significant socioeconomic repercussions on the islanders living in Boracay. For one, the locals who count on tourism to generate their income suffer greatly economically. The abrupt announcement of closure by President Duterte shocked many businesses on the island, leaving these locals to have to scramble to find alternative sources of income. The shock was so significant that a lawsuit was filed against the closure to the Philippines Supreme Court, expressing that the island closure was more like a “death sentence” to the locals (Haynes, 2018). Furthermore, in the midst of restoring the forests and wetlands of the area, many locals have been evicted from their houses due to the ambivalent legality of their tenure (Board, n.d.). Though the island closure provides time and opportunity for the environment in Boracay to heal, the implicated socioeconomic effects on the locals have been severe.

To end off this post, I would like to once again encourage you as a reader to reflect on the substantial effects of such a remedy to environmental pollution: Do you think that it is possible for us to regularly close off an entire tourist destination to rehabilitate the environment and what are the ramifications for those decisions?

 

References