INTEGRATED MARINE AND COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT ...

14INTEGRATED MARINE AND COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT (IMCAM) APPROACHESFOR IMPLEMENTING THE CONVENTION ONBIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

CBD Technical Series No.Secretariatof the Convention on Biological Diversity

INTEGRATED MARINE AND COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT (IMCAM) APPROACHES

FOR IMPLEMENTING THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY

Compiled by:AIDEnvironment

National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management / RIKZCoastal Zone Management Centre, the Netherlands

January 2004

ii

Published by the Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. ISBN: 92-807-2409-6

Copyright © 2004, Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity

The designations employed and the presentation ofmaterial in this publication do not imply theexpression of any opinion whatsoever on the part ofthe Secretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity concerning the legal status of any country,territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concern-ing the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.

The views reported in this publication do notnecessarily represent those of the Convention onBiological Diversity nor those of the reviewers.

This publication may be reproduced for educa-tional or non-profit purposes without specialpermission from the copyright holders, providedacknowledgement of the source is made. TheSecretariat of the Convention would appreciatereceiving a copy of any publications that uses thisdocument as a source.

CitationAIDEnvironment, National Institute for Coastaland Marine Management/Rijksinstituut voor Kusten Zee (RIKZ), Coastal Zone Management Centre,the Netherlands.(2004). Integrated Marine andCoastal Area Management (IMCAM) approachesfor implementing the Convention on BiologicalDiversity. Montreal, Canada: Secretariat of theConvention on Biological Diversity. (CBDTechnical Series no. 14).

For further information, please contact:Secretariat of the Conventionon Biological DiversityWorld Trade Centre393 St. Jacques Street, suite 300Montreal, Quebec, Canada H2Y 1N9Phone: 1 (514) 288 2220Fax: 1 (514) 288 6588E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.biodiv.org

The Secretariat gratefully acknowledges the financialassistance of the Government of the Netherlandsfor the publication of this volume

Graphic design:Derome design

Photo credits:Coral, Japan: Utsuka-UNEP / Alpha PresseAerial of flower farms: Jim Wark / Alpha PresseVillage Life, Vietnam: Jean-Leo Dugast / AlphaPresseSkyline seen from Dubai Creek: Patricia Jordan /Alpha Presse

Printed on recycled paper

Integrated Marine and Coastal Area Management Approaches

iii

The programme of work on marine and coastalbiodiversity under the Convention on BiologicalDiversity aims to assist the implementation of theConvention at the national, regional and global levels.It identifies operational objectives and priorityactivities within five key programme elements,namely: implementation of integrated marine andcoastal area management, marine and coastal livingresources, marine and coastal protected areas, mari-culture, and alien species and genotypes.

Integrated marine and coastal area manage-ment (IMCAM) is a participatory process for deci-sion making to prevent, control, or mitigate adverseimpacts from human activities in the marine andcoastal environment, and to contribute to therestoration of degraded coastal areas. IMCAMapproaches have been recognized as the most effec-tive tools for implementing the Convention onBiological Diversity with respect to conservationand sustainable use of marine and coastal biodiver-sity. This acceptance of the effectiveness of IMCAMwas already evident at the second meeting of theConference of the Parties, where, in decision II/10,the Parties encouraged the use of IMCAM as themost suitable framework for addressing humanimpacts on marine and coastal biological diversityand for promoting conservation and sustainableuse of this biodiversity. Subsequently, the fourthmeeting of the Conference of the Parties adoptedIMCAM as the first of the five key programme ele-ments of the programme of work, and the fifthmeeting endorsed further work on developingguidelines for coastal areas, taking into account theecosystem approach, the main framework foraction under the Convention. Most recently, theConvention’s Subsidiary Body on Scientific,Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) at itseighth meeting, in March 2003, recommended thatan effective marine and coastal biodiversity man-agement framework would comprise of sustainablemanagement practices and actions to protect biodi-versity over the wider marine and coastal environ-ment, as well as of an integrated marine and coastal

protected areas (MCPA) network (SBSTTA recom-mendation VIII/3 B).

Although the effectiveness of IMCAM isaccepted within the Convention process, existingIMCAM guidance documents and practices oftenfail to take biodiversity considerations fully intoaccount. The present document seeks to fill this gapby providing practical guidance on integratingIMCAM practices and those under the Convention,and represents the culmination of a series of activi-ties undertaken by the Government of theNetherlands to that end. It is the result of anextended participatory process with contributionsfrom numerous practitioners and policy makersworking with IMCAM approaches and theConvention on Biological Diversity. A six-weekonline discussion was held to identify priority needsand issues from all over the world. The outcome ofthe online discussion provided the groundwork forthe further elaboration of four themes: ecosystemapproach, indicators, restoration of habitats, andincentives. This document is a synthesis of theonline discussion and the work of the assigned spe-cialists and aims to provide a tangible and pragmaticinput to further the implementation of theConvention on Biological Diversity in marine andcoastal areas.

I am confident that the information containedin this document can provide invaluable assistanceas the Parties to the Convention strive to achievetheir target of significantly reducing the rate of bio-diversity loss by the year 2010.

I wish to thank all those individuals and insti-tutions who have contributed to the completion ofthis technical report.

Hamdallah ZedanExecutive Secretary


FOREWORD

iv

The Secretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity wishes to acknowledge with appreciationthe editors of this document: AIDEnvironment andthe National Institute for Coastal Management(Netherlands)/RIKZ Coastal Zone ManagementCentre, as well as the Government of theNetherlands for funding this work, including thepublication of this document. In addition, theSecretariat and the editors of this document wouldlike to express their gratitude to the specialists whoelaborated on the four main themes in this docu-ment. They are, in alphabetical order, PeterBurbridge, Lucy Emerton, Pippa Gravestock, YvesHenocque, Jan Joost Kessler, Jake Rice, Lida PetSoede, Martin Le Tissier and Paula Warren. Thanksalso go to the many people that contributed to theonline web discussion. Their valuable contributionsresulted in the backbone of this document and pro-vided interesting case studies and examples.

The Secretariat would like to thank the staff ofRIKZ and AIDEnvironment who provided assis-tance and advice during the whole process of theonline discussion and the preparation of the guid-ance document itself: Joris Geurts van Kessel, RinyHeijdendael, Saa Kabuta, Josine Kelling, MarinkaKiezebrink, Rolf Kleef, Robin Pistorius, MaartenScheffers, Janette Worm and Carien van Zwol.

We also would also like to acknowledge thestaff of UNEP Coordination Office for the GlobalProgramme of Action for the Protection of theMarine Environment from Land-based Activities(UNEP/GPA), Wetlands International, EUCC—theCoastal Union, the Secretariat of the Convention onWetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) and the Secretariatof the Convention on Biological Diversity for theirsupport and helpful suggestions.

Finally, the Secretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity, RIKZ and AIDEnvironmentwould like to thank DG Water of the DutchMinistry of Transport, Public Works and WaterManagement for providing financial assistance tomake the participatory process and the publicationof this report possible.


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1

FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

GENERAL INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.2 The way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 Audience and objectives of the guidance document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. ECOSYSTEM APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.1 General introduction to Ecosystems Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.2 Ecosystem Approach principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.3 Sustainable Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.4 Integrated knowledge through EA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.5 Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.6 Adaptive management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.7 The Precautionary Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.7.1 Best Available Science . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102.7.2 The use of non-scientific data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112.7.3 The gaps in our understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2.8 Protected areas and buffer-zones (MPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122.9 The way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132.10 List of references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3. INDICATORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.1 General introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.2 Frameworks for selecting indicators that cover all CBD objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153.3 The DPSIR framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163.4 Logical Framework Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183.5 Other frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193.6 Indicators for all phases of the IMCAM cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193.7 Indicators for the process of the policy cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213.8 Indicators for coastal governance – outcomes and impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223.9 Criteria for the selection and development of indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233.10 Stakeholder involvement and indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263.11 The way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283.12 List of references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

4. RESTORATION OF HABITATS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304.1 Habitat Deterioration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304.2 The role of IMCAM in restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324.3 Ecological functions of habitats – scale (time and space) and change . . . . . . . . . . . . 324.4 Linking ecosystem function to the human dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334.5 Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344.6 The role of stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35


Table of contents

2

4.7 Sectoralism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354.8 Technical methodologies and mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374.9 List of references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5. INCENTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405.1 General introduction to opportunities and constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405.2 What are incentives and why use them? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405.3 Types of economic incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425.4 Choosing economic incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 455.5 Incentives as opportunities or constraints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465.6 Implementing economic incentives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465.7 The way forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485.8 List of references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50


3

1.1 BACKGROUND

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), thefirst global agreement on the conservation and sus-tainable use of biological diversity, has three maingoals:

1. the conservation of biodiversity,2. sustainable use of the components of biodiver-

sity, and 3. sharing the benefits arising from the commer-

cial and other utilisation of genetic resources ina fair and equitable way.

The Conference of Parties of the CBD initiatedwork on five thematic work programmes, includingmarine and coastal biodiversity. The oceans cover70 per cent of the planet’s surface area and marineand coastal environments contain diverse habitatsthat support an abundance of marine life. Examplesof marine and coastal communities include man-groves, coral reefs, sea grasses, algae, pelagic oropen-ocean communities and deep-sea communi-ties. A large percentage of the global community isdirectly or indirectly dependent on coastal zones fortheir livelihood.

In view of their common concern for the con-servation and sustainable use of marine and coastalbiodiversity, the Parties to the Convention onBiological Diversity agreed on a programme ofaction for marine issues, focusing on integratedmarine and coastal area management, the sustain-able use of living resources, protected areas, mari-culture and alien species.

Integrated marine and coastal area manage-ment approaches (such as IMCAM, ICM andICZM) are recognised as the most effective tools forimplementing the CBD with respect to the conser-vation and sustainable use of marine and coastalbiodiversity. In spite of this common agreement, itis still a challenge to find the right balance betweenbiodiversity conservation and the sustainable use ofits components. The relevance and applicability ofexisting IMCAM instruments for the implementa-tion of the Convention has not been clarified.Existing IMCAM guidance documents and

IMCAM practices often fail to take biodiversityconsiderations fully into account. The potential ofICZM for maintaining and enhancing marine bio-diversity has yet to be realised.

1.2 THE WAY FORWARD

In 2001 the Dutch government initiated a consulta-tive and participatory process aimed at producingpractical guidance for better incorporating CBDelements into both the design and implementationphases of IMCAM projects. A preliminary review ofnumerous IMCAM documents and three case stud-ies on IMCAM projects was conducted in 2001 (seeBox 1). This analysis was based on a set of criteriainferred from the objectives and provisions of theConvention on Biological Diversity and Decisionsby the CBD Conferences of Parties. Box 1 providesa review of IMCAM literature with numerousstrategies that can be considered as ‘success factors’enabling fuller integration of CBD objectives intothe IMCAM programmes.

The literature review revealed several specific topicsthat required further guidance:

• Elaboration and operationalisation of theEcosystem Approach (EA)

• Restoration and rehabilitation of degradedecosystems and promotion of the recovery ofthreatened species

• Support to local populations to develop andimplement remedial action in degraded areas

• Economically and socially sound measures thatact as incentives for the conservation and sus-tainable use of components of biologicaldiversity

• Protection and encouragement of customaryuse of biological resources in accordance withtraditional cultural practices that are compati-ble with conservation or sustainable userequirements

• Development of indicators to enable perform-ance monitoring of the implementation ofCBD objectives


1. GENERAL INTRODUCTION

4

The latter findings were summarised and discussedat a side event, ‘Towards better incorporation ofCBD elements in IMCAM projects’, during CBD-COP-6, held in The Hague in April 2002. Furtherdiscussion and consultation on these topics by awide group of ICZM practitioners and specialistswas conducted via the internet during October andNovember 2002, with the aim of obtaining consen-sus on which issues most urgently required furtherelaboration. The following four topics were selected;

1. Ecosystem Approach 2. Indicators 3. Restoration of habitats4. Incentives

Discussion documents summarising the mostimportant ‘critical issues’ for these topics were thesubject of a second Internet discussion (Septemberto October 2003). This final document is based onthe outcome of the second discussion and contribu-tions from several international experts.

1.3 AUDIENCE AND OBJECTIVES OFTHE GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

The present document is aimed at IMCAM practi-tioners and policy makers from local to nationalpolicy levels all over the world. It aims to providepractical guidance on incorporating issues concern-ing the conservation and sustainable use of marineand coastal biodiversity into IMCAM programmes.More specifically, it promotes possible approachesto implementing the four topics: the EcosystemApproach, Indicators, Restoration of Habitats andIncentives. Each topic is introduced briefly, the crit-ical issues are discussed, and examples from aroundthe globe are used to illustrate possible practicalapplications of often-complex concepts andapproaches.


Box 1: ‘Success factors’ enabling fullerintegration of CBD objectives into the IMCAMprogrammes

• Explicitly identify biodiversity conservation as akey goal of the programme and adopt a balancedapproach to maintain the health and productiv-ity of coastal ecosystems so that they can con-tinue to supply resources that sustain economicand social well being of the community.

• Build and implement programmes around aparticipatory process, which enables local stake-holders to have more control over the naturalresources upon which their livelihood dependsand thus results in sustainable solutions.

• Develop multiple use management approachesto the use of coastal ecosystems and resources,which allow to meet economic objectiveswithout adversely affecting the ecosystems thatsustain these.

• Utilise a variety of tools such as regulation, zon-ing plans, setbacks, EIA etc. for minimising theimpacts of human activities on natural habi-tats/areas.

• Ensure the capacity and mandate to coordinateinland activities that lead to degradation anddestruction of coastal and marine biodiversity.

• Incorporate a system of coastal and marine pro-tected areas, which is a well-recognised means ofconservation.

• Build constituencies that support biodiversityconservation measures and coastal managementthrough public information and awareness pro-grammes. Develop awareness at all levels of gov-ernment, NGOs, and local communities thatthey have a common interest in promoting theconservation of coastal ecosystems.

• Incorporate conflict resolution.

• Improve scientific understanding of the func-tions performed by different coastal ecosystems,the resources they generate and how humanactivity impact on the functioning of theecosystem.

• Set specific targets in terms of ecosystem condi-tion and establish a monitoring system.

• Invest in developing the ability of those withresponsibility for coastal systems to plan for andmanage sustainable forms of resources use.

5

2.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION TOECOSYSTEMS APPROACH

The CBD sees the Ecosystem Approach (EA) as ‘astrategy for integrating the management of land,water and living resources and promoting conser-vation and sustainable use in an equitable way’. Useof the Ecosystem Approach will help in achieving abalance between these three objectives of theConvention. 'An ecosystem approach is based onthe application of appropriate scientific method-ologies focused on levels of biological organisation,which encompass the essential structure, processes,functions and interactions among organisms andtheir environment’. The EA also ‘recognises thathumans and their cultural diversity are an integralcomponent of ecosystems’. The majority of the leg-islative and institutional arrangements as well astools and techniques recommended are directly orindirectly aimed at managing and regulatinghuman activities that potentially lead to the degra-dation of the coastal and marine ecosystem andensuring sustainable development of the coastalareas.

IMCAM is one of the priority activities of theCBD’s marine and coastal programme of worklaunched to protect and restore biodiversity in spe-cific ecosystems. “Integrated” (from IMCAM) asopposed to traditional sectoral approach to man-agement involves a holistic, cross-sectoral, multi-disciplinary approach in which land and sea areasof the coastal zones are managed as an integratedunit.

2.2 ECOSYSTEM APPROACHPRINCIPLES

The CBD defines 12 principles and 5 operationalobjectives to guide the incorporation of theapproach. These so-called Malawi Principles orcharacteristics of the ecosystem approach to biodi-versity management were identified to facilitate thedevelopment of the ecosystem approach of the CBD(See Box 2).

The CBD also recognises that there is no single wayto implement the ecosystem approach, as it dependson local, provincial, national, regional or globalconditions. Indeed, there are many ways in whichecosystem approaches may be used as the frame-work for delivering the objectives of theConvention in practice.


2. ECOSYSTEM APPROACH

Box 2: Principles of the Ecosystem Approach(decision V/6)

1. Management objectives are a matter of societalchoice.

2. Management should be decentralized to thelowest appropriate level.

3. Ecosystem managers should consider theeffects of their activities on adjacent and otherecosystems.

4. Recognizing potential gains from managementthere is a need to understand the ecosystem inan economic context, considering e.g., miti-gating market distortions, aligning incentivesto promote sustainable use, and internalizingcosts and benefits.

5. A key feature of the ecosystem approachincludes conservation of ecosystem structureand functioning.

6. Ecosystems must be managed within the limitsto their functioning.

7. The ecosystem approach should be undertakenat the appropriate scale.

8. Recognizing the varying temporal scales andlag effects which characterize ecosystemprocesses, objectives for ecosystem manage-ment should be set for the long term.

9. Management must recognize that change isinevitable.

10. The ecosystem approach should seek theappropriate balance between conservationand use of biodiversity.

11. The ecosystem approach should consider all forms of relevant information, includingscientific and indigenous and local knowledge,innovations and practices.

12. The ecosystem approach should involve allrelevant sectors of society and scientificdisciplines.

6

Traditional management approaches based ona static understanding of ecosystems have in manycases been shown to be unsuitable for achieving asustainable use of natural resources. The EArequires an integrated strategy for the managementof land, water and living resources that promotesconservation and sustainable use in an equitableway in line with the following principles:

1. Sustainability principle2. Adaptive management3. Precautionary principle 4. Marine and coastal protected areas and buffer

zones5. Collaborative conservation6. Participatory approach (involving non-scien-

tists and stakeholders)7. Economic incentives/disincentives

The example described in Box 3 below illustratesseveral of the abovementioned principles and canbe seen as a successful application of the EA. Someof the critical issues concerning the implementationof the EA in IMCAM are discussed separately insections 2.4 and 2.5 and illustrated with additionalexamples.

2.3 SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Sustainability is about trying to reconcile the threebasic aspirations of social, economic and ecologicaldevelopment. The crucial question, therefore, is:How can the ecosystem and its biological diversitybe placed central in the integrated management ofcoastal areas subject to major human pressures,without compromising the socio-economic devel-opment of these areas?


Box 3: The tri-national Sulu Sulawesi Marine Eco-region (SSME), Indonesia contains the most biologicallydiverse assemblage of marine life known on Earth. It also provides a livelihood for millions of people and is amajor economic engine of the regional economy. Human population growth, destructive fishing practices,poorly planned development, overconsumption and pollution pose threats to the long-term sustainability ofthese natural resources. Existing management efforts were not sufficient to protect endangered species and con-serve key habitats. To rectify this, Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), designed to include multi-purpose land-usezones, were identified. In the absence of extensive databases and knowledge of ecosystem linkages, these MPAswere selected according to four main guiding principles:

1. Representation: include examples of all biological communities and habitats.

2. Viability: areas must be large enough with broad enough distribution to maintain viable populations of allspecies in the Eco-region.

3. Ecological and evolutionary processes: cross-boundary controls on activities occurring outside MPAsshould be strict enough to allow the continuation of the ecological and evolutionary processes that shapedthe Eco-region.

4. Resilience: MPAs should contain areas that are sources of recruits for other parts of the Eco-region that havea high survival or recovery rate following impacts.

In addition, existing regulations to eradicate illegal and unreported fisheries outside the MPAs have beenimproved and implemented under policies adopted by the three countries.

This collaborative conservation effort is accompanied by economic incentives that address priority problems.Little science is needed to understand that fishing practices that destroy habitats should be banned and thatnesting turtles should not be disturbed or exploited. Participatory patrols in Bunaken National Park have sig-nificantly reduced blast and cyanide fishing. Participatory enforcement of the ban on egg collection on Derawanisland ensures widespread confidence, and means, that more turtle chicks will hatch than before. Participatorymonitoring by community members, student volunteers and government officials includes counting and takingsimple measurements of nesting female turtles on Derawan and recording catches on Bunaken. The scuba div-ing community helps to conduct regular Reef Check surveys to help monitor progress with management.

7

The answer lies in the concept of sustainable devel-opment as defined by the five main criteria of sus-tainability:

1. Ecosystem productivity2. Environmental protection3. Social acceptability4. Economic viability5. Dependence security

These highly interdependent criteria cover thetrade-offs between knowledge of how ecosystemsfunction and respond to anthropogenic forces andthe processes of governance—the way in which aparticular society is governed. The following sec-tion describes these two processes: generating inte-grated knowledge through the Ecosystem Approachand developing successful governance. These arethe two pillars of IMCAM.

2.4 INTEGRATED KNOWLEDGETHROUGH EA

The EA focuses on understanding the function ofbiodiversity and how this relates to ecosystemprocesses and ecosystem stability. It considersspecies relationships and how these influence therate of ecosystem processes, and external variables,which drive the system, such as solar energy, flowsof water and input of nutrients. Taking an ecosys-tem perspective is a necessary first step towardsplanning for the management of ecosystems. It pro-vides a good understanding of how coastal ecosys-tems function, the flows of economic and environ-mental resources each system can generate, whichenvironmental processes create and maintain thefunctional integrity of each system and how humanactivities can influence that functional integrity.Moving up a scale, we should then try to identifythe functional linkages between different coastalsystems so that we can obtain a broader under-standing of how such systems are mutually sup-portive and contribute to the sustainability ofhuman development.

The available tools for doing this includeknowledge, experience and theories of ecosystem

structure and function, biodiversity and theresilience of ecosystems to perturbations, scale andhierarchy, productivity, and ecological indicators.The assessment tools consist of field methods andanalytical techniques for collecting data and assess-ing ecosystem states.

Defining the boundaries of EA

Several factors have to be considered when trying todefine the boundaries of the ecosystem processes tobe measured in the field. By definition, an ecosys-tem study incorporates the movement of energyand materials into and out of the boundaries of theecosystem. In the case of waterborne pollutants, forexample, some may be retained within the water-shed boundaries if they are transferred to the ripar-ian zones (the shores and banks of these water sys-tems), but some will very likely be carried beyondthe watershed boundaries by the river draining thewatershed or in groundwater flows. Effective man-agement involves making a compromise betweennatural and administrative boundaries to come upwith manageable areas from which information canbe organised and scaled up using the D-P-S-I-Rsystem (Driving forces-Pressure-State-Impact-Response; see Section 3.3). The resulting sensitivity/vulnerability mapping of ecosystems can be ahighly useful tool in negotiating the planningprocess with all the stakeholders involved.

Scaling information

Using information for analyses on different spatialand temporal scales may lead to several problems,many of which are related to the fact that the quan-tity and type of information needed to analyse asystem depends on scale of analysis. For example,spatial variability in the ‘infiltration of rainfall’ overa distance of only a couple of meters can play a piv-otal role in water and nutrient availability andecosystem resilience. The water level of a one in tenyear flood may determine where particular treespecies occur, or the one in ten year drought maydetermine the real value of a particular wetland to


8

people and wildlife. We need, therefore, to expandour understanding of how an individual structureor function occurring at a specific scale interactswith processes occurring at other scales, and howthis, in turn, feeds back to affect the functioning ofthe core system at another scale.

The example below (Box 4) illustrates howhuman activities may influence ecosystem processesin a shallow lagoon, which in turn determine thecommercial shell production capacity in terms ofshellfish stock. It addresses the need for knowledgeon the scale of the whole lagoon, the physical,chemical and ecological processes within thelagoon, and the interaction of the lagoon systemwith the adjacent marine environment.

2.5 GOVERNANCE

From a governance perspective, the initial questionhas to be turned around—‘How can socio-economic

development be a main goal of integrated coastalmanagement without compromising the ecosystemand its biological diversity?’ It will be hard to man-age any ecosystem without considering the humanelement in all its dimensions. Indeed, if we have nocontrol over the dynamic forces and environmentalprocesses that create and sustain coastal ecosystems,we can only manage the human activities that seekto use or have access to coastal areas and resources.Both coastal governance and coastal ecosystemsmust be conceived as ‘nested systems’ across a rangeof spatial scales. Ideally, national and IMCAM ini-tiatives should encompass areas that extend fromthe upper limit of water catchments to the outerlimits of exclusive economic zones. In practice,most initiatives are currently on a far smaller scaleand address only fragments or individual ecosys-tems such as coral reef, mangrove swamps or estu-aries. Some larger-scale initiatives are succeeding,though, such as in the Chesapeake Bay Agreement,


Box 4: In the Thau lagoon in the north-western Mediterranean there is a fragile balance between activities andproductivity. Almost all the typical human activities associated with lagoons are encountered here. Its naturalproductivity sustains commercial shell farming (an estimated standing stock of 35,000 tons with an annual pro-duction of 15,000 tons per year), fish farming (40 tons per year) and commercial and recreational fishing ofboth fish and shellfish.

This shallow (<10 m) ecosystem is sensitive to both natural (climate change) and artificial changes. At the turnof the century, when agriculture was not important in the region, the morphology and depth of water in thelagoon were the sole determinants of nutrient concentrations. The first oyster farms were established between1911 and 1915. The expansion of the shell farming industry since 1945 (700 commercial concessions) and addi-tional human activities on the lagoon’s shore led to a significant enrichment of the bottom sediments by the1960s. This enrichment in turn caused the severe oxygen deficiency during the 1970s that drastically affectedshell farming and fishing in the lagoon. More enlightened development since the early 1970s and a lagooncleanup programme initiated in 1974 have slowly had a positive effect on the lagoon despite the simultaneousexpansion of shell farming in the region. The lagoon still contains high levels of silt originating both from deepwater (where organic matter has accumulated) and from shell farming, which together fertilise the sedimentsand favour the growth of marine plants such as Zostera (seagrass or eelgrass). This in turn probably reduces theexcess nutrient load. However, shell farming cannot be sustained throughout the year without some additionalexternal source of nutrients, which means that the circulation of water in the lagoon as a whole plays a role inshell farming production. These exchanges occur continually, except during the summer when the shellfish inthe farms consume such large quantities of phytoplankton that supplies of these microscopic plants inside thefarming structures themselves are depleted, despite the supply from outside. This makes it important to quan-tify the standing stock of dissolved organic matter and identify its role in localised regeneration of primaryproduction.

Further studies will focus on the assessment of nearby marine waters to obtain a better understanding of thelinks between the lagoon and its neighbouring ecosystems, as well as evaluating the downstream socioeconomicconsequences of possible ecological degradation of the lagoon system.

9

the South Florida Restoration Plan and the GreatBarrier Reef Marine Park. An example of a large-scale initiative with zoning and multiple use is theSoufriere Marine Management Area along 11 km ofcoastline in St. Lucia, Caribbean (see Box 5).

Ecosystem management is essentially a blend ofnatural science tools and data with administrativeand social science techniques. A balance must bestruck between the physical and biological featuresof ecosystems and equally real human factors.Manageable indicators are needed to make compar-isons between trends in the ‘natural’ elements ofecosystems and trends in the associated humanpopulation (see also Section 3.6). This requires a verysophisticated and integrated approach to develop-ment planning and resources management basedon integrated information from both the naturaland social sciences that provides a more holisticview. However, it is proving difficult to develop thecross-disciplinary skills needed to generate the inte-grated scientific information for policy makers,planners and managers.

2.6 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT

Adaptive management acknowledges a continuousprocess of action based on doing, learning, sharingand improving, while sustainability is not absolute:the responses of ecosystems, agencies and peopledepend on changing circumstances, whether theseare the climate, the population pressure or economics

factors. The main problem lies with the temporalmismatches between the cycles of coastal ecosystemchange and cycles of coastal governance. It is there-fore fundamentally important to allow for adaptivemanagement and locate coastal governance initia-tives within the longer-term cycles of ecosystemchange. Using simple trend projections and modelsto forecast the impacts of any decision in the devel-opment path could increase the relevance of themessages coming from the scientific communityinto the governance process. Methods such asStrategic Environmental Analysis can be highlyinstrumental in this respect, not only for identifyingthe issues at stake but also how they relate to differ-ent stakeholders and different spatial and temporalscales. In the longer term, when dealing with thepossible consequences of global warming, such assea-rise level, it is wise to seek to predict thesechanges and plan scenarios that take account ofchanging habitats.

Adaptive management recognises the differ-ences between stakeholders, science and policy andallows for self-correction and mutual learning,instead of relying on the concept of instant consen-sus and effective adoption in decision-makingprocesses. The ecosystem approach adopted by theCBD recognises the importance of an adaptivemanagement approach. Decision V/6 describes thisas ‘a learning process, which helps to adapt method-ologies and practices to the ways in which these sys-tems are being managed and monitored. Ecosystemmanagement should be envisaged as a long-termexperiment that builds on its results as it progresses.’

The basic elements of adaptive managementprocesses are:

• Collection of ecological, socio-economic andinstitutional information

• Definition of goals and priorities• Formulation of assumptions and working

hypotheses• Testing assumptions via ecological and socio-

economic monitoring• Reassessment of assumptions and adoption• Learning and integrating lessons into decision

making


Box 5: The Soufriere Marine Management Areain St. Lucia, Caribbean

Following a long period of public consultation an11-kilometre stretch of the coastline was legallydesignated as a management area in 1994. Zoneswere set aside for recreation, a marina, marinereserves (with no fishing, but diving permitted)and fishing priority areas, mainly adjacent to themarine reserves. Since 1999 the annual fees paidby the 6300 divers and 3600 visiting yachts havemade the management authority self-financing.Fish biomass has tripled in the marine reserveareas and fishers are reporting increased yieldsfrom the adjacent fishing priority areas.

10

Most examples show that at a local decision-making level, individuals and their institutions aremore likely to respond to changes in their environ-ments and that these responses represent importantsources of innovation and learning for wholeorganisations. This emphasises the importance ofdecentralisation, site-specific policy approaches,coalition networks, multistage processes andencouraging the participation of a broad range ofstakeholders.

2.7 THE PRECAUTIONARY APPROACH

We will never have perfect knowledge of the marineecosystems we are using and managing. This is thecase for any biodiversity management function, butthe problems are particularly intense in marineecosystems because of their complexity anddynamic nature and the difficulties of working inthe marine environment. In addition, there arefewer resources devoted to marine ecosystemresearch than to many other ecosystem types. Thisraises a crucial question:

How to deal with the limited knowledge ofecosystem structure and functioning, and theresulting uncertainties, when determining ecosys-tem performance?

The answer lies in the fact that the precaution-ary approach should be central to our IMCAMwork. This approach has been incorporated intomost UN biodiversity-related processes, includingRio (Agenda 21, UNCED), the Convention onBiological Diversity (CBD) and the Code ofConduct on Responsible Fisheries. It also appears inregional agreements, such as the Convention on theConservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources(CCAMLR) and the Framework Agreement for theConservation of Living Marine Resources on theHigh Seas of the South Pacific (The GalapagosAgreement).

Although the precautionary approach has beenexpressed in different ways in these forums, theapproach generally encompasses two key elements:

1. The need to base any decisions on the bestavailable science

2. The need to take into account the gaps in ourunderstanding as we make decisions

2.7.1 Best Available Science

Scientific data on the marine environment is ascarce resource and so efforts should target priorityneeds for better information and understanding tosupport decision-making. One priority is to under-stand the key drivers of ecosystem function and thekey parameters needed to assess ecosystem condi-tion. Such understanding is essential for predictingthe probable effects of decisions and for establish-ing optimal indicators of change. A list of priorities,once agreed, would provide a clear focus for futurescientific work (e.g. to improve understanding ofthe basic physical ecosystem processes) and datagathering (e.g. to better assess the degree of modifi-cation of ecosystems by current human activity orthe modifications that can be expected as a result ofchanges in behaviour). There is also an urgent needfor better models and conceptual approaches thatmake more effective use of the available knowledge,particularly for predicting the effects of manage-ment decisions.

The connection between the available informa-tion and decision-makers (government and com-munities) must improve. The ecosystem approachadopted by the CBD (decision V/6) emphasises thefact that management objectives are a matter ofsocietal choice. These choices should be based onknowledge and science to allow people to makemore rational judgements (e.g. to help people tounderstand that an ugly organism may have a higheconomic value) and translate their values intopractice (e.g. if society values endemic species, scien-tists can then identify which species are endemic).

The ecosystem approach also stresses the needto conserve ecosystem structure and functioning, tomanage ecosystems within the limits of their func-tioning and to carry out management at appropri-ate spatial and temporal scales. All these aspects ofthe ecosystem approach require scientific informa-tion. That information must be provided to thedecision-makers in a form they can use. It will often


11

be necessary to improve the general ability of thedecision-maker to understand scientific conceptsand coastal and marine ecosystems. Trainingcourses, glossaries illustrated field guides, field tripsand other tools can be used.

Legislation and institutional arrangements mayalso need to be changed to allow more scientificallysound decisions to be made: decision-making crite-ria should have a proper scientific basis, decision-making processes should be transparent so that log-ical inconsistencies can be exposed and addressed,institutions must have good access to scientists, etc.Box 6 provides an example of the identification ofpriorities for ecosystem management and linkagesto parameters and data gathering efforts.

2.7.2 The use of non-scientific data

We can increase the amount of information we haveby drawing on the widest possible range of sourcesand using efficient collection techniques. While some

work requires scientific skills, there is considerablepotential to use non-scientists to undertake datacollection. Possible data sources include:

• Data collected for other purposes; for example,catch records for fisheries enforcement ormanagement purposes can also supportecosystem assessments.

• Capturing data collected while people under-take other activities; for example, birdwatchersand shell collectors have probably collectedmost of the data on seabirds and molluscs.

• Encouraging volunteers to collect data forcoastal management purposes; for example,Coastwatch Europe is a network of organisa-tions in 23 countries that organises volunteersto undertake annual surveys covering around10,000 km of coastline.

• Enhancing the quality of data collected by vol-untary groups by providing training in newtechniques and access to better data manage-ment systems.


Box 6: In New Zealand work on ecosystem management has identified key human-induced modifications anddrivers of ecosystem functions: loss of species through hunting, fishing, consumption and competition fromintroduced species (including competition for space and nutrients), resource modification (e.g. changes innutrients, sediment movements and types, light penetration) and fragmentation (including loss of connectivityand edge effects on remnant ecosystems). The following key factors for acquiring good data and knowledge andfor prioritising management actions were identified:

• The value of the ecosystem in terms of distinctiveness, importance and natural character

• The effect of management on the value of the site

• Urgency

• Feasibility

• The ability to generate an enhanced capacity to carry out future management (e.g. by generating new infor-mation or building community support)

• The risk of collateral damage to other ecosystems or reducing the ability to undertake other managementactivities (e.g. by reducing community support)

• The information provided by the scientific and monitoring community must be packaged in a form that isappropriate to the needs of the decision-maker. This includes consideration of issues such as:

• Translating material into the correct language (e.g. into the local or indigenous language of communitydecision makers)

• Making material easy to understand by removing unnecessary scientific jargon

• Matching information to match the questions facing the decision maker

• Disseminating the information to the decision maker

12

The boxes below (Box 7 and 8) provide exam-ples of using non-scientific data to improve ourknowledge base and enable adaptive management.

Another way of increasing and improving datacollection and analysis is by using innovative tech-niques. New technologies, such as remote sensing,Global Position System (GPS), data loggers, imagingtechnology and improved diving and deep sea explo-ration technology, have great potential for improvingthe efficiency of data collection and analysis.

2.7.3 The gaps in our understanding

No matter how much we intensify scientificresearch, there will always be gaps, uncertaintiesand errors in our information and understanding.The second element of the precautionary approachis to ensure that decision-making take these gapsinto account. Decisions must be made, regardless ofthe deficiencies in the available information. Wecannot simply wait for full knowledge.

The obvious pre-requisite for taking these gapsand uncertainties into account is to know they arethere and this requires conceptual models intowhich we can put the information we have. Clearly,we need better conceptual models for the marineenvironment that include some important features:

• A clear hypothesis that is being tested, i.e. aclear and transparent basis for the decisionbeing made.

• A process that will allow the results of the man-agement programme to be measured and com-pared with those expected under the hypothe-sis. This is likely to require carefully designedmonitoring processes, with baseline measures.

• The ability to assess the differences betweenresults and expectations and learn from them.The better our conceptual understanding, themore likely we are to be able to assess any dif-ferences (e.g. to distinguish between responsesto management and stochastic change). Goodanalysis will also depend on the quality of thedata. It is therefore essential that any monitor-ing programme is well designed.

• The ability to make new decisions that reflectthis learning so the cycle can be repeated. Thisrequires adaptive institutions.

• The ability to control any changes in the man-agement programme so that those changes donot jeopardise the ability to learn more. Thisrequires good governance arrangements.

2.8 PROTECTED AREAS AND BUFFER-ZONES (MPA)

World Conservation Union defines MarineProtected Areas as “any area of the intertidal or sub-tidal terrain, together with its overlying water andassociated flora, fauna, historical and cultural fea-tures, which has been reserved by law or other effec-tive means to protect part or all of the enclosedenvironment”

There are two important roles that fully pro-tected reserves can play in this overall picture ofprotecting ecosystems and applying the precaution-ary principle. First, they can provide a control


Box 8: The Reef Check organisation, USA, estab-lished five years ago, is a successful example of aglobal, community-based coral reef monitoringprogramme that increases public understandingof the value of coral reefs and the need to protectthem. The programme enlists volunteers for datacollection and couples local knowledge with sci-entific research.

Box 7: Fisher communities in Eastern Samar andBohol, Philippines applied simplified coastalresource monitoring methods to empirically eval-uate the effectiveness of marine reserves for therehabilitation of reef trophic function disruptedby overfishing. In this three-year training pro-gramme for participatory monitoring and evalua-tion of protected reefs, monitoring by local com-munities has tightened the adaptive managementcycle because the functions of management andevaluation are carried out by one group. For fur-ther information see the following document:Monitoring and Evaluation of Reef ProtectedAreas by Local Fishers in the Philippines:Tightening the Adaptive Management Cycle.

13

against which management effects can be com-pared. In dynamic and poorly understood ecosys-tems, control areas are probably essential for under-standing the effect of management. A baselinemeasure for the managed area cannot on its ownhelp us to distinguish between management effectsand stochastic change. Second, they provideresilience or a buffer against the effects of mistakes.Where the effects of management are highly uncer-tain and all areas are used, the precautionaryapproach is likely to result in low levels of resourceuse in order to achieve sustainability. But if there isa network of fully protected areas, these can betreated as ‘insurance’ against mistakes in manage-ment, allowing higher levels of resource use in theexploited areas. For example, they can provide:

• Protection for genetic diversity if managementresults in the loss of genetic diversity in har-vested stocks

• A pool of breeding animals to restock over-harvested areas

• Refuges for particularly sensitive species

In addition, the presence of these areas allows man-agers to achieve overall biodiversity goals withoutneeding to achieve those goals in every location.This is the approach taken with terrestrial biodiver-sity, where protection of sensitive species may beprovided through protected areas, not within pro-duction areas.

2.9 THE WAY FORWARD

To manage ecosystems we must conduct systematicscientific studies of human uses and their effects onthe ecosystem. Ecosystem management requires abalancing of both sides of the equation and apply-ing the sustainability concept. There is no ‘freelunch’—loss is inevitable as expanding human usesaffect existing ecosystem functions. Ecosystemmanagement is ultimately about presenting thechoices and trade-offs, and estimating and moni-toring the costs and benefits of making these choices.

The scale of ecosystem management must beflexible enough to respond to management goalsand objectives; no one spatial scale by itself is ade-quate to manage ecosystems. Similarly, the tempo-ral scale must be adaptable enough to allow for‘reorganisation’ of an ecosystem throughout its fullcycle, either under the pressure of long-timechanges or catastrophic disturbance.

Adaptive management is an essential part ofecosystem management. The rules and criteria mustbe flexible enough to adapt to changing biophysicalconditions, human behaviour, economics and sci-entific advances. Adaptive ecosystem managementrequires a system that learns from its own mistakesand is not rigid, but has feedback loops.


2.10 LIST OF REFERENCES

Anemoon Foundation Analysis, Education and MarineEcological Research, nov-03, http://www.anemoon.org/

Article 2 of the Convention, nov-03, CBD, http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp?lg=0&a=cbd-02

Bertness, MD et al. Anthropogenic modification of NewEngland marsh salt landscapes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:1395-1398, 2002.

Bonaire National Marine Park, nov-03, Bonaire Marine Park,http://www.bmp.org/

Christensen, N. L., Bartuska, A., Brown, J. H., Carpenter, S.,D'Antonio, C., Francis, J. F., Franklin, J. F., MacMahon, J. A.,Noss, R. F., Parsons, D. J., Peterson, C. H., Turner, M. G., R.G.Woodmansee. The report of the Ecological Society of AmericaCommittee on the scientific basis for ecosystem management.Ecological Applications, 6: 665-691,1996.

Coastal Zone Management Centre, nov-03, CZMC,http://www.netcoast.nl/

Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine LivingResources, The, nov-03, http://www.ccamlr.org/pu/e/gen-intro.htm

Francis, Julius, Josephine Meela. Incorporation of CBDObjectives in the Implementation of ICM Projects: The Case OfTanga ICM Project Of Tanga, Tanzania, WOMSA/NEMC,http://www.aidenvironment.org/projects/A1025/documents/docs/TangaCaseStudy.pdf

Gell FR, C.M. Roberts. Benefits beyond boundaries: the fisheryeffects of marine reserves. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 448-455, 2003.

George, Sarah. EvA Soufriere case presentation,http://www.aidenvironment.org/projects/A1025/documents/docs/EvA%20Soufriere%20case%20presentation.ppt

Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, nov-03, GBRMPA,http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/

14


Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, The Representative AreasProgramme, nov-03, GBRMPA, http://www.reefed.edu.au/rap/

Hartje, Volkmar, Axel Klaphake & Rainer Schliep. InternationalDebate on the Ecosystem Approach, The, 2003,http://www.aidenvironment.org/projects/A1025/documents/docs/EvA%20International%20Debate%20on%20EsA.pdf

Hol Chan Marine Reserve Belize, nov-03, Coastal Zone Man-agement Authority & Institute, http://www.holchanbelize.org/

ICM, Integrated Coastal Management, http://icm.noaa.gov/

IUCN - The World Conservation Union. Resolution 17.38 ofthe 17th General Assembly of the IUCN. Gland, Switzerlandand Cambridge, UK: IUCN, 1988.

Jacobs-Small, Barbara. The Soufriere Marine Management Areain St. Lucia, Caribbean Environmental Reporters Network,nov-03, http://www.panosinst.org/island/IB18E.shtml

Kelleher, G. Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. Gland,Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN - The WorldConservation Union. xxiv + 107 pp, 1999.

Laffoley, D. d’A., Burt, J., Gilliland, P., Baxter, J., Connor, D.W.,Davies, J., Hill, M., Breen, J., Vincent, M, E. Maltby. Adopting anecosystem approach for improved stewardship of the maritimeenvironment: some overarching issues, 2003, English Nature,Peterborough, English Nature Research Report 538, 20pp.

Marine Protected Areas of the United States, nov-03,http://www.mpa.gov/

Netherlands Ministry of Spatial Planning, Housing andEnvironment, nov-03, http://www.vrom.nl/international/

NOAA Coastal Services Center, Participatory Strategies forCoastal Managers, nov-03, http://www.csc.noaa.gov/techniques/communities.html

Noss, R., M. O’Connell, D. Murphy, The Science of ConservationPlanning (Island Press, Washington, D.C. 1997).

Partners in Development and Environment, nov-03,AIDEnvironment, http://www.aidenvironment.org/

Pauly, Daniel, et al. The future for fisheries. Science 301: 1359-1361. 2003

Pauly, Daniel, et al. Towards sustainability in world fisheries.Nature, Vol 418, (689-695), 8 August 2002.

Pauly, Daniel, J. L. Maclean. Book review: A Perfect Ocean: TheState of Fisheries and Ecosystems in the North Atlantic Ocean,2003, Island press, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1559633247/102-7830144-3827355?v=glance

Quick Look at the Levels of Biological Organization, nov-03,http://staff.jccc.net/pdecell/lifeis/biorgnew.html,

Reefcheck foundation, nov-03, The Reefcheck Foundation,http://www.reefcheck.org/newsletter3.htm

Renard, Yves, Soufriere Marine Management Area (smma), Thecase of the, St. Lucia, CANARI Technical Report N11 285, 2001,http://www.aidenvironment.org/projects/A1025/documents/docs/eva_soufriere_case.pdf

Roberts, CM et al. Marine biodiversity hotspots and conserva-tion priorities for tropical reefs. Science 295: 1280-1284, 2002.

Sala E et al. A general model for designing networks of marinereserves. Science 298: 1991-1993, 2002.

Salzwedel, Horst, Néstor Zapata Retamal, Michael Eilbrecht yAna María Arzola Torres, Zonificación del Borde Costero: Guíametodológica para el nivel comunal La experiencia de la Regióndel Bío Bío, 2002, http://www.aidenvironment.org/projects/A1025/documents/docs/zonation_chilli.pdf

SEAN, Strategic Environmental Analysis, nov-03,http://www.seanplatform.org

Soufriere Marine Management Association Inc. Soufriere MarineManagement Area in St. Lucia, nov-03, http://www.smma.org.lc/

Uychiaoco, A. J., S. J. Green, M. T. dela Cruz, H. O. Arceo andP.M. Aliño, Monitoring and Evaluation of Reef Protected Areasby Local Fishers in the Philippines: Tightening the AdaptiveManagement Cycle, http://www.aidenvironment.org/projects/A1025/documents/docs/eva_philipines_case.pdf

Wackernagel, M et al. Tracking the ecological overshoot of thehuman economy. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 99: 9266-9271, 2002.

15


3.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION

The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)promotes indicators as information tools for sum-marising data on complex environmental issues.Indicators are important for

1. monitoring the status and trends of biologicaldiversity, sustainable use and equitable sharing,

2. continuously improving the effectiveness ofbiodiversity management via IMCAM pro-grammes, and providing inputs to organisa-tional learning systems,

3. signalling key issues to be addressed throughpolicy interventions and other actions (includ-ing early warning systems).

The primary purpose of indicators is to informsociety and decision makers on the status andrecent trends in marine and coastal management,including biological diversity, sustainability of uses,socio-economic pressures and opportunities, andthe institutional issues involved. Three broadgroups of people will use indicators: scientists andother technical experts, decision makers and policysetters, and stakeholders and the general public. Thedifficulty is finding a framework for selecting indi-cators that will provide all three audiences with theinformation they need. Indicators should be simpleand facilitate communication between the threeaudiences, and should be limited in number. Ifmany indicators are used, the necessary monitoringwill be too expensive and the flow of information solarge and sometimes contradictory that the basicpurpose—to inform—will not be met.

Monitoring and the effective use of indicatorsis an essential part of an adaptive management sys-tem (see Chapter 2). Such a system aims to adaptpolicies and practices to the realities on the groundand to learn from experience in a continuousprocess of learning by doing.

This chapter discusses the following issues:1. Frameworks that can be used to structure the

identification and presentation of indicators,focusing on the log-frame for project monitor-ing and the DPSIR framework

2. Indicators for different phases of the IMCAMcycle, including those for monitoring theIMCAM process and indicators for issues likeparticipation, partnerships, etc.

3. Criteria for selecting indicators4. Guidelines for involving stakeholders in the

definition and use of indicators as part of amonitoring system

3.2 FRAMEWORKS FOR SELECTINGINDICATORS THAT COVER ALL CBD

OBJECTIVES

Given the above context, this section has to addresstwo core questions. Is there a framework which canmeet this challenge? If so, how can it be put in prac-tice? If not, what alternatives exist? We try to findanswers to these questions by considering the com-mon characteristics of the indicators and of the tar-get audiences.

Characteristics of indicators

To fulfil the requirements of the CBD there must beindicators of

• the status of coastal ecosystems, including eco-logical, socio-economic and institutional param-eters (including threats and opportunities),

• the economic benefits of activities impactingthe coastal ecosystems, and

• the social well-being arising from the use madeof coastal ecosystems.

Social well-being includes aesthetic and ethical con-siderations, which may not be measured well byeconomic indicators. Ecological indicators rangefrom easily monitored counts of key species toabstract outputs of complex ecosystem models.Social and economic indicators range from directlymeasured commercial values of fish catches to sub-jective measures of people’s satisfaction with socialchoices that have been made. Institutional issuesinclude rules and regulations, organisationalarrangements and policies for coastal governanceand management.

3. INDICATORS

16


A leading characteristic for an indicator frame-work is the flexibility to deal with a range of differ-ent contexts, scales, management objectives andaudiences. Rigid frameworks will not be effective inbringing consistent interpretations to a suite ofindicators, including the status of key species, bio-diversity, economic returns from activities as variedas fishing and tourism, and the contribution ofactivities in coastal areas to social equity.

The three audiences mentioned above—scien-tists and technical experts, policy makers and deci-sion makers, and stakeholders and the generalpublic—need indicators that are informative andreliable, but they do not necessarily use the samestandards to judge whether an indicator is inform-ative and reliable. Scientists and technical expertsneed indicators with suitable properties for tech-nical applications: good statistical properties,information about cause-and-effect linkages innatural and human systems, etc. Policy makersneed indicators that are a reliable basis for deci-sion-making and clearly reflect the consequencesof different management choices. Stakeholdersand the public need indicators that relate to theirexperiences and provide the information neces-sary for informed dialogue about the degree towhich goals consistent with their economic, cul-tural and ethical values are being achieved throughthe uses of coastal ecosystems. Coastal areas differin both the degree of scientific and technical sup-port that is available and in the degree to whichthe decision-making authority is shared betweencentral government agencies and communitiesand stakeholders. The framework that is most suit-able for a given application will have to be sensitiveto these local conditions.

Some common frameworks

An indicator framework can be a helpful tool in theprocess of selecting and developing a suitable set ofindicators that reflect the CBD objectives. Twocommon frameworks are:

• Driving forces-pressure-state-impact-responseframework

2. Logical Framework Approach (LFA, AustralianAgency for International Development, 2003)

It is advisable to use a combination of frameworksin order to provide a core set of indicators coveringall the CBD objectives in IMCAM projects and pro-grammes. A major requirement in this approach isa proper knowledge of the relative strengths andweaknesses of the common frameworks.

3.3 THE DPSIR FRAMEWORK

The DPSIR (driving forces-pressure-state-impact-response) framework is well suited to take differentcultural, social, economic, institutional, political,and environmental aspects into account. The ideaof the framework was however originally derivedfrom social studies and only then widely appliedinternationally, in particular for organising systemsof indicators in the context of environment and,later, sustainable development. The DPSIR frame-work is structured to follow causal chains from anindirect root cause (‘driving forces’—D) to a directpressure and finally a management response (R)between interacting components of social, eco-nomic, and environmental systems;

• Driving forces of environmental change (e.g.industrial production)

• Pressures on the environment (e.g. dischargesof waste water)

• State of the environment (e.g. water quality inrivers and lakes)

• Impacts on population, economy, ecosystems(e.g. water unsuitable for drinking)

• Response of the society (e.g. watershedprotection)

Variations of DPSIR framework include PSR(Pressure-State-Response) (e.g. OECD 1994), DSR(Driving forces-State-Response) (e.g. UNCSD 1996)and many others.

The sequence presupposes substantial under-standing of the underlying causal relationshipsbetween human activities and impacts on ecosystems,coastal economies and communities, and human

17


response mechanisms. It has been used widely, forexample by the European Environmental Agency toselect indicators for evaluating the implementationEU environmental policies. Box 9 gives definitionsand examples.

This knowledge presupposes a good analysis ofthe current situation. This does not necessarilyrequire quantitative analyses and the involvementof scientific experts, but could be combined with

stakeholder knowledge and qualitative indications(see also section 3.10 on participatory approaches).

Where management is weakly supported byscientific research and historic monitoring, superfi-cial correlations or reasoning by analogy risk thatindicators might not inform users about importantchanges occurring in the ecosystem or communi-ties, or that observed changes in the indicators willbe attributed to the wrong causes and ineffectivemanagement actions will be taken.

Variables of the DPSIR framework Examples

The driving force variable refers to issues on themacro scale broadly and indirectly affecting marineand coastal ecosystems. Driving forces might be con-sidered as ‘root causes’.

• Social: population growth rate in urban coastalareas

• Environmental: changes in stream patterns

• Economic: the dependency of communities onfishing

• Institutional: the level of enforcement of laws andregulations related to coastal region management

The pressure variable describes the immediate causeof the problem. Pressure is synonymous with threatsor causal activities.

• The amount of pollution by wastewater

• The efficiency of water use

• The amount of fish produced and exported fromthe area

• Climate change

The state variable describes some physical, measur-able characteristic of the environment or social liveli-hood system.

• Income levels, level of poverty

• Chemical composition of the water

• Employment in the fishing industry

• Fish consumption indices

The impact variable monitors the long-term or morepervasive impacts of a project or ongoing change.There are socio-economic (livelihood) and environ-mental impacts.

• Socio-economic: incidence of diseases caused bypolluted water; changes in fishing behaviour; appre-ciation by tourists of coastal resorts

• Environmental: changes in fish mortality; seawarming; physical changes to the seabed

The response variables are policies, actions or invest-ments that are introduced to solve the problem orreduce undesirable impacts.

• Social: budget given to environmental education;number of awareness raising campaigns

• Environmental: changes in fish population dynamics

• Economic: the use of more efficient fishingtechniques

• Institutional: the number of co-managementarrangements to improve management efficiency

Box 9: Definitions of the DPSIR framework with examples for the coastal environment

18


3.4 LOGICAL FRAMEWORK APPROACH

The Logical Framework Approach is geared tomonitoring the performance of a policy, pro-gramme or project (PPP). It measures only whathas to be known from a programme point of view.It aims to present the PPP in a logical and well-structured format which indicates the goal, objec-tives, results, activities, means and costs, assump-tions and indicators. Monitoring and evaluationusing indicators are tools used in the ongoing proj-ect management cycle to compare actual achieve-ments with the objectives of the projects and to ver-ify whether changes in the context require

adjustment of the project design. The basic struc-ture of a log-frame with examples for the marineenvironment is illustrated in Box 10.

An example of the effective application of thelog-frame is a project to reduce the detrimentaleffects of fishing on corals in East Africa. In this casethe Logical Framework Approach makes use ofobjectively verifiable indicators to assess projectprogress and its impacts on the ecosystem. In addi-tion it promotes community participation in fish-eries management and improves the capacity tomanage the fisheries. Different types of indicatorsrelated to the project cycle can be distinguished (seeBox 11 and section 3.6).

Intervention logic Objectively verifiableindicators

Sources ofverification

Assumptions

Overall projectgoal

Improved socio-economicconditions for fishers, withan emphasis on incomesecurity and safety

Income levels and variabilityof incomes from fisheries;safety improved to less than5 conflicts annually

not specified not specified

Projectobjective

Sustainable management ofcoastal area by an effectiveco-management system

Continuity of annual fishcatches; degree of destruc-tion of habitats of fishinggrounds; number of externalthreats effectively reduced byco-management measures


Expectedresults

1. Creation of co-manage-ment committee with dif-ferent stakeholders

2. Agreement on norms for fishing intensity

3. Formalisation of co-management regulations

1. Level of satisfaction by all stakeholders; numberof stakeholders activelyinvolved

2. Number of stakeholdersinvolved in setting norms;number of complaints onnorms;

3. Number of regulationsbeing formalised


Activities 1.1 Stakeholder analysis

1.2 Review of existingmanagement regulations

1.3 Formulation of mandatefor co-management team

Means

Input indicators (not specified)

Costs

not specified

not specified

Box 10: Logical format (log-frame) of an IMCAM projectThis simplified example is derived from a situation where fishers are confronted with overfishing, leading tosocial conflicts and decreasing incomes

19


3.5 OTHER FRAMEWORKS

The above two frameworks are not the only ones,and many variations exist. In fact, formal frame-works are often not strictly followed, but they areindispensable for good structuring and logicalthinking. For example, Annex III of the BergenDeclaration, adopted by the Council of North SeaMinisters following a series of consultations, prima-rily among scientific experts, contains a number ofindicators for the health of the North Sea marineecosystem and the impacts of several human activi-ties on that system (Box 12). Note that these areonly ecological indicators.

3.6 INDICATORS FOR ALL PHASES OFTHE IMCAM CYCLE

The IMCAM policy cycle has the following phasescommon to any policy or planning cycle:

1. Planning, with sub-phases for issue identifica-tion (including diagnosis), preparation (includ-ing design and formulation), agreement, adop-tion and funding

2. Implementation, including monitoring andlearning

3. Evaluation, including policy adjustments,which can then feed into a next planning cycle

Indicators are usually used to assess progress interms of performance because this is what donorsand governments want to know first (see Box 10,p.18). This type of monitoring is associated with theimplementation and evaluation phases and meas-ures whether the stated objectives have beenreached. This approach leaves three issues un-addressed:

1. Indicators for the planning phase, which, if notcarried out properly, will affect the otherphases of the policy cycle (for instance, if setobjectives are unrealistic).

2. Indicators to monitor the policy cycle, includ-ing organisational, management and learningaspects. A good process is important for attain-ing the goals of capacity building and is anindication that set objectives will be reached.

3. Indicators to measure policy outcomes leadingto the goal, realising that goals and long-termimpacts will often be difficult to reach within alimited time frame.

Type of log-frame indicator Linkage to log-frame item Examples

Input indicator (inputs providedby the project)

Activities and means Number of new fishing gears provided

Number of freezers installed

Process indicator (projectmanagement and approach)

Means and costs Number of trainings given

Number of workshops organised

Result indicator (immediate resultsof the project)

Results Number of stakeholders activelyparticipating

Effect indicator (outcome of theuse of the project outputs)

Results and objective(s) Number of fishing norms agreed uponby the co-management committee

Impact indicator (ultimate changesresulting from project effects)

Goal, objective(s) (andassumptions)

Reduced destruction of habitats infishing grounds

Box 11: Types of project performance indicators with linkages to log-frame items and examples from theabove IMCAM project

20


Activities have been listed for each phase of theIMCAM policy cycle, including the planning phaseand sub-phases (see IMCAM discussion website).Olsen refers to these activities as ‘clusters of indica-tors’ (for instance: ‘assessment of the principalissues’, or ‘definition of the goals for ICM’). Theseare what are commonly referred to as ‘milestones’,i.e. intermediate steps towards working out the pol-icy through each phase (see Box 13, below).

However, milestones do not say much about thequality of activities and so we also need indicatorsthat say something about the quality of these mile-stones. For instance, a context analysis should alsoexamine future threats and opportunities. Thisoften requires knowledge of policies and economicmeasures. Coastal areas may be threatened by plansfor port development, or by subsidies to stimulatethe tourism sector, or by rapid urban development

Issue Ecological quality element

1. Commercial fish species (a) Spawning stock biomass of commercial fish species

2. Threatened and declining species (b) Presence and extent of threatened and declining species in theNorth Sea

3. Sea mammals (c) Seal population trends in the North Sea

(d) Utilisation of seal breeding sites in the North Sea

(e) By-catch of harbour porpoises

4. Seabirds (f) Proportion of oiled Common Guillemots among those founddead or dying on beaches

(g) Mercury concentrations in seabird eggs and feathers

(h) Organochlorine concentrations in seabird eggs

(i) Plastic particles in stomachs of seabirds

(j) Local Sand Eel availability to Black-legged Kittiwakes

(k) Seabird populations trends as an index of seabird communityhealth

5. Fish communities (l) Changes in the proportion of large fish and hence the averageweight and average maximum length of the fish community

6. Benthic communities (m) Changes/kills in zoobenthos in relation to eutrophication

(n) Imposex in Dog Whelk (Nucella lapillus)

(o) Density of sensitive (e.g. fragile) species

(p) Density of opportunistic species

7. Plankton communities (q) Phytoplankton chlorophyll a

(r) Phytoplankton indicator species for eutrophication

8. Habitats (s) Restore and/or maintain habitat quality

9. Nutrient budgets and production (t) Winter nutrient (DIN and DIP) concentrations

10. Oxygen consumption (u) Oxygen

Box 12: Ecological indicators from Annex III of the Bergen DeclarationThe term ‘ecological quality element’ can be interpreted as the indicator for the issue of concern

21


and population growth resulting in water pollution.On the other hand, new ecological techniques maypresent opportunities for wastewater treatment.

3.7 INDICATORS FOR THE PROCESS OF THE POLICY CYCLE

The IMCAM policy cycle can be regarded as a con-tinuous process that by itself will generate impacts,such as capacity building, awareness raising, col-

laboration between stakeholders, etc. Indicatorsmust be defined that say something about the qual-ity of this process. Process-related indicators can bebased on criteria of good governance, and includeissues such as participation, organisational learn-ing, internal management, capacity development,communication, transparency, financial manage-ment, accountability, replication of successes, etc.Box 14 (following) contains some examples ofindicators.

Elements of a good planning phase Examples of indicators

Issue identification and diagnosis • Quality / reliability of information and database

• Key issues addressing major threats and opportunities

• Analysis of past trends and future projections

• Different sectors involved

Design and preparation • A vision that is ambitious yet realistic

• Quality of log-frame

• Clarity of boundaries

Adoption and funding • Volume and diversity of funding sources

• Number of comments / feedback received on draft

Criteria for a good policy process Examples of indicators

1. Participation • Active participation by private, public and civic sectors

• Number of relevant inputs from stakeholders

• Number of partnerships agreed upon, or in the pipeline

2. Organisational learning • Number of learning events with all staff

• Time and budget allocated for learning

• Active involvement of partners in learning events

3. Capacity development • Personal development and training goals set for staff

• Fields of expertise covered by the team

• Public sector involvement

4. Transparency & communication • Frequency of communication with all stakeholders

• Time available for feedback into policy decisions

• Decision-making based on democratic procedures

Box 14: Some examples of indicators for a good policy process

Box 13: Some possible indicators for a good planning phase (in terms of concrete results)

22


It should be noted, however, that quantitativeindicators are not always the most suitable forassessing the quality of the process. In many cases,interviews with staff and stakeholders will be suffi-cient to build up a good picture of the quality of theprocess. Descriptive or qualitative indicators shouldmeet three criteria: refer to concrete evidence, showcausality and be convincing. An indicator-basedapproach to assessing the performance of Europeanmarine fisheries and aquaculture makes use of 4different types of indicators: descriptive, perform-ance, efficiency and welfare.

Performance-based and organisational(process-oriented) monitoring are often two differ-ent entities, as illustrated by many institutions deal-ing with coastal zone monitoring that do not reachdecision makers. The challenge would be to haveorganisations responsible for IMCAM determinewhat they consider to be ‘good performance’ and

link this to organisational management. A way toestablish linkages between performance and organ-isational monitoring is a Quality ManagementSystem using self-assessments and a BalancedScorecard approach with critical success factors andindicators set by the parties involved (see Box 15).

3.8 INDICATORS FOR COASTALGOVERNANCE—OUTCOMES AND

IMPACTS

Monitoring of the IMCAM policy cycle should belinked to a system for monitoring outcomes and thestate of coastal governance. Outcome monitoringand indicators aim to assess which changes can beseen as outcomes of the policy actions taken andthus form the linkage between the IMCAM policy,the policy process and the state of coastal gover-nance. The following figure shows the linkages.

Success factor Quantitative indicators Qualitative indicators

1. Partnerships with the privateand public sectors, credibility

• Number of successful IMCAMactivities with private sectorparties

• Description of how partnershipdeveloped

• Interviews showing level ofsatisfaction

2. Quality of communication,collaboration, learning

• Time spent on learning events

• Reference to lessons learned inreports

• Number of adjustments madebased on learning events

• Minutes of meetings, interviewswith participants

• Information from programmeofficer on the changes made andwhy

3. Capacity to influence policiesand participate in policydialogue

• Number of times public policiesare adjusted on the basis ofinputs by the programme

• Success stories about policiesadjusted as a result ofprogramme inputs

4. Financial viability of theprogramme

• Volume of portfolio

• Diversity of donors and fundingsources, private sector

• Success stories about theacquisition of private sectorfunding

IMCAM policycycle

IMCAM policyactivities

Intermediate /final outcomes

State of coastalgovernance

Box 15: An example with both quantitative and qualitative indicators.

23


The way coastal zones are governed, managedor administered, e.g. Coastal governance, includesinstitutions, actors and current social and environ-mental qualities of coastal ecosystems. Outcomesare defined as the changes in behaviour, relation-ships, institutions or activities that the policyhelped to bring about. By using outcome mappinga policy or programme will not be solely responsi-ble for achieving impacts but rather contributes tothe achievement of desirable intermediate or finaloutcomes

Four different levels or orders of outcome indi-cators can be defined. These are listed in the follow-ing Box 16 with some examples. In the first instance,IMCAM policies address the enabling conditions,which lead to behavioural change, which in turncauses environmental and social improvements.However, another sequence is also possible. Thisframework displays similarities with the DPSIRframework (see section 3.3).

Traditionally, most emphasis is given to ecolog-ical indicators. However, in line with the abovementioned issues there is a need to define otherindicators for other sectors and for policy processesrelated to research (e.g. ‘available expertise on a cer-tain theme’), awareness raising and education (e.g.

‘quality of communication techniques’), legislationand institutional strengthening (e.g. ‘number ofthreatened species for which legislation is avail-able’), and collaboration (e.g. ‘number of agreementssigned and implemented’). These issues would fitinto the above framework at orders 1 and 2.

To identify good indicators, good diagnosticstudies and strategic planning are needed duringthe first phase of the IMCAM policy cycle.Diagnostic studies must look at the coastal site in itsbroad spatial context (e.g. look at spatial interac-tions), have a long-term perspective (e.g. look attrends and scenarios) and take an integratedapproach by considering the relations between bio-diversity and institutional and socio-economicissues. This can help to put IMCAM into a sustain-able development perspective and identify the pri-ority issues for which indicators are required.

3.9 CRITERIA FOR THE SELECTIONAND DEVELOPMENT OF INDICATORS

Why use criteria for selecting indicators?

Criteria are needed for selecting the most usefulindicators and to avoid having large lists of indica-

Orders of outcome indicators Examples of indicators

1. Enabling conditions, including institutional, policyand legal issues, funding and planning

• Awareness at policy levels in different sectors

• Legislation supportive of ICM

• Area of protected coastal ecosystems

2. Behavioural changes, including institutions andinterest groups, those affecting coastal areas, andinvestment in infrastructure

• Functional public-private partnerships

• Incidence of activities affecting coastal area

• Number of rehabilitation measures

3. Environmental and social improvements, includ-ing improvements in coastal zone ecosystem qual-ities and social qualities

• Fish biodiversity, coral reef quality

• Poverty incidence, number of income generationactivities from use of the coastal area

4. Sustainable and adaptive forms of managementthat take into account ecosystem and socialchange

• Existence of stakeholder platforms

• Existence of early warning mechanisms

• Adequacy of response to calamities

Box 16: Examples of outcome indicators.

24


tors that will never be monitored because thiswould put too heavy a burden on management. Keyconsiderations are costs and the effective use of theindicators in decision-making and consensus-building. With regard to consensus building, thereis a risk that large sets of indicators will containcontradictions, which undermines one of theattributes that made indicators an attractive tool forsupporting policy decisions and public choices—the provision of an objective basis for action.Sometimes the contradictions are more apparentthan real when two or more indicators give unreli-able information because of different weaknesses.Sometimes, though, the contradictions are realbecause the indicators provide reliable informationon the tough choices facing society. Contradictoryindicators may provide a starting point for negotia-tion and conflict resolution.

So what is meant by ‘choosing wisely’ in thiscontext? It means reducing the list of candidateindicators without reducing the information beingmade available to all three groups, which use them:scientific and technical experts, policy makers andmanagers, and stakeholders and the general public.Two considerations guide the making of ‘wisechoices’ to achieve such reductions.

• What criteria should we use?• How should they be used?• How do these fit into a monitoring system?

The most commonly used criteria for selectingindicators are those referred to by the acronymSMART: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic,Time-bound

The purpose of using SMART indicators is:• to monitor, assess and compare conditions and

trends on a local, regional and global scale• to assess the effectiveness of policy-making or

targets• to mark progress against a stated benchmark or

targets• to track changes in public attitude and behaviour

• to ensure understanding, participation andtransparency between interested and affectedparties

• to forecast and project trends• to provide early warning information.

How to use the criteria?

Indicators can be assessed against the various crite-ria either by instrumental means or in a consensualprocess with participants from all the relevantinterest groups involved. In practice, a combinationof the two is best. More formal approaches havebeen tried experimentally, but none have yet beenshown to be superior to alternative approaches, oreven to the consensus method. No single indicatoris likely to score highly for all criteria. What mattersmost is that the performance of each indicatoragainst the various criteria is known. By knowingthe performance of all the potential indicators,users will gain an understanding of the strengthsand weaknesses of each one. A suite of indicatorscan then be selected that serve the needs of all threemain user communities well. Each indicator can beused in ways that emphasise its strengths and withan awareness of its potential weaknesses.

How to set up a monitoring system?

Finally, we address the question of how selectedindicators fit into a monitoring system.

The following steps for establishing a monitor-ing system for a project can be distinguished.Step 1: Context analysis and development of a log-

frame—the backbone of any monitoringsystem. This is discussed in section 3.4.

Step 2: Definition of the type of informationrequired: why monitor environmental qual-ities? This refers to the audiences to beaddressed, section 3.10, the linkages to theIMCAM process, and section 3.7.

Step 3: Determination of the indicators and thereference situation: what should be moni-tored? This has been addressed in this sec-tion and in section 3.2.

25


Step 4: Definition of the information flow: howshould the monitoring be carried out? Thisrefers to the different methods that can beapplied, such as transects, interviews, obser-vations, etc.

Step 5: Definition of responsibilities, requiredmeans and costs: who is responsible for themonitoring? This also refers to participa-tory aspects, which will be treated in thenext section.

Step 6: Analysis of data.

Box 17: A set of criteria defined by the CDB

Policy relevant and meaningful Indicators should send a clear message and provide information at a level appropriate for policy and manage-ment decision making by assessing changes in the status of biodiversity (or pressures, responses, use or capac-ity), related to baselines and agreed policy targets if possible.

Biodiversity relevant Indicators should address key properties of biodiversity or related issues as state, pressures, responses, use orcapacity.

Scientifically sound Indicators must be based on clearly defined, verifiable and scientifically acceptable data, which are collectedusing standard methods with known accuracy and precision, or based on traditional knowledge that has beenvalidated in an appropriate way.

Broad acceptance The power of an indicator depends on its broad acceptance. Involvement of the policy makers, and major stake-holders and experts in the development of an indicator is crucial.

Affordable monitoring Indicators should be measurable in an accurate and affordable way and part of a sustainable monitoring system,using determinable baselines and targets for the assessment of improvements and declines.

Affordable modelling Information on cause-effect relationships should be achievable and quantifiable, in order to link pressures, stateand response indicators. These relation models enable scenario analyses and are the basis of the ecosystemapproach.

Sensitive Indicators should be sensitive to show trends and, where possible, permit distinction between human-inducedand natural changes. Indicators should thus be able to detect changes in systems in time frames and on the scalesthat are relevant to the decisions, but also be robust so that measuring errors do not affect the interpretation. Itis important to detect changes before it is too late to correct the problems being detected.

Representative The set of indicators provides a representative picture of the pressures, biodiversity state, responses, uses andcapacity (coverage).

Small number The smaller the total number of indicators, the more communicable they are to policy makers and the publicand the lower the cost.

Aggregation and flexibility Indicators should be designed in a manner that facilitates aggregation at a range of scales for different pur-poses. Aggregation of indicators at the level of ecosystem types (thematic areas) or the national or interna-tional levels requires the use of coherent indicators sets (see criteria 8) and consistent baselines. This alsoapplies for pressure, response, use and capacity indicators.

26


3.10 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENTAND INDICATORS

What is meant by participation?

The term participation is commonly used but dif-ferent people mean different things by participation,so it is important to specify what type of participa-tion is wanted. ‘Participation’ can be interpreted ina range of different ways, including, in order ofincreasing intensity and equality of exchange, infor-mation gathering, consultation, participation formaterial incentives, functional participation, inter-active participation and self-mobilisation. Otherspropose a ‘participation ladder’ based on a sequenceof three criteria:

• Openness regarding the content (room for newideas)

• Transparency regarding the process

• Openness of the arena (for multiple actors)As these characteristics improve the participationbecomes more equal. Indicators can be associatedwith these different levels of participation.

Why is participation important?

The reasons for participation when working withindicators in coastal zone management are:

1. To obtain different views on IMCAM and iden-tify appropriate indicators

2. To improve the enforcement of legislation andstrengthen institutions

3. To raise the level of support for and efficiencyof project implementation

4. To raise awareness, create insight and solveconflicting interests

5. To bring together stakeholders with differentviews and stimulate stakeholder exchange.

Principles Indicators

Local communities have one voice • Level of organisation

• Number of conflicts

• Clarity of rights and responsibilities

Clear boundaries to IMCAM • Boundaries accepted by all stakeholders

• Boundaries supported by legislation

• Boundaries respected by stakeholders

Sufficient human, social and financial resources forco-management

• Level of education

• Expertise for all co-management functions

• Volume of available funds

A legitimate structure within which local communi-ties and the state can meet and negotiate

• Negotiation platform supported by legislation

• Democratic decision-making procedures

• Formal arrangements between all parties

A favourable policy and legal context • Number of management tasks devolved

• Tax and revenue systems for local management

Positive expectations and outcomes from the co-management arrangement

• Positive perceptions by parties

• Benefits from co-management for all parties

• Shared vision between all parties

• Trust between all parties involved

Box 18: The following table contains some principles and indicators for successful co-management

27


The most important form of participation is tohave stakeholders from the public and private sec-tors identify appropriate indicators that they canmeasure by themselves. This reduces costs andinvolves stakeholders in project implementation,while raising awareness at the same time.Stakeholders should also be involved in setting real-istic targets, which contributes to a sense of owner-ship and commitment. Local stakeholders oftenhave profound knowledge of certain indicatorspecies (e.g. a fish species that is highly sensitive topollution).

In general, participation and co-managementshould become the norm for IMCAM. Co-management is about shared responsibilities forvarious IMCAM policy functions, such as planning,implementation, monitoring and communication,all of which can be shared responsibilities for rea-sons of efficiency, effectiveness and accountability.Co-management can also ensure the effective use ofindigenous knowledge and resource managementpractices.

Who should participate?

There is a general recognition that participationshould include:

• The civil society, including local communities.Care should be taken that community-basedorganisations and NGOs really represent localpeople, are trusted and do not just promotetheir own agenda.

• The public sector, including governmentauthorities, agencies and institutions from dif-ferent sectors. Care should be taken that theirformal plans, conventions and rules arerespected.

• The private sector, particularly key actors cur-rently influencing coastal management.

It is important not to involve all stakeholders,which would be far too costly and time-consuming, but it is critical to select a number ofpriority stakeholders. Selection criteria may be

power, information, dependency, and relevance.Some examples:

1. At the local level it is important to know who isin charge. In some cases urban people far fromthe location own the fishing boats and decidewhere and when fishing takes place, not thefishers.

2. Local fishers may depend on other actors in themarketing chain for loans and contracts. Astakeholder analysis will show who really pullsthe strings.

3. Examples of critical stakeholders are portauthorities, municipal councils, water agencies,etc. In many coastal areas sewage is the mainsource of pollution and institutions dealingwith water and sanitation must be involved.

4. Global actors (multinational corporations)may play an important role. In coastal areasfishing boats operating at a global scale may beresponsible for overfishing. Financial institu-tions make funds available to develop port ortourist facilities, with potentially negativeimpacts. If these stakeholders can be persuadedto adopt more sustainable policies, the benefitscan be considerable.

Risks

Stakeholders may provide false or unreliable infor-mation on indicator values if their interests conflictwith those of other stakeholders. The risk of thishappening can be overcome if different partiesmake independent indicator measurements andthese are then compared, although this will increasecosts. However, if participants have conflictinginterests, participation (e.g. through joint monitor-ing) can be an opportunity for them to openly dis-cuss apparently conflicting interests and under-stand each other’s positions. For instance, jointmonitoring may reveal different interpretations ofoverfishing. One group may consider standards andquota setting to be a biological imperative andanother simply a case of adhering to quotas.Another problem is that participants may have tobe trained or coached before they can operate effec-

28


tively by themselves, and this could take some time.Participation is often considered a way to obtainquick results through a process of bargaining orcompromise, but this ignores the fact that outcomesmay have long-term consequences.

The potential for participation depends on thelocal political, cultural and historical context (e.g.stakeholders may be frustrated if their expectationsof earlier attempts at participation were not met),whether there is a tradition of transparency andopen debate or not, and whether there are severeconflicting interests between stakeholders.Participation should be well planned and placed inits context.

How and when

Participation must start in the early phases of ICMplanning and formulation as part of a dynamicprocess. A communication plan can provide a use-ful framework for identifying how and when partic-ipation exercises will be useful. A good stakeholderanalysis in the early stages of planning and formu-lation is essential for selecting stakeholders for par-ticipation. When involving stakeholders in moni-toring activities, it is advisable to use methods andtools appropriate to each stakeholder; for example,simple observation sheets for fishers, computerprograms on product sales for traders, or socio-economic statistics for local authorities. It is impor-tant to ensure that every stakeholder group has arole to play, and not to focus on a strategic partneror stakeholder group. Only when all stakeholder areinvolved one might expect a high level of interac-tion and equality (see Box 19).

3.11 THE WAY FORWARD

The log-frame and the DPSIR frameworks are twocommonly used structured frameworks. The link-ages between the two are explored further in thenext section. As a generalisation, structured frame-works like these, which emphasise causal linkagesbetween activities, consequences and managementactions, are useful as a starting point to stimulate

logical reasoning. However, they should not beapplied strictly and local communities should beconsulted to make use of local knowledge and localvalues. What matters in every case is that the sup-porting scientific capacity is judged correctly whenthe framework is developed, and that all partieswith the power to make the management pro-gramme a success or a failure are included in theframework. There may be several routes for turningthe available knowledge into indicators that canmake management effective at achieving the goalsof the Convention on Biodiversity.

Criteria are required to select a limited set ofuseful indicators that cover the range of issues to bemeasured and inform the different audiencesinvolved in IMCAM. Ideally, a mix of well-structuredcriteria and a process of consensus building involv-ing different stakeholders should be used. Indicatorsthat have been selected in a systematic way and withstakeholder involvement will provide a sound basisfor informed decision-making, adaptive manage-ment and dialogue between individuals and groupswith different values and goals. This in itself is amajor accomplishment.

Box 19: Tanga Coastal Zone Conservation andDevelopment Programme (TCZCDP)

Under the Tanga Coastal Zone Conservation andDevelopment Programme (TCZCDP), collabora-tive management plans for coral reefs and fisherieswere formulated by the villagers of Kigombe andKipumbwi and local government officers to addressthe problem of declining fish yields and incomes.The division of tasks and responsibilities for themonitoring system were specified in advance, withan emphasis on the local communities. Thisapproach was successful in obtaining agreementbetween government and users on what should bedone and who should do what. However, villagers’expectations of government are too high and somegovernment officers outside the programmeremain cynical about the villagers’ ability to under-take their allocated activities. Nevertheless, enforce-ment has been successful, largely due to the vil-lagers’ efforts, which has led to a more positiveattitude among those officers directly involved withimplementing the programme.

29



Australian Agency for International Development. LogicalFramework approach, 2003, http://www.ausaid.gov.au/ausguide/ausguidelines/1.cfm

Belfiore, Review of frameworks and indicators to assessprogress in ICM, 2003.

Belfiore, Stefano, Miriam Balgos, Bernice McLean, JordiGalofre, Meredith Blaydes, Danielle Tesch, Reference Guide onthe Use of Indicators for Integrated Coastal Management,2003, http://ioc.unesco.org/icam/files/Dossier.pdf.

Belfiore. Ocean & coastal management Volume 46 Numbers 3-4, Special Issue The role of indicators in integrated CoastalManagement, 2003.

Chua, Thia-Eng, 1998, Lessons learned from practicing inte-grated coastal management in Southeast Asia, Ambio Vol.27No.8, 599-610.

Coastal Resources Centre, nov-03, http://www.crc.uri.edu/

DPSIR related indicators for European marine environment.http://repository.eea.eu.int/reports/technical_report/87/full_report/en/html/chapter4, and http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/iczm/interim_report.pdf

Ecological indicators presented in Annex III of the BergenDeclaration. http://odin.dep.no/md/nsc/declaration

European Environmental Agency Approach on indicators,nov-03, EEA, http://terrestrial.eionet.eu.int/Indicators

Horrill, J.C., Collaborative Fisheries Management in the TangaRegion (Tanzania), nov-03, The World Conservation Union,http://www.ramsar.org/cop7181cs22.doc

IMCAM Online discussion on Indicators, 2003,http://www.aidenvironment.org/ projects/A1025/

Integrated information management system (IIMS) for coastaland marine environmental assessment, planning, monitoringand management., nov-03, PEMSEA, http://pemsea.org/abt%20pemsea/components/iims.htm

Kabuta S.H., R.W.P.M Laane, Ecological performance indica-tors in the North Sea: development and application, Ocean &Coastal Management 46, 277-297, 2003.

Kelly M-Inst Ecol & Env, Mgmt, Winchester, UK. The WaterFramework Directive Ecology and Management in Practice, 39p 1–4., 2003.

Kessler JJ. -AIDEnvironment, Quality Management System forprogrammes on poverty and environmental management, 2003,http://www.aidenvironment.org

Laffoley, D d’A, Vincent M, Connor DW, Hill M & Breen J.Strategic goals and objectives for marine nature conservationand associated indicators. English Nature Research Report No.482. 2002, 23pp.

Lakshmi, Ahana, R. Rajagopalan-UNEP/GPA. ComparativeReview Of Coastal Legislation In South Asia, 2003,http://www.gpa.unep.org/documents/PADH/Legislation_Study_FINAL_Report_2003.pdf

Monitoring and Indicators: Designing National-levelMonitoring Programmes And Indicators, 2003,UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/10, http://www.aidenvironment.org/projects/A1025/documents/docs/sbstta9_monitoring_and_indicators.doc

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S.Department of Commerce. Marine Protected Area ManagementEffectiveness Initiative, nov-03, http://www.effectivempa.noaa.gov/

Nickerson, Olsen. Collaborative Learning initiatives inIntegrated Coastal Management, 2003.

Olsen S, K. Lowry, J. Tobey. A manual for assessing progress incoastal management. Coastal Resources Center Report #2211,University of Rhode Island, Narragansett, RI, USA, 1999.

Olsen, S.B, Frameworks and indicators for assessing progress inintegrated coastal management initiatives. Ocean and CoastalManagement 46: 347-361, 2003.

Pomeroy, Parks and Watson. Comparative Review Of CoastalLegislation In South Asia, 2002, http://www.effectivempa.noaa.gov/docs/dguidebk.pdf

Scottish Executive Central Research Unit. Indicators to moni-tor the progress of integrated coastal zone management: areview of worldwide practice, 2001.

SEAN, Strategic Environmental Analysis platform,http://www.seanplatform.org.

Sulawesi, S.E.. Wakatobi Marine Park, nov-03, Reef Co -Revolutionary Resource Management, http://www.wakatobi.org/overview/overview.htm

UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/9/10. CBD indicator criteria, 2003.

30


4.1 HABITAT DETERIORATION

Change is a natural phenomenon in all ecosystemsand habitats. As ecosystems change, species shiftroles and functions. Darwin originally proposed theidea that species richness produces ecological stabil-ity in 1859. Presently, it is well accepted that overecologically brief periods, increased species richness(biodiversity) increases the efficiency and stabilityof some ecosystem functions, resilience. However,within the timescale of the past generation, humanpopulation growth and migration, particularly intocoastal zones, have progressed at unprecedentedrates and have been the most significant factorsbehind the current levels of environmental degra-dation and deterioration, which has underminedthe resilience of ecosystems.

Approximately half of the World’s wetlandsand over half of the World’s mangroves have beendegraded. Nearly 60% of the World’s coral reefs aredegraded or threatened with degradation. Withinthis context, it is important to recognise that deteri-oration of habitats can originate from direct over-exploitation of resources and from reclamation ofland, for example mangrove to aquaculture. Thecurrent rate and intensity of resource exploitationand alteration of habitats is overwhelming naturalprocesses of buffering and amelioration of change.This has led to the failure of natural regenerativeprocesses, leading to a loss of biodiversity and anassociated loss of ecosystem functionality. Toreverse these trends intervention in the form ofrehabilitation and restoration is required to acceler-ate processes of recovery and re-creation of habitatsso that ecosystems can continue to provide goodsand services. In coastal zones this rehabilitation ofnatural ecosystem function and services can proveextremely valuable for societies and economies (seeBox 20 below).

Guiding approaches and principles

Three categories of habitat deterioration can beidentified:

• Habitat degradation involves loss of environ-mental quality and the ability to support bio-logical communities. Its adverse effects can beimmediate or cumulative.

• Habitat loss is the outright destruction of ahabitat. Its impacts on biological communitiesare immediate and catastrophic.

• Habitat fragmentation is a result of habitatloss and is the disassembly of habitats into dis-continuous, often isolated, patches. Its adverseeffects are cumulative and not immediatelynoticeable.

4. RESTORATION OF HABITATS

Box 20: The value of natural coastal defences inthe United Kingdom

The UK Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs has recently evaluated [the costs ofmaintaining coastal defences in England andWales. In the UK, climate change poses the great-est threat of flooding of coastal areas. Without anyflood and coastal defences, the annual averageeconomic damage from flooding and coastal ero-sion would be over £3.5 billion per year. This esti-mate is based on the following facts:

• Approximately 10% of the population ofEngland and Wales live within areas potentiallyat risk from flooding or coastal erosion andapproximately 12% of the agricultural land isalso located in these areas.

• Property worth over £220 billion and agricul-tural land worth approximately £7 billion islocated within the areas potentially at risk.

• The capital works and maintenance investmentthat is needed to provide and maintain presentdefence standards is in excess of £0.3 billion peryear.

• Accommodating climate change is likely torequire a further increase in investment ofbetween 10% and 20% over and above thatrequired to meet indicative standards underpresent day conditions.

31


Management interventions to remedy the impactsand effects of habitat deterioration are generallycategorised by the planned end-point:

• Rehabilitation is where the functional charac-teristics of an ecosystem or component are re-established.

• Restoration is where the ecosystem, or one ormore of its components is re-established in itsoriginal condition. In this document the terms‘restoration’ and ‘rehabilitation’ are used inter-changeably.

The principle barriers to restoration, and hence theincorporation of biodiversity objectives, is not thetechnological and mechanical aspects of habitatrestoration, but rather the process of policy anddecision-making needed to plan and implementrestoration goals. For habitat restoration to be suc-cessful IMCAM needs to provide suitable guidanceon building partnerships and consensus among theplethora of agencies and stakeholders involved.

Interestingly, none of the experts consulted ques-tioned the role and importance of biodiversityissues in achieving successful habitat restoration.Perhaps biodiversity—and the implied gains result-ing from habitat restoration and losses resultingfrom habitat destruction—could in itself be a usefultool for building consensus if the objectives are pre-sented in a careful and suitable manner. Full consid-eration is given to ecosystem, governance, sectoraland technological issues within a decision-makingframework is the Driver-Pressure-Impact-State-Response (DPSIR) framework, illustrated in Box 21.This is a general framework for organising informa-tion about the state of the environment, (see alsosection 3.3 on DPSIR) which assumes cause-effectrelationships between interacting components ofthe social, economic and environmental systems.Each component in the DPSIR generates a demandfor information from different stakeholders, partic-ularly from policy makers, but also from scientists,educators, advocacy groups and the civil society.

Box 21: The Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) model for restoration

Driving ForcesSocio-economic activities and processesthat lead to environmental degradationand loss of biodiversity: urbanisation,transport/trade, agricultural intensifica-tion /land use change, tourism andrecreational demand, fisheries andaquaculture, industrial development.

Generate

Policy ResponsesActions of human system to solve envi-ronmental problems: habitat restoration.

Environmental PressuresDirect stresses on the natural environ-ment: land conversion and reclamation,dredging, pollution, water abstraction,estuarine and coastal engineeringworks, dams, barrages, congestion.

Environmental ‘State’ ChangesConditions and tendencies in thenatural environment: loss of habitatsand biological diversity.

ImpactsThe changes in processes and functionsof ecosystem lead to consequentialimpacts on human welfare via produc-tivity, health, amenity and existencevalue changes.

Influence,modifyModify,

substitute,remove

Restore,influence

Compensate,mitigate

Stimulate,require

Provoke,cause

Eliminate,reduce,prevent

32


Restoration is a form of active management thattries to return a system to stability. Guidingapproaches and principles for restoration pro-grammes are:

• Monitoring of successional processes, time-scales and sensitivity of species

• Multi-level management, with a particularfocus on community management

• Multi-sectoral approaches to ecosystemrestoration that recognise the multiple func-tions of resources

• Strive for complete and integrated scientificknowledge of marine biodiversity

These guiding approaches should be consideredwhen traditional single sector/discipline approachesdo not work because they (i) presume system equi-librium and constancy, and (ii) do not account forvariability and complex relationships, which leadsto unpredictability and a tendency to break systemsinto parts, resulting in ‘narrow’ conservation. Inpractice, a ‘fix’ may not be sustainable in the mediumto long term and often produces a suite of ‘new’problems on the site in question and/or elsewhere.A unique feature of human interactions is that theycreate novel environmental states in a short timecompared with natural processes. The alternative isadaptive management that acknowledges thechanges that humans make and must respond to,and which encourages partnerships between thepublic and private sectors for co-management ofactivities that promote wider ownership, responsi-bility and stewardship of the environment.

4.2 THE ROLE OF IMCAM INRESTORATION

IMCAM is an instrument that supports an adaptivemanagement approach and leads to more successfulrestoration of habitats because it seeks to unite gov-ernment and community, science and management,and sectoral and public interests. An important out-come of this approach is that the goals of restora-tion can be tailored to local and regional needs. Thisis because adaptive management inculcates a series

of principles that recognise natural processes,resource exploitation and conflicts resulting frominteractions between multiple users within a habitatcontext.

However, recent analyses of IMCAM literatureand an on-line discussion (http://www.aidenvironment.org/projects/A1025/) suggest that technologyfor the engineering of habitat restoration has beenadvanced particularly in North America andEurope. In contrast, there appears to be a relativeabsence of habitat restoration programmes outsideNorth America and Europe. Therefore, the chal-lenge for IMCAM is to provide support for projectdesign, management and modalities of implemen-tation for Habitat restoration.

IMCAM explicitly seeks to develop a holisticprocess that integrates all components of the coastalsystem community: the state, the market and theenvironment. Barriers to achieving this appear tohave their origin in issues of ecological functionand change in time and space, the governance of thecoastal landscape, single sectoral approaches andthe integration of multi-sector and multi-disciplinetechnologies. A theme running through all of theseissues is the incorporation of humans within thecoastal landscape instead of as spectators.

4.3 ECOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OFHABITATS—SCALE (TIME AND SPACE)

AND CHANGE

When restoring degraded landscapes it is importantto understand the underlying physical and ecologi-cal processes within the system so that we knowwhere the landscape has ‘come from’ and where the‘natural’ processes were taking it. This recognisesthat ecosystems are variable and are constantlychanging in time and space. If restoration ‘chal-lenges’ the direction of natural processes, the resultmay be a system that is even less able to provide nat-ural goods and services. One way of overcomingsuch potential problems is to consider the area to berestored from a landscape ecological perspective inwhich each component of the system is described inrelation to the role and function of adjacent com-

33


ponents. This allows us, for example, to restore onecomponent in such a way that it can buffer or miti-gate pressures on and changes in other componentsof the landscape.

It is important to encourage a participatoryapproach to facilitate management at the commu-nity level, to gain an understanding of the underly-ing reasons for habitat change and to understandthe impacts on human uses. Future uses and devel-opment should be planned in such a way that theypromote good stewardship and sustainable use ofthe natural resources and support habitat restora-tion. We need to ‘sell’ the benefits of the restorationactivity and support the changes to communitypractices that are required—especially where theexploitation of resources is concerned.

Our understanding of the relationship betweencommunities and ecosystems is often confused by alack of appreciation of the heterogeneity of com-munities and the often-contradictory needs anddesires of different groups. Community manage-ment includes the task of convincing all stakehold-ers that compromise and adjustment is essentialand those concepts of win-win or win-lose are toosimplistic. Participation is habitually too confinedto the community–state axis to the exclusion of themarket, which often provides the strongest driversfor the interactions between humans and theirenvironment. An example of the need to under-stand ecosystem functioning from the perspectiveof the use of natural resources is given in Box 22.

4.4 LINKING ECOSYSTEM FUNCTIONTO THE HUMAN DIMENSION

A key feature of habitat restoration is that itdepends on cooperation and understandingbetween different stakeholders. Particularly thelinkages between the technical expertise and theunderstanding of ecosystem functioning on onehand and the governance on the other hand is cru-cial for enabling any restorative activity (seeBox 23).

Box 22: Melaleuca leucodendron Wetlands,Vietnam

The coastal systemThe Mekong Delta in Vietnam once possessedextensive areas of freshwater Melaleuca wetlandforest. This provided many different forms ofrenewable resources, including wood products,honey, game and medicinal plants, and importantenvironmental services such flood mitigation,breeding and nursery areas for fish and rare andendangered species of birds. The wetlands havebeen altered by the application of herbicides, drain-ing, burning and mechanical clearance of vegeta-tion, both for agricultural purposes and resultingfrom the effects of war. The primary obstacles tosuccessful rehabilitation were 1) the lowered watertable, which exposed the underlying potential acidsulphate soils (PASS), which has led to the acidifi-cation of water drained from the wetlands, thegroundwater and the soils, 2) continuing pressureson land to meet the needs of landless farmers andthe production of food crops, and 3) use of thedrainage canals as waterways for transport.

Alternative approaches to rehabilitationFrom an agricultural perspective (rice cultiva-tion), rehabilitation of the ecosystem by furtherdrainage and flushing of acids from the soil is ade-quate. While technically feasible, this does notaddress other issues, such as the impact on fish-eries, domestic water supplies, the loss of eco-nomic resources and environmental services, andthe impact of flooding hazards. An alternative,holistic approach seeks to integrate the rehabilita-tion of the hydrology and functions of the wetlandforest system with a mixed cropping and forestproduct management system. This approachbuilds on and modifies a model that divides thedegraded wetlands into 10-hectare units: 7.5hectares devoted to replanting Melaleuca and 2.5hectares allocated to agriculture. There was no sig-nificant modification of the hydrology, canals wereretained to form firebreaks and the agriculturalsystem was based on paddy rice. This approachseeks to re-establish the functions of the wetlandforest system while meeting the needs of differenteconomic interests. Examples include forestry andthe production of primary and secondary forestproducts, agriculture in which farmers can takepart in integrated agro-silviculture systems, fish-eries, flood mitigation and nature conservation.

34


4.5 GOVERNANCE

In the context of IMCAM, ‘governance’ extendsbeyond comprehension of the ‘institutions, rulesand systems of the state and how they operate andrelate towards those they seek to govern’ to includethe ecosystem. This is because IMCAM focuses oninteracting ecological, economic and social compo-nents to understand societal goals and designmechanisms by which institutional structures andprocesses can lead to sustainable management ofthe coastal zone and activities. A defining feature ofIMCAM is that it addresses the allocation ofresources and the interactions between often com-peting uses within specified geographic areas so

that participation by many stakeholders and theirproperty rights are included in the governanceprocess.

For governance to be effective, communitiesaffected by restoration projects should be includedwithin the process of governance to make the deci-sion-making process accountable. This promotesownership of the outcomes and good stewardshipof the resources, goods and services provided by theenvironment, which are almost always sharedbetween different stakeholders. The ‘Delta Works’ inthe Netherlands are an example of the evolution ofa process of governance that led to a change in theway decision making is applied to ecosystem man-agement (see Box 24).

Box 23: Rehabilitation of wetlands reclaimed for shrimp aquaculture in a Development context

Over the past 20 years there has been a major expansion of brackish water shrimp aquaculture along tropicalcoastlines in South-East Asia, Latin America and, to a lesser extent, Africa. Mangrove forests are favoured forshrimp pond development, with a consequent loss of this habitat. While there have been economic gains, therehave been corresponding negative economic and ecological impacts. The impact of these losses is often borneby people living in rural communities who have no say in decisions to clear mangrove forests, while the eco-nomic benefits are often gained by wealthy investors from urban centres.

Factors influencing the sustainability of shrimp culture

The sustainability of brackish water shrimp culture depends on high standards of site selection, pond preparation,water management, hygiene and disease control, and economic considerations.

Key points for sustainable restoration

A. Ecosystem functions and multiple use management of coastal ecosystems.Mangroves, like many coastal ecosystems, perform many environmental and economic functions that help tosustain a wide variety of human activities. However, they are often the responsibility of single sectoral agenciesthat focus on the more tangible resource features, such as the trees and secondary forest products, to maximizeproduct related revenues. In addition, the single sector mandate gives little incentive to protect ecological functionsof value to other sectors, such as fisheries, leading to low incentives to maintain or rehabilitate the mangrove.

B. Integrated planning and management.Management of mangrove and other coastal systems is generally poorly developed in both developed and devel-oping nations. Consequently, the flows of economic and environmental resources are not used in the most sus-tainable way. A multi-sector approach is required to illustrate the broad range of economic, ecological and socialbenefits that could be gained by rehabilitating degraded mangrove. This should involve cross-sectoral gover-nance and harmonisation of policies and strategies for natural resources management.

C. Land rights.Reclamation of mangrove, salt marshes and other intertidal systems is seen by many entrepreneurs and landlesspeople as a way of gaining land. While it is possible to insist on a strictly legal process of evicting squatters ordevelopers, more may be gained by treating these people as stakeholders and integrating them into the rehabil-itation process. This reduces resistance, delays and costs and people become part of the solution.

35


4.6 THE ROLE OF STAKEHOLDERS

It is particularly important to develop mechanismsfor dialogue and understanding between primarystakeholders (those individuals and groups who areultimately affected by an activity, either as benefici-aries, i.e. positively impacted, or disbeneficiaries, i.e.adversely impacted), secondary stakeholders (indi-viduals or institutions with a stake, interest or inter-mediary role in the activity) and key stakeholders(those who can significantly influence or are impor-tant to the success of an activity). This is a crucialprerequisite for promoting a climate in which man-agement measures necessary to sustain the restora-tion outcomes are accepted and may include cedingsome legislative authority to local organisations orinstitutions. A further critical component is theissue of property rights that encompasses a spacewithin the landscape and/or the resources withinthat space. Property rights may be linked to thepower of an individual stakeholder and its relativeneeds. This can mean that there may be external (tothe restoration activity) pressures to any givenstakeholder group that may lead to a weak voice,

but which does not necessarily mean that they haveno interest or claim in the activity and outcomes.Indeed, pressures externals to those operatingwithin the realms of the restoration activity areimportant factors that should be considered withinthe management process. An example of thedemands of governance and competing demands isgiven in Box 25.

4.7 SECTORALISM

The challenge of ensuring that all sectors are repre-sented in the restoration process centres upon theinclusion of all stakeholders within the restorationprocess and the integration of secondary stakehold-ers (in this case those that design and implementthe project) in the restoration activity. This requiresa holistic approach that brings all the various stake-holders together and promotes their inclusion inthe restoration process. This suggests that stake-holders are an integral component of the mosaic ofnature that makes up the landscape. It also recog-nises that there may be conflicts and competitionbetween the agencies involved in restoration projects

Box 24: Biodiversity and flood protection, The Netherlands

After the disastrous floods of 1953 the Dutch began to lay plans for the ‘Delta Works’, a series of dikes and damsthat would complete the North Sea flood defences. However, by the middle of the 1960s a small number ofDutch citizens had become concerned that by creating a wall between the salt water of the sea and the freshwater of the river deltas. These barriers had disturbed and largely destroyed the tidal ecologies and biodiversityof the estuaries. In the Eastern Scheldt Delta a complex food web supports a high diversity of organisms, rang-ing from plankton to birds. The Eastern Scheldt Delta is one of the three most important overwintering groundsfor birds in Europe.

A combination of political will and technological ingenuity created a way for the Dutch people to meet theneeds both of safety and of the environment. The political forces included small pressure groups and politicianswho recognised that, in addition to issues of ecology and of safety, there were matters of economy and of qualityof life that affected fishing, shellfishing and tourism industries.

The technological piece of the solution was founded on a simple observation: the threat of flooding is intermit-tent. In fact, flooding along the North Sea coast of the Netherlands can only be caused by ‘storm surges’. If a dikecould be designed that could be shut when there was a threat of a storm surge, and for the rest of the time couldbe left open, the tides would continue to come and go and the Delta’s ecology would remain essentially intact.Safety, environment, and economy would be protected. Sixty-six giant towers with steel gates between them nowstretch across 5.6 miles of seabed. Although the new design cost twice as much as a conventional dike, it suc-cessfully protects the tidal environment. Moreover, economic activities in the area, such as fishing and tourism,can continue and help to offset the higher cost.

36


for ownership of the landscape and resources withinthe restoration area, which often result in imple-mentation by just one agency.

Sectoral barriers to restoration

Where single-sector agencies implement restora-tion projects the results are often not ecologicallysound and so ecosystem function is not re-created.

A multi-sectoral approach is needed which can pro-mote a process that enables restored habitats tobehave in a ‘natural’ manner within the broaderlandscape. The functionality of ecosystems shouldinclude the present needs of stakeholders as well asthe suite of functions that any given piece of land-scape might have provided prior to degradation. Tothis end, biodiversity is an integral component of awide range of descriptors that determine the

Box 25: The Wadden Sea-development of integrated governance, the Netherlands

The ecosystem and the human activities it sustains

The Wadden Sea is one of the World’s largest and most important intertidal wetland ecosystems and is of greatecological, economic and social importance. This complex mosaic of coastal ecosystems (mud flats, sand banks,sea grass beds, salt marshes, mussel beds, islands, estuaries and river systems) contains great biological diversityand is highly productive and is an important habitat for migrating birds as well as spawning, nursery and feed-ing areas for fish. Its landscape provides renewable resources that sustain a wide range of economic activities,from fisheries to tourism and recreation.

Governance

Three countries share responsibility for this ecosystem: Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany. Growingawareness of the unique and valuable nature of the Wadden Sea, coupled with mounting concern about deteri-orating environmental conditions, resulted in a trilateral agreement for the development of a unified vision forthe future of the sea, the harmonisation of national development objectives and policies, better integration ofmanagement strategies and the application of ecosystem management.

Achievements and obstacles

The three Wadden Sea nations have set an example for the transnational governance of a common ecosystem.Significant progress has been made towards achieving the objectives and a major part of the Wadden Sea nowenjoys strong environmental protection. Multiple use management is being adopted by the three states, whichare also attempting to unify their interpretation and effective use of international agreements that canstrengthen the protection of coastal and marine ecosystems (e.g. EC Habitats Directive, Ramsar Convention,Bonn Convention, Berne Convention, EC Birds Directive, EU Recommendation on Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement, and the EC Water Framework Directive). However, there are factors that hinder full integrationand rapid harmonisation:

1. Three different legal systems for managing the Wadden ecosystem.

2. The concept of sustainable development has not been fully translated into working management objectivesand achievable targets, or a common policy on how the concept should be implemented.

3. Distinctly different management approaches and jurisdictional boundaries have been adopted in each of thethree nations. While each is appropriate to its respective legal and governance systems, there are few com-mon principles for guiding and, where necessary, controlling development activities.

4. None of the three management systems has real control over issues and problems outside their jurisdictions(e.g. diffuse land based sources of pollution).

5. Differing development pressures and attitudes influence the application of controls over individual rights ofaccess to and use of the resources of the Wadden Sea.

6. Strong pressures from different resource users to avoid restrictions on economic activities.

7. Different opinions on the sustainability of large-scale engineering modifications to marine and coastal areasfor coastal defence and infrastructure development.

37


functionality of an ecosystem. These descriptors arean essential and fundamental element withinrestoration.

The resulting complexity may become a barrierto successfully restoring habitats that requires hugeresources to overcome. If this problem is notresolved, restoration becomes a case of buildingconsensus between competing groups in which theeffectiveness of the outcome becomes diluted in theprocess of reaching a consensus. This is particularlyimportant where the issue is the degradation ofhabitats and biodiversity in urban areas, where theplanning process may not take the natural environ-ment and resource availability properly intoaccount. There is a major role here for sound scien-tific thinking to maintain a clear focus and come upwith rigorous arguments (see Box 26).

4.8 TECHNICAL METHODOLOGIESAND MECHANISMS

Technology is not a major barrier to effectiverestoration. What can be a problem, though, iscombining different technologies—which oftenoriginate from different actors in the process—toachieve a common goal.

In relation to this, any IMCAM support meas-ure should be based on an assessment of the finan-cial and ecological implications in the short andlong term. For example, the restoration of a partic-ular habitat may be very costly and the only majorshort-term benefits may be ecological and not eco-nomic. However, the longer-term economic benefitsmay be considerable if the restoration allows a moresustainable economic use of resources because the

Box 26: Rehabilitation of the mangrove wetlands in the Indus delta, Pakistan

Context

The Indus delta extends over some 225 square miles [585 km2] and was once colonised by a variety of differentmangrove species. However, the number of species started to decline in the 1960s and by the 1980s Avicenia wasthe dominant species. The perceived loss of biodiversity led to major replanting schemes with the aim of re-establishing the former diversity of mangrove species. Replanting schemes were led by the Forestry Department,supported by NGOs and donors, who planted species that had disappeared in the specially prepared sites.

Obstacles to successful restoration

The replanting schemes had limited success because the major impoundments and water abstraction in the riversystem had, over the years, altered the hydrology and sediment budget of the estuary. This change in environ-mental conditions caused a number of conditions:

1. The reduction in sediments and organic material has altered the morphology of the delta to the point whereit is subsiding, possibly exacerbated by regional sea level rise.

2. Reduction in freshwater flows has increased the salinity of the delta waters and soils.

3. Contamination of the freshwater by agricultural and other wastes has altered the chemistry and nutrientbudget if the estuary and delta.

Together, these factors have added to the environmental stress on the mangrove. As a result, the species that are lesstolerant of deep water, long periods of inundation and increased salinity cannot survive. In contrast, species suchas Avicenia marina are better adapted to such stressful conditions and often form the first colonisers along pro-grading shorelines with muddy substrates, making them better adapted as survivors when conditions deteriorate.

Lessons Learned

1. A broad systems perspective in which major environmental processes are analysed to determine the rootcauses of decline in the health, productivity and biological diversity of a coastal system is essential to the for-mulation of sustainable strategies for their rehabilitation.

2. It may not be feasible to re-establish former levels of biodiversity due to the irreversible conditions causedby competing development objectives and pressures.

38


system as a whole is more resilient. Habitat restora-tion may also be a way of preventing long-term eco-nomic losses. Traditional activities may have alreadyaltered the landscape and restoration may requirereversing these processes and so restoration mustaim for resilience in the system itself and in humanorganisational structures. This may require moreinterventionist approaches for more heavilydegraded habitats.

Tools that provide an auditable mechanism forrationalising and appraising different approachescan be used to develop an efficient and equitable

management programme in which the outcomesprovide incentives for the different actors to provideappropriate inputs to the restoration process. Onesuch mechanism is managed re-alignment, whichseeks to re-establish the buffering capacity of natu-ral coastal ecosystems for coastal protection, whileincorporating local social and economic require-ments. It attempts to use technological innovationand expertise within a broad planning environ-ment. This approach is illustrated by the example ofNigg Bay in Scotland (see Box 27).

Box 27: Managed realignment, Nigg Bay, Scotland

The coastal system

The wetlands along Nigg Bay have been reclaimed for agriculture but as the sea level rises it is eroding the seawalls protecting the reclaimed land. At the same time, the sea walls prevent the natural adjustment of the shore-line through the creation of mudflats and salt marshes. The low value of the agricultural land reclaimed fromthe former salt marsh and mudflats makes it uneconomic to continually repair and strengthen the sea wall. Atthe same time, there is increasing public awareness of the environmental services provided by mudflats and saltmarshes, including their role in helping to conserve biological diversity and in reducing the risk of coastal flood-ing. As a result, there is increased public support for innovative measures to rehabilitate reclaimed coastal habitats.

Rehabilitation through Managed Realignment

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) has purchased 25 hectares of reclaimed land for rehabili-tation by breaching the sea wall. Before any action was taken, the RSPB discussed their rehabilitation plans withall adjacent landowners to gain their consent, and consulted community groups and local NGOs to explain theproposed actions. The area now forms a buffer zone that absorbs wave and wind energy, which reduces pres-sures on adjacent shorelines. This has led to a saving of about 4200 euros per kilometre in the public costs ofmaintaining sea defences in other parts of the bay.

Key technical considerations

1. Managed realignment and rehabilitation of reclaimed areas can form a cost-effective and environmentallysound alternative to hard engineering and inflexible and costly coastal defences.

2. There are economic and social benefits to be gained from re-invigorated coastal ecosystems that can absorbthe high energy from winds and waves, which help to reduce erosion and coastal flooding.

3. Coastal systems such as beaches, sand dunes, mudflats and salt marshes will be able to migrate shorewardto accommodate sea level changes;

4. Public consultation is essential to ensure that the managed realignment and rehabilitation of former coastalsystems, as an alternative to hard defences, is fully understood by all interested and affected parties.

5. With managed realignment, there is time to consider alternatives and to plan for relocation of developmentthat may become increasingly vulnerable to environmental changes.

6. To be fully effective, managed realignment and coastal and marine habitat rehabilitation needs to be con-sidered within a broad planning and management framework in which the plans, management strategiesand investments by different sectors and levels of governance can support integrated coastal management.The EU Water Framework Directive and the EU Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Managementare powerful tools that can help governments formulate policies and sustainable management strategies todeal with rising sea levels and the hazards associated with coastal flooding and erosion.

39



ABP, Identification of essential elements in environmental cre-ation/restoration schemes, 1998, http://www.abpmer.co.uk/pdf/R909.pdf.

Andhra Pradesh, Andhra, T. Ravishankar, R.Ramsubramanaian. Mangrove management and womenempowerment for poverty reduction - a case study fromMangrove wetlands. http://www.aidenvironment.org/projects/A1025/documents/docs/andhra_pradesh_ravishankar.htm

Audobon and the San Francisco bay Area restoration program,nov-03, San Francisco Bay Restoration Program.http://www.audubonsfbay.org/

Burbridge, P. Study undertaken for the World ConservationUnion (IUCN): Assessment of coastal resource managementissues in Pakistan and preparation of recommendations forIUCN action and investment, 1989.

Camilleri, J.C., J.C. Ribi. Mangrove, List of Publications on man-groves and freshwater ecosystems., http://www.aidenvironment.org/projects/A1025/documents/docs/publications_on_mangroves_and_freshwater_ecosystems.htm

Clark, J.R. Coastal Zone Management Handbook. CRC Press,Boca Raton. Case Study: Vietnam, Mekong- Difficulty in repair-ing damaged wetlands by P.R. Burbridge, pp 626-629, 1996.

Coastal Zone, Cooperative Research Centre for CoastalZone, Estuary and Waterway Management, nov-03,http://www.coastal.crc.org.au/

Grant, Dr. Alastair. Tollesbury and Orplands Managed RetreatSites, nov-03, Centre for Ecology, Evolution and Conservation,School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia.http://www.uea.ac.uk/~e130/Tollesbury.htm

Husum-WWF Germany. The Common Future for the WaddenSea, 1991, http://www.ngo.grida.no/wwfneap/Projects/waddlink.htm

ICM, Key Principles of ICM Most Relevant to MinimisingCoastal/Near shore Physical Alteration, Destruction of Habitat,and Sediment Mobilisation, Available through RIKZ.

Living with the Sea project, nov-03, http://www.english-nature.org.uk/livingwiththesea/

Martínez Prat, Anna Rosa. TRIPS and CBD on CoastalCommunities, Impact of, nov-03, The International Collectivein Support of Fishworkers (ICSF), http://www.icsf.net/jsp/english/pubPages/occasionalpapers/impactoftrips.jsp

National Institute for Coastal and Marine Management(RIKZ), nov-03, http://www.rikz.nl/home/NL/

NOAA Coastal Services Center. Survival Skills for ManagingCoastal Resources, nov-03, http://www.csc.noaa.gov/cms/cls/cmp.html

Peterson Garry, Craig R. Allen, C. S. Holling, EcologicalResilience, Biodiversity, and Scale, Ecosystems1: 6–18, 1998.

Phuket Marine Biological Center. International Workshop onthe Rehabilitation of Degraded Coastal Systems 1998, Abstractof, nov-03, http://www.ncl.ac.uk/tcmweb/rehab/titles.htm

Physical Alterations and Destruction of Habitats (PADH)Global Programme of Action (GPA), Draft document. Availablethrough RIKZ.

Ramsar, http://www.ramsar.org/key_guide_nwp_cs_e.htm

Ranong, Coastal Biodiversity in Ranong Capacity Developmentproject, nov-03, The Natural History Museum,http://www.nhm.ac.uk/science/projects/ranong/index.html

RSPB Scotland, Inverness. Royal Society for Protection of Birds,2003. Nigg Bay RSPB Reserve Coastal Realignment Project.

Solutions, http://www.solutions-site.org/cat1_sol26.htm

Stevenson, N.J., R.R. Lewis, P.R. Burbridge. Disused ShrimpPonds and Mangrove Rehabilitation. In W. Streever (ed.) AnInternational Perspective on Wetland Rehabilitation, KluwerAcademic Publishers, The Netherlands. Pp 277-297, 1990.

Wise Coastal Practices for Sustainable Human DevelopmentForum, nov-03, http://www.csiwisepractices.org/

40


5.1 GENERAL INTRODUCTION TOOPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

Article 11 of the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) states that:

“Each Contracting Party shall, as far as possibleand as appropriate, adopt economically and sociallysound measures that act as incentives for the con-servation and sustainable use of components ofbiological diversity.”

As well as a further reference in Article 20, thiscommitment to incentives has been re-iterated in astring of decisions and recommendations by boththe COP and SBSTTA. These guidelines aredesigned to assist resource professionals in usingincentives to integrate the objectives of the CBD—specifically the conservation of biodiversity and thesustainable use of its components, into integratedmarine and coastal area management (IMCAM).

A range of information papers and notes havebeen prepared in support of SBSTTA and COP thatrefer to both incentive measures and marine andcoastal ecosystems, and various COP and SBSTTAdecisions and recommendations have been madewhich also relate to these.

5.2 WHAT ARE INCENTIVES AND WHYUSE THEM?

Defining incentives

Incentives can be defined as inducements, which arespecifically intended to incite or motivate govern-ments, local people and organisations to act in acertain way. The basic aim of an incentive for biodi-versity conservation would be to induce people toconserve or sustainably use, as opposed to degrad-ing or depleting biodiversity in the course of theiractivities.

A programme on incentive measures typicallyincludes three components: formal policy instru-ments, social and institutional measures, and com-pliance mechanisms. An incentive is created andreinforced by the interaction of these three aspectsof the institutional environment governing

resource use, rather than by any single measureoperating alone. These three aspects are describedbelow in Box 29.

Incentives are usually seen in terms of fivebroad types: economic, legal or regulatory, commu-nication, social and cultural and institutional(Box 30). It is usually essential that these incentivesare used in combination, in order to address differ-ent types of biodiversity threats as well as torespond to the different motivations that influencepeople’s behaviour.

5. INCENTIVES

Box 28: Categories of incentives

SBSTTA 7 (11) identified four categories ofincentive:

Positive incentivemeasure designed to encourage beneficial activitiese.g. incentive payments for organic aquaculture,relatively lower tax rates on biodiversity-conserving products and technologies

Disincentivemechanism that internalises the costs of use ofand/or damage to biodiversity e.g. non-compliancefees, environmental penalties and fines

Indirect incentivemechanism that affects potential changes throughvariables other than changing the levels of poten-tial damage directly e.g. trading mechanisms thatimprove markets such as emission trading schemes

Perverse incentivemeasure that induces unsustainable behaviour thatreduces biodiversity e.g. subsidies to biodiversity-degrading sectors or technologies

Box 29: Components of a programme onincentive measures

• Formal policy measures include economic andlegal instruments, regulations, and publicinvestment;

• Social and institutional measures include infor-mation provision, capacity-building and stake-holder participation.

• The compliance component of a programme onincentive measures may include measures toencourage both socially enforced complianceand legal enforcement.

41


Although each of the groups of incentives playsan important role in conserving and sustainablyusing biodiversity in the coastal area, the main focusof these guidelines will be on economic incentives.The primary reason for this being that economicincentives are a key tool in achieving the objectivesof the CBD as economic factors lie at the heart ofbiodiversity loss in the coastal zone.

In brief, economic incentives aim to make itworthwhile in economic terms for people to con-serve biodiversity (or economically unattractive todegrade or deplete it), for example working throughpeople’s consumption and production opportuni-ties, profits or livelihoods or through economicpolicies, prices and market mechanisms.

Economic activities impact directly on biodi-versity through using up non-renewable resources,by converting resources and habitats to other usesand by adding waste and effluent to the environ-ment. In turn, the fact that prices and markets areoften distorted and under-value biodiversity,because they fail to reflect the full benefit of biodi-versity conservation or the full costs of its degrada-

tion, constitutes a major underlying or root cause ofbiodiversity loss. All too often it remains more prof-itable or economically desirable for people todegrade marine and coastal biodiversity rather thanto conserve it.

A wide range of structural economic factors—such as widespread poverty and inequity, or unsup-portive trade and economic policy arrangementsexacerbate these trends. In addition, there is alwaysan economic cost to marine and coastal conserva-tion, including the direct physical expenditures ofimplementing conservation activities, as well as theopportunity costs of alternative (biodiversity-depleting) activities foregone and the indirect costsof possible congestion effects on other sites andstocks that remain available for unrestricted use anddevelopment. As long as these costs outweigh theeconomic benefits of conservation for particulargroups or sectors, marine and coastal biodiversity islikely to continue to be degraded and lost. The eco-nomic incentives presented in these guidelines areintended to ensure that all of the economic costsincurred in the use of biodiversity are fully reflectedin the decision-making agenda of the user therebydiscouraging degradation and exploitation ofmarine and coastal resources.

It is important to note that the economic issuesdetailed here are often particularly intense in thecase of marine and coastal ecosystems. The bound-aries of marine and coastal ecosystems are oftenunclear, markets and prices tend to be undeveloped,many natural resources are subject to open access orunclear ownership and management regimes, mul-tiple sectors and activities impact on naturalresources and ecosystems, and there is often confu-sion or overlap in the economic and developmentpolicies governing marine and coastal areas.

As well as improving the efficiency of the mar-kets, economic incentives have a number of otheradvantages as mechanisms to encourage biodiver-sity conservation and sustainable use. As they usu-ally rely on markets to function, they are by theirnature cost-effective to implement and do not usu-ally require a significant administrative capability toenforce. This can be of particular benefit to devel-

Box 30: Different types of incentives

• Economic: Instrument designed to make itworthwhile in economic terms for individualsand organisations to conserve or sustainably usebiodiversity

• Legal / regulatory: Command and controlmechanism that use the force of law to ensurethe conservation and sustainable use of biodi-versity

• Communication: Measures that provide learn-ing experience and knowledge appropriation,technology and know how.

• Social and cultural: cultural norms and socialconventions.

• Institutional incentives: Measures that providethe necessary tools for coordination and inter-action among different institutions in charge ofbiodiversity management. These instrumentsguarantee participation mechanisms and localcommunity responsibility in the management ofthe natural resources and biodiversity.

42


oping nations, which do not have either the fundsor the capability to enforce extensive legal restric-tions. Related to this point is the fact that some eco-nomic incentives such as charging systems can berevenue raising. Examples of the advantages anddisadvantages of specific economic incentives areshown in Box 31 while Box 32 provides some casestudy examples of how economic incentives havebeen used in IMCAM around the world.

5.3 TYPES OF ECONOMIC INCENTIVES

There are numerous types of economic incentives,but they can usefully be placed in the following sixcategories: property rights, markets and charge sys-tems, fiscal instruments, bonds and deposits, liveli-hood support and financial instruments. Althoughnot an incentive as such, the removal of perverseincentives is also an important economic tool and is

INCENTIVE ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES

Property Rights • reduce uncertainty over the ownership ofthe biodiversity “asset”

• provide a long-term incentive to enhancethe value of the resource

• economically efficient to administer

• create efficiency in pricing of the resource

• provide no “guarantee” that privatelyowned biodiversity will be sustainablyused or conserved

Markets andcharge systems

• create efficiency in pricing of the resource

• economically effective—charging systemscan raise funds

• economically efficient to administer

• not all of the attributes of biodiversitycan be easily priced in the market

Fiscal instruments • economically effective—can be usefulrevenue raising tools

• easily understandable

• clearly promote beneficial activities anddeter harmful ones

• economically inefficient—can beexpensive to administer

Bonds and deposits • economically effective—the financial riskis transferred away from the state

• may be expensive to administer

Livelihood support

• can ensure support for IMCAM goals—particularly in the transitional stage

• economically inefficient—can beexpensive to implement

• economically inefficient—can beexpensive to implement

Financialinstruments

• raise funds and allocate them toparticular groups, sectors or activitiesrelated to conservation

• divert resources from alternativepriorities

Removal ofperverseincentives

• economically effective– can often besignificantly revenue saving if subsidiesare withdrawn

• improves economic efficiency of marketconcerned

• often strongly opposed by interestedparties

• can be difficult to identify—lack oftransparency

Box 31: Advantages and disadvantages of economic incentives

43


Box 32: Real-life case studies of economic incentives used in IMCAMThe use of economic incentives for marine and coastal conservation, St Lucia

Property Rights In a MPA in St Lucia, a collaborative management arrangement has been established betweengovernment and a community institution with the capacity to manage the park. Fees raised are placed in a sep-arate government fund, which makes quarterly payments directly to the community institution for the manage-ment of the MPA.Markets and Charges

Biodiversity friendly markets and alternatives to degrading activities: In the Bazaruto Archipelago in Mozambiquea number of new markets and enterprises (such as eco-tourism, permaculture, vegetable farming and supportto artisanal fishing) have been promoted among local fishing communities as a way of stimulating sustainablebiological resource use, and to compensate for the losses in land and natural resources incurred by the estab-lishment of a National Park.

Tradable quotas: To reduce over-fishing, the New Zealand government issued tradable catch quotas on all fishharvested, allocated to individual fishermen. Fees were charged for these quotas, which could then be sold backto the government or to other fishermen. The scheme achieved a number of objectives: it set fisheries catch at amaximum level, protected the resource, raised revenues, increased efficiency, made fishing allocations moreequitable and was self-financing.

Tradable development rights: Coastal areas of the Akamas Peninsula in Cyprus have been zoned by governmentas a non-development area. Developers, instead of being compensated for land loss, retain their rights to devel-opment but cannot exercise them on site. Rather, development rights can be traded for property in other areasor sold for cash to conservation groups.

Bioprospecting: Imperial Chemical Industries has acquired the rights to develop a number of coral reef pigmentsfor use as sunscreens for humans, and in 1992 the Coral Reef Foundation entered into a 5 year contract worth $2.9million for the supply of reef samples to the US National Cancer Institute for use in cancer screening programmes.

Fiscal Instruments Exports of crocodile skins, mainly to Japan, earns significant foreign exchange in Papua NewGuinea. To comply with its obligations under CITES, and its own directives concerning sustainable resource use,a costly control and monitoring operation is mounted by the Department of Conservation. Taxes levied onexports provided an important source of funding for these costs.

Bonds and Deposits Since 1987, the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority of Australia has required per-formance bonds to be posted for semi-permanent or temporary structures on the Reef. The bond constitutespart of a permit issued by the Authority, setting out the type of activity allowed and the location of that activ-ity. For example, the permit may allow charter boat operations, tourism or waste disposal. Up to 1993 there were33 instances where performance bonds had been required as a condition of permits. They ranged from $1,000to $1 million. They are set on the basis of the expected costs of site rehabilitation. The larger bonds are adjustedannually in line with movements in the consumer price index.

Livelihood Support The Foundation for the Philippine Environment is working on the island of Bohol withcommunities who harvest Nipa (a palm-like species of mangrove whose leaves are used for thatching houses).The project has helped the community to organise themselves into an organisation which was granted steward-ship rights over the mangroves, and is engaged in more efficient, value-added and sustainable mangrove utili-sation activities.

Financial Instruments Private investment: Chumbe Island Coral Park in Zanzibar is managed by a company formed specifically for thispurpose. Incentives for private investment were provided by the government by allocating a lease and manage-ment contract to this company. While particular project components were funded by donor small grants andcredit facilities, running costs are mainly covered by income generated.

Debt-for nature swap: The Jamaica National Parks Trust Fund was established in 1991 and capitalised in 1992with money from a debt-for-nature swap. It is managed primarily as an endowment funds, making grants totwo National Parks including contributing to the operating costs of Montego Bay National Marine Park.

Trust Fund: The Vanuatu Biodiversity Conservation Trust Fund, administered by the Pacific International TrustCompany of Vanuatu, is designed to generate lease payments to landowners of the Erromango Kauri ProtectedArea who have foregone their opportunity to log the area. The sinking fund arrangement, begun in 1995, has afive-year life but may be further extended by the landowners through a perpetual fund under a 75-year lease. Aprior assessment of the area calculated the lease payment which was the annuity equivalent of the revenue fore-gone from logging.

44


therefore included as an additional instrument atthe end of this section.

Property rights: Measures, which allocate rights toown, use or manage biodiversity. By allocating well-defined property rights to biodiversity it is antici-pated that the holders of the rights will aim at max-imising the value of their property over time andwill therefore be encouraged to manage theirresource sustainably. Under an open access systemi.e. one without private property rights, there islittle benefit from using the resource sustainably asthe costs of doing so are not incurred by the user.Examples of property rights include the allocationof legal rights, tenure, leases and concessions overthe ownership, management and use of biodiversity.

Markets and charge systems: Measures, whichrationalise prices and improve markets for thegoods and services, which depend or impact on bio-diversity. The creation of markets and the properpricing of biodiversity helps avoid the situationwhereby biodiversity is degraded because it is artifi-cially cheap. A functioning market in biodiversityensures that its price reflects its “real” value.Examples of a market creation scheme might be theissuance of tradable rights in biodiversity such aspollution permits or development rights. An exam-ple of a charge system might be to charge for biodi-versity benefits traditionally received for no chargesuch as downstream water-catchment benefits.

Fiscal instruments: Budgetary measures whichapply taxes and subsidies to the goods and services,which depend, or impact upon biodiversity. Byusing fiscal measures such as taxes and subsidies,the consumption of biodiversity can be encouragedor discouraged by changing its price relative toalternatives. A typical example of a fiscal measurewould be a higher tax rate on a biodiversity deplet-ing land use.

Bonds and deposits: Measures which require theprovision of monetary security when economicactivities are carried out, refundable against any

biodiversity degradation and loss occurring as theresult of the activity. By imposing a bond or depositon a given activity the responsibility of harmingbiodiversity is shifted to an individual or organisa-tion and thereby acting as a disincentive to poten-tially damaging activity. The levying of a bond onclean-up operations following a public event wouldbe a typical example of this type of incentive.

Livelihood support: Measures, which strengthenand diversify the livelihoods of people whose pro-duction and consumption activities impact uponbiodiversity. In many parts of world poverty andlow-standards of living force individuals to depleteand degrade biodiversity. Through providing liveli-hood support biodiversity-consuming activitiesmay be made more attractive. The encouragementof biodiversity “friendly” fishing methods might beone such example. In order to ensure the sustain-ability of livelihood support measures, they shouldbe based upon self-financing systems.

Financial instruments: Measures, which generatefunds to be used in support of marine and coastalconservation or sustainable use. Financial instru-ments can be considered a special sub-category ofeconomic incentives, which act through the provi-sion of cash funding as an incentive for biodiversityconservation. A wide range of financial instrumentscan be used, including direct payments from vari-ous private and public sources, trust funds andgreen funds, debt-for-nature swaps, and the provi-sion of venture capital and investment support.

The removal of perverse incentives: The removal ofperverse incentives is just as important as the impo-sition of positive incentives or disincentives in theconservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. Byremoving a perverse incentive pressure on theunderlying biodiversity may be removed, often to asignificant economic advantage to the taxpayer. Thesubsidies awarded by some countries to their fish-ing fleets to harvest unsustainably their fish stocksare often cited as a typical perverse incentive.

45


5.4 CHOOSING ECONOMICINCENTIVES

Choosing the incentive or incentives—economic orotherwise—is not a straightforward process. Thecontext for selection is extremely complex with notwo sets of circumstances being identical. As a con-sequence of this, no “off-the-shelf” solutions areavailable for pre-determining appropriate action. Inthis section some of the factors to be consideredwhen selecting incentives are presented along withsome of the issues that have to be taken in accountwhen making the selection. Some examples of whateconomic incentives might be used in a series ofhypothetical scenarios are given in Box 33.

Choosing the incentive

The variety of potential factors negatively impact-ing upon biodiversity in the coastal area is vast—from unsustainable harvesting of marine speciesand offshore pollution, through sea shore develop-ment, to inland agriculture and industry. Multiplesectors affect biodiversity including those thatdirectly depend on marine and coastal resources(such as fisheries, marine product harvesting,tourism, forestry, mining and other extractiveindustries) as well as those which have secondary orknock-on impacts on the status and integrity ofresources and ecosystems (such as shipping, urbandevelopment, agriculture, and industry).

The array of other issues that go towards deter-mining the nature and implications of these threatsand their solutions is similarly complex, rangingfrom the political organisation, level of economicdevelopment and social fabric of the communitiesinvolved, to the significance of the threat and thenature of the technology and investment requiredto relieve it. Because of this complexity there is nostraightforward list of incentives which can be iden-tified for any given problem; rather the solutionmore often than not involves a combination ofmutually reinforcing instruments developed to suita particular set of circumstances and to meet theneeds of multiple sectors or groups. These instru-

ments may, as mentioned earlier, be political, legal,social or administrative. Which instrument or com-binations of instruments are used will depend upona wide range of factors. Box 33 gives a list of possi-ble factors that must be taken into account whenselecting an economic incentive and indeed anyother instrument.

The factors determining the selection of incen-tives given in Box 33 above are not in any order ofimportance. Just as it is not possible to pre-determine what incentives should be used, neitheris it possible to prioritise the determining factors. Inmany developing countries for example, ease ofadministration will be crucial to incentive selection,while the cost of implementing an incentive is likelyto influence decision making in most circumstancesaround the world.

There are of course a wide range of guidelinesproduced by a number of authoritative interna-tional bodies such as the IUCN, World Bank andregional Development Banks, designed to assist inthe implementation of IMCAM. Although the CBDis rarely mentioned explicitly, the CBD objective ofsustainable development is a common theme withinthese guidelines. Because of this overlap of the com-mitment to sustainable development, the guidanceto using economic incentives within most of these

Box 33: Factors determining incentive selection

• Cost to implement

• Efficacy

• Political acceptability

• Social acceptability—issues of divisiveness andequity

• Complexity

• Compatibility with other political, economicand social goals

• Ease of administration

• Timescale of effectiveness

• Compatibility with international obligations

• Practicability

• Sustainability—can the incentive been sustainedin the long run

• Nature, extent and urgency of the threat

46


existing IMCAM guidelines provides a solid platformupon which to develop an incentive programme.

Where the IMCAM guidelines do appear to belacking with respect to the CBD, is in respect of theobjective of the conservation of biodiversity. Box 34gives a number of hypothetical scenarios of howeconomic incentives might be used in both the sus-tainable development and conservation of biodiver-sity in IMCAM. Box 35 presents a real-life casestudy of the use of economic incentives in coastalmanagement.

It is worth noting here that notwithstandingthe many advantages of economic incentives, theyare rarely fully effective in conserving biodiversitywhen used in isolation. When conserving particu-larly significant or fragile elements of biodiversity,legal restrictions are very often also required. Forexample, the holding of private property rights incoastal areas of some parts of South East Asia andSouth America has in some cases lead to thedestruction of wetland forests and water pollutionamongst other things, by entrepreneurs investing inshrimp cultivation. Social mechanisms, too, areoften a prerequisite to the successful use of eco-nomic incentives, especially where targeting activi-ties and livelihoods of poor coastal communities indeveloping countries.

This is not to say, however, that economicincentives do not play a vital role in biodiversityconservation in IMCAM. Take the example of marineprotected areas (MPAs)—one of the primary toolsfor marine conservation. Economic incentives canbe used in order to raise funds for their manage-ment, generate and share benefits with surroundingcommunities and set prices and markets for the useof their recreational facilities and other products.

5.5 INCENTIVES AS OPPORTUNITIESOR CONSTRAINTS

The different types of incentives each function inone of two ways: to discourage or encourage certainbehaviours. Some incentives act as restraints to dis-courage certain activities and impacts while othersact as opportunities to encourage more sustainable

acts and practices by perhaps stimulating promisingconservation initiatives. An example of an eco-nomic incentive which acts as a constraint might bea punitive tax rate on environmentally damagingactivities, while and example of an economic incen-tive which acts as an opportunity would be a finan-cial subsidy for the development of a green technol-ogy. Although constraints to behaviour will alwaysbe essential, in assembling a portfolio of appropri-ate incentives, the primary focus should be onenabling beneficial activities in order to encouragewhat might hopefully become a deep-seated com-mitment to the conservation and sustainable use ofbiodiversity.

5.6 IMPLEMENTING ECONOMICINCENTIVES

A comprehensive and clear procedure for imple-menting incentives for biodiversity conservation isgiven in publications by the OECD (1999) andEmerton (2000).

In addition, the SBSTTA has identified fourfactors that constitute the basic conditions necessaryfor the effective application of incentive measures.They appear to be particularly applicable in thecontext of the guidelines on economic incentivespresented here as they synthesise some of the basicprinciples of established approaches to IMCAM.

1. Information. Information about biodiversity iscentral to the implementation of appropriateincentive measures. Without information onboth the underlying biodiversity and its threatsand pressures, suitable management tools can-not be developed and implemented. Similarly,any information gathered must be distributedto all interested parties.

2. The involvement of stakeholders includingindigenous and local communities. Theinvolvement of stakeholders in the incentiveprocess should begin with collaboration overthe design of the incentive measures and con-tinue with their development and implementa-tion. A high level of cooperation should bring a

47


Scenario Possible solutions

Tourism and recreation

Increased numberof tourists leadingto congestion ofpublic facilities,beaches and divesites and speciesexploitation anddisturbance

• Encouragement of ecotourism through favourable investment opportunities usingtax breaks, grants and competitive loan rates

• Creation of MPAs. Private investment in MPAs encouraged by creation of privateproperty rights, subsidies and tax breaks

• Development of markets for MPA benefits e.g. charging for use of protected area bytourists, divers etc. retailing of associated goods such as souvenirs

• Coastal zone protection tax levied on structures, buildings, works and activities inthe coastal area

• Livelihood assistance given to those displaced by protected area

• Taxes on trade in certain species

Increased urbanization andpopulation growth

Developmentprojects giving riseto landscapealterations, habitatloss and seweragedischarge

• Valuation studies to understand full value of undeveloped resource e.g. amenity value

• Development of markets for previously un-marketed coastal benefits such as water-shed protection

• Creation of private property rights to all coastal resources to ensure all costs are takenin to account in private development decisions

• Creation of markets in waste products through the introduction of tradable permitsin order to incentivise least-cost solutions to waste treatment

• Development restricted to certain areas by e.g. land easements

• Clean-up / re-habilitation deposits required for major developments

• Tax breaks for investment in clean technologies

Agriculture and forestry

Landscapealteration, habitatloss, water use andrun-off

• Investment in environmentally friendly solutions to waste management encouragedby fiscal instruments, subsidies, grants and favourable loan schemes

• Valuation studies to understand full value of agriculture and forestry. Analyse externalcosts of e.g. pollution to and increased sedimentation of, waterways

• Removal of perverse incentives—especially those which encourage over-productionand production particularly environmentally sensitive areas

• Proper pricing / creation of market in water use to discourage waste in water usage

• Creation of markets in waste products i.e. through the introduction of tradablepermits in order to incentivise least-cost solutions to waste treatment

• Creation of private property rights i.e. creating secure land tenure to encourage sus-tainable production. For example a permanent tenant / property owner is more likelyto introduce e.g. soil conservation measures, than a farmer with only transitory rights.

Mariculture—shrimps and fisheries

Habitat loss;especiallymangroves, wateruse, pollution andspread of disease

• Use of fiscal instruments to encourage organic production and environmentallyfriendly solutions to waste management

• Creation of markets in waste products i.e. through the introduction of tradablepermits in order to incentivise least-cost solutions to waste treatment

• Proper pricing / creation of market in water use to discourage waste in water usage:implementation of polluter pays principle

• Valuation studies to understand full value of coastal forests; often a very economi-cally undervalued resource. Include values of non-marketed benefits such as fuelcollection, watershed protection and existence values.

Box 34: Hypothetical scenarios of how economic instruments might be used in the conservation andsustainable use of biodiversity

48


number of benefits to the IMCAM processincluding the increased commitment andaccountability of stakeholders to the processand greater innovation and more appropriatedesign solutions.

3. Valuation. Valuation is a condition absolutelycentral to the application of economic incen-tives. As a non-market good, biodiversity isoften assigned no value with the consequencethat it is under-provided and over-exploited bythe market. If biodiversity can be given an eco-nomic value it will, as Pearce explains “level the

playing field for policy making that wouldotherwise be dominated by the financial bene-fits of land use conversion”.

The most effective method of valuing bio-diversity in economic terms is enabling it to betraded in a market in which all of its value isfully internalised. In the absence of such a mar-ket there are a number of non-market valua-tion tools covered in great detail throughoutthe literature, which can be used to attain atleast a partial value. Whether the final valua-tion is comprehensive or partial, quantitativeor qualitative, the exercise should produce amore informed base upon which policy deci-sions can be made.

4. Capacity-building. Sufficient capacity is neces-sary at all stages of the incentive design andimplementation process, from the capacityneeded to gather the initial information to thatrequired to fund the execution of the incentiveprogramme.

5.7 THE WAY FORWARD

Integrated coastal area management is an enor-mously challenging process in economic terms: therange of interests in, and threats to, the coastal zoneare extensive. Given the complex nature of theprocess, the problems it presents are equally multi-faceted and a wide range of instruments arerequired as solutions to its impacts. Centralamongst these instruments are legal, social and eco-nomic incentives; tools designed to incite or moti-vate the stakeholders in IMCAM to conserve or sus-tainably use biodiversity.

Given the significance of economic factors indegrading biodiversity in the coastal area, the focusof these guidelines is on economic incentives.Economic incentives have many advantages as toolsin the IMCAM process. They can be used to bothcorrect and direct the economic policy, price andmarket failures that lie at the heart of environmen-tal degradation in the coastal zone. Most impor-tantly, they help to ensure that the “real” costs of

Box 35: Case study of choosing economic incentives for IMCAM

Choosing pro-poor economic incentives forICZM in India, Maldives, Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

A Regional Strategic Plan for marine and coastalmanagement in India, Maldives, Pakistan and SriLanka has recently been produced by IUCN, AsianDevelopment Bank and relevant national govern-ment departments. This has as its goal to improveboth the livelihoods of poor coastal communitiesat the same time as promoting environmentalconservation, and is based on an integratedapproach to coastal zone management.

Economic incentives form a key part of thisregional strategy for coastal poverty alleviationand environmental conservation. A range ofincentives have been proposed, targeting both thelarge industries that contribute towards biodiver-sity and ecosystem degradation (such as shipping,industry and upstream agriculture) as well as thelocal communities and government agencies whoare responsible for on-the-ground conservationand are currently in a weak economic position toimplement conservation activities. Key factors inthe choice of these incentive mechanisms wereextensive stakeholder consultation to determineeconomic threats and possible solutions, the needto target incentives to local cultural norms andpolitical systems, and the necessity of designing abroad package of mutually reinforcing mecha-nisms that could cheaply and simultaneouslyoperate for different groups, sectors and economicthreats.

49


depleting biodiversity are accounted for in the deci-sions made to either conserve or consume it.

Analysis of economic incentives—of both theirtheory as expressed in the CBD itself and in variousIMCAM guidelines, and their application to differ-ent situations, issues, countries and groups in thereal world—yield important lessons learned forcoastal management.

One lesson is the need to use economic incen-tives as part of a broad and mutually-reinforcingpackage of inducements or motivations.Notwithstanding both the efficiency and efficacy ofeconomic incentives, they have some fundamentallimitations. Although economic incentives mayencourage the sustainable development and conser-vation of biodiversity, they cannot guarantee it. Onerecommended approach therefore, is what theOECD refers to as the “market plus” approach—hybrid instruments that use the market in conjunc-tion with regulatory measures to ensure that thepublic good aspects of biodiversity are taken intoaccount in decision making, in conjunction withthe private ones. At the same time it is usuallyessential to complement economic incentives withother types of incentive mechanisms that addressthe other underlying threats to coastal biodiversity,and the enabling factors for its conservation andsustainable use—legal, communication, social, cul-tural and institutional mechanisms.

Another lesson is the specificity of different sit-uations and needs for incentives. In the face of thecomplexity and variation of the issues impactingupon the coastal zone, the solutions to the degrada-tion of biodiversity have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. Selecting the appropriate incentive orincentives will depend upon a gamut of factorsranging from their cost of execution to the nature ofthe threat. There is no hierarchy of importance ofthese factors: their significance will vary at differenttimes and between different places in order toachieve the IMCAM goals. The successful imple-mentation of the chosen incentives is based moreupon a more clearly defined set of requirementshowever, and particularly on the fulfilment of anumber of basic conditions; specifically the avail-

Box 36: Case study of the implementation ofeconomic incentives in IMCAM

Setting in place economic incentives measuresfor conservation in Kisite-Mpunguti MarineProtected Area, Kenya Kisite Marine National Park and Mpunguti MarineNational Reserve face a number of economic threatsand problems. Of particular importance is thelack of funding for government to run the park,the hostility of local communities to the protectedarea, and high and often unsustainable levels offishing and marine resource use. It was clear that anumber of financial and economic incentivesneeded to be deployed to address these problems.

Economic valuation of the costs and benefits ofthe area formed a key step in identifying and set-ting in place incentives. This found that althoughthe MPA generated high economic benefits, thesewere unequally distributed. For example the localopportunity costs of MPA conservation throughexclusion from the park and its resources weresome 10 times higher than direct managementexpenditures and several times as high as localbenefits received. As a result local fishing villagesincurred a net loss from the MPA and provedunwilling to abide by park regulations andresource use restrictions. Meanwhile, governmentreceived only a small fraction of total park rev-enues back as annual budget allocations, andexisting income constituted only a tiny proportionof potential revenues and values. Private sectortour companies, while receiving high income fromMPA activities, contributed little to the costs ofrunning the park.

A series of financial and economic incentiveswere proposed to address these economic-relatedmanagement issues. These were based on redis-tributing MPA economic values between groupsto provide better motivations and an enablingeconomic environment for them to conserve bio-diversity. They included a range of financialinstruments to raise additional funding for bothgovernment and communities (including privatesector cost-sharing, rationalisation of park entryfees and the establishment of a trust fund), as wellas incentives targeted directly at improving theprofitability of sustainable marine resource useand strengthening local livelihoods through pro-viding alternative sources of income and subsis-tence to replace currently damaging activities.

50


ability of information about biodiversity, theinvolvement of stakeholders, the valuation of thebiodiversity concerned and sufficient implementa-tion capacity.

Overall, perhaps the most important lessonlearned is the fact that economic incentives are, in

most cases, essential for the conservation and sus-tainable use of coastal biodiversity. Ultimately,unless people tangibly benefit from conservation ineconomic terms, they are unlikely to be either will-ing or economically able to manage it sustainablyover the long-term.


ACOPS (advisory Committee on Protection of the Sea). Reportof the Workshop Development and Implementation ofEconomic Instruments for the protection of the Marine andCoastal Environment by Local Governments, 1998.

Biodiversity Economics website http://biodiversityeconomics.org/

Brachya et al. Guidelines for integrated management of coastaland marine areas with special reference to the MediterraneanBasin. UNEP-MAP-PAP/RAC. Split, Croatia, 1994,http://www.pap-thecoastcentre.org/pdfs/ICAMguidelines.pdf

CBD Website http://www.biodiv.org/

Cicin-Sain B, R.W. Knecht. Integrated Coastal and OceanManagement: Concepts and Practices. Island Press. WashingtonD.C., USA, 1998.

Cicin-Sain, B, C. Ehler, R.W. Knecht, R. Weiher. Guidelines forIntegrating Coastal Management Programmes and NationalClimate Change Action Plans. In International Workshop:Planning for Climate Change through Integrated CoastalManagement, Volume 1: Summary report. Taipei, China 24-28February 1997.

Coastal and Marine Resources Management in Latin Americaand the Caribbean, http://www.iadb.org/sds/doc/1097eng.pdf

COP: The principle COP decisions relating to incentive meas-ures are III/18, V/15 and VI/15. The primary SBSTTA propos-als in relation to incentive measures are found in SBSTTA 7/11.

Emerton L, Y Tessema. Economic Constraints to theManagement of Marine Protected Areas: the Case of KisiteMarine National Park and Mpunguti Marine National Reserve,Kenya. IUCN - The World Conservation Union Eastern AfricaRegional Office, Nairobi, 2001.

Emerton L. Covering the economic costs of Marine ProtectedAreas: extending the concept of financial diversity and sustain-ability. Paper prepared for Workshop on Building a DiversePortfolio to Sustainably Finance Marine Protected AreaNetworks, World Parks Congress, Durban, 2003.

Emerton, L and R. Ferrín Herramientas. Económicas para laAdministración de las Áreas Marinas Protegidas en AméricaLatina, UICN - Unión Mundial para la Naturaleza, OficinaRegional para América del Sur, Quito, 2000.

Emerton, L. Bases on the typology using Economic Incentivesfor Biodiversity Conservation. IUCN - The WorldConservation Union, 2000.

Emerton, L. Economic tools for the management of marineprotected areas in Eastern Africa. IUCN - The WorldConservation Union, 1999.

Geoghegan T. Revenue to sustain coral reef conservation.Intercoast Network 27:6-10, 1996.

Grigalunas T A, R. Eds Congar. Environmental Economics forIntegrated Coastal Area Management: Valuation Methods andPolicy Instruments. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and StudiesNo.164. UNEP. Nairobi, Kenya, 1995.

Hunt, C. Economic Instruments for Environmental andNatural Resource Conservation and Management in the SouthPacific, Working Paper in Ecological Economics No. 9706,Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, AustralianNational University, Canberra, 1997.

IUCN Economics Unit. Incentive measures for biodiversity. ATraining Manual for Natural Resource Managers. Draft 26,2001.

IUCN-The Nature Conservancy and World Wildlife Fund USWashington DC. Report on the first global forum on environ-mental funds, 1994.

IUCN-The World Conservation Union Asia Regional MarineProgramme, Colombo, Asian Development Bank. RegionalStrategic Plan: Towards Integrated and Pro-Poor Approaches tothe Management of South Asia’s Coastal and MarineEnvironments., 2003.

Kelleher, G (Ed). Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. IUCN.Gland. Switzerland and Cambridge, England, 1999.

OECD-Development Assistance Committee. Guidelines for aidagencies on global and regional aspects of the development andprotection of the marine and coastal environment. Guidelineson Aid and Environment, No. 1. Paris, France, 1995,http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/37/9/1887756.pdf

OECD-Paris France. Handbook of Incentive Measures forBiodiversity: Design and Implementation, 1999.

Panayotou T. Economic Instruments for EnvironmentalManagement and Sustainable Development. EnvironmentalEconomics Series No. 16. UNEP. Nairobi, 1994.

Panayoutou T. Conservation of biodiversity and economicdevelopment: the concept of transferable development rights.Environmental and Resource Economics (1): 91-110, 1994.

Pearce D. Valuing Biological diversity: Issues and Overview inOECD, Valuation of Biodiversity Benefits:. Selected Studies.OECD. Paris, 2001.

51


Post, J C, C.G. (Eds) Lundin- The World Bank. WashingtonD.C., USA. Guidelines for integrated coastal zone management.Environmentally Sustainable Development Studies andMonographs Series No. 9., 1996.

Reina, A. Bazaruto Project: a brief overview in May 1998. InSalm R and Y Tessema (eds) Partnerships for Conservation:Report of the Regional Workshop on Marine Protected Areas,Tourism and Communities, 1999.

Riedmiller, S. The Chumbe Island Coral Park Project: a casestudy of private marine protected area management. In Salm Rand Y Tessema (eds) Partnerships for Conservation: Report ofthe Regional Workshop on Marine Protected Areas, Tourismand Communities. IUCN—The World Conservation UnionEastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi, 1998.

Salm, R V, J.R. Clark J R, E. Siirila. Marine and CoastalProtected Areas: A guide for planners and managers. IUCN.Washington D.C., USA, 2000.

SBSTTA 7/11 Incentive Measures: Proposals for the design andimplementation of incentive measures.

Scialabba, N-FAO Romy, Italy. Integrated coastal area manage-ment and agriculture, forestry and fisheries. FAO Guidelines.FAO Guidelines. Environment and Natural resources Service,1998. http://www.fao.org/docrep/W8440e/W8440e00.htm

Spurgeon, J, B. Aylward-IIED/London EnvironmentalEconomics Centre, London. The Economic Value ofEcosystems: 4 - Coral Reefs. Gatekeeper Series no LEEC GK 92-03, 1992.

Tan, J. Environmental foundations: funding community inno-vations in biodiversity conservation. Paper presented at the 10th

Global Biodiversity Forum, Bratislava, 1999.

UNEP/MAP/PAP Priority Action Programme. Split, Croatia.Conceptual framework and planning guidelines for integratedcoastal area and river basin management., 1999,http://www.pap-thecoastcentre.org/pdfs/ICARM%20Guidelines.pdf

UNEP-Caribbean programme, Kingston, Jamaica. Guidelinesfor integrated planning and management of coastal and marineareas in the Wider Caribbean, 1996. http://www.cep.unep.org/pubs/techreports/guidelines/

Winkler, S, F. Vorhies. Towards a Global Framework of Actionon Incentive measures for Biodiversity: Some Perspectives fromthe IUCN. Paper prepared for the International Seminar onEconomic Aspects of Biodiversity. La Paz, Mexico, 30-31 July1998.

Also available

Issue 1: Assessment and Management of Alien Species that ThreatenEcosystems, Habitats and Species

Issue 2: Review of The Efficiency and Efficacy of Existing Legal InstrumentsApplicable to Invasive Alien Species

Issue 3: Assessment, Conservation and Sustainable Use of Forest Biodiversity

Issue 4: The Value of Forest Ecosystems

Issue 5: Impacts of Human-Caused Fires on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning, and Their Causes in Tropical, Temperateand Boreal Forest Biomes

Issue 6: Sustainable Management of Non-Timber Forest Resources

Issue 7: Review of the Status and Trends of, and Major Threats to, ForestBiological Diversity

Issue 8: Status and trends of, and threats to, mountain biodiversity, marine, coastaland inland water ecosystems

Issue 9: Facilitating Conservation and Sustainable Use of Biodiversity

Issue 10: Interlinkages between Biological Diversity and Climate Change

Issue 11: Status and Trends of Biodiversity of Inland Water Ecosystems

Issue 12: Solutions for Sustainable Mariculture

Issue 13: Technical Advice on the Establishment and Management of a NationalSystem of Marine and Coastal Protected Areas

INTEGRATED MARINE AND COASTAL AREA MANAGEMENT ...

Documents