0 20 40 60 80 100 Reef health index Government effectiveness index Tourism index Percent of population Mangrove index Reef-dependence percentage THE WORLD BANK Measuring Coral Reef Ecosystem Health Integrating Societal Dimensions Measuring Coral Reef Ecosystem Health — Integrating Societal Dimensions 36623 Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized Public Disclosure Authorized
79
Embed
36623 Measuring Coral Reef Ecosystem Healthdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/... · World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: [email protected].
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
0
20
40
60
80
100Reef health index
Governmente�ectivenessindex
Tourism index
Percent of population improved sanitation
Mangroveindex
Reef-dependence percentage
THE WORLD BANK
Measuring Coral Reef Ecosystem Health
Integrating Societal DimensionsEnvironment Department
THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USA
Telephone: 202.473.1816Fax: 202.522.3256
Internet: www.worldbank.org/icm
All cover images by MBRS Project, except where noted: Center—Heads of State renewing commitment to Tulum Declaration. Clockwise from top—Figure 3.1 from page 35 on Conceptual Framework; Coral reef monitoring, Belize; Yucatan Peninsula and the Gulf of Honduras, including the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System, NASA Sea WiFF; Cayos Cochinos, Honduras; Mangrove monitoring, Mexico; Rio Dulce, Guatemala
All rights reserved. First printing September 2006
Rights and Permissions
The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.
For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com .
All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Offi ce of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: [email protected].
Acknowledgements
This work is the product of teamwork and a close collaboration with partners both inside and outside the Bank. The overall team effort, led by Marea Hatziolos, has relied on contributions from experts across many disciplines, but nearly all with a passion for coral reefs. The need to defi ne Ecosystem Health from a multi-dimensional perspective, going beyond ecological an economic drivers to include human health, governance and cultural aspects is largely the work of David Rapport, Luisa Maffi , John Howard and Ola Ullsten. Applying this notion to measure coral reef ecosystem health—through development of a conceptual framework for assessing the health of the MesoAmerican Reef—has been pioneered by Patricia Kramer and Melanie McField with support from Stefano Belfi ore and partners of the “Healthy Reefs for Healthy People” Initiative. John Dixon was the principal author of Chapter 3, moving from the conceptual to the operational stage in assessing MAR health and communicating these results effectively to decision-makers. Lina Ibarra oversaw the acquisition of key data, essential to the analysis of the MAR. In this context, the team also wishes to thank Carlos Gallegos, Anaite Seibt, Evelia Hernandez, Marisol Rivera, Miguel Angel Garcia, Tomas Camarena, Gerardo Gold and other researchers in the fi eld who contributed or facilitated data acquisition. The Team is extremely grateful to peer reviewers (Carlos Munoz, Uwe Deichman, and John Bryant Collier), Laura Tlaiye and Giovanni Ruta for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions on improving the paper.
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. v
Chapter 2. A Framework for Measuring Societal Dimensions of Coral Reef Ecosystem Health .................................5 2.1. Defi ning Ecosystem Health ...................................................................................................................5 2.2. Developing Indicators of Sociocultural Health .......................................................................................9 2.3. Candidate Indicators .........................................................................................................................11 2.4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................19
Chapter 3. Applying the Framework to the Mesoamerican Reef ...........................................................................21 3.1. Elements of an Indicator Scorecard ....................................................................................................24 3.2. The MAR Countries: A Proposed Reef/Coastal Sustainability Index ........................................................32 3.3. Blue Flags/Red Flags: Using Indicators to Improve Management ..........................................................36 3.4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................39
Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................................................43
Annexes1. Environmental Context of the MAR .............................................................................................................452. Individual Profi le Cards for Selected Economic Variables .............................................................................473. Sources for Table 3.2 Indicators .................................................................................................................534. 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and Other Indices .................................................................55
BoxBox 1. Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative ...............................................................................................3
MapsMap 2.1. Density of Reef Fish at selected sites in the MAR ..................................................................................6Map 2.2. Pesticide Residue Levels in the MAR ....................................................................................................7Map 2.3. Biological and Cultural Diversity in Mesoamerica ..............................................................................16Map 3.1. MAR Eco-Region and MPA sites ........................................................................................................22
Figures 1.1. Conceptual Framework: Indicators of Reef Health & Social Well-Being .........................................................83.1. Composite Index of Overall Reef/Ecosystem Health for the Four MAR countries ..........................................35
Tables2.1. Criteria for Indicator Selection ...................................................................................................................92.2. Indicator Framework ...............................................................................................................................112.3. Socioeconomic Indicators ........................................................................................................................122.4. Governance Indicators ............................................................................................................................152.5. Cultural Indicators ..................................................................................................................................172.6. Health Indicators ....................................................................................................................................183.1. National-Level Contextual Indicators (Data from 2002–2004) ...................................................................263.2. Socioeconomic/Governance/Cultural Indicators for Improved Reef Management .......................................273.3. Comparison of Coral Reef Health Indicators ............................................................................................333.4. Overall Reef/Ecosystem Health Indicators .................................................................................................34
While the tools and analytical framework developed
here are particularly relevant to stakeholders in the four
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef countries (of Belize, Guatemala,
Honduras and Mexico), they are likely to resonate with
any country that depends on coral reef ecosystem goods
and services, to underpin economic growth, and to
provide livelihoods, food, and environmental security to
its people. Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which
are highly dependent on marine resources and are
especially vulnerable to climate change, are important
likely users of this work. Communicating the consequences
of accelerating declines in coral reef ecosystem health is
ultimately a matter of concern not only to countries with
coral reefs, but to the larger global community, concerned
with the health of the oceans. As the canaries in the
coal mine, coral reefs are proxies for ocean health and,
hence, the health of our Blue Planet. Monitoring it and
understanding how best to intervene is of interest to all
of us.
1.4. Dissemination Strategy
The report will be delivered to the client—the Central
American Commission on Environment and Development-
CCAD) and the four MAR countries—and presented in
a series of formal presentations and consultations with
stakeholders as part of the Tulum + 8 process. This
process aims to obtain a renewed commitment at the
The MAR is the focus of a partnership among the World Bank, the World Wildlife Fund, the Summit Foundation, Perigee International and a GEF/World Bank regional project, Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System. The Healthy Mesoamerican Reef Ecosystem Initiative (HMREI)2, whose goal and message is “Healthy Reefs for Healthy People,” focuses on the world’s second longest Barrier Reef. This system of outstanding habitats, species complexes, biogeography and cultural resources includes several World Heritage Sites within its boundaries. It extends from the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico south along the coast of Belize, Guatemala, and the north coast of Honduras through the Bay Islands.
The initiative aims to provide decision makers in the region with a set of metrics to accurately and routinely assess the health of the MAR, a regional public good vital to the economic and social well-being of 2 million people who live within its drainage basin. It seeks to develop the key levers by which resource managers can monitor, assess, and evaluate actions taken to restore the health to one of the world’s most biologically and culturally diverse ecosystems. The impetus for this initiative was the Tulum Declaration (1997), which committed these four nations to cooperate in the conservation and management of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef.
Box 1. Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative
2 The Initiative is growing, with over 70 individual contributors, and with The Nature Conser-vancy and Environmental Defense now participating as institutional members, and several other groups ready to engage.
synonymous. In practice, environmental health refers to
the health of humans in the context of some environmental
variable, usually expressed in negative terms--for example,
exposure to toxic substances, or disease (Rapport et al
1985.). In contrast, ecosystem health pertains to the
sustainability of ecosystem functions in the presence of
human activities. It focuses on whether ecological functions
are maintained so as to avoid potential adverse effects on
maintenance of renewable resources (such as fi sheries),
human health (through disruption of food supplies, or
increased exposure to vector-borne diseases), sustainable
livelihoods and cultural survival.
Ecosystem health can be looked at in terms of both
ecological functions and social well-being and the
degree to which both exhibit properties of resilience and
adaptation to changing environments. The dimensions of
social well-being include socioeconomic aspects (such as
sustainable livelihoods), governance, cultural health and
human health. While one or more dimensions of ecosystem
health (such as economic well-being) may appear to thrive
at the expense of others (such as biophysical health),
this condition cannot ultimately be sustained. Long-term
ecosystem health implies health in all of its dimensions.
This holistic concept of ecosystem health can be used as
a starting point to determine links between social and
ecological factors that may act as ecosystem drivers
and ultimately as a way to understand how these factors
interact over time to determine coral reef ecosystem health.
This ESW focuses on the human dimension, particularly
socioeconomic activity, cultural practices, human health
and governance systems. Our goal is to derive robust
indicators in each of these domains. These, then, can be
drawn from to develop a coherent subset of indicators
which can be used to assess coral reef ecosystem health
within a given national or regional context. Our aim is to
apply this more holistic approach to broaden our concept
of coral reef health and more accurately gauge the health
of the MAR from a “humans in” perspective.
As noted in the introduction, this focus on socio-cultural/
governance indicators, complements efforts to develop
indicators of coral reef health from an ecological
perspective. Until very recently, most monitoring of coral
reefs has recorded only bio-physical indicators, e.g.,
water quality/chemistry; biological community structure,
including coral reef fi sh and coral assemblages; the extent
of coral reef cover vs. algal cover (the latter indicating
signs of eutrophication) and more recently, evidence of
coral bleaching and coral disease, particularly in the
Caribbean.
For example, Maps 2.1 and 2.2 show the biomass
of hervivorous fi sh and pesticide residue levels
(Hexachlorocyclohexanes) at predetermined sampling
sites along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef. Data indicates
Chapter 2A Framework for Measuring Societal Dimensions of Coral Reef Ecosystem Health
3 These data are part of a baseline survey of the health of the MAR, carried out under the World Bank/GEF Project (Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System), which is a partner in the Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative.
A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
which can alter (i) and (ii); and, (iv) aspects of human and
social capital which determine the relationship of people
or communities to the reef and the way in which it is used
and managed.
Drawing from this framework, indicators for sociocultural
health of reef ecosystems can be derived. Selection of
indicators should, however, take into account a number
of considerations, as described below.
2.2 Developing Indicators of Sociocultural Health
Major Criteria for Selection of Indicators. To be
heuristic, indicators must satisfy fi ve key criteria, as shown
in Table 2.1: (1) relevance; (2) scientifi c soundness;
(3) feasibility and cost-effectiveness; (4) management
responsiveness; and (5) communication. These are
described in Table 2.1, below
Everything is Linked—How to choose the right
indicators? It is a truism to say that everything is linked—
especially in coastal ecosystems—but this does not mean
that everything must be measured and everything is
equally important. Still, it has been observed around the
world that those societies that do better in meeting social
and national needs often tend to do better in managing
their environment (Dixon and Acharya 2002). This is more
than just an “income affect,” whereby richer countries have
more resources to spend and hence do more. The same
higher income levels also contribute to the stresses that
affect coral reefs, especially the land-based stresses from
construction and increased production of various waste
products. Therefore, the social and cultural organizations
Relevance to reef ecosystem health Does the indicator measure and is sensitive to, socioeconomic, governance, cultural and human health phenomena and trends that are directly or indirectly related to the health of the reef ecosystem? Is this a measure of a healthy or unhealthy state, impacting pressures and behaviors and policy responses to achieve a healthy reef?
Data availability Is the indicator based on readily available and routinely collected data, or data collectable at a reasonable cost- benefi t ratio and in a timely manner, with suffi cient spatial and time coverage and quality in all participating countries?
Scientifi c soundness Is the indicator conceptually and methodologically well founded, representative of established approaches and standards adopted by the scientifi c community, international and regional organizations and national and local practices in the target region?
Management responsiveness Is the indicator responsive to management interventions related to key policy goals and objectives for the region and can it be measured in relation to progress toward agreed-upon targets and timetables?
Communicability (Transparency) Can the indicator be readily communicated to policy makers, eventually as an early warning signal, be understood by stakeholders and the public in a non-scientifi c form and express an unambiguous message about the health of the reef ecosystem in question?
A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
2.3. Candidate Indicators
In the following sections, for each topic area we present
a narrative followed by a table providing a short list of
candidate indicators for that topic. Candidate indicators
in socioeconomic conditions, human health and
governance benefi t from considerable previous research,
whereas in the culture area the development of indicators
is breaking entirely new ground. The goal of this analysis
is to develop a small set of indicators with readily available
data, or for which a compelling case may be made for
data collection.
Socioeconomic Indicators. Two main themes can be
identifi ed from the literature: social aspects (demography,
relative wealth, human health) and economic activities
(productive activities based on coastal resources, and
marine transport). These two themes can be divided into
more specifi c sub-themes and issue areas, as follows.
For each issue area, we propose several core indicators,
which are expanded in Table 2.3, below. These core
indicators may be generally referred to as pressures
or drivers of change, states, or responses and may be
measured at different spatial and temporal scales: (1)
national level, (2) sub-national level (such as coastal
departments or departments in watersheds draining into
a reef ecosystem such as the MAR and (3) local or site
level (individual reefs or sites). While indicators at the
national and sub-national level may be comparable
across countries and regions, indicators at the site level
may refl ect only the local situation. Also, values for
indicators will likely vary from level to level, thus care must
be taken not to interpret the mean value of an indicator at
the national level, for its value at the local level.
After the validation of the indicators at the national and
local level, it may be possible to select one representative
indicator for each issue area. However, some of the
indicators are by defi nition ambiguous — e.g., tourism or
aquaculture — as they can express both trends impacting
on the reefs or alternative ways to promote coastal
economy: only an examination of the data at the local
level and the use of qualitative information can assist in
the process of identifying more discriminating indicators.
Governance Indicators. The selection of governance
indicators is based on the role of formal governing
structures at all levels of governments, but will also take
into account informal (civil society), permanent, or ad hoc
structures. Those structures may not have authoritative
power, but can be (and often are) called upon to participate
in decision making with an advisory function, either in a
mandatory or a non-mandatory way.
Theme Subtheme Issue area
Social aspects Demography Population change Relative wealth Poverty Equity Human Health Sanitation
Economic activities Resource use Coastal development Tourism Fisheries Agriculture/Aqua-culture Mineral extraction Transportation Marine transportation
Issue area Policy questions Specifi c Topic Indicator
Population and Poverty Are population dynamics sustainable? Population in coastal areas Population growth and density within a certain distance of the coast (watershed, 100 km, coastal municipalities, 10 km) Migration Net migration to the coast Net out migration Incidence of social issues associated with immigration Are income levels and well-being Income % population below national poverty line distributed fairly? / income levels (WB/UNDP) Equity (Gini index) Is human development improving? Human well-being Changes in the HDI (UNDP)
Adjusted Net Savings Are investments in natural and social capital Public expenditures in education % of Gross National Income adequately accounted? and NRM.
Resource use change (land) Is coastal development managed sustainably Coastal development pressure % natural habitats converted Ratio of second to fi rst homes Road infrastructure density Is tourism being managed sustainably Tourism pressure No. hotels/beds Ratio tourists/residents Certifi cations No. tourism certifi cations awarded Alternative livelihoods % income derived from alternative livelihoods
Issue Area Is agriculture being managed sustainably? Natural habitats converted to − % habitat conversion agriculture or aquaculture Use of pesticides − Concentration of pesticide residues in sediment/tissue of indicators species Use of fi sh feeds − Effl uent water quality Certifi cation of farms − % farm land certifi ed Policy Questions Specifi c Topic − Indicators Is deforestation being reduced? Aerial extent of native forests − % habitat conversion Sustainable forestry or − % of “certifi ed companies” Reforestation − Extent of reforestation (ha) Are solid wastes being treated? Solid wastes − Volume of solid wastes being discharged Land fi lls − No. of land fi lls Disposal protocols − Availability of disposal protocols for hazardous waste Is customary land tenure being altered? Land tenure − Land tenure (value of real estate, land sale transactions, including community land and foreign investments)
A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
Are traditional agricultural practices Agricultural practices − Agricultural practices (including fi res) sustainable? Is there activity to reduce pollution at the Waste disposal -- Actions to reduce pollution, including local level? waste disposal
Resources use change (sea) Is sea-based tourism managed sustainably? Cruise ship arrivals Cruise ship arrivals (and # visitors/day; % of resident population) # of certifi ed cruise ship activities Are fi sheries being managed sustainably? Fish stocks − % stocks fi shed within safe limits − # of certifi ed fi sh product programs Closures − Institutionalization of regional closures Is marine transportation impacting the Ports and associated infrastructure − Port State Control functioning? environment? Ship traffi c − Traffi c (tankers, cruise ships, etc.) ? Is sewage (urban, industrial, hazardous) being − volume of waste treated/day adequately managed to minimize − Rate of inspections related to port environmental impact? state control − % untreated effl uent Local Resource change (sea) Alternative livelihoods − New jobs associated with tourism created or no. tourism businesses owned by locals (associative vs. private) Fishing practices − Evidence of sustainable fi shing practices (including fi shing grounds, gears, engines)
Table 2.3. Socioeconomic Indicators (continued)
Issue area Policy questions Specifi c Topic Indicator
Governance relates to the systems and processes of
decision making, the legal framework and institutions
through which decisions are made in society, the ways
in which these interrelate and their relevance and
relationship to the various constituent parts of a nation
(Salim and Ullsten 1999). Governance can be broadly
defi ned as, “the set of traditions and institutions by which
authority in a country is exercised. This includes (1) the
process by which governments are selected, monitored
and replaced, (2) the capacity of the government to
effectively formulate and implement sound policies and
(3) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions
that govern economic and social interactions among
them. (World Bank Institute 2005: “Governance Matters
A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
For southern Mexico and Central America, this cultural
diversity includes several Mayan peoples, plus Lenca, Pipil,
Hicaque, Garífuna, Miskito, Creoles of mixed African and
European ancestry, Mestizos/Ladinos, as well as small
Asian, Middle-Eastern and Euro-American immigrant
populations. For coastal populations, fi shing is the
main subsistence activity, complemented by small-scale
agriculture, animal husbandry, as well as hunting and
gathering of wild resources. To varying degrees, they also
engage in commercial fi shing, tourism and other market-
driven activities. Participation in the market economy
and other aspects of majority culture has brought rapid
sociocultural change to these communities. Nevertheless,
a strong link between healthier forest and marine
ecosystems and the locations of indigenous peoples’
territories in southern Mexico and Central America was
apparent in a mapping project carried out by the Center
for the Support of Native Lands (Chapin 2003).
All this points to the relevance of traditional beliefs,
knowledge and practices related to species, ecosystems
and ecological relations for the purposes of biodiversity
conservation, including in marine ecosystems (Drew
in press). In its Article 8j, the CBD calls for the Parties
to the Convention to “respect, preserve and maintain
knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous
and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles
relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of
Issue area Policy questions Specifi c Topic Indicator
Governance Is the public good well managed? Good Governance Voice and accountability Does government “work”? Political stability and absence of violence Government effectiveness Regulatory quality Rule of law Control of Corruption Is there evidence of “good governance” Land tenure Changes in land tenure at the subnational level? Implementation of Levels of implementation of decentralization decentralization
Environmental Is environmental awareness and Protected areas Indices of management of effectiveness of MPAsGovernance stewardship increasing? % marine/coastal under protection Compliance with no-take areas Public participation Levels and satisfaction of public in decision making processes (including EIAs) Environmental organizations No. of active local associations (including NGOs, cooperatives, etc).
Environmental lawsuits Environmental lawsuits successfully completed Environmental Sustainability Index Various (see Annex 4)
A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
or cultural group to maintain its core set of values, beliefs,
knowledge and practices (somewhat akin to the concept
of ecological integrity). Resilience refers to the ability of
a culture or cultural group to adapt to new conditions
without losing structure and function (in a way similar to
the ecological concept of resilience).
The list below is a fi rst attempt to propose a general
set of indicators to assess cultural “health” as relevant
to ecosystem health. The proposed indicators are not
necessarily ones that can (or should) always be quantifi able
and lend themselves to statistical manipulation. Qualitative,
evaluative data are needed in this domain, although in
some cases it may also be possible to gather quantitative
data. Currently, what data are being collected, are not
typically available at disaggregated administrative levels.
Health Indicators. Human health is best considered
in the context of ecosystem health. The ecosystem health
approach is particularly important since global economic
and global environmental conditions—all externalities
and beyond the control of the population in any given
ecosystem—can have deleterious effects on the health of
the people in that system. The circulation of pollutants in
the ocean and in the air coming from the global burning
of fossil fuels and the release of toxins into water will have
deleterious effects on a large ecosystem even though the
regional people are not responsible for these problems.
The reverse is also true. Local deforestation and pesticide
use will contribute to global environmental pollution and
greenhouse gases. Human health must be considered
not only at individual, community and regional levels, but
also at a global level, looking at the interaction of the
individual with the global environment.
The complexity of interactions on ecosystem health makes
it impossible to have “clean” indicators as far as health
is concerned; that is, health indicators that respond
proportionately to improvements in a target region’s
coral reef ecosystem health. Health is the result of many
independent and interdependent variables. A useful
model may be to consider health indicators as true health
indicators, disease indicators, or risk indicators.
Issue area Policy questions Specifi c Topicr Indicator
Cultural Identity Are language losses being addressed? Loss of languages LRate of loss of languages ((CBD) % young people speaking native languages Bilingual education Availability of bilingual education
Is the level of education and literacy adequate? Literacy Levels of literacy (UNESCO)
Are traditional customs being maintained? Traditional customs % of families practicing traditional customs
Are gender issues being addressed? Gender biased economic # of males/females being displaced from workforce displacement or home
Is culture being diluted? In-migration of outsiders % migration into traditional areas
Health indicators such as life expectancy, infant survival,
educational level, immunization rate and optimal body
mass index are good indicators of the health of the general
population, but do not provide any direct evidence of
any relation to the health or destruction of a particular
ecosystem.
Human disease indicators show the prevalence of various
diseases in the population and can provide a weak
association with the health of a given reef ecosystem.
Examples for the MAR region would be the annual
incidence of malaria, diarrheal disease, and ciguatera
poisoning (a toxin elaborated by marine bacteria that
results in major nerve damage in the human). Reductions
of these diseases may be interpreted as benefi ts of a
restored MAR.
Risk indicators identify potential problems before they
become obvious. Examples are the levels of various
organochlorides, pesticide residues, heavy metals,
silicates, etc in the people of the MAR region. Intuitively,
the lower the level of a toxin in a person’s body, the
more likely the person will not be at risk of a deleterious
effect from that toxin. Similarly, a falling level of the toxin
Issue area Policy questions Topic Indicator
Health Is life expectancy increasing? Mortality Maternal and infant or under 5 mortality rates (UNDP, WHO) % deaths by respiratory diseases (PAHO) % deaths by heart diseases (PAHO)
Are major diseases being Incidence of key diseases Incidence of AIDS (WHO) successfully combated? Incidence of gastroenteritis (PAHO, GESAMP)
Is access to safe water equitable Safe drinking water % populations with access to safe drinking water (UNEP, and increasing? WHO)
Is access to improved sanitation Improved sanitation % population with access to improved sanitation (UNEP, equitable and increasing? WHO)
Are recreational waters complying Recreational water quality % recreational waters complying with standards with quality standards?
Is seafood safe? Food safety Food quality certifi cation (seafood)
Do people have access to Nutrition % population consuming X amount of protein and source suffi cient nutrition based on existing resources?
Are health issues along coastal Public health concerns Fraction of awareness programs (waste disposal, sexual areas being addressed? education, etc.) specifi c to coastal issues (numerator) vs. national issues (denominator)
Note: Belize, Mexico, and Bahamas are upper middle-income countries; Guatemala, Honduras, and the DR are lower middle income. Source: World Bank, 2006, Little Green Data Book, Washington, DC. *FAO. For a detailed list of sources by indicator, please refer to ANNEX 3.
Table 3.1. National-Level Contextual Indicators (Data from 2002-2004)
1990 and 2000. As seen, the rate of mangrove loss varies
from almost none (the Bahamas) to over 65% over 10
years (Mexico). These levels may well have increased over
the last fi ve years in parts of the MAR, with the extensive
coastal development and tourist infrastructure underway
along much of the Costa Maya through to central Belize.
As an indicator the rate of mangrove loss gives valuable
information on both the potential loss of the ecosystem
services associated with mangroves, as well as the overall
stewardship of the coastal zone. Lower rates of mangrove
loss usually indicate better and more sustainable coastal
management, and increased recognition of the important
ecosystem links between land use and coral reefs and fi sh
populations. Mangroves also provide important benefi ts
to the coastal areas as buffers to storm surges and storm
damage.
Adjusted net savings, or Genuine Savings. This indicator
is a powerful measure of national-level decision making
and the commitment of a country to saving for sustainable
growth. The indicator is based on the measured gross
savings rate for a country with adjustments for investment
in education and subtractions for use on non-renewable
resources (e.g., energy and minerals) or non-sustainable
management of renewable resources like forests. The
underlying rationale is that we should be concerned
with both the magnitude of gross savings (and hence
investments in a better future) as well as the sources of
that savings—are they sustainable or not? Hence the use
of the terms “genuine savings” or “adjusted net savings.”
This is a composite indicator that refl ects many different
policy variables and would be extremely diffi cult to
estimate at the local level. It is placed in Table 3.2 to give
an indication of national-level policies, and providing an
overall sense of whether a country’s development path is
sustainable or not.
Human Health Variables
Just as economic variables are important in identifying
the types of economic and social forces affecting people
(income levels, distribution of income, population density),
health variables also provide valuable information about
societies.
Three health-related indicators are of particular interest
with respect to nutrient loads in surface waters and their
known negative impacts on healthy reefs: the percentage
of local population served by sanitation and the percentage
of waste water treated are excellent measures of the
provision of basic services to human communities, and
indicators of water quality likely to be found in adjacent reef
environments. The percentage of death due to diarrheal
disease in children under 5 is a refl ection of the above
two indicator states and a measure of the degree of the
water quality problems.. All three indicators relate directly
to people, but also have direct links to the health of coral
reefs, which are extremely sensitive to water quality. National
data are readily available for these, but information about
conditions at the local-level needs to be collected4 to more
accurately guage potential affects on reef.health.
Cultural Integrity
The social/cultural composition of the coastal community
is of great interest. A more settled, stable population
4 A search of UN and other data sources for the Caribbean revealed no information on waste water treatment consistently available below the national level.
a percentage of land and/or (in this case) aquatic
area controlled by a country or region, is a commonly
used indicator of basic commitment to protection of
biodiversity. It says little, however, about the effectiveness
of that protection. Therefore an additional measure, MPA
effectiveness, has been added to supplement the fi rst
indicator. Both indicators are presented in Table 3.2 and
provide both a quantitative assessment of marine/coastal
area protected, as well as a qualitative assessment of that
protection.
3.2. The MAR Countries: A Proposed Reef/Coastal Sustainability Index
The four MAR countries can be compared within the context
of the indicator framework presented here. Tables 3.1 and
3.2 contain both the more generic “contextual” indicators
as well as a series of more coastal area/reef-area-specifi c
indicators. Data is a problem—many indicators are only
available at the national level, and the coverage and
defi nition of local-level indicators is spotty.
To add to the challenge, indicators of reef health are
also quite mixed. The area of coverage for each MAR
country varies, the period covered by each measure
is not always the same, and various indicators can be
interpreted differently in the different countries. The
guidelines now being developed under the Healthy
Reefs for Healthy People initiative will help meet this
challenge.
Table 3.3 presents an attempt to develop such an index
based on data collected from 1999−2001 under the
AGRRA (Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment)
program—a fi rst attempt to assess the condition of coral
reefs throughout the western Atlantic and Gulf region.
Table 3.3 offers a comparison of selected coral reef
health indicators and provides another way to assess reef
health at the country level. Although some of the data is
missing for Guatemala and Honduras, the information
in this table can be used to develop a fi rst cut composite
index of reef health.5.
The real challenge is to link the various indicators available
for each site (both land-based and reef-dependent) to
develop a better picture of the different threats to the
reef and management possibilities (Dixon and Acharya,
2002). One way to envision this is to develop a “wind
rose” picture for each of the four MAR countries, whereby
the different rays would be different indicators or indices
measured on a common framework or scalar. This
approach is similar to that used for the environmental
sustainability index mentioned above and described in
Annex 2. The indicators, or composite indices, for the
coastal/ reef sustainability wind rose are drawn from
Tables 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.
The proposed coastal/reef sustainability index has the
following six components:
Percentage of total population served by sanitation
services (indicator: percentage of population served
by sanitation, maximum value 100).
Tourism index (indicator: a composite index composed
n
n
5 It is important to keep in mind, though, that some of the data are now 7 years old and condi-tions may have deteriorated since then, with major bleaching and hurricane events in recent years. Ecological baseline data collected under the MBRS Synoptic Monitoring Program, along with data from a comprehensive assessment of biophysical variables in the MAR, are currently being analyzed. These will provide a more accurate measure of change in the ecological health of the MAR.for comparison with trends in socio-economic and governance data sets.
All data from AGRRA database except where noted (see www.agrra.org). Data averaged 1999–2001. Note a Fonseca 2000. Note b WWF 2001. Data table compiled by Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative (www.healthyreefs.org)
Table 3.3. Comparison of Coral Reef Health Indicators
*Based on the data in Table 3.1 the following values are used for the windrose: Mexico , 35 (e.g. based on a 6.5% annual rate of loss), Honduras, 43, Guatemala, 89, Belize, 80, the Dominican Republic, 80, and the Bahamas , 99 (based on an annual rate of loss of only 0.1%) (no. ha in 1990 and 2000, and percent loss)
Table 3.4. Overall Reef/Ecosystem Health Indicators
The population in the watersheds draining into the MAR
is estimated at 11.5 million (from UNEP/GPA 2002,
adapted from Burke & Maidens 2004).6 Population
dynamics present different patterns in the four MAR
countries. The whole of the population of Belize and the
state of Quintana Roo, Mexico live within 100 km of the
coast, while half of the population of Honduras lives on
the Caribbean coast and only 5 percent of Guatemala’s
population do. Signifi cant population growth is occurring
in Quintana Roo (77 percent growth during the period
1990−2000, primarily as a result of migration from
other parts of Mexico due to the economic boom along
the coast); and populations are growing in Honduras and
Guatemala as well.
Poverty continues to be a major problem in Honduras
and Guatemala, with very little decrease in poverty levels/
extreme poverty over the last ten years. Inequality has also
changed little, with GINI indexes in Guatemala, Honduras
and Mexico hovering between the high 40s and mid-50s
for the last decade. In Honduras, 71% of indigenous
populations live in poverty (World Bank 2006, Honduras
CAS Concept Note).
Coastal development represents one of the main threats
to the MAR (World Bank 2001; Kramer and Kramer
2002, Burke and Maidens 2004). Coastal construction
and the conversion of coastal habitat has destroyed
sensitive wetlands (mangroves) and coastal forests and
led to an increase in sedimentation. The effects of coastal
development are compounded by insuffi cient measures
for the treatment of wastewater.
Tourism, particularly coastal- and marine-based, is
the fastest growing industry in the region. The state of
Quintana Roo in Mexico is experiencing signifi cant
growth in the tourism infrastructure all along the coast
up to the border with Belize. The conversion of mangrove
forest into beach front tourist resorts along the Riviera
Maya south of Cancun has left coastlines vulnerable
and was largely responsible for the loss of thousands of
tons of high quality beach sand tourist revenues in the
wake of Hurricane Wilma in 2005. This trend is being
echoed in Belize, where eco-tourism appears to be giving
way to large-scale tourism development, involving the
transformation of entire cays, lagoons and mangrove
forests, to accommodate cruise ship arrivals, recreational
facilities and other tourism demands.
Despite the rapid expansion of tourism, over-fi shing
is considered the most critical threat to the MAR (Burke
and Maidens 2004). Intensive artisanal and industrial
fi shing has occurred in the region since the 1960s,
with recent increased pressure on valuable commercial
species (particularly spiny lobster, conches, groupers, and
snappers). The management of individual fi sheries varies
throughout the region, but ineffective regulation and
enforcement, illegal fi shing, and transboundary issues
are common (Kramer and Kramer 2002). Aquaculture
is also rapidly expanding in the MAR region, resulting
Annex 1
6 Belize, 226 thousand people (100% of the population of the country); Guatemala, 6,202 thousand people (about 55% of total population); Honduras, 4,271 thousand people (about 67% of total population); Mexico, State of Quintana Roo, 875 thousand people (100% of the population of the state).
Annex 42005 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and Other Indices
The 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index
(ESI) benchmarks the ability of nations to protect
the environment over the next several decades.
It does so by integrating 76 datasets—tracking natural
resource endowments, past and present pollution levels,
environmental management efforts, and a society’s
capacity to improve its environmental performance—into
21 indicators of environmental sustainability.
These indicators permit comparison across the following
fi ve fundamental components of sustainability:
environmental systems; environmental stresses; human
vulnerability to environmental stresses; societal capacity
to respond to environmental challenges; and global
stewardship. The issues refl ected in the indicators and the
underlying variables were chosen through an extensive
review of the environmental literature, assessment of
available data, rigorous analysis, and broad-based
consultation with policy makers, scientists, and indicator
experts.
The ESI provides a powerful environmental decision-
making tool tracking national environmental performance
and facilitating comparative policy analysis. It enables
a more data-driven and empirical approach to policy
making. While absolute measures of sustainability remain
elusive, many aspects of environmental sustainability can
be measured on a relative basis with results that provide
a context for policy evaluations and judgments. Such
comparisons are especially important in the new context
of worldwide efforts to advance the environment related
aspects of the Millennium Development Goals.
Higher ESI scores suggest better environmental
stewardship. The fi ve highest-ranking countries are
Finland, Norway, Uruguay, Sweden, and Iceland—
all countries that have substantial natural resource
endowments, low population density, and have managed
the challenges of development with some success.
The indicators and variables on which they are constructed
build on the well-established “pressure-state-response”
environmental policy model. The issues incorporated and
variables used were chosen through an extensive review
of the environmental literature, assessment of available
data, rigorous analysis, and broad-based consultation
with policymakers, scientists, and indicator experts. While
they do not provide a defi nitive vision of sustainability, the
collection of indicators and variables that form the 2005
ESI provide (1) a powerful tool for putting environmental
decision making on fi rmer analytical footing; (2) an
alternative to GDP and the human development index for
gauging country progress; and (3) a useful mechanism
for benchmarking environmental performance.
Country ESI Ranking compared Country Ranking to other countries
Mexico 46.2 95
Belize Not ranked Not ranked
Guatemala 44 116
Honduras 47.4 87
Source: http://www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005_policysummary.pdfNote: Mexico’s low ranking was of enough concern to their President (V. Fox) that he subsequently became more engaged with Yale and was interested in how to improve their ranking
ANNEX 4 - 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY INDEX (ESI) AND OTHER INDICES
INDICATOR MEXICO BELIZE GUATEMALA HONDURAS
GDP index 0.75 0.71 0.55 0.62
GDP-HDI rank 7 –19 3 –11
Human poverty index (HPI-1) 12 33 44 32
MDG Children under weight for age (% under age 5)† 1995–2002c 8 6 24 17
GEM 34 59 n/a 70
Seats in parliament held by women (% of total) MDG(a) 21.2 9.3 8.2 5.5
b Poverty line is equivalent to $1.08 (1993 PPP US$).c Data refer to the most recent year available during the period specifi ed.† Denotes indicators used to calculate the human poverty index (HPI-1). For further details, see technical note .(a) Data are as of March 1, 2004. Where there are lower and upper houses, data refer to the weighted average of women’s shares of seats in both houses.
World Bank Governance Indicators Dataset, 2004
to measure governance, including objective indicators.
We also address various methodological issues, including
the interpretation and use of the data given the estimated
margins of error, signifi cance of changes over time, and
correlation between governance and income.
The World Bank defi nes governance as the traditions and
institutions by which authority in a country is exercised for
the common good. This includes (a) the process by which
those in authority are selected, monitored and replaced;
(b) the capacity of the government to effectively manage
its resources and implement sound policies; and (c) the
respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that
govern economic and social interactions among them.
Above text from Website: http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/