changing times:coastal management 1986 to 2000 · 2016-02-29 · of coastal management that attempt...

INT

ER

CO

ST

NE

WS

LE

TT

ER

RE

FL

EC

TIV

E a

nd

RE

TR

OS

PE

CT

IVE

19

86

to

20

00

Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode IslandNarragansett, Rhode Island USA • #37 • Fall 2000

Highlights

7FisheriesManagementand MPAs–2000

15Mangrove ActionProject: 1992-2000

18Concerns ofShrimp Farmingin the Tropics

22B2K–ICM GlobalDatabase

ThemeAdvisor:

John R.Clark

(continued page 2)

By John R. Clark, founderand former editor ofInterCoast and its predeces-sor CAMP Network

So much has changed in thepractice of coastal manage-

ment over the past 15 years thatmy task of reviewing progress inthe field as reported by my col-leagues is intriguing. It is mygood fortune that progress hasbeen so well tracked byInterCoast newsletter and itspredecessor the Bulletin forCoastal Area Management andPlanning Network (CAMP)Network, and that the authors inthis issue have written suchexcellent retrospectives compar-ing coastal management prac-tices of earlier years with thoseof the year 2000.

In a way, CAMP was modeledafter the American LittoralSociety’s UnderwaterNaturalist; a newsletter thatbuilt each issue mainly on sub-scriber-written articles.Thisapproach seemed ideal exceptindividuals needed to be identi-fied and prompted by the editorto write these articles. CAMPwould only be a successfulnewsletter if those who sub-scribed to read about others’coastal management issues,dilemmas and solutions werewilling to share their owncoastal experiences. Fortunately,there was a very interested and

active subscriber base, thus mak-ing soliciting articles less diffi-cult. A problem was that thisapproach favored those profi-cient in English.This was over-come by the excellent workover the years by the editors tosolicit and edit articles writtenby authors who did not haveEnglish as their first language.

Publishing a newsletter mightseem like a great idea, but thecommunication, editing, print-ing and mailing takes consider-

Tracking the Success of a CoastalManagement Newsletter

The Bulletin in Coastal Area Management and Planning newslet-ter (CAMP Network) originated in a cooperative program (the

Environmental and Natural Resources Expanded Information Base)between the United States Agency for International Development(USAID) and the National Park Service (NPS). It became clear earlyin the project that interest was accelerating worldwide in the sub-ject of management and planning systems for coastal resources.Thus, in 1986, the National Park Service’s International Officeundertook this effort, and under the direction of John R. Clark,founded CAMP Network; the medium of communication amongcoastal management practitioners worldwide (see Changing Times,page 1).

CAMP Network began with the goal, “to bring you news of meet-ings, training sessions, and publications, as well as occasional com-munications about progress in integrated coastal development, par-ticularly that which leads to sustainable use of renewable resources.”It started as a five-page, unbound newsletter reaching a handful ofcoastal managers interested in sharing their experiences. Its reader-ship quickly grew, and as a result its articles became more diverse.In 1987, John left the NPS, but continued as CAMP’s editor.The Sea

able time and effort, and most ofall, it takes money and dedication.These problems were addressed in1986 when the National ParkService’s International Officeencouraged me to create and dis-tribute the CAMP newsletter freeto all who wished to subscribe.Through these efforts, the CAMPnewsletter became the interna-tional medium of communicatingamong practicing coastal manage-ment practitioners. Fortunately,when I left the National ParkService in 1987, though Iremained editor until 1990, MelGoodwin enabled distribution of

Changing Times: CoastalManagement 1986 to 2000

(continued page 3)

INTERCOAST • Fall 20002

(continued from page 1)

Editor: Stephen B. OlsenManaging Editor: Noëlle F. LewisDesigner: Matt Castigliego

InterCoast is an internation-al newsletter of coastal man-agement, published three timeseach year by the CoastalResources ManagementProject of the University ofRhode Island's CoastalResources Center (CRC) andthe U.S. Agency forInternational Development(USAID). Funding to publishInterCoast is provided byUSAID's Global EnvironmentCenter, and the NationalInstitute for Coastal andMarine Mangement,TheNetherlands.

InterCoast’s objective is tofacilitate information exchangeon coastal management.Readers are invited to contactNoëlle F. Lewis, managing editor, with contributions,questions and comments.

InterCoastNoëlle F. LewisCoastal Resources CenterUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansett, Rhode Island02882 USATel: 401-874-6870Fax: 401-789-4670E-mail:[email protected]: http://crc.uri.edu

We invite others to reprintarticles found in InterCoast.Please notify Noëlle F. Lewis.

COASTAL RESOURCES CENTERUniversity of Rhode Island

the newsletter through the SeaGrant program of theUniversity of South Carolina,USA. In 1990, Stephen Olsenand Jens Sorensen of the CoastalResources Center (CRC),University of Rhode Island,USA facilitated the adoption ofCAMP (and its 1,200 sub-scribers from over 117 nationsand territories) by CRC, whohave continued to publish it todate.To reflect the changingrole of the newsletter, in 1991,its name was changed toInterCoast Network newslet-ter).

The idea of Noëlle F. Lewis,the current editor, to do thisretrospective issue was appeal-ing because it provides anopportunity for coastal practi-tioners to reflect on progressduring a major period of coastalmanagement transition-the 80sthrough to 2000. Below I try tocapture the highlights fromsome of the contributingauthors who reported onchange during the last twodecades.

In their article, Alan Whiteand Evelyn Deguit (page 6)reflect on advances in communi-ty-based approaches to coastalmanagement from 1987.Theyconclude that progress has beenmade but that in countries likethe Philippines, the processneeds to be scaled up to ‘moreintegrated management ofcoastal areas’ requiring bettermultiple-sector involvement andcommunity support.Theauthors also favor a reversedirection to currently popularapproaches; that is, they empha-size the need to expand fromindependent community pro-jects back to integrated nation-wide programs.

Alasdair Edwards (director ofthe M.Sc. program in coastal

management at the Universityof Newcastle upon Tyne)reports (page 24) a major shiftin the university’s curriculum,from “fundamental science” to“applied problems and solu-tions,” reflecting the growingneed for broadly trained coastalmanagers during the last 13years. Alastair also mentions a“dramatic change” in trainingprograms provided by therecent upsurge in electroniccommunication.

Jens Sorensen (page 20) givesa retrospective assessment of theCoastal Zone (CZ) conferenceseries that takes place in theUSA biennially (1978-1999).The format of CZ 2001 (page21) deviates from the earlierconferences, perhaps to catchthe interest of the ‘baby-boomers.’ It appears that musicof the 80s is the major theme ofthe 2001 conference inCleveland, Ohio, USA.

Sue Wells (page 8), reportingon global coral reef status overthe past eight years, indicatesthat the resource trend is down-wards. In spite of intensiveefforts at community manage-ment, integrative frameworks,capacity building, and so forth,overall health of coral reefresources has declined. Much ofthe decline comes from externalpressures like global warming,tourism, and internationaltrade. Hope seems to lie withincreased global awareness ofthe coral dilemma and moreenergetic programs for compre-hensive conservation programsat the local level.

Jim Kapetsky (page 10)reports that in 12 years, aqua-culture/mariculture productionhas increased by three to four-fold. Oysters, prawns, and sea-weed were the major crops.Kapetsky reported in 1988 thatlack of information was a major

Changing Times

(continued page 36)

ript o tiny

INTERCOAST • Fall 2000 3

works that can accommodate abroad diversity of coastal man-agement initiatives.The steps inthe policy cycle are thereforepared down to the essence—step 1, identify and analyzeissues; step 2, formulate a planof action; step 3, formulatecommitment to a set of actions;step 4, implement; and step 5,evaluate.We have developedlists of questions to probe eachstep.

In the past several years, thesesimple methods have beenapplied to a number of evalua-tions of coastal managementprojects in developing countriessponsored by bilateral donors,development banks, and theGlobal Environment Facility(GEF) with varying degrees ofinvolvement by national govern-ments, private businesses andnongovernmental organizations.These have provided a diversityof settings to sort out what theproject designs hoped toachieve, and what was achievedin a project cycle that typically

By Stephen Olsen

The Bulletin for Coastal AreaManagement and Planning

(CAMP Network) and its suc-cessor InterCoast Networknewsletter have traced an explo-sion of interest worldwide inthe accelerating change ourspecies is bringing to coastalregions, and the various formsof coastal management thatattempt to respond to theimpacts.When CAMP Networkbegan in 1986, the investmentsin coastal management in devel-oping tropical countries, wherethe processes of change aremost rapid, were virtuallynonexistent.Today, there arehundreds of initiatives, and theinvestments by internationaldonors, development banks,national governments, and in afew cases, business interests, arein the hundreds of millions ofdollars.

In 1997, InterCoast newslet-ter reported on a survey of howthose investing in coastal man-agement were evaluating what

they got for their money.Wefound that most evaluationfocuses mainly on internalprocesses of project perfor-mance and accountability.Although there was great inter-est among those surveyed, rela-tively little was being done toobjectively assess what wasbeing learned or what outcomesmight be attributed to coastalmanagement initiatives beyondthe narrow scope of the placesand people directly benefitingfrom the investments.The sur-vey contributed to framing a‘common methodology forlearning’ initiative that has sub-sequently proposed simpleframeworks by which initiativescan be grouped according totheir scope and to the progressthey have made.We have sug-gested that progress can beorganized by grouping activitiesinto the familiar steps in theprocess by which all public poli-cy evolves and by a sequence oforders of outcomes.The idea isto use simple and elastic frame-

Sustaining ICM Initiatives in the Tropics

(continued page 34)

19

97

t

o

20

00

Grant program of the University of South Carolina, USA,undertook publishing CAMP.In 1990, after four years and eleven newsletters, CAMP was transferred to the Coastal Resources

Center (CRC) at the University of Rhode Island, USA, under the direction of Stephen Olsen and JensSorensen. At that time, there were over 1,200 subscribers in 117 nations and territories. In April 1991(issue #14), CAMP was renamed InterCoast Network to better portray its evolution into a newsletterthat reached resource managers, government officials and national and international organizations.

Today InterCoast is a 36-page, two-color publication. It continues to be published at CRC and is avail-able electronically (http://crc.uri.edu/comm/htmlpubs/ic/index.html). Its current subscriber list isover 2,000; however, certain issues of InterCoast have been received by over 4,000 subscribers.

Over the 14 years of its existence, CAMP/InterCoast’s subscriber-written approach has allowed hun-dreds of practitioners interested in coastal management to contribute articles and learn from others’experiences. Contributors have come from all walks of life and written on a wide range of issues.CAMP/InterCoast was able to provide otherwise unavailable information to those interested in coastalresources management. It is important to acknowledge that the dedication of many coastal managementpractitioners is what has made InterCoast the internationally respected newsletter it is today.

Noëlle F. Lewis has been editor of InterCoast since 1997.

Tracking Success(continued from page 1)


By Richard Kenchington

The pioneer marine protect-ed areas (MPAs)–Fort

Jefferson National Monument inFlorida, USA, in 1934 andGreen Island and reef inQueensland, Australia, in 1937–reflected a need for specific siteprotection rather than a reflec-tion of the need to protect anecological system. Despite a his-tory dating to the 1930s, mostof the development on the ideaof systematic protection ofmarine ecosystems has occurredin recent decades.The WorldCongress on National Parks, in1962, was one of the first inter-national conservation meetingsto address this from the conser-vation perspective.

Despite its history, the con-cept of MPAs was still quitenovel in 1988 (CAMP Network,June 1988, “FisheriesManagement and MarineProtected Areas”). Since thattime, the concept has developedwith two main roles and objec-tives.The first, most familiarfrom the terrestrial nationalpark precedents, is that of strictprotection of examples ofecosystems and their biological

diversity as refuges, referencesites and remnants of a naturalheritage otherwise displaced byhuman activities or vulnerableto such displacement.The sec-ond has a broader role as anessential and active componentof integrated management forconservation and sustainable useof marine environments andnatural resources.This secondrole can be particularly impor-tant in the quest for demonstra-bly sustainable fisheries manage-ment which has more signifi-cance as a result of the acknowl-edged collapse of many fisheriesin the past two decades.Fisheries managers are movingbeyond a traditional focus onstocks and methods to give con-sideration of measures to pro-tect the ecosystems which sus-tain fisheries.

Issues of Scale andLinkage

Development of the marineprotection concept must reflectthe scale and linkage of ecosys-tems. A planktonic larva, oranything else, drifting for amonth in the water column at 1 knot will travel more than1,000 kilometers.The biological

communities of a definedsite on the seabed and inthe water column aboveit have generally originat-ed from far away.Thosecommunities are likely tobe routinely affected bybiological, chemical andphysical factors occur-ring well outside theirboundaries. In turn, theymay contribute throughlarval supply to therecruitment of species atother distant sites.

The scale and linkage ofmarine ecosystems mean that itis generally difficult to addresstheir conservation within usualframeworks of jurisdictional andsectoral separation of responsi-bilities that have served reason-ably well for terrestrial situa-tions.

The issue here is that the con-cept of a protected area that canbe managed in effective isolationfrom activities in surroundingareas is not ecologically tenable.The ecosystem processes lead tothe concept of a network ofprotected areas that are part of abroader approach to sustainablemanagement.This requires amore holistic approach to plan-ning and management, a definedframework in which users andsectoral managers work togeth-er rather than compete with orignore each other.This requiresdeliberate attention to address-ing the ecological, social, andeconomic considerations simul-taneously.

Issues of CultureCulturally, the sea has been

about ships, fish, and fishing.Management of the sea has cus-tomarily been the managementof shipping and fishing with lim-ited interaction between thetwo and virtually no need toconsider other activities andinterests.

Almost all human coastal andmarine cultures have developedwith the concept of the ‘bound-less’ or ‘mighty’ ocean, capableof providing forever becausethere are always ‘plenty morefish in the sea.’There is also theconcept of the sea as receiver ofwastes; what we add is ‘just adrop in the ocean,’ and the

Fisheries Management and Marine ProtectedAreas–A 2000 Perspective

Reef fish

19

88

t

o2

00

0


ocean is the great sink for whatwe would prefer to be ‘out ofsight and out of mind.’

For much of the maritimeworld, the resources of the seaare common to all.The right togo fishing in the sea is often adeeply held element of the free-dom of the individual.Whilethere are many long traditionsof fishing restriction, they relatelargely to protecting a localcommunity resource from localover-use or from incursions byoutsiders.These restrictions didnot displace the concept of anundamageable ocean, but theirpurpose was a local, social, andeconomic imperative from timesbefore the capacity to travellong distances and to take andpreserve catches.

Tradition flowing fromRoman law assigns the sea andits products as common proper-ty, available to all. For thosewith skill, determination, inge-nuity, and bravery, the seas werethe source of wealth and thefoundation of fortunes.However, there is now a generalacceptance of the need to man-age, but a spectrum of views onhow to manage.The need is fora holistic approach within whichthere are strictly protected areasand also clear rights, guidelines,and performance criteria.This isto ensure uses are sustainableand the privilege of access ismatched by the responsibility ofdemonstrating sustainability. Ineffect, this reverses the old bur-den-of-proof from ‘no restric-tion without demonstrated dam-age’ to ‘no continuing accesswithout demonstrated sustain-ability.’

There cannot be effectivemanagement without seriousinvolvement of all sectorsthrough a framework of clearlydefined roles and mutual under-

standing and acceptance of rolesand responsibilities.This doesnot sit easily with many of thetraditions of business and gover-nance which flow from the con-cepts that ‘good fences makegood neighbors’, and withinyour fence or area of responsi-bility, you look after your ownbusiness.The need for an inclu-sive approach is further compli-cated by the importance ofland/sea effects and the longrange of ocean currents. Multi-sectoral management must havethe capacity to reach collabora-tive arrangements across inter-nal land/sea boundaries, andmore generally, with neighbor-ing jurisdictions.

Multi-Use ManagementThere now seems to be gen-

eral acceptance that manage-ment of uses and the creation ofprotected areas are the elementsnecessary for sustainable use ofmarine environments.Conceptually, the means shouldbe a series of uses managedwithin plans and performancecriteria, and a system for allo-cating uses to areas which mini-mizes conflict.This then estab-lishes an assured basis for sus-tainability and provides a systemof representative protectedareas.The issue is how to createan effective management sys-tem.

Great Barrier ReefMarine Park

The Great Barrier ReefMarine Park (GBRMP) was thefirst attempt to address the scaleand complexity of marineecosystem and resource useinvolving multiple use manage-ment at the scale of an ecosys-tem. Its establishment resultedin a protected ecosystem some350,000 square kilometers.TheGBRMP’s underlying frame-

Sea Slug

work is provided by a system ofzoning that was put in place in1988.This framework identifiesthe purposes for which eachpart of the marine park may beused or entered.

Conservation or preservationof sites is addressed by catego-rized zones that cover some 5percent of the total park area.There is currently a review pro-gram that will ensure there areviable representative examplesof all ecosystems in the GreatBarrier Reef.These areas will behighly protected.

Multiple use is addressed by anumber of defined zones whichcover about 80 percent of themarine park and provide for abroad range of activities includ-ing trawl fishing.

The GBRMP plans and regu-lations provide a strategicframework within which activi-ties must occur on a sustainablebasis.The Great Barrier Reef isalso a World Heritage Area, giv-ing Australia the internationalobligations to protect its out-standing natural heritage.Withinthat framework, managementplans are required for fisheries,and environmental impactassessments are required forother activities. Subject to thoserequirements, and subject to thedefined limitations of themarine park zoning plans andregulations, management activi-

(continued page 32)


By Alan T.White andEvelyn Deguit

More than 10 years ago inan article for CAMP

Network, August 1987, “WhyPublic Participation is Importantfor Marine Protected Areas,” Iwrote about the virtues of com-munity education and participa-tion as the basis for successfulcoastal resource management(CRM). I stated: “Education andgood examples (pilot projects)can show and remind peoplewhat is possible in terms of sus-tainable use and the value ofcoastal resources. But educationis not participation. Participa-tion comes from wanting tosupport common values to gainsome real or perceived benefitfor the individual and communi-ty.Without it, marine resourcescan never be conserved and sus-tained because ‘enforcement’ oflaws in such a commons is notpracticable.When people decideto ‘participate,’ they as resourceusers will make the real differ-ence in resource area manage-ment... Once resource usersdecide to participate and receivethe associated benefits, theprocess will perpetuate itself.”

This is still true, but our per-spective on what constitutes‘community-based’ CRM hasevolved to include more thanthe hope that communities,once educated and empowered,will accomplish the task alone.Both our understanding of thesituation and the legal and insti-tutional context have changedsince the 1980s in thePhilippines.

Generally, the Philippine’s18,000 km of coastline areunder siege from a variety of

activities and impacts which areeroding the natural resourcebase and the area’s potential forfuture sustainable use.The lackof control of almost all develop-ment in the coastal zone issymptomatic and indicative ofwhat is to come if muchstronger and more effectiveinstitutions and procedures forintegrated coastal management(ICM) are not put into place inthe near future.The challengesof coastal management are ofsuch magnitude that Philippineinstitutions are beginning torespond with more concern andintegrated approaches than inthe past. But, the path ahead isstill not well defined.

An important question iswhether the current, communi-ty-based approaches can be suc-cessful in stemming the tide ofresource degradation andincreasing poverty in coastalareas.The Philippines is oftenlooked to for models in ‘com-munity-based coastal manage-ment’ where many well-designed and successful projectsexist or have accomplished theirobjectives.Yet, given this out-wardly positive trend as oftenvoiced in the literature or sug-gested by the organizationsresponsible for successful pro-jects, what are the real trendsand what will be needed toscale-up community-basedefforts to more integrated man-agement of coastal areas in thecountry?

Evolution of CoastalManagement in thePhilippines

In recent years, the develop-ment of coastal management inthe Philippines has been influ-

enced by two major forces.Thefirst is a series of donor-assistedprojects that have provided anumber of large experiments inCRM, or now referred to asICM.The second major influ-ence is the devolution of author-ity to the local governments(municipal and provincial).

The challenge created by thedevolution of coastal manage-ment responsibility is that fewcoastal municipal governmentsin the country have the capacityto manage their naturalresources.They generally lacktrained personnel, budget, andtechnical knowledge. In spite ofthese limitations, the motivationamong municipal governmentsto manage their resources isincreasing rapidly as they realizethe seriousness of the problem,and what they stand to lose if noaction is taken.Thus, the oppor-tunity to improve ICM in thecountry is tremendous given the832 coastal municipalities bor-dering the extensive coastline.Yet, the realized gains in coastalresource management are small.

A key lesson generated bycoastal management projects todate is that it is extremely diffi-cult to plan and implement suc-cessful ICM programs without amulti-sector approach that hassufficient support from the gov-ernment and its partners, and astrong level of acceptanceamong the resource dependentcommunities. It is still difficultto claim success for ICM in anyof the major projects except at avery localized level where thegeographic scope is small andthe number of stakeholders lim-ited. How can these successesbe scaled up?

Philippine Community-Based CoastalManagement: Evolution and Challenges

19

87

to

20

00


ment friendly enterpries�Implementation of limited

access regimes such as marinesanctuaries

�Formation and strengtheningof CRM organizations

�Training in skills relevant forICM planning and implementa-tion

�Local government units allo-cating budget for ICM

�Legal instruments requiredfor effective support of ICM

�Policy analysis and formula-tion

�Participatory monitoring andevaluation

One important differencefrom the past is these key activi-ties must be fully integratedwith local municipal, city andprovincial governments.National agencies have animportant supportive role toplay, but no longer have the fullresponsibility for environmentalmanagement as in the past.Thischanges their orientation.

Challenges AheadSeveral themes that will most

likely permeate coastal manage-ment discussions in thePhilippines and in other tropicaldeveloping countries are sug-gested below. Future ICM pro-jects need to incorporate moreefforts to address these con-cerns.Expanding from communitylevel to nationwide projectsThere will increasingly be ques-tions about how this can bedone, particularly in relation tonational policy frameworks forsupport. Scale of effort and geo-graphic extent of projects areconcerns that need more analy-sis in relation to governmentcapacity to govern and theirredefined roles.Building local governmentcapacity in meaningful ways

New Directions forCoastal Management

Past experience in thePhilippines shows that an essen-tial element of successful coastalmanagement is active participa-tion by the entire community.This includes day-to-dayresource users such as fishersand other local stakeholders. Atthe same time, while communi-ty-based ICM has come a longway since its birth among small,fairly isolated islands, communi-ty-based interventions alonehave not solved critical ICMproblems.With the passage ofthe Local Government Code in1991 and the 1998 FisheriesCode, the responsibility formanaging municipal waters andthe resources therein has largelydevolved to the local govern-ment level.With these realitiesin mind, current trends and newparadigms in coastal manage-ment in the Philippines include:

�ICM replacing fisheriesdevelopment and habitat man-agement approaches of the past

�Local government unitsassuming responsibility and allo-cating resources to managemunicipal waters and resources

�A redefined role of nationalgovernment agencies to providetechnical assistance to local gov-ernment in ICM and to influ-ence policy formulation, modifi-cation and clarification

�Multi-sector collaborationbecoming essential to solvecomplex ICM problems

Key activities presently seenas essential for success at thecommunity and local govern-ment level include:

�Participatory coastalresource assessments

�Participatory and ICM plan-ning

�Economic development forresource users through environ-

This follows again from nationalpolicy and how local govern-ments support localized ICMefforts. A key may be how tobuild more local leadership withemphasis on technical skills.Obtaining increased environ-mental budgets needs exploring.Developing a broader environ-mental management frameworkA link between watershed man-agement, waste managementand other pollution problemswith ICM is becoming critical inmany areas.Developing databases that workand are practical to maintainMeasuring success and returnsin any form requires keepingtrack of certain data over time.Databases and how to make allkinds of information systemswork in the context of ICM formeasuring change over time isessential.Measuring changes in environ-mental quality Environmentalparameters need to be betterunderstood in the context ofcommunity management andmonitored both for the mea-surement of success in the pro-gram and as an incentive forlocal participation to continueand increase.Designing institutional arrange-ments with local and nationalgovernment The reality emerg-ing in the Philippines is that col-laborative management is theonly means to sustainability ofcommunity institutions.Institutional arrangements thatinclude municipalities, nationalagencies, nongovernment orga-nizations, academia and othersare becoming the norm andneeds further refinement andmore working models.Linking population programs tonatural resources managementThis is needed to highlight the

(continued page 31)


By Sue Wells

In 1992 I was asked to write anarticle for InterCoast #17 on

‘successful’ coral reef manage-ment programs. I remembergrappling with the topic andasking myself:What do we meanby ‘successful’ coral reef man-agement? Are there any coralreef management programs thathave been running long enough,or that have been well enoughdocumented, to judge them suc-cessful? Being asked eight yearslater to contribute an article onthis issue, I reread my earlierarticle and discovered very littlehas changed.What were per-ceived as potential ingredientsfor success then, differ littlefrom those being promotedtoday.These include:

�Involving local communitiesin decisionmaking and manage-ment

�Ensuring appropriate liveli-hoods for those immediatelydependent on reefs for theirincome

�Developing integratedcoastal management frameworksfor coral reef management

�Involving the tourism anddive industries

�Identifying mechanisms forsustainable financing

�Promoting training andcapacity building

�Establishing long-term mon-itoring programs

If the priority ingredients forsuccess remain much the same,other things have changed. Mostdepressingly, the overall healthof reefs at a global scale hasdeclined, largely as a result ofthe extensive bleaching eventsthat occurred in different parts

of the world, particularly in thelatter part of the 1990s. Recentreports have shown that in somecountries reefs have sufferedsevere coral mortality, althoughthere are places where goodcoral recovery and new recruit-ment is underway.This hasshown that reef health dependson factors that go far beyondindividual management efforts,and that apply in all parts of theworld. It is clear that individualsand activities in developedcountries far from these tropicalecosystems have an impactthrough global warming, con-sumption, trade, tourism and ahost of other issues.

The rapid decline of reefhealth triggered a majorresponse at international andnational levels. In 1995 thisincluded the launch of theInternational Coral ReefInitiative (ICRI) with its Call toAction. ICRI has becomeincreasingly active over the lastfew years, developing aRenewed Call to Action at theInternational Tropical MarineEcosystem ManagementSymposium (ITMEMS) in 1998.The International Year of theReef in 1997, followed by theInternational Year of the Oceansin 1998, drew much neededpublic attention to the plight ofreefs and resulted in many ini-tiatives at local, national andinternational levels for theirconservation. Numerous moni-toring and assessment programshave been set up at national,regional and global levels toincrease our knowledge on reefstatus.The Global Coral ReefMonitoring Network (GCRMN)is now in operation in several

regions; Reef Check, the com-munity-based component ofGCRMN has increasing partici-pation in its annual globalassessment; and ReefBase (theglobal reef database program),the United Nations Environ-mental Programme WorldConservation MonitoringCentre and other agencies, havecontinued their programs togather information.These initia-tives have contributed to a bet-ter understanding of the globalpicture.

As a result, coral reefs arenow on the agenda of globalconventions including theConvention on BiologicalDiversity and the RamsarConvention (Convention onWetlands of InternationalImportance), and have beenbrought to the attention ofother major international forasuch as the Commission onSustainable Development.Thespring 1999 issue of InterCoaston coral reefs elaborated onmany of these initiatives.Thisissue also provided good exam-ples of the new approaches andinnovative mechanisms for reefmanagement now underway.Just as the theme advisor of thatissue (#34), Lynne Hale, said inher article Optimism orPessimism? The Future ofCoral Reefs, I am also unsurewhether to feel optimistic orpessimistic about the future ofcoral reefs.

Perhaps it would be useful toreflect on some of the newtrends in reef management thatare emerging, illustrating themwith some of the initiativesunderway in Eastern Africa andthe Western Indian Ocean.

Tackling Root CausesThere is now a better under-

standing of the importance of

Emerging Trends in ReefManagement: Eastern Africa

19

92

t

o

20

00


careful identification of thesocial, political and economicissues that lead to reef degrada-tion and of the changes requiredthat will lead to reef recoveryand sustainable use. It is recog-nized that managing reefs is inreality about managing peopleand promoting behaviouralchanges that benefit, rather thannegatively impact, reefs.To pro-mote this, a training workshopon socioeconomic assessment isbeing organized in the EasternAfrica region. At Diani, an areaof the Kenya coast south ofMombasa, where managementof the reef has been an issue ofconflict for many years, a newapproach is being developedstarting with an in-depth analy-sis of the social, economic andcultural issues. It is hoped thatthis study, carried out by theCoast Development Authorityand facilitated by The WorldConservation Union (IUCN),will lead to a managementmodel that will be fully partici-patory and more solution ori-ented.

Increasingly, initiatives thatstarted primarily as ‘biodiversityconservation’ interventions,such as establishing a marineprotected area (MPA), areevolving into collaborativeefforts by all the stakeholders todevelop mutually beneficial pro-grams. Coral reef managementis being seen much more ‘as away of life,’ rather than just as aseries of short-term projects. Atthe same time, it is still difficultto make sure that communitiesdependent on reefs have thequality of life and assured liveli-hoods they need.

Involving fishers directly inreef management is invaluable.As data continues to accumulateshowing the benefit of closingreefs to fishing, fishing villagesthemselves are taking the initia-

tive to designate such areas. Inthe Tanga Region of Tanzania,fishing communities are nowdeveloping their own fisheriesmanagement plans, whichinclude reef closures amongother measures. Similarly, in theComores, a proposed zoningscheme for the collaboratively-managed marine park, each vil-lage involved has designated ano-fishing zone.The role ofother ‘alternative’ or ‘supple-mental’ livelihoods, such as sea-weed farming, handicrafts andecotourism (both being promot-ed extensively in the EastAfrican region) in reducingpressure on reefs is less wellunderstood, and further analysisof these activities is needed.

Sustainable FinancingThe economics of coral reef

management is being givenmore attention. Efforts to putmonetary values on reefs andtheir uses (such as fisheries andtourism) are helping to convincedecisionmakers, planners andpoliticians of the role of healthyreefs in the sustainable develop-ment of a country.The CoralReef Degradation in the IndianOcean (CORDIO) program hasbeen looking at the socioeco-nomic impact of the bleachingevent in countries such as theSeychelles and Maldives.

Equally important is the needto find mechanisms to ensurethe financial sustainability of

reef management. InEastern Africa, as in manyregions, decreases in donorfunding, revenue from tourism,and government subventions aremeaning that income for MPAsand other forms of coastal man-agement are declining. Forexample, in both Kenya andSeychelles, declining numbers ofvisitors to MPAs have resultedin a decrease in income fromentrance fees.Various solutionsare being proposed to remedythis, and efforts are now under-way to test them. In Kenya,where entrance fees to MPAsprovide a large proportion ofthe management agency–KenyaWildlife Service–funding for,the centralized approach tomanagement and the lack ofresources has had noticeablenegative effect on effective man-agement. In the Comores, plansare underway to establish anEnvironmental Trust Fund toprovide support for manage-ment of the new marine park.In Tanga, where tourism is notyet sufficiently developed toprovide funding for reef man-agement, methods to improverevenue from fishing are beingdeveloped. A forthcomingreview of sustainable financingactivities for coastal manage-ment in the Eastern Africanregion, sponsored by theSecretariat for Eastern AfricaCoastal Area Management (SEA-

(continued page 30)

Confiscated dynamite


By James M. Kapetsky

For the June 1988 issue ofCAMP Network, I wrote a

short article entitled “Planningfor Aquaculture: InformationManagement” about usingGeographic Information System(GIS) and remote sensing to fillinformation gaps.The final para-graph stated that “The signifi-cance of this approach to coastalarea planning and managementis clear: better all-around alloca-tion of coastal lands and watersthrough incorporation of aqua-culture to coastal areas wheremost appropriate, and conse-quent lessening of competitionand friction with other users;improved success in aquacultureby comprehensive matching ofaquaculture technologies withthe natural environmental,human and financial resources.”

This follow-up article has twopurposes, one is to show, inbrief overview, how aquaculturehas changed in quantitativeterms, from 1984 to 1998 (thedata set available). Coincident-ally, that period spans the histo-ry of GIS applications in aqua-culture and corresponds wellwith the period since my articlewas written 12 years ago.Thus,the second purpose of this arti-cle is to show how GIS applica-tions in aquaculture haveevolved over the same period.

The Evolution ofAquaculture

From 1984-1998 brackishwater aquaculture production ofanimals has increased 3.4 fold,mariculture 3.5 fold and inlandculture 4.6 fold. Production ofseaweeds and other plants hasincreased two fold over a lesser

period, from 1989-1998.Production of aquacultured ani-mals from inland areas isapproximately equal to maricul-ture, but brackish water aqua-culture is much less important(Figure 1). In production, thePacific cupped oyster was thetop maricultured species in1998, the giant tiger prawn wasthe top species cultured inbrackish water and the top cul-tured seaweed was the Japanesekelp. Aquaculture animal pro-duction and value are greatly

skewed among continental areaswith Asia, by far, the mostimportant continent (Figure 2).

The Evolution of GISApplications inAquaculture

My 1988 article was writtenwith a rather narrow focus:overcoming constraints on aqua-culture development from adeveloping country’s perspec-tive. My perception was that thelack of information on aquacul-ture potential was one of thebasic constraints on planning fordevelopment. My belief was thatGIS and remote sensing couldgo a long way towards filling theinformation gap. I still hold that

belief, but now it is the sustain-ability of aquaculture that is thefundamental issue. It is an issuethat takes in both developmentand management in the contextof other uses of land and water.The sustainability of aquacultureencompasses many other relatedissues that have spatial elements.It is these that open the door fora broad spectrum of applicationsof GIS.

A Survey of GISApplications inAquaculture

The information used in thisarticle was compiled for a bookchapter on GIS applications inaquaculture.The compilation is

based on a recent survey, from aglobal perspective, of AquaticSciences and Fisheries Abstracts’searches of websites and myown collection of materials inprint and as electronic files.There are 102 examples of GISapplications in aquaculture that Ihave categorized as shown inTable 1.

Survey Results The findings include:�GIS applications in aquacul-

ture date only from 1985�The great majority of GIS

applications were aimed atcoastal aquaculture, while nearlyall of the remainder were forinland areas. Only one applica-tion was offshore.

Aquaculture Planning:Information Management Using GIS–Then and Now

Figure 1. Evolution of aquaculture of animals by environment, and of seaweeds and other plants

0

5

10

15

20

25

1984

1985

1986

1987

1988

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

tons

(m

illio

ns)

Brackishwater cultureFreshwater cultureMaricultureSeaweeds, other plants

19

88

t

o

20

00


�Geographical gaps are evi-dent in the patchiness of GISapplications within large coun-tries, and also among countries,regions and continents.Twoexamples suffice: 1) althoughthe largest number of GIS appli-cations in aquaculture is in theUSA, only 14 of 50 states arerepresented, and 2) althoughabout 83 percent of aquacultureproduction and 91 percent ofaquaculture value come fromAsia, only about 20 percent ofthe GIS applications cover thatcontinental area.

�GIS aimed at aquaculturedevelopment is relatively wellcovered (Table 1), and it isencouraging that there are stud-ies in the important area ofanticipating the consequences ofaquaculture. In the realm of GISapplications in culture practiceand management, apparently lit-tle attention has been given tothe environmental impacts ofaquaculture.This is surprisingbecause of the widespread con-cern for this matter.There are arelatively small number of GISapplications in the category‘Planning for aquacultureamong other uses of land andwater.’ I set this category apartto emphasize that the futuredevelopment of aquaculture willfollow a much smoother path ifthe requirements and conse-quences of its development

become morewidely known,particularly, ifaquaculture isintegrated intomulti-sectordevelopmentand manage-ment plans.Along contrast-ing lines, it isencouraging tosee that GIS isbeing employedto gauge uses ofland and waterother than foraquaculturewhile planningfor aquaculturedevelopment.

ConclusionsConsidering the vital role that

GIS might play in providingcomprehensive information forplanning for the developmentand management of aquaculture,the potential of GIS is as yetlargely unrealized as indicatedby the remarkably few applica-tions in evidence.

Use of GIS in aquaculture canexpand, if technical personneltake it upon themselves toensure that mid- and upper-level managers are made awareof the potential benefits of GIS.

There is great potential forGIS to more broadly take into

account competing uses of landand water in the context ofplanning for the developmentand management of aquaculture.Likewise, the aquaculture sectorcan be better represented inmulti-sectoral planning. But, itsneeds for land and water, andthe consequences of aquaculture(both the positive and the nega-tive: environmental, economicand social) must be better quali-fied, quantified and communi-cated more widely. GIS is one ofthe tools to achieve this end.

[Until last year, Dr. Kapetskywas with the United NationsFood and AgricultureOrganization, Inland WaterResources and AquacultureService, Rome, Italy.]

For further information,contact James M. Kapetsky,C-FAST,Inc., Consultants inFisheries and AquacultureSciences and Technologies,5410 Marina Club Drive,Wilmington, North Carolina28409-4103 USA. Tel & Fax:910-794-9492. E-mail:[email protected] [email protected]

Figure 2. Aquaculture value and production of animals in 1998 by continental area

05

101520253035404550

Africa America,North

America,South

Asia Europe Oceania

Value (billion dollars)Production (million tons)

Table 1. Categories and numbers of GIS applications inaquacultureGIS Training and Promotion

�Training (7)�Promotion of GIS (13)

GIS Aimed at Development�Suitability of the site (16)�Strategic planning for aquaculture development (20)�Anticipating the consequences of aquaculture (8)�Web-based aquaculture information systems (1)�Marketing (1)

GIS in Culture Practice and Management�Inventory and monitoring of aquaculture and the environment (24)�Environmental impacts of aquaculture (2)�Restoration of aquaculture habitats (1)

Multi-Sectoral Planning that Includes Aquaculture�Management of aquaculture together with fisheries (3)�Planning for aquaculture among other uses of land and water (6)


seen increasingly in the contextof larger management units,such as river basins, naturalareas or coastal complexes.Recognition of the place of wet-lands within geomorphologicalunits has provided a new under-standing and new linkages, buthas not always led to better ormore integrated management.

Considerable problems havebeen experienced for a longtime, and continue to be experi-enced, when tropical coastalwetland conservation comesinto conflict with developmentplans. Despite all the coastalmanagement and planning pro-grams and integrated coastalzone management, there is stilla net loss of mangroves andtropical salt marshes worldwide,including throughout theAmericas and in the InsularCaribbean in particular. Coastalwetlands, even when defined ascomponents of larger geograph-ical units, are readily replacedby port, urban, tourism and res-idential developments becauseof their perceived low economicvalue. Government agencies anddevelopers are often notimpressed by generic argumentsthat mangroves are important(say for fish nursery or wildlifehabitat) when many mangrovesites obviously are not. If onecould demonstrate more clearlythat it is the integration ofcoastal wetlands into broadersystems that supports overallresource production, rather thantheir site values in isolation, theeconomic equations would bequite different.

In this regard, the RamsarWetlands Bureau has greatlyadvanced tropical wetland con-servation by broadening the def-inition of coastal wetland andgiving emphasis to fully utilizing

By Peter Bacon

In the article “Fitting WetlandsConservation into Integrated

CAMP Programs” in CAMPNetwork, June 1988, I wrotethat coastal wetland conserva-tion in tropical countries washindered because there waswidespread disagreement aboutwhat a wetland was, and thatthis resulted in ill defined man-agerial responsibility for wet-land ecosystems at the land/seainterface.

At that time, at least in theLatin America and CaribbeanRegion with which I was famil-iar, most people thought that‘tropical coastal wetland’ meanta stand of mangrove plants.Consequently, these tended tobe managed by a governmentforestry or conservation depart-ment independently from man-agement of the seacoast, estuaryor lagoon beside which theygrew; without any obvious needfor integration in coastal zoneplanning.

Furthermore, because of thelow diversity and simple zona-tion/distribution pattern ofmangrove species in the tropicalAmericas, the idea of a generaluniformity in coastal wetlandswas widespread.To some extentthis hindered research because itwas thought that once we knewsomething about a mangrove

community in Puerto Rico, forexample, the same must applyto one in Colombia or Barbuda.Thus, there was a somewhatgeneric approach to mangrovemanagement that had highlight-ed mangrove ecosystem diversi-ty–despite the extensive workof V.J. Chapman, of Bruce Thomin Mexico, and Derek Scott andMontserrat Carbonnel through-out Latin America.

An understanding of man-grove site differences camegradually as national coastalwetland inventories wereimproved in the early 1990s.The methodological approachesof the US National WetlandInventory, the InternationalWaterfowl & Wetlands Bureau,the Tropical Forestry ActionPlan, and the RamsarInternational WetlandsConvention Bureau were allinstrumental in this regard.However, it took a long time forboth researchers and managersto realize that coastal wetlands(still narrowly defined as man-groves and salt marshes) arecomponents of larger systemunits; and that site differencesrelated to the environmentalcontext in which the wetlandhad developed.

Through coastal managementand planning programs and anumber of national initiatives,wetland conservation has been

Redefining Tropical Coastal Wetlands1

98

8

to

2

00

0

Coastline of Xcalak, Mexico


wetland resources and values.Perhaps of greatest significancein this regard was the inclusionin the definition ‘areas of marinewaters the depth of which atlow tide does not exceed sixmeters’ (Article 1.1., RamsarConvention).The significance ofthis does not appear to havebeen fully appreciated until the1996 Meeting of theConference of ContractingParties to the Convention inBrisbane, Australia. Here theconference recommended thatthe Convention Bureau foster“conservation and wise use ofcoral reefs and associatedecosystems as a component ofan integrated strategy of world-wide wetland conservation.”

This put the major types oftropical nearshore ecosystems(mangroves, seagrass beds andcoral reefs) in a new light, asthey could now be managed asfunctional links in a coastal wet-land complex.This was not anew idea, but it had serious andexciting implications for coastalplanning.

In the Caribbean Region, theneed to research relationshipsbetween these wetland compo-nents generated the CaribbeanCoastal Marine Productivity(CARICOMP) program forwhich sampling stations wereestablished where coral reefs,seagrass beds and mangroves arein close geographical associa-tion. CARICOMP has greatlyenhanced our understanding ofsite differences and of ecosys-tem processes; and futureresearch will clarify and quanti-fy functional linkages.The pro-gram increasingly confirms thatthese units form part of a mutu-ally supportive coastal wetlandcomplex.This new understand-ing needs to be incorporatedinto both coastal wetland valua-tion and management planning.

An experience inQueensland,Australia, is of inter-est here. EricWolanski andNorman Duke’s arti-cle in the LOICZ(Land-OceanInteractions in theCoastal Zone)Newsletter (March14, 2000) reportsthat loss of man-groves aroundCairns has beenlinked to increasedsedimentation and turbidity onthe Great Barrier Reef, one ofAustralia’s most valuable naturalfeatures, thus illustrating theformer values of those coastalmangroves.That major man-grove-lagoon-barrier reef wet-land system is being viewedincreasingly as a functional unitfor management purposes.

Admittedly, some confusionhas occurred among wetlandmanagers with the inclusion ofcoral reefs as ‘wetlands.’However, coral reefs, thoughwell researched, suffered from alack of protective legislation andmanagement.There was nointernational convention fortheir protection.When morefully applied, the RamsarConvention will correct thisdeficiency and lead to bettermanagement, probably moreeffectively than the Coral ReefInitiative.The RamsarConvention is effective becauseit has been very determinedabout acknowledging govern-ment responsibility for conser-vation and in developing gov-ernment agency commitmentand capability.The Ramsar con-servation and managementmethodology (involving defini-tion of ‘ecological character’ and‘change in ecological charac-ter’); use of its Montreux

Record of sites under stress; andthe ‘wise use’ concept hastremendous potential if properlyapplied to tropical coastalecosystem management.

The Ramsar Bureau has alsobeen successful in moving wet-land conservation away fromdescriptive geographical studyto maximizing benefits.Their‘wise use’ managementapproach has directed attentionto those features that determinea system’s usefulness in thefunctional/resource sense.Theinclusion of reefs, seagrass bedsand other coastal ecosystemsunder the wetland umbrella willhelp to get this across, especiallywhere reefs are associated withmangroves of importance in fishnursery, nutrient exchanges andwater quality maintenance.

Although considerableprogress has been made since1988, the nature of the ecologi-cal integration within coastalwetland complexes must be bet-ter researched and publicizedbefore integrated managementcan become a reality.

For further information,contact Peter R. Bacon,Department of Life Sciences,University of the West Indies,Trinidad. E-mail:[email protected]

House on stilts


The MEDCOAST Project: 1993 to 20001

99

3

to

2

00

0By Erdal Özhan

In 1994, InterCoast #20reported on the First

International Conference onthe Mediterranean CoastalEnvironment, MEDCOAST93, 2-5 November 1993,Antalya,Turkey.The MED-COAST initiative has grown;however, MEDCOAST’s threemajor initiatives today are thesame as those in 1993:

�Development of a scientificmeeting series

�Development of humanresources (conferences, trainingprograms, networking)

�Collaborated research anddemonstration projects at theregional scale

Its goal is to enhance the inte-grated coastal and marine man-agement and conservation in theMediterranean and the BlackSea countries.

Over the period of eightyears, MEDCOAST organizedfour conferences in its well-established series: InternationalConference on theMediterranean CoastalEnvironment (Antalya,Turkey,1993;Tarragona, Spain, 1995;Qawra, Malta, 1997; Antalya,Turkey, 1999).The fourthevent, MEDCOAST 99, was aspecial occasion, as it was orga-nized jointly with the FourthInternational Conference onEnvironmental Management ofEnclosed Coastal Seas (EMECS99).The theme was Land-OceanInteractions: Managing CoastalEcosystems.The fifth event isplanned to be in Hamammet,Tunisia, in November 2001.

Additionally, MEDCOASTorganized an important interna-tional workshop on IntegratedCoastal Zone Management inthe Mediterranean & the Black

Sea: Immediate Needs forResearch, Education-Trainingand Implementation inSarigerme,Turkey, 2-5November 1996.This was incooperation with MediterraneanAction Plan/Priority ActionPrograms Regional ActivityCentre of United NationsEnvironment Programme(UNEP), and the GlobalEnvironmental Facility (GEF)Black Sea EnvironmentalProgram. Finally, a conferenceon Wind and Wave Climate ofthe Mediterranean and the BlackSea, 30 March-2 April 1999,Antalya,Turkey, took place withthe support of the TU-WAVESproject of the NATO Sciencefor Stability Program (an effortto understand the wind andwave climate affecting the BlackSea basin and other Turkishcoasts).

These scientific meetings pro-duced 12 volumes of proceed-ings (over 8,000 pages), focus-ing on the coastal and sea envi-ronment of the Mediterraneanand the Black Sea. Additionally,special MEDCOAST volumes oftwo leading international jour-nals, Ocean and CoastalManagement and Journal ofCoastal Conservation, werepublished by utilizing selectedpapers from the MEDCOASTconferences.

MEDCOAST’s training pro-grams include five events of thethree-week MEDCOASTInstitutes (‘94, ‘95, ‘96, ‘98 and‘99) and a two-day short courseprior to the MEDCOAST ‘95conference on the topic ofIntegrated Coastal Managementin the Mediterranean and theBlack Sea. Additionally, in 1995MEDCOAST started a one-week training program on Beach

Management in theMediterranean, and organizedfive successful events in 1995,1996, 1997, 1999 and 2000.Eleven international trainingprograms (1993 to 2000) pro-duced nearly 250 MEDCOASTalumni from 34 countries, someplaying leading roles in theircountries in international pro-grams or projects for developingcoastal management.

The third dimension of theMEDCOAST initiative is collab-orative research at the regionallevel on the coastal and sea envi-ronment of the Mediterraneanand the Black Sea and on man-agement issues in this region.This is done by involving thenetwork institutions in coopera-tion with the third parties.Tworesearch projects are already inprogress, one on beach manage-ment and one on the wind andwave climate of the Black Sea.The Middle East TechnicalUniversity has led these com-prehensive projects; generouslysponsored by the Science forStability Program of NATO andseven institutions from fourBlack Sea countries.MEDCOAST’s activities are runby several key people from 15Euro-Mediterranean institu-tions, forming the MEDCOASTnetwork.

Over the last eight years sinceits birth, MEDCOAST has madesignificant, measurable contribu-tions to integrated coastal man-agement in the Mediterraneanand the Black Sea by beinginstrumental in the productionand dissemination of scientificand professional information,and by developing humanresources over both basins.These have enhanced nationaland international efforts for

(continued page 28)


By Alfredo Quarto

In 1994, InterCoast #21reported on the Mangrove

Action Project (MAP), an inter-national coalition consisting ofenvironmental, human rights,and community-based groupsdedicated to protecting man-groves and the communitiesaffected by their distruction.Today, MAP is making greatstrides in raising awareness andappreciation of the mangroveecosystem. MAP aims toempower the people who mustdecide to conserve and sustain-ably manage their coastal forestareas.

Mangrove forests are one ofthe most productive and biodi-verse wetlands on earth; yet,these are among the mostthreatened habitats in the world.Mangrove forests may be disap-pearing more quickly thaninland tropical rainforests, andso far, with little public notice.Growing in the intertidal areasand estuary mouths betweenland and sea, mangroves providecritical marine and terrestrialhabitat. In addition, mangroveforests fix more carbon dioxideper unit area than phytoplank-ton in tropical oceans. Healthymangrove forests are key to ahealthy marine ecology.However, in many areas man-grove deforestation is contribut-ing to fisheries declines, degra-dation of clean water supplies,salinization of coastal soils, ero-sion, and land subsidence.

Mangrove forests once cov-ered three-quarters of the coast-lines of tropical and sub-tropicalcountries.Today, less than 50percent remain. Many factorscontribute to mangrove loss,these include the charcoal andtimber industries, urbanization,

and pollution. However, in thepast decade one of the most sig-nificant causes of mangrove for-est loss has been the consumerdemand for luxury shrimp(prawns) and the correspondingexpansion of destructive meth-ods of export-oriented shrimpaquaculture.To satisfy demand,vast tracts of mangrove forestshave been cleared to developcoastal shrimp farm facilities.The failure of national govern-ments to adequately regulate theshrimp industry, and the head-long rush of multilateral lendingagencies to fund aquaculturedevelopment without meetingtheir own stated ecological andsocial criteria, are also impor-tant pieces to this unfortunatepuzzle.

The great monetary earningsof shrimp culture are shortlived, while the real costs interms of consequent environ-mental ruin and social disrup-tion are long term and astro-nomical! While the immediateprofits from shrimp farmingmay satisfy a few, vast numbersof coastal residents once depen-dent on healthy coastal ecosys-tems for fishing and farming arebeing displaced and impover-ished.

MAP is dedicated to reversingthe degradation of mangroveforest ecosystems worldwide. Itscentral tenet is to promote therights of local coastal peoples,including fishers and farmers, inthe sustainable management ofcoastal environments. MAP pro-vides four essential services tograssroots associations and otherproponents of mangrove conser-vation:

1) It coordinates a uniqueinternational nongovernmentalorganization (NGO) network

and information clearinghouseon mangrove forests

2) It promotes public aware-ness of mangrove forest issues

3) It develops technical andfinancial support for NGO pro-jects

4) It helps publicize withinthe developed nations the basicneeds and struggles of ThirdWorld coastal fishing and farm-ing communities affected by theconsumer demands of thewealthy nations. (This is donethrough a quarterly newsletter,action alerts, and published arti-cles, as well as planned publicforums and presentations.)

MAP’s international networkhas grown to include over 400NGOs and over 250 scientistsand academics from 60 nations.

MAP has effectively used theinternet to establish internation-al links and action-orientedplans (http://www.earthis-land.org/map/map.html).Through its wide network,

The Mangrove Action Project (MAP): 1992 to 2000

(continued page 29)

Mangrove cutting in Tanzania

19

92

to

2

00

0


By Manuel Benítez,Guadalupe Duron, MaritzaErazo, Sarah Gammageand Melany Machado

Few areas illustrate the inter-action between population

pressure, resource consumptionand environmental degradationmore acutely than coastalecosystems. Fragile and rich inresources, mangrove coastalecosystems are valuable for theraw materials they provide andtheir biodiversity.This ecosys-tem supports a wide range ofindividuals and groups withcompeting interests.

The tension between resourceconsumption and conservationis highlighted in conflicts overaccess rights.The formal accessrights lie largely in the hands ofthe state.Throughout the world,coastal lands and estuaries, andthe rights to their resources, are

in the hands of sovereign gov-ernments that provide conces-sions for economic activities toa variety of groups and individu-als. Despite these formal rightsstructures, many customary andindigenous access rights systemshave evolved.Typically, whilethe land may belong to thestate, much of it has been sub-

ject to de facto management bycoastal populations. Far awayfrom national capitals, localpopulations exercise ownershiprights over the lands their fami-lies have inhabited for genera-tions.

The conflict between convert-ing mangrove to aquacultureactivities and the subsistencedemands of coastal populationsis a clear example of the colli-sion of customary and stateaccess rights. Aquaculture is agrowth industry in the develop-ing world.The cultivation of fishand shrimp in tanks or excavat-ed ponds yields high returns andcommands much-needed for-eign exchange. Consequently,there are state and privateenterprise incentives to convertthe mangroves to aquaculture.Yet, locating these tanks andponds in the mangrove wetlandshas deforested valuable wood-land, concentrating dependenceon the few remaining stands.

Concern about conflict overresource management inCentral America led a variety ofgroups to explore how the man-groves in the Gulf of Fonsecamay be sustainably managed andthe interests of competing stake-holders mediated.The outcomerepresents the culmination ofover eight years of collaborativeresearch and advocacy activitiesthat have brought together gov-ernmental, nongovernmental,community and private sectororganizations.

Following are summarized thekey findings and recommenda-tions, with an emphasis on therole of women and the need toinclude them in the decision-making process.

Policy recommendations were

sent to the Ministry ofEnvironment and NaturalResources in El Salvador in theform of a letter signed by par-ticipants in these different meet-ings and endorsed by the com-munity groups.

Action 1: HarmonizeResource Use AmongDifferent InterestGroups

There are multiple stakehold-ers with diverse interests in theuse and transformation of themangrove ecosystem in the Gulfof Fonseca. Although thesestakeholders may compete forthe ecosystem goods and ser-vices, there is also potential toharmonize their interests inorder to secure the sustainablemanagement of the ecosystem.Bring Stakeholders Together

A broad coalition of stake-holders should be broughttogether to form a multi-sec-toral commission in each coun-try that includes the primarystakeholders in the mangroveecosystem and the institutionsthat assign access rights orenforce compliance.Theseinclude ministries of agricultureand environment; the judiciary,navy and police; local andmunicipal governments; non-governmental organizations;academic and research institu-tions; agriculturists and live-stock owners; aquaculturists;salt producers; harbor authori-ties; industrial fishing interests;artisanal fishers; community andgrass roots organizations; menand women.Define Sustainable Managementin Each Country

Sustainable managementneeds to be defined and madeoperational.The multi-sectoral

A Platform for Action: Sustainable Managementof Mangroves, Gulf of Fonseca, Central America

Ma

ng

ro

ve

Ma

na

ge

me

nt

20

00

Salt production in Honduras


and individual non-collateralloans.The challenge is to pro-vide access to formal bankingservices and provide loanswhere the repayment schedulesare tailored to the activityundertaken.These initiativesmay be particularly importantfor women and female-main-tained households allowing themto diversify their income-earn-ing activities.

Action 3: BringCommunities intoDecisionmaking

Where communities havebeen unable to participate indecisions about mangrove man-agement, women have beendoubly excluded from decision-making. Efforts should be madeto ensure the full participationof the community in decisionsabout the design and operationof sustainable managementstrategies and in particular toinclude women in this process.Train and StrengthenCommunity Organizationsand/or Institutions in Ways toSecure and Improve Access toand Management of ForestryResources

To effectively apply environ-mental legislation, national gov-ernments need to invest inbuilding local capacity forresource management.Womenneed to be drawn into thisprocess to ensure that theirvoices and concerns are repre-sented.

Governments need to height-en awareness of national envi-ronmental legislation, promotethe organization of communityresource management groups,and set gender targets and quo-tas to ensure that women areactively included in the commu-nity representation, and theiruse rights are considered whendesigning and implementingmanagement plans.

commissions should develop adefinition of sustainable man-agement of the mangroves thatis consensus driven and reflectsthe interests and concerns of allconstituents. Particular effortshould be made to ensure thecommunities have voice in thisprocess, and the needs and con-cerns of women are adequatelyreflected.

Action 2:AlleviatePoverty to ReduceEnvironmentalDegradation

Poverty affects the choicesthat individuals and householdsmake about the use and manage-ment of natural resources. Poorhouseholds may rely dispropor-tionately on the environment toprovide fuelwood and timberfor energy and shelter as well aswildlife flora and fauna for foodand livelihood security. As theecosystem degrades and man-groves are converted to otheruses, the stocks of fuelwood,timber, fauna and flora aredrawn-down and the livelihoodsof those that depend on theseresources are threatened.Establish Buffer Zones forFuelwood Extraction andPromote Agroforestry Actions

Poor households need secureaccess to legally extract fuel-wood resources. Governmentscan support these initiatives byproviding communities withmulti-purpose tree seedlingsthat do not require labor inten-sive cultivation, are fast-growingand yield short- to medium-term returns.Extend Micro-credit Services toWomen and Poor Households

The poor have limited oppor-tunities to diversify their sourceof income or increase earnings.Micro-credit has been effectivein addressing this gap throughthe disbursement of small group

Action 4: StrengthenInstitutions and DefineAppropriate Rules andRegulations

The existing regulatory andinstitutional framework is suffi-ciently weak, fragmented andobsolete.This inhibits the designand implementation of sustain-able mangrove managementpractices that respond to thedevelopment needs of coastalpopulations.Review Existing Property andAccess Rights

The multi-sectoral commis-sions should review, revise orestablish legal access and userights to mangrove, wetlandsand fisheries resources that rec-ognize customary rights andcoordinate these with nationalenvironmental laws. Proceduresfor community participationmust be established.Undertake an InstitutionalCapacity Audit

The existing institutions ineach country have been unableto monitor and enforce agree-ments about mangrove manage-ment.The multisectoral com-missions should recommendhow to reorganize these institu-tions to ensure effective moni-toring and enforcement plans.Institutions must ensure theneeds and concerns of womenin the communities are repre-sented.Develop Policies on Biodiversityand Sustainable Use of CoastalResources

Currently there are nonational policies that link biodi-versity to habitat.

Action 5: Collect Data There is an alarming lack of

data on biological indicators thatdescribe the health of theecosystem.

Without this data, govern-ments and regulatory bodies

(continued page 30)


By Conner Bailey

In 1988, I published an articlein Ocean and Shoreline

Management entitled “SocialConsequences of TropicalShrimp Mariculture.” A portionof that article was reprinted inthe April 1989 edition ofInterCoast newsletter. I’ve beenasked to comment on what haschanged since that time.

In my original article I high-lighted two interrelated prob-lems: 1) the combined socialand ecological costs associatedwith widespread conversion ofmangrove resources into shrimpponds; and 2) the tendency oflocal and national elites to cap-ture most of the benefits ofwhat was then a new industry,leaving most coastal residentsrelatively (and in some casesabsolutely) worse off thanbefore.

My initial concern regardingconversion of mangrove intoshrimp ponds was based onexperience living in coastal fish-ing communities in Malaysia andthe Philippines, and extensivefieldwork in Indonesia. I knewhow important mangroveresources were to local resi-dents as a source of both sub-sistence and commercialgoods. I argued that wholesaleconversion of mangrove intoprivately owned shrimp farmsrepresented loss of local con-trol over an importantresource base, and that thischange would have serioussocial and ecological conse-quences.

By the late 1990s, however,the issue of mangrove conver-sion had become less central asa focus of concern. From thevantage point of producers,

there always had been seriousproblems associated with con-version of mangrove intoshrimp farms, including acidicsoils and the sheer cost of clear-ing mangrove forest. During the1990s, shrimp farmers increas-ingly shifted attention awayfrom mangroves and towardsother coastal lands, includingmarginal agricultural lands andsalt flats. In Thailand, producerseven took to shipping hyper-saline water into the interiorand began producing shrimp inrice fields hundreds of kilome-ters from the coast.The issue ofmangrove conversion continuesas an important concern, buthas come to be understood byindustry critics as one among alarger set of issues relating tomy second concern, the distrib-ution of benefits.

To predict that the benefits ofshrimp farming would be con-centrated in few hands involvedlimited intellectual risk on mypart.The same thing could be(and often has been) said of vir-tually every significant techno-logical change or developmentproject in the last fifty years.

But there were (and continue tobe) good reasons for concern inthe particular case of shrimpfarming. In Latin America, thepattern of large land holdings inthe agricultural sector was repli-cated so that a relatively fewfirms controlled most of thearea in production. Moreover,many of these firms were inte-grated, with feed mills, produc-tion ponds and processing facili-ties under common corporatecontrol.The primary beneficia-ries of this industry are easy tospot in Latin America.

Compared to Latin America,shrimp farms in Asia are rela-tively small, reflecting density ofcoastal populations and the highvalue associated with land as ascarce resource. Under theseconditions, the approach takento increase production has beento intensify stocking and feedingrates.The profit potential ofshrimp farming attracted out-side investors, mostly urbanentrepreneurs interested inmaking quick profits. Few resi-dents of rural coastal communi-ties can afford the cost of adopt-ing high-intensity productionsystems. In some areas, out-siders have gained control overlocal resources through conver-sion of public lands (e.g., man-

Continuing Concerns Related toShrimp Farming in the Tropics

Shrimp farms in Ecuador

19

89

t

o

20

00


grove) into private shrimpfarms. In other areas, rice fieldshave been bought or leased byoutsiders to cultivate shrimp.The net result in areas suitablefor shrimp farming has been lossof local control over resourcesupon which coastal communitiesdepend.

In Asia, as in Latin America,most of the benefits of shrimpfarming are gained by a relativehandful of individuals, few ofwhom are from the rural coastalcommunities where productiontakes place.To be sure, employ-ment in shrimp farming, pro-cessing, and supporting indus-tries (feed mills, hatcheries,transportation, etc.) hasincreased. But my original con-cern, that many coastal dwellerswould become increasingly mar-ginalized, appears to have beenvalid.

A new concern has arisenover the past decade concerningthe sustainability of coastalshrimp farming: the threat ofdisease outbreaks that threatento wipe out farms in wholeregions. Organic wastes fromshrimp farms, especially whereintensive production practicesare used, create water qualityproblems that are associatedwith viral disease outbreaks.Beginning with the collapse ofTaiwan’s shrimp industry in1988, disease problems havedevastated shrimp farming invirtually every area where thisindustry has been established.Water quality and disease man-agement have emerged as theAchilles Heel of modern shrimpfarming.

Coastal farming of shrimp inthe tropics has emerged as a

lightening rod, where all thepositive and negative aspects ofaquacultural development aregiven full expression. Certainlyit is true that critics of shrimpfarming have become increas-ingly well organized and vocal.The Mangrove Action Project,founded in 1992 (see Quarto, p.15), was instrumental in alert-ing the environmental commu-nity to problems of mangroveconversion and, more impor-tantly, helping forge linkagesbetween nongovernment orga-nizations (NGOs) in Asia, LatinAmerica, and Africa. Morerecently, the Industrial ShrimpAction Network (ISA-Net) wasformed in 1997 to coordinateNGO actions.Their efforts ledto formation (also in 1997) ofthe Global Aquaculture Alliance(GAA), an industry organizationwhich defends the interests ofshrimp farmers and other aqua-cultural producers. It is tooearly to predict the outcome ofthis dialogue, but if the twosides both listen as well asspeak, some common groundmay be found.

For further information,contact Conner Bailey,Alumni Professor of RuralSociology, Comer Hall,Auburn, University,Auburn, Alabama, 36849-5406 USA. E-mail:[email protected]

Cultured shrimp


By Jens Sorensen, withassistance from FrankGable and Nelia BadillaForest

Coastal Zone 2001 (CZ 01)conference (page 21), to be

held in Cleveland, Ohio, USA,July 15-19, 2001, is the twelfthin a series of biennial interna-tional conferences held in theUSA.The first conferences tookplace in San Francisco,California, in 1978.These con-ferences have evolved into aninternational exchange of infor-mation and ideas concerning theidentification and resolution ofproblems associated with coastsand oceans.Today, the CZ seriesis the primary coastal confer-ence in the USA.

Prior to the CZ conferences,the U.S. National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration(NOAA) convened three nation-al conferences (Annapolis,Maryland, 1973; Charleston,North Carolina, 1974; andAsilomar, California, 1975).Participation has grown from500 participants at the Asilomar,California, conference to over13,000 names on the mailinglist for CZ 01.

OrganizationalArrangement andFunding

The organizational arrange-ment for CZ 78 was a tripartitesponsorship by the AmericanSociety of Civil Engineers(ASCE), the ConservationFoundation, and NOAA. Inaddition to the three sponsors,there were 14 affiliated institu-tions: six federal agencies, fourCalifornia state agencies (theconference’s host state) and fournongovernmental organizations

(NGOs).The tripartite arrange-ment reflected the differentareas of coastal zone manage-ment: policymaking, planningand management (U.S.Department of Commerce),environmental conservation(Conservation Foundation) andscience and technology (ASCE).This arrangement reflects a poli-cy that continues today—thefree flow of information and theability to address controversialissues, as well as to take politicalpositions, requires indepen-dence from government institu-tions, particularly NOAA.Thisgoal was similar to one of theprimary goals of the U.S.Coastal Zone ManagementAct—to achieve interagencycooperation among the manynational government agencieshaving responsibility for plan-ning and/or managing coastalzone uses, resources and envi-ronments.To this end, NOAAwas willing to broaden thesponsorship and administrationof national coastal zone manage-ment (CZM) conferences toother governmental organiza-tions as well as nongovernmen-tal organizations to avoid playingthe role of both administratorsof the national CZM programand political advocate.Were onegovernment agency to assumeresponsibility for full financialsupport and administration ofnational CZM conferences, theaction clearly would have achilling effect on the participa-tion of others involved in CZM,both in their presentation ofinformation and direct financialor in-kind support of the event.

The success of CZ 78 led to acontinuation of the same organi-zational arrangement of govern-

ment and NGO institutions insponsorship, organization andadministration of successiveconferences.The Coastal ZoneFoundation, a non-profit organi-zation, was established to serveas the secretariat to conferencesponsors and national organizingcommittees. Since CZ 80, thecombined number of sponsorsand affiliates varies between 27(CZ 80) and 49 (CZ 95). Overthe 22-year span of CZ confer-ences, the number of govern-ment organizations and NGOhas been approximately 50/50.

Conference Goals andObjectives

Achievements based on theconference’s goals and objec-tives are so varied in subject andextent, it is impossible to evenspeculate. Conference goalsaccording to CZ 78’s announce-ment and call for papers stated:

“Coastal Zone 78 will be amultidisciplinary specialty con-ference to provide an opportu-nity for those scientists, engi-neers, planners, and otherinvolved professionals to con-vene and exchange informationand views.The purpose of theconference is to provide aforum for discussion of coastalzone management, beneficialuse, protection and develop-ment leading hopefully to a bet-ter understanding of the interre-lationships between the environ-mental, socioeconomic, engi-neering, and regulatory deci-sions involved.The conferencewill foster more effective andmeaningful jurisdictionalarrangements, conservationconsiderations, regulationsenforcement policies, planningactivities, and design parameters

(continued page 32)

A Retrospective Assessment of the United States’Coastal Zone Conference Series: 1978 to 1999

Co

as

ta

lC

on

fe

re

nc

es

19

78

-1

99

9

Coastal Zone 2001 (CZ 01):Hands Across the Water?

Linking Land, Lake and SeaCleveland, Ohio, USA, November 19-23, 2001

CZ 01 website: www.csc.noaa.gov/cz2001CZ 01 is the twelfth in a series of biennial international conferences, to

be held in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, December 3-7, 2001.The Coastal Zoneconference series has evolved into an international exchange of informa-tion and ideas concerning the identification and resolution of problems

associated with coasts and oceans attracting over 1,000 attendees.CZ 01 will feature models of successful partnerships, such as that established in the

Great Lakes, USA, where two sovereign nations jointly manage water and living resources of thisgreat ‘inland sea.’

The four central themes, named after four popular songs, of CZ01 are:

Taking Care of Business: Sustainable Coastal CommunitiesThe growth of metropolitan populations along ocean coasts and our inland seas too often occurs

as sprawl, with all of its attendant negative environmental impacts and external costs, rather than ina sustainable well-managed manner.This thematic area will examine creative urban planning strate-gies, fiscal incentives, innovative policies, and other techniques to achieve ‘smart growth’ in coastalcommunities.

Son of a Son of a Sailor: MaritimeTransportation and Commerce

Virtually every type of commodity imaginable istransported through a port. M aritime transporta-tion and commerce has tremendous advantages forenergy conservation, cost savings, and reducedenvironmental impacts compared to alternativetransportation modes overall. Ocean ships,bulk cargo carriers, tug-propelledbarges, and cruise shipsoperate in a system linked with energy, agriculture, industry, and travel and tourism.

Everyday People: People and the CoastCoastal management is really about managing people.Values and choices made by people at home,

work, and in the community ultimately determine coastal environmental health and community wellbeing. Information management can combine essential data, making the information accessible anduseful for decisionmaking by community leaders, businesses, and everyday people.

Here Comes the Sun: Energy and the EnvironmentThe production, transport, and use of energy resources have profound impacts on coastal

resources and communities. Energy efficient power plants, localized power sources, alternative ener-gy sources, energy efficiency audits, and the purchase of emission credits are among a host of thingsthat are moving forward in response to climate change and air quality concerns.

For information on CZ 01, contact Jan Kucklick, NOAA Coastal Services Center, 2234South Hobson Avenue, Charleston, South Carolina 29405 USA. Tel: 843 740-1279. Fax: 843740-1313. E-mail: [email protected]


Co

as

ta

l

Zo

ne

2

00

1


Ba

se

li

ne

20

00

By Jens Sorensen

Avery common citation inthe literature about inte-

grated coastal management(ICM) as an international prac-tice is: “In 1991, there were 146ICM efforts in 44 coastalnations and semi-sovereignstates.”The citation derives froma survey done for this newslet-ter, InterCoast, and reported inissue #16, February 1991.The146 efforts included 56 initia-tives in the United States (by-in-large ICM programs of thestates and territories pursuantto the United States CoastalZone Management Act and theNational Estuary Program).However, this total does notinclude the 20 internationalefforts at that time, or the 18National Estuarine ResearchReserves in the USA at thattime. Including these increasesthe total to 184 ICM efforts.

Another survey of ICMefforts around the world wasdone this year.This survey wasone of a number of assessmentsconducted for “Baseline 2000:the Status of Integrated CoastalManagement as an InternationalPractice.” The Coastal ZoneCanada Association commis-sioned Baseline 2000 as a discus-sion paper for the Canada CZ2000 Conference (Saint John,New Brunswick, September 17to 22).The survey made a dis-tinction between ICM efforts atthe international level and thenational or sub-national levels.At the present time the listingof ICM efforts has been orga-nized into four tables and theyhave been posted on the websitewww.coastalmanagement.comfor review and comment.Table1 summarizes some of the infor-mation derived from the survey.

In the years since 1991, thetotal number of ICM efforts has

Building a Global Database ofICM Efforts: Baseline 2000 (B2K)

more than doubled—fromapproximately 180 to approxi-mately 380. Also in that period,the number of nations and semi-sovereign states that have ICMefforts at the national and/orsub-national level has grownfrom 57 to at least 87. Otherfindings from the surveyinclude:

�Since 1973, almost all theworld’s 207 coastal nations andsemi-sovereign nations have atone time or another participated(at least on paper) in one ormore international ICM efforts.To date, there have been 25efforts for planning and/ormanagement of internationalopen seas, international land-locked seas, international gulfs,and international lakes.

�It is important to make adistinction between ICM effortsat the national and/or sub-national levels and internationalregional ICM efforts.The for-mer, with few exceptions, areICM efforts that represent a sig-nificant level of commitment bythe nation or the sub-national

Table 1. Number of ICM Efforts and CompositionCoastal nations and semi-sovereign states* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .207Coastal nations and semi-sovereign states participating in international ICM efforts . . . .197Coastal nations and semi-sovereign states having or having had national and/or

sub-national ICM efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95Developing nations or semi-sovereign states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70Nations or semi-sovereign states in the tropics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45Island nations or semi-sovereign island states with national or sub-national ICM

efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1Total international, national, and sub-national efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .380International regional ICM efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25National and sub-national ICM efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .345

Efforts at the sub-national level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284Efforts in developing nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .156Efforts on island nations or semi-sovereign states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65Efforts that focus on estuaries, bays, or lagoons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .138

* Includes nations and semi-sovereign states that border on international lakes and international land-locked seas


unit to prepare and implement aprogram that resolves issuesinvolving conflict and/or degra-dation of coastal resources orenvironments and the reductionin the costs of coastal hazards.By contrast, since most of theinternational ICM efforts areconsensual agreements with lit-tle or no enforcement powersand inadequate budgets, theimplementation commitment, ingeneral, is significantly less thannational and sub-nationalefforts.

�In many coastal nations, par-ticularly the large ones, thefocus of ICM is at the sub-national level. Delegation of anational ICM program to one ormore sub-national units offersnumerous advantages, such asaccommodating local variationand facilitating community-based management.

�Approximately 40 percent ofthe ICM efforts are focused onestuaries, lagoons or bays, usual-ly adjoining major metropolitanareas. Most of these enclosedcoastal water bodies adjoin orare surrounded by metropolitandevelopment.The focus on bays,estuaries and lagoons is becauseconflicting uses and degradationof enclosed coastal water bodies

is both very evident and of highconcern to the stakeholderswho surround them.

�Since 1990, developingnations and states account formost of the increase in ICMefforts at the national and/orsub-national levels. Seventydeveloping nations (includingcountries in transition from acommunism to a capitalism gov-ernance) have now initiated oneor more ICM efforts at thenational and/or sub-nationallevels.

Eventually the database ofICM efforts should be takendown to the local governmentlevel (e.g., coastal municipali-ties, counties or cantons). In theUSA, at least ten of the statecoastal zone management pro-grams require local units of gov-ernment to prepare a localcoastal plan based on stateguidelines. Expanding the data-base to local coastal plans willallow direct communicationamong local governments thatcommonly confront the same

issues (e.g., management ofurban beaches, public access,waterfront development and/orredevelopment). For example,beach recreation planning andmanagement in Tel Aviv, Niceand Sydney have almost thesame set of issues, stakeholders,and options for managementtechniques as does the City ofLos Angeles, California, U.S.

The four tables of ICM effortsare only the first stage of data-base development.The secondstage (pending funding) wouldbe to distribute a standardizedsurvey questionnaire to eachICM effort; the third stage toconduct data analysis and for-matting; and the fourth stage todevelop a website.

For further information,contact Jens Sorensen, Harborand Coastal Center,University of Massachusetts,Boston, Massachusetts 02125USA. Tel: 617 287-5578.Fax: 617 287-5599. E-mail:[email protected]


By Alasdair Edwards

The world of coastal manage-ment has changed a great

deal since my colleague at theUnversity of Newcastle uponTyne, Barbara Brown, reportedon the University’s four-year-old international masters of sci-ence (M.Sc.) program(InterCoast , #14, 1991,“Master of Science Program inTropical Coastal Management atthe University of Newcastleupon Tyne, United Kingdom”).Started in 1987, by 1999 theprogram had had 52 students,40 from the tropics and 12 fromEurope.The program was start-ed to satisfy a growing demandby the industrialized and devel-oping nations for a broad train-ing in coastal management.Thistraining was for scientists, plan-ners, economists and environ-ment and natural resources min-istry officials.

Today, the program has gradu-ated around 160 students fromsome 40 nations. Only one-thirdof the course participants have

been from Britain, with theremaining two-thirds comingfrom abroad (about half fromAsia and the other half evenlydistributed between Africa, theAmericas and mainlandEurope).The average age of stu-dents is 29 years. Most take aone-year leave from employ-ment to complete the M.Sc.program. About 60 percent ofthe students have been fundedby UK overseas aid, internation-al development banks (e.g.,World Bank, Asian Develop-ment Bank), United Nations’agencies, overseas governmentsand multinational companies.The remaining 40 percent havefunded their own way throughthe course—a tribute to theirdedication and commitment tocoastal management as a career.

The Newcastle program hasbeen very fortunate to havehigh-calibre applicants. As aresult, we often find ourselvesworking alongside our alumni atinternational conferences andworkshops, as consultants or

during fieldwork in variouscountries around the globe.Thisis perhaps the most rewardingexperience for a teacher!

The primary aim of the pro-gram from its inception hasbeen to provide a holisticoverview of the tropical coastalzone to specialists with knowl-edge of particular aspects. Bystimulating an awareness of thenatural and social science, eco-nomic, engineering, and legisla-tive issues, the program seeks topromote sustainable and inte-grated development in thecoastal zone, rather than theoften piecemeal, economicallyinefficient, high risk, and thusunsustainable developmentwhich has sadly characterizedmuch coastal developmentworldwide.To provide the broadspread of tropical expertiseneeded to do this, course lec-turers have been selected fromseveral faculties at Universitiesof Newcastle as well as from theUniversities of Edinburgh, Essexand Stirling. In addition, the

The Evolution of a Tropical Coastal ManagementProgram: 1987 to 2000University of Newcastle upon Tyne, United Kingdom

19

91

t

o

20

00

Educating Coastal ManagersIn 1991, InterCoast (#14) focused on ‘Educating Coastal Managers.’ This issue highlighted several

fledgling academic programs: the Songkla University,Thailand; University of Guaymas, Mexico; and theUniversity of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK. Also described were examples of pioneering efforts towardseducating coastal managers through workshops in Southeast Asia and regional networking in Africa.

Educating coastal managers has come a long way since 1991, both in knowledge and interdisciplinaryeducational opportunities.Today, many institutions have developed interdisciplinary environmental andmarine affairs programs in response to a growing recognition of the environmental problems facingcoastal regions. Recognized over the years has been the need to develop programs based on in-countryassessments and needs, and assuring these programs can be implemented within the in-country institu-tional framework.

The University of Newcastle’s program and short-course training is just one example of the growthof these early programs and serves as an aspiration for developing programs.


program draws on industry andUK government marineresearch laboratories.

Since our program started,several other UK universitiesand a number of overseas uni-versities have developed mastersprograms.These programseither focus entirely on coastalmanagement, or coastal man-agement is their major compo-nent, giving students a widechoice of programs with differ-ent emphases.

Our program has changeddramatically since 1987, as hasthe technology available forteaching it. In 1987, the knowl-edge and technical ability onremote sensing and geographicinformation system was notreally accessible for routinehands-on learning by students.Now, practical tasks can readilybe accomplished by students ondesktop computers, openingnumerous new training possibil-ities. Similarly, the advent of theworldwide web and vast search-able databases has revolutionizedinformation dissemination andavailability. Owing both to thesetechnological changes and therapid development of the sub-ject area, Newcastle, in 1997-98and after 10 years of runningthe program, took a year toreview and restructure theentire program. During thisprocess, both alumni working inthe field and potential employ-ers of our graduates assisted us.We benefited immensely fromthese inputs coming from thecutting edge of coastal manage-ment.

Resulting from the evaluation,we have shifted the emphasis ofthe program from the funda-mental science underpinningcoastal management towardsapplied problems and solutionsfor practitioners.Thus, while westill address fundamental issues

and stimulate anawareness of the gapthat exists in under-standing the complexdynamics and interac-tions in the coastalzone, the emphasis ismore on how to solvereal problems withthe resources typical-ly available to themanagement commu-nity.This redirectionhas required a consid-erable change in theway the program istaught.The programnow involves far morehands-on problemsolving and realisticexercises using first-hand casestudies developed by the pro-gram’s staff.The revised pro-gram was launched in 1998 andis now finishing its second year.Feedback from students of thosetwo years indicated the redesignwas well worth the investmentof time and resources, and thatwe have a program appropriatefor the new century.

In addition to the mastersprogram, we have been involvedin short-course training incoastal management for the gov-ernment of India. Starting in1995, and in collaboration withIndian colleagues and colleaguesfrom the Universities of Bath,Stirling and Essex, we have runthree short courses (two tothree months in duration) forsenior and middle-ranking pro-fessionals in federal and stategovernment departments andresearch institutions. Currentlywe are helping to develop thecapacity of Anna University inChennai, and JadavpurUniversity in Calcutta, to deliv-er integrated coastal manage-ment training catered towardsofficials developing and imple-menting state coastal manage-

ment plans.With our colleaguesat Anna and Jadavpur, we aredeveloping innovative casestudy-based problem-solvingtraining packages that we hopeto bridge the gulf between plansand implementation–implemen-tation being where the projectcycle so often breaks down!

[Details of the short-coursetraining can be found at websitewww.ncl.ac.uk/mscmcourses/Details of the M.Sc. and post-graduate programs can be foundat website www.ncl.ac.uk/tcmweb/ctcms/]

For further information,contact Alasdair Edwards,Department of MarineSciences & CoastalManagement, University ofNewcastle, Newcastle uponTyne, NE1 7RU, UnitedKingdom. Tel: +44 (0)191222 6663. E-mail: [email protected]


most governments, Jamaica hascentralized, top-down manage-ment and the compartmental-ization of sectors without coor-dinated integration.This helpedfoster a ‘tragedy of the com-mons.’

Fortunately, government nowrecognizes its past shortcomingsand is working to reduce land-based marine pollution inMontego Bay. One of the recentmajor positive steps is the for-mation of a strategic partnershipwith the Montego Bay MarinePark Trust (MBMP), the non-governmental organizations withgovernment delegated authorityto manage the national marinepark.This partnership is startingto significantly contribute todecreasing land-based sources ofmarine pollution and is facilitat-ing a better sharing of marinepark benefits with the commu-nity thereby alleviating poverty.

With ssistance from donorcountries, a second positivestep was completing work on anew Montego Bay sewage treat-ment facility.

The GOJ recently signed offon ISO 14000 (vol-untary internationalstandards that willlead to the protec-tion of the earth’senvironment whilespurring interna-tional trade andcommerce) andheld seminars onthe initiative.TheJamaica Bureau ofStandards and theNational ResourcesConservationAuthority (NRCA)are promoting thiseffort.To developconstituencies on a

By Stephen C. Jameson,Richard M. Huber and JillH.Williams

Government can be a posi-tive or negative factor in

managing land-based sources ofmarine pollution. In MontegoBay, over the last 30 years, theGovernment of Jamaica (GOJ),like many small island statesburdened with massiveInternational Monetary Funddebts, made decisions whichencouraged the development oftourism and light industry toprovide employment and earnforeign exchange.This boomoutgrew the infrastructure ofthe town and its ability toabsorb the influx of workers,contributing significantly toland-based sources of pollution.Also, over the past 20 yearsthere has been progressivethought towards not using theocean and inland bays as recep-tacles of human waste, as thereis an increasing appreciation ofthe negative environmentalimpacts-particularly for recre-ation, tourism and coral reefecosystem condition.Typical of

range of environmental issues,NRCA (and other agencies) aretrying hard to get bottom-upconcerns and has been holdingparish meetings on policy docu-ments.This is slowly having aneffect.The Jamaica Tourist Boardis preparing a major tourismaction plan and has invitedMBMP to provide input on eco-tourism in the national parks.This indicates a noticeablechange in the attitude of GOJtowards improving land-basedpollution.

The Montego BayMarine Park

Montego Bay is one ofJamaica’s leading tourist centersand is considered to be one ofthe most threatened near-shorecoral reef ecosystems (seawardcoral communities are in bettercondition as they benefit fromflushing offshore currents).Thisis the result of many years ofnatural and anthropogenicforces.Water pollution, in theform of nutrient enrichment,from municipal raw sewage dis-charges, household waste, asso-ciated leaching, and sedimenta-tion have been especially devas-tating to the near-shore reefs.Oil pollution and runoff of agri-cultural fertilizers and pesticidesadd to the problems. Once lux-uriant near-shore coral reefs arenow smothered by algae andstruggling for survival.Overfishing and decimated seaurchin populations (herbivores)intensify the situation.

Two watersheds drain into thepark, Great River and MontegoRiver (see map).These carry theinland pollutants to the parkwaters. Coastal mangroves,other wetland areas and seagrassbeds are being destroyed.

The Importance of Government in theManagement of Land-Based Marine Pollution

Fo

ll

ow

u

p:

INT

ER

CO

AS

T#

3

6

-

20

00


Impacts from wind blown dustand illegal sand removal con-tribute.The MBMP, chargedwith conserving the bay, is nowfaced with a long-term andexpensive restoration project.

Government Impacts The table below outlines the

government interventions (orlack thereof) over the last 30years that contributed to land-based sources of marine pollu-tion that have degradedMontego Bay Marine Park.Thishistory clearly shows there hasbeen no comprehensive planaccounting for cumulativeimpacts of pollutants or theenvironmental carrying capaci-ties of Montego Bay.

Mitigating Impacts andOvercoming thePoverty Cycle

The GOJ, through its NRCA,is now working to protect thenatural environment by gettingthe different sectors to worktogether at the national level.Locally, government is involvingNGOs in management so thecommunity looks after its eco-nomically valuable naturalresources and is watchdog overprivate and public sectors.Thereare 11 public-private partner-ships (ongoing or planned) bythe MBMP in concert with vari-ous government agencies to pre-vent and manage land-basedpollution in the marine park.

Implementing the necessarywater quality management mea-sures to ensure a healthy coralreef ecosystem will not be quickor easy. In about five years, 60percent of the population inJamaica will reside in urbanareas, such as Montego Bay, anda third will be located in squat-ter communities unsaved byadequate household waste dis-posal. Only 25 percent of thecountry’s households are con-nected to sewer systems, andeven where such connectionsexist, wastewater treatment isinadequate.The lack of a com-prehensive waste managementpolicy and clear lines of govern-ment responsibility delays

Chronology of Government Interventions (or Lack of) That Have Increased Land-basedSources of Marine Pollution in the Montego Bay Marine Park, Jamaica

Year Government Intervention (or Lack of) Environmental Impact1969 Freeport development Loss of mangrove, Circulation changes, Reduced oxygen in Bogue Lagoon

Reduced fish stocks, Overfishing continues1969 Airport expansion Loss of mangroves & wetlands, Increased sedimentation and tourists1969 Holiday Inn construction Mass tourism starts, Urban immigration begins1972 Urban Development Council waterfront Coastline changed, Sedimentation increases, Reefs destroyed

development1975 No infrastructure to accommodate growing Increased waste & lack of sewage treatment, Squatting starts, Urban

tourism and tourism service sector sprawl increases, Cost of transport high, Loss of public use ofbeaches & turtle nests

1980s Population increases without planning/regulation More sewage, Lack of sewage treatment, Increased waste, squatter settlements , Landslides, Overfishing

Dump located to Retirement Area Not sanitary, Groundwater pollution increasesHousing development increases More run off & garbage, Lack of drainage, Reef deterioration via

sedimentation, NutrificationDump overloaded Dump site continually burning, Ground water pollution

1990 Sewage system overload Nutrient-rich effluent discharging into Montego Bay, Underground seepage

1994 National Commercial Bank Citrus Project Removed thousands of ancient guango trees over 10,000 acres,Pesticides & fertilizers, Soil erosion & sedimentation

1994 Breezes Hotel construction No sewage hook-up, Built on beach,Too many rooms1995 Lowered duty on imported cars and allowed More traffic congestion,Waste oil & air pollution

second hand cars not meeting emission standards in Japan to be imported

1997 South Gully widening approved Increased sediment and garbage flowing into park1998 Greater Montego Redevelopment Corporation No development order yet to implement new coordinated

management plan delays so development zoning and development plan continues ad hoc1999 Sewage treatment ponds constructed Secondary treated effluent discharged into Montego Bay, Sewage

hook-up not mandatory in community, Focus of treatment human health not reef health

1999 North Coast Highway construction Loss of mangroves, Marl into lagoon

(continued next page)


implementation of effectivewaste management.

The local communities are theprincipal force behind the needfor reef conservation, standingto benefit considerably but alsobeing the principal cause of reefloss. Notwithstanding thesethreats, the natural areas inMontego Bay remain in goodenough condition that, if prop-erly managed and rehabilitated,will provide substantial oppor-tunities for economic growth,poverty alleviation, and themaintenance of globally impor-tant biodiversity.

However, given the economictrade-offs and local awareness ofenvironmental issues, coral reefecosystem preservation and

protection and rational manage-ment of the coastal and seaareas. Most importantly, the ini-tiative has created the MED-COAST ‘family’ of scientists,professionals and conservation-ists who collaborate for a com-mon goal.

All of these achievementswere internationally acknowl-edged in 1997 when MED-COAST was selected as one ofthe world’s 10 most significantefforts for marine conservation,and by the Pew Award inMarine Conservation beinggiven to the founder and chair-

(continued from previous page)Land-based Pollution

(continued from page 14)MEDCOAST: 1993 to 2000 man of MEDCOAST. MED-

COAST has collaborated closelywith the UNEP’s MediterraneanAction Plan from the start. In1999, the representatives of theMediterranean countries electedMEDCOAST as a nongovern-mental member of theMediterranean Commission forSustainable Development.

Many exciting challenges nowawait MEDCOAST.TheMediterranean CoastalFoundation (the MEDCOASTFoundation) is being set-up.Also, in the planning phase isthe building of the InternationalMEDCOAST Centre, a facilitylocated on the southern Aegean

coast of Turkey, which will bethe center of MEDCOAST’sactivities.

For further information,contact Erdal Özhan,Chairman and Founder ofMEDCOAST, CoastalEngineering & Management,Middle East TechnicalUniversity, 06531 Ankara,Turkey. Tel: (90 312) 21054 29 or 30 or 31. Fax: (90312) 210 14 12. E-mail:[email protected]

associated water quality ispresently seen as a luxury. Untilpublic relations and educationefforts take root, and informedgovernment policies and pro-grams dealing with pollutionand poverty issues are enacted,coral reef managers are caughtin a downward spiral of poverty.Nothing will change unlessresource managers demonstrateshort-term economic benefitsfrom conservation. Long-termpayoffs mean nothing in aneconomy where subsistence is ofprimordial concern.

For further information,contact Stephen C. Jameson,Coral Seas Inc., 4254Hungry Run Road, ThePlains, Virginia 20198-1715USA. E-mail:[email protected];

Richard M. Huber,Environmental Specialist,The World Bank. E-mail:[email protected] or JillWilliams, Executive Director,Montego Bay Marine ParkTrust. E-mail: [email protected]


at center stage in the restorationand management process.

In 1999, working closely withthe Yadfon Association inThailand and the Small FishersFederation of Sri Lanka, MAPhelped launch its premier pro-gram-In the Hands of theFishers-which is a series ofworkshops bringing togethergrassroots NGOs and fisherfolkfrom two or three developingnations containing mangroves.These workshops offered aninnovative format for informa-tion and skill sharing amonglocal stakeholders. It alsooffered a toolkit of workingalternatives to help enhancecommunity-based coastalresource management which istruly in the ‘hands of the fish-ers.’ Follow-up projects will beundertaken at the participatingvillages; these will serve as sitesor nodes for modeling sustain-able, low-intensity developmentalternatives. In 2000, MAP andthe Small Fishers Federation ofSri Lanka established the MAP-South Asian Resource Centerbased in Chilaw, Sri Lanka.Thisresource center will be the cen-ter for MAP’s continued worktowards further solutions.

In 2000, MAP is ready torelease its MangroveEducational Curriculum that hasbeen developed in the CaymanIslands for school children fromkindergarten to ninth grade.This curriculum will be modi-fied regionally and by languageand taken to other parts of theworld. Ultimately, this will raiseawareness and appreciation ofthe mangrove ecosystem amonglocal youths who later mustdecide to conserve and sustain-ably manage their coastal forestareas.

MAP now publishes two newsbulletins: The Late FridayNews, a bi-weekly electronic

news bulletin reaching over athousand subscribers world-wide; and The MAP QuarterlyNews, a hard copy of relatednews that is mailed to over four-teen-hundred subscribers insixty nations.

For further information ormembership information,contact Alfredo Quarto,Mangrove Action Project,P.O. Box 1854, PortAngeles, Washington 98362-0279 USA. Fax: 360-452-5866. E-mail: [email protected]. Website:http://www.earthisland.org/map/map.html

MAP: 1994 to 2000

MAP exchanges ideas and infor-mation for mangrove forest pro-tection and restoration, and pro-motes effective regulations andenforcement to ensure sustain-able shrimp aquaculture prac-tices.

When MAP first started in1992, it spotlighted the prob-lems affecting both the coastalecology and local communities.To do so, MAP had to become‘whistle blowers’ against theshrimp aquaculture industry,drawing attention to the expan-sion of an enterprise responsiblefor the destruction of thousandsof hectares of mangrove forestsand the loss and ruin of valuablecoastal areas.

MAP has recently expandedits work by addressing otherserious problems affecting man-grove forests (e.g., the logging,oil, charcoal and tourism indus-tries). MAP’s continued net-working efforts have broughtwidespread awareness to theimportance of mangrove forestsand the seriousness of their loss.Mangrove forests are no longerviewed as smelly, mosquito-infested wastelands. Instead, agrowing number of people arecalling for effective conservationand restoration measures.

To meet this new challenge,MAP has begun looking forviable, long-term and equitablesolutions to mangrove loss andrestoration. For instance, in1996, MAP organized a com-munity-based mangrove-replanting project in Ecuador.MAP has supported mangroverestoration efforts in India, thePhilippines, Indonesia andMalaysia. In 1997, MAP orga-nized an eco-study tour inThailand. MAP’s approach is tosupport a bottom-up methodand place the local community



tions and forecasting thedemand for ecological goodsand services.

This Platform for Action ispart of an ongoing dialoguebetween different stakeholders.In El Salvador, the platform con-stitutes one of the first attemptsto bring stakeholders together.In Honduras, this dialogue hasbeen underway for sometime.

Development of this Platformfor Action has been a slow andsometimes difficult processbecause of the entrenched posi-tions and unequal power ofsome of the stakeholders.Thosewho have developed it believe,however, that sustainable man-

agement can be achieved andconcerns of equity as well as ofenvironmental quality can bemediated.

[For a full version of thePlatform for Action, contact theInternational Center forResearch on Women at website:http://www.icrw.org]

For further information, con-tact Sarah Gammage, CEAS-DES, 2034 17th Street, NW,Washington, DC 20009 USA.Tel: 202 884 0089. Fax: 603506 2591. E-mail: [email protected]

Platform for Action

will not be able to developmonitoring systems or to imple-ment management initiatives.Collect Data on EcologicalProcesses

Existing data need to be gath-ered together and additionaldata collected on the ecologicalvariables in each ecosystem.Collect and Combine ExistingSocioeconomic Data onHuman/EnvironmentInteractions

While there is comparativelymore ecological data, there areonly a few studies exploringhuman/environment interac-


CAM) will provide valuableinformation on measures beingdeveloped.

Building CapacityTraining and capacity-building

efforts are being looked at muchmore critically. Many trainingprograms have been held inEastern Africa, and these haveincreased the number of individ-uals with skills and knowledgeon marine and coastal manage-ment. However, this does notnecessarily lead directly toimprovements in managementon the ground. Often, peoplefind that such programs, thougheducational, have not equippedthem to apply their new skills orknowledge back in the workplace. More emphasis is clearlyneeded on exchange visitsbetween projects, internshipsand other forms of ‘on-the-job’training.The new capacity-building program for EasternAfrica being developed by theWestern Indian Ocean MarineScience Association and theCoastal Resources Center,

Emerging Trends University of Rhode Island, isattempting to find a solution tothis problem.

The Regional ApproachThe bleaching event has illus-

trated the importance of takinga broad ecosystem approach toreef management. For example,MPAs may play a critical role inreef recovery through the pro-tection of areas of coral thathave survived bleaching or thatmay be more resilient to suchimpacts. However, to be fullyeffective, MPAs need to beestablished and managed as alinked network throughout aregion. Efforts are underway todevelop such an approach in theWestern Indian Ocean, initiallythrough the establishment of anetwork of MPA managers andexperts. Programs such asWorldlife Fund for Nature’sEast African Marine Ecoregioninitiative also have the potentialto contribute much in thisrespect.

Management of severelydegraded reefs, primarily thosethat have suffered heavy mortal-ity from bleaching, is now a fun-

damental concern in theWestern Indian Ocean, as inmany countries. Using experi-ences from the region, a bookletis being produced, with the sup-port of IUCN,World Wide Fundfor Nature, United StatesAgency for InternationalDevelopment and theSecretariat of the Convention onBiological Diversity, which out-lines measures and the precau-tionary approaches that areneeded to optimize conditionsfor reef regeneration. It will belaunched at the BaliInternational Coral ReefSymposium in October 2000with the aim of contributing toefforts to aid reef regenerationand to encourage furtherresearch on this important issue.

For further information,contact: Sue Wells, E.A.Marine Programme, IUCNEastern African RegionalOffice, P.O. Box 68200,Nairobi, Kenya. Tel: +254 2890605. Fax: +254 2890615. E-mail: [email protected]



connection of population withcarrying capacity in coastalareas.This is important consid-ering the conservative stand ofthe Catholic Church.

Community-based coastalmanagement has many smallsuccesses to its credit in thePhilippines. But with the scaleof problems becoming moreapparent, we need to developnew models. ‘Community’ isoften being replaced with ‘col-laborative,’ and experience isshowing that multi-sectoralarrangements are basic to suc-cess. Another ingredient morecommonly being considered iseconomics and the role of value.The ‘values’ of resources areimportant using whatever mea-

Remote Sensing for Tropical Coastal ManagersUNESCO Series, Coastal Management Sourcebooks 3

E.P. Green, P.J. Murphy, A.J. Edwards and C.D. Clark

This handbook provides a detained evaluation of what can realistically be achievedby remote sensing in an operational coastal management context. It is aimed atusers of the technology in government, NGOs, research institutes, universitiesand consulting who are involved in managing tropical coastal resources.

The handbook takes the user through the planning and implementation ofremote sensing projects from the setting of realistic objectives and acquisition,through to image interpretation and evaluation of the accuracy of outputs. Italso provides a clear guidance on the capabilities and cost-effectiveness ofthe most wildly used sensors.

Linked to the handbook is a computer-based remote sensing distance-learning module: Applications of Satellite and Airborne Image Data forCoastal Management, available free of charge via website:www.unesco.bilko.org

For further information and purchasing, contact UNESCOPublishing, Promotion and Sales Division, 7 place de Fontenoy,75352 Paris 07 SP, France. Fax: +33-1-45 68 57 37. Website:www.unesco.org/publishing

(continued from page 7)Philippine Management sures appropriate since it is

value and the perception of peo-ple about value that motivatespeople into action. Our modelscan place more emphasis onenvironmental value formation,and how to derive economicbenefits from healthy coastalenvironments using non-destructive and non-extractivetechniques.This will help com-munities and government to jus-tify investment in coastal man-agement and build strongerpartnerships.[Adapted from article publishedin Out of the Shell CoastalResources Network Newsletter,1999,Vol. 7, No. 2, p. 7-9.]

For further information, con-tact Alan T. White or EvelynDeguit, Coastal ResourcesManagement Project

Philippines, 5th Floor, CIFCTower, North ReclamationArea, Cebu City, Cebu 6000,Philippines. Tel: 6332-232-1821. Fax: 6332-232-1825. E-mail: [email protected]


an ecosystem-based, integratedapproach to coastal zone man-agement.”2) “To encourage conferenceparticipants to address theincreasing challenges of thecoast by sharing lessons learnedand identifying both innovativeand effective approaches, as wellas weaknesses, gaps, and unre-solved issues in coastal zonemanagement.”

Conference Scope andContent

The scope of CZM haschanged since 1978. One clearchange is the evolution fromprogram preparation to pro-gram implementation to pro-gram evaluation. In 1978, mostof the programs were in theprogram preparation stage.Since then many have advancedto the implementation stage.This trend can be seen in theincrease of presentations onmonitoring and evaluation.Conference announcements andcall for papers from CZ 85onward have stressed solutions.

The scope of main and sub-topics is very inclusive. It is dif-ficult to identify a subject that isrelevant to CZM that can not beconnected to one or more gen-eral topics or sub-topics.Thepurpose of the topic listings isto inform those who are notfamiliar with CZM what thefield encompasses. CZ 99’s callfor papers had several topics notusually included in a CZ confer-ence, such as ecological eco-nomics and sustainable develop-ment and spirituality, religionand philosophy.

Currently, there are at least218 topic areas that are underthe very wide tent of CZM.Thebroad scope of the practice, ascan be seen by reviewing thediversity of the 218 topics, hasand always will be one of thegreatest challenges to CZM(from cetaceans to cost analysis,from ecotourism to exclusiveeconomic zones, and from redtide to religious beliefs).Thereare only two things that allCZM topics have in common: a

in the development and imple-mentation of coastal plans.”

These two goals—providing aforum for multidisciplinaryexchange of information andimproving the practice ofCZM—have generally remainedthe same over the years.However, the multidisciplinaryconcept has expanded to includeother interest groups activelyengaged in CZM.With thiscame the emphasis towardsimproving integrated coastalmanagement (ICM). ICMemphasizes finding solutions andassessing the success of imple-menting them.These changesare reflected in the two statedgoals for CZ 97 as expressed inthe announcement and call forpapers:1) “To reach out to a broadrange of domestic and interna-tional, public and private policy-makers, NGOs, planners, busi-ness and industry interests,managers, and scholars to createan environment that will foster

Coastal Zone Conferences(continued from page 20)

Marine Protected Areas

ties continue to be the responsi-bility of the agencies, industries,and other users which have tra-ditionally managed fisheries andother activities.

The conclusion of more than20 years of GBRMP manage-ment is that an ecosystem-scaleapproach to management canaddress the requirements ofconservation and sustainableuse, but it involves continuousand substantial social and politi-cal energy. A regime was creat-ed to achieve the necessary sig-nificant cultural shift in sectoralthinking and management.Toensure that this cultural shiftresponds to experience and new

(continued from page 5)information requires continuingeffort.This can be very difficult.

The necessary cultural shiftaffects all sectors, but it can beparticularly acute for fisheries.Fishing industries, their man-agers and researchers, mustmake a transition from a cultureof growth, new stocks, and newtechnology for more effectivefinding and catching of fish, to aculture that reflects the need todemonstrate reasonableness andsustainability.This is a profound,and perhaps generational, cul-tural shift for a community,managers and industry. In themedium to long term, there is asynergy because a fishery whichis not ecologically sustainablewill not be economically or

socially sustainable. In themeantime, the adjustments tolive within the ecological limita-tions can have substantial eco-nomic and social implicationsand need to be addressed sys-tematically and carefully if theyare not to become politicalminefields.

For further information, con-tact Richard Kenchington, RACMarine Pty Ltd, PO Box 588.Jamison, ACT 2614, Australia.Tel: 61 2 62515597. E-mail:[email protected]


connection to policymaking orimplementation and some con-nection to seawater.

The need for the series tofocus and to do a few thingswell is one of the lessonslearned in the 37-year history ofCZM. For any program, theconcept of addressing a priorityset of issues is based on the real-ity that a CZM program at anylevel of governance will neverhave the resources and the sup-portive constituency to effec-tively address all the issues.Similarly, the reality of bothlimited resources and a support-ive constituency for a CZM pro-gram also requires that a pro-gram learn from it own experi-ence, as well as the experiencesof similarly situated programs.This is a second lesson gleanedfrom CZM’s 37 years.

Presentations andParticipation

Presentations made over thecourse of 22 years have been onwork done in 79 countries and14 international regions.However, many of these presen-tations (applied science or tech-nology topics) labeled with acountry or an internationalregion focus bear little rele-vance to the location in whichthe work was done.The workitself is not region specific andcould have been done at otherlocations.

Presentations and registrantshave been dominated by theUSA.This is understandablebecause since CZ 93, with twoexceptions, no concerted efforthas been made to attract over-seas participation. One excep-tion is the International Seminarthat has been convened for atwo-day period prior to theconference since CZ 91.Thesecond exception is the CZMcooperative program established

by United States Agency forInternational Development(USAID) and the University ofRhode Island’s Coastal ResourceCenter, Rhode Island, USA(CRC). Since CZ 85, USAIDand CRC have drawn in coun-terparts from their projects in atleast eight nations (i.e., Ecua-dor, Honduras, Indonesia,Mexico, Philippines, Sri Lankaand Tanzania, among others).

Conference ProceedingsA review of the proceedings

from CZ 78 through 97 indi-cates that approximately a thirdof the 3,345 presentations areboth informative and still rele-vant to present CZM programs.For those interested in ’how’issues, and the means to resolvethem, the entire set of CZ pro-ceedings provides a wealth ofinformation. For example, ‘how’has the issue of public accessbeen interpreted and addressedsince 1978? How effective haveCZM programs been in resolv-ing public access issues? Whathave we learned from experi-ence?

The set of proceedings alsotraces the development of tech-niques (such as a GIS or cumula-tive impact assessment) or tech-nologies (such as erosion con-trol works or wastewater treat-ment systems). In addition, theproceedings provide a history ofmany CZM programs. For someprograms (e.g., USA, nationalprogram or state programs; SriLanka; Ecuador; Australia) theseare periodic snapshots ofsequential steps from programpreparation to adoption toimplementation to evaluation torevision.

However, at present, there aretwo very evident problems withusing the complete set of pro-ceedings: their availability andthe lack of a search system. A

small number of individuals andinstitutions have the completeset of proceedings; a reasonableguess is probably between 10and 20. If one does have accessto a complete set, the dauntingchallenge is to locate the pre-sentations that are both infor-mative and still relevant to aparticular area of interest.Theremedy for both problemswould be the development of asearchable CDROM.

Let us hope that interest,nationally and internationally, inthe information presented at CZ01 will both stimulate andrevive interest in overcomingthese hurdles, thus making themany years of information avail-able to all.

[Excerpted from the draftreport A RetrospectiveAssessment of the Coastal ZoneConference Series in the UnitedStates, Harbor and CoastalCenter, University ofMassachusetts, Boston,Massachusetts 02125 USA]

(With the exception of CZ83, the author has attended allthe conferences, giving one ormore oral presentations.)

For further information, con-tact Jens Sorensen, Harbor andCoastal Center, University ofMassachusetts, Boston,Massachusetts 02125 USA. Tel:617 287-5578. Fax: 617 287-5599. E-mail: [email protected]


ICM in Tropics

spanned four to six years.Projects are usually less thanclear on the assumptions thatunderpin the outcomes theypropose to achieve in their usualfour to six-year life span.Whenone teases out such assump-tions, it usually becomes clearthat a number of them are noth-ing short of heroic in terms of:1) the time in which desiredoutcomes will be achieved, and2) the geographic scales atwhich such project outcomeswill have a positive impact. Atypical integrated coastal man-agement (ICM) project designcalls for ‘initial implementation’of the plan or plans developed atthe pilot sites, laying thegroundwork for replication ofsuccesses elsewhere, and docu-menting some measure of out-come—all within a project’s lifespan.

Two closely linked conclu-sions cut across all the initiativeswe have surveyed.These conclu-sions appear to be reinforced byreports on the accomplishmentsof other coastal managementinitiatives in this newsletter andelsewhere.

Conclusion #1: It takeslonger

In most cases, coastal manage-ment projects we have examinedare taking place in areas wherenothing like it has been attempt-ed before. A common strategy isto focus on a few small selectedsites or ‘pilot areas’ while simul-taneously preparing the groundfor improved planning and deci-sionmaking at a larger geograph-ic scale.The typical expectationis that within the life of suchprojects, the initiative will pro-ceed through an initial phase ofimplementation. In the greatmajority of cases, we find that

the reality is that five years is aminimum to prepare a techni-cally sound and politically viable(i.e., with adequate participa-tion and subsequent commit-ments among those affected)plan of action and to put inplace the capacity to implementit.The common pattern is forenergies to be expended pri-marily at the pilot project scale.Little time or energy is left overfor building support at the nexthigher scale, be it the provinceor the nation.

Many of the designs pay scantattention to step 3—formalcommitment with the funds andthe public support (constituen-cies) that are preconditions forimplementation.There seems tobe a real distaste for acknowl-edging the necessity of step 3.This is understandable given theweakness of formal governmentin many developing countries.But implementation of a plan ofaction that addresses importantissues involving the interests, ifnot the livelihoods of many peo-ple, needs more than the goodintentions of a few individuals.There has to be some formalinstitutional commitment—beit from a village council, a busi-ness association, governmentagencies or, most often, a com-bination of them all. In the U.S.Coastal Zone ManagementProgram, states must demon-strate that they have the authori-ties and the capacities in placeto implement their program ifthey want more generous fund-ing. Furthermore, the longerhistorical record of managementefforts in USA, Australia, andEurope, demonstrates that it is acommitment to a plan that willaddress the challenges raised byhow coastal areas and resourcesare to be used and changed thatlies at the heart of making the

all important step from inten-tion to fruitful action.

Conclusion #2: Successrequires sustained politi-cal support and funding

Experience in the wealthier,more politically stable nationsdemonstrates that achievementof measurable outcomes incoastal settings usually requiressignificant changes in societalbehavior.Yet the great majorityof the coastal management ini-tiatives now underway are fund-ed, at least in part, by institu-tions that operate across nation-al boundaries—be they govern-mental, nongovernmental orbusiness driven.Yet in mostcases the grant funds available todeveloping nations are for plan-ning only.With the notableexception of the GEF, nationstates are expected to pay theirway for implementation.Thiscreates a climate of great uncer-tainty for those involved, andraises questions about the com-mitment of the internationalcommunity to making progresson the issues that ICM isdesigned to address. Creativeand well-connected individualsskilled in the art of projectpreparation can sometimes sus-tain promising efforts, but fartoo many solid beginnings arefalling by the wayside.

If ICM is to fulfill its promiseas a means of progressingtowards sustainable forms ofdevelopment at a time when thetrends demonstrate that we areusually moving in the oppositedirection, we must become real-istic on how long it takes tomake progress. Project designsmust recognize that measurableoutcomes at significant geo-graphic scales will take manyyears of sustained effort toachieve. It is folly to expect oth-erwise. It is equally unrealistic



to expect that poor nations canpiece together funds to sustainpromising ICM initiatives.Thereneeds to be an internationalequivalent of the implementa-tion grants that catalyzed state-

level coastal management in theUSA.

For further information,contact Stephen Olsen,Coastal Resources Center,University of Rhode Island,

Narragansett Bay Campus,South Ferry Road,Narragansett, Rhode Island,USA 02882. Tel: 401-874-6501. Fax: 401-789-4670.E-mail: [email protected]

Oceans and Coasts at Rio +10:Assessing Progress

Addressing Continuing and New ChallengesUNESCO headquarters, Paris, France, December 3-7, 2001

Close to 10 years after the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development(UNCED), informal discussions among nongovernmental organizations and scientists have resulted in

the planning of a global conference to consider the status of oceans and coasts. As is well known, abroad oceans and coasts agenda has been adopted.

Years 2000-2002 will bring numerous meetings and conferences related to the post-UNCED oceanagenda. However, no plans exist for a conference that would bring together all aspects of the post-UNCED oceans and coasts agenda and provide an overall perspective in order to chart new directionson cross-sectoral issues.This is the intent of the Oceans and Coasts at Rio +10 conference.

The conference aims to:�Assess post-UNCED progress�Identify and renew commitment to persistent challenges�Provide options to address outstanding cross-sectoral issues

Panels will feature a combination of speakers from governments andintergovernmental, international and nongovernmental organizations.

Conference topics include conferences and conventionsImplementation (e.g., Law of the Sea, Rio Principles), sustainabledevelopment; land and sea-based pollution; resource use and conser-vation; climate change; capacity building among others. In addition,renewing commitments, identifying new challenges and defining issuesfor the global agenda in the next decade.

On all of these topics, implementation has occurred at the internation-al, national, and sub-national levels. Hence, the conference will encour-age papers that provide an overview of implementation activities and ini-tiatives.

Post-conference material will include a conference summary and con-ference recommendations.These will be distributed to government del-egations prior to the Rio +10 meeting. In addition, longer analyticalpapers will be published in a series of special issues in the internationaljournal Ocean & Coastal Management, and in related journals such asMarine Policy, Coastal Management, and InternationalJournal of Marine and Coastal Law.

For further information, contact Patricio Bernal,IOC,1 rue Miollis, 75732 Paris Cedex 15, France. Tel: 331-45-683938. Fax: 331-685810. E-mail: [email protected] or Biliana Cicin-Sain, University ofDelaware, 301 Robinson Hall, Newark, Delaware, 19716 USA.Tel: 302-831-8086. E-mail:[email protected]

Coastal Resources CenterUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansett Bay CampusNarragansett, RI 02882 USA

Address service requested

Printed on recycled paper

deterrent, but 12 years later itseems that sustainability of pro-duction is the key.There is agrowing need for more rationalsiting of culture facilities(including minimization of nega-tive environmental impact).Allocation of space for culturecan be aided greatly by use ofGIS technology.

Since reporting in 1988,Conner Bailey (page 18) is con-cerned about a shift in shrimp(prawn) culture in Asia.Specifically, decimating man-groves to build shrimp ponds isnow not so prevalent as it was12 years ago. However, growersare shifting to salt flats and pooragricultural lands because of theexpense of clearing mangrovesand the effects of acidic soilconditions. In addition, the lackof benefits from farming provid-ed to local people seems to beworsening.

Richard Kenchington (page 4)notes that since 1988 marineprotected area initiatives haveexpanded from biodiversity andunique natural asset protectionsites into multiple-use manage-ment areas where sustainabilityof seafood resources is a priori-ty. Multiple-use areas require

Changing Times(continued from page 2)

much wider participation and amore comprehensive, manage-ment-type approach.

Peter Bacon (page 12) arguesthat opportunities for mangrovemanagement have changed since1988 when individual mangrovestands were designated as wet-lands and were protected by aforestry or conservation depart-ment totally apart from manage-ment of the coast or estuarywhere they were located. Baconbelieves that in the past 12years, knowledge of the linkagesof mangrove, seagrass, coralreefs, etc. in coastal ecosystemsalong with international concern

has improved the outlook for more com-prehensive management.

Unfortunately, I have not been able tomention all the excellent articles in thisissue. Still, those not mentioned com-bined with those mentioned cover only aportion of the activity in our field. Athread common to all is the confirmationthat we are in a transitional phase ofcoastal management practices. Moreover,the articles suggest that further advancesare likely in the new millennium if weremain dedicated.

For further information, contactJohn Clark, 281 W. Indies Dr.,Ramrod, Florida 33042 USA. Tel:305-872-4114. E-mail:[email protected]

Coastal Resources Center Website(http://crc.uri.edu)

Links to activities worldwide

We b s i t e( http://crc.uri.edu/comm/htmlpubs/ic/index.html)

changing times:coastal management 1986 to 2000 · 2016-02-29 · of coastal management that attempt...

Documents