36623 Measuring Coral Reef Ecosystem Health Coral Reef Ecosyste… · coral reef ecosystem health...

0

20

40

60

80

100Reef health index

Governmente�ectivenessindex

Tourism index

Percent of population improved sanitation

Mangroveindex

Reef-dependence percentage

THE WORLD BANK

Measuring Coral Reef Ecosystem Health

Integrating Societal DimensionsEnvironment Department

THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USA

Telephone: 202.473.1816Fax: 202.522.3256

Internet: www.worldbank.org/icm

All cover images by MBRS Project, except where noted: Center—Heads of State renewing commitment to Tulum Declaration. Clockwise from top—Figure 3.1 from page 35 on Conceptual Framework; Coral reef monitoring, Belize; Yucatan Peninsula and the Gulf of Honduras, including the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System, NASA Sea WiFF; Cayos Cochinos, Honduras; Mangrove monitoring, Mexico; Rio Dulce, Guatemala

Measu

ring

Co

ral Reef Eco

system H

ealth —

Integ

rating

Societal D

imen

sion

s

36623

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Re p o r t N o . 3 6 6 2 3 – G L B

Measuring Coral Reef Ecosystem Health: Integrating Societal

Dimensions

September 2006

Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd ciMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd ci 10/4/06 6:54:44 PM10/4/06 6:54:44 PM

36623

© 2006 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA

Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.orgE-mail: [email protected]

All rights reserved. First printing September 2006

Rights and Permissions

The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.

For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com .

All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Offi ce of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: [email protected].

Acknowledgements

This work is the product of teamwork and a close collaboration with partners both inside and outside the Bank. The overall team effort, led by Marea Hatziolos, has relied on contributions from experts across many disciplines, but nearly all with a passion for coral reefs. The need to defi ne Ecosystem Health from a multi-dimensional perspective, going beyond ecological an economic drivers to include human health, governance and cultural aspects is largely the work of David Rapport, Luisa Maffi , John Howard and Ola Ullsten. Applying this notion to measure coral reef ecosystem health—through development of a conceptual framework for assessing the health of the MesoAmerican Reef—has been pioneered by Patricia Kramer and Melanie McField with support from Stefano Belfi ore and partners of the “Healthy Reefs for Healthy People” Initiative. John Dixon was the principal author of Chapter 3, moving from the conceptual to the operational stage in assessing MAR health and communicating these results effectively to decision-makers. Lina Ibarra oversaw the acquisition of key data, essential to the analysis of the MAR. In this context, the team also wishes to thank Carlos Gallegos, Anaite Seibt, Evelia Hernandez, Marisol Rivera, Miguel Angel Garcia, Tomas Camarena, Gerardo Gold and other researchers in the fi eld who contributed or facilitated data acquisition. The Team is extremely grateful to peer reviewers (Carlos Munoz, Uwe Deichman, and John Bryant Collier), Laura Tlaiye and Giovanni Ruta for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions on improving the paper.

Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd ciiMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cii 10/4/06 6:54:46 PM10/4/06 6:54:46 PM

iii

Acronyms

AGGRA Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment

CCAD Central American Commission on

Environment and Development

CBD Convention on Biodiversity

ESI Environmental Sustainability Index

ESW Economic and Sector Work

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEF Global Environment Facility

GEM Gender Empowerment Measure

GESAMP The Joint Group of Experts on the Scientifi c

Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection

GNI Gross National Income

GPA Global Program of Action (for Protection of

the Marine Environment against Land-Based

Activities)

HDI Human Development Index

IHT Instituto Hondureño de Turismo

ILO International Labor Organization

INE Instituto Nacional de Ecología (México)

IUCN The World Conservation Union

MA 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MAR MesoAmerican Reef

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

MPA Marine Protected Area

NGO Non-Governmental Organization

PAHO PanAmerican Health Organization

PPP Purchasing Power Parity

TTL Task Team Leader

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNEP United Nations Environment Program

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and

Cultural Organization

WHO World Health Organization

WRI World Resources Institute

WWF World Wildlife Fund

Vice President: Kathy Sierra

Sector Director: James Warren Evans

Sector Manager: Laura Tlaiye

Team Leader: Marea E. Hatziolos

Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd ciiiMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd ciii 10/4/06 6:54:46 PM10/4/06 6:54:46 PM

Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd civMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd civ 10/4/06 6:54:46 PM10/4/06 6:54:46 PM

v

Contents

Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. v

Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................1 1.1. Context and Rationale .........................................................................................................................1 1.2. Objectives ...........................................................................................................................................2 1.3. Audience ............................................................................................................................................3 1.4. Dissemination Strategy ........................................................................................................................3

Chapter 2. A Framework for Measuring Societal Dimensions of Coral Reef Ecosystem Health .................................5 2.1. Defi ning Ecosystem Health ...................................................................................................................5 2.2. Developing Indicators of Sociocultural Health .......................................................................................9 2.3. Candidate Indicators .........................................................................................................................11 2.4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................19

Chapter 3. Applying the Framework to the Mesoamerican Reef ...........................................................................21 3.1. Elements of an Indicator Scorecard ....................................................................................................24 3.2. The MAR Countries: A Proposed Reef/Coastal Sustainability Index ........................................................32 3.3. Blue Flags/Red Flags: Using Indicators to Improve Management ..........................................................36 3.4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................39

Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................................................43

Annexes1. Environmental Context of the MAR .............................................................................................................452. Individual Profi le Cards for Selected Economic Variables .............................................................................473. Sources for Table 3.2 Indicators .................................................................................................................534. 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and Other Indices .................................................................55

BoxBox 1. Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative ...............................................................................................3

MapsMap 2.1. Density of Reef Fish at selected sites in the MAR ..................................................................................6Map 2.2. Pesticide Residue Levels in the MAR ....................................................................................................7Map 2.3. Biological and Cultural Diversity in Mesoamerica ..............................................................................16Map 3.1. MAR Eco-Region and MPA sites ........................................................................................................22

v

Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cvMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cv 10/4/06 6:54:46 PM10/4/06 6:54:46 PM

Figures 1.1. Conceptual Framework: Indicators of Reef Health & Social Well-Being .........................................................83.1. Composite Index of Overall Reef/Ecosystem Health for the Four MAR countries ..........................................35

Tables2.1. Criteria for Indicator Selection ...................................................................................................................92.2. Indicator Framework ...............................................................................................................................112.3. Socioeconomic Indicators ........................................................................................................................122.4. Governance Indicators ............................................................................................................................152.5. Cultural Indicators ..................................................................................................................................172.6. Health Indicators ....................................................................................................................................183.1. National-Level Contextual Indicators (Data from 2002–2004) ...................................................................263.2. Socioeconomic/Governance/Cultural Indicators for Improved Reef Management .......................................273.3. Comparison of Coral Reef Health Indicators ............................................................................................333.4. Overall Reef/Ecosystem Health Indicators .................................................................................................34

vi

MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS

Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cviMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cvi 10/4/06 6:54:47 PM10/4/06 6:54:47 PM

Executive Summary

“Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems

more rapidly and extensively than in any other comparable

period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly

growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fi ber, and

fuel. Approximately 20% of the world’s coral reefs were

lost and an additional 20% degraded in the last several

decades of the 20th century, and approximately 35% of

mangrove area was lost during this time.’’Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment - Synthesis Report 2005.

Coral reefs, in addition to being the world’s richest

repositories of marine biodiversity and a source of natural

products with far reaching human health and technological

applications, are critical economic assets for nearly 100

countries around the world. They provide goods and

services worth hundreds of billions of dollars annually

in tourism, fi sheries, coastal protection, biodiversity,

sustenance and income to coastal communities.

The root causes of the rapid deterioration of coral reefs

that we are witnessing today lie in direct impacts from

human activities, e.g., over fi shing, destructive fi shing

practices, chronic pollution, sedimentation from degraded

watersheds, and physical alteration associated with

coastal development, tourism, oil and gas exploration.

Increasingly, however, indirect impacts of human activities

linked to climate change and changes in the global

nitrogen cycle are having profound impacts on coral

reefs. Bleaching, increased outbreaks of disease (both

in frequency and type), and greater storm frequency

and intensity are acting as major system drivers along

with more direct human assaults on reefs. These act

synergistically. Poorly managed reefs are more stressed

and less resilient to externalities beyond the control of

local decision-makers.

The Caribbean serves as a microcosm of the events

playing out on the global scale.

“There has been a major and possibly catastrophic decline

in the coral reefs of the wider Caribbean, including the reefs

of the nearby Atlantic, with the estimated decline in live

coral cover of many of the reefs from about 50% cover…just

25 years ago to about 10% cover on these reefs now.” --

Clive Wilkinson, Status of Coral Reefs of the World 2004

Less than a year since these observations were published,

Caribbean reefs experienced the most intense bleaching

episode on record and have been buffeted by a series of

hurricanes, including Hurricane Wilma, which left many

reefs shattered, covered with sediment and vulnerable to

disease. With this rapid erosion of reef health and function,

go the livelihoods and welfare of millions of people who

depend on them directly. Estimates of economic losses

from coral reef degradation in the Caribbean alone range

from $350-870 million/yr by 2015 to coastal countries

which currently receive benefi ts valued collectively at $3-4

billion/yr (Burke and Maidens, Reefs at Risk 2004). What is

alarming about the Caribbean is the rapid transformation

in many areas of once healthy reefs to shadows of their

former vitality and biodiversity.

Reversing such degradation is important to coastal

nations, particularly those with a strong dependence on

vii

Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cviiMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cvii 10/4/06 6:54:47 PM10/4/06 6:54:47 PM

viii


marine ecosystem goods and services. But knowing how

and when to respond requires a better understanding of

coral reef ecosystem health and the drivers responsible

for change. A comprehensive assessment of coral reef

ecosystem health needs to take into account not only

ecological dimensions, but the human dimension as well.

This study goes well beyond prior efforts to measure coral

reef health based largely on biophysical indicators. These

include, typically, water quality/chemistry; biological

community structure, including coral reef fi sh and coral

assemblages; the extent of coral reef cover vs. algal cover

(the latter indicating signs of eutrophication) and more

recently, evidence of coral bleaching and coral disease,

particularly in the Caribbean.

Here our emphasis is on identifying a complementary

suite of socio-cultural indicators which include economic,

governance, cultural and human health aspects, to

capture the links between social and ecological factors

that shape coral reef ecosystem health. Selecting which

indicators to measure these attributes requires the

application of a simple screen. To be useful, indicators

must pass the test of:

Relevance

Data availability

Scientifi c soundness

Management responsiveness

Communicability (Transparency)

Taken together and monitored over time, the indicators

selected from both biophysical and socio-cultural realms

can act as reliable signals of actual change or potential

change in reef ecosystem response to human and

environmental pressures.

n

n

n

n

n

Developing the conceptual framework for such an

integrated set of indicators and applying it in practice,

is the objective of “Healthy Reefs for Healthy People,”

a joint initiative between the World Bank, the Summit

Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, Perigee International

and the Central American Commission for Environment

and Development, through a WB/GEF supported project

entitled, “Conservation and Sustainable Use of the

Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System. The partnership

aims to provide decision makers in the region with

a set of metrics to accurately assess the health of the

Mesoamerican Reef (MAR). This includes the world’s

second longest Barrier Reef and a system of outstanding

marine habitats, diverse biological and human

communities extending from the Yucatan Peninsula in

Mexico through Belize, Guatemala, and the north coast

of Honduras to the Bay Islands.

As part of the Bank’s contribution to this effort, this report

focuses on identifying an appropriate set of socio-cultural

indicators to complement progress made thus far on

the biophysical aspects of coral reef ecosystem health,

and to apply these indicators to the four countries of the

MAR. Equally important is developing an interpretation

framework to communicate these fi ndings to policymakers

and managers.

All indicators are not created equal. Depending on what

they measure, some will be more or less relevant to the

questions at hand, will have data available on their state

at levels of disaggregation essential to the analysis, will

be more or less robust, sensitive to changes in policy or

management interventions and easy to communicate

to a target audience. The report sets up a process for

selection of a discrete set of indicators appropriate for

the MAR and some comparator countries and develops a

Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cviiiMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cviii 10/4/06 6:54:47 PM10/4/06 6:54:47 PM

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Coastal/Reef Sustainability Index based on the following

6 components:

Percent of total population served by sanitation

services

n

Tourism quality

Mangrove loss

Reef-dependence

Governance effectiveness

Reef ecological health.

n

n

n

n

n

Mexico

02040

6080

100Reef Health Index

Government Effectiveness

Index

Tourism Index

% pop. Improved sanitation

Mangrove Index

Reef-dependence %

0

20

406080



Index

Tourism Index


Mangrove Index

Reef-dependence %

Guatemala

020

40

60

80100

Reef Health Index


Index

Tourism Index


Mangrove Index

Reef-dependence %

Belize

020

40

6080



Index

Tourism Index


Mangrove Index

Reef-dependence %

Honduras

Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cixMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cix 10/4/06 6:54:48 PM10/4/06 6:54:48 PM

x


A composite picture of coral reef ecosystem health emerges

for each of the four MAR countries. These composites

are visually represented in the form of hexagons whose

6 points are aligned along a continuum from 0-100

refl ecting the maximum and minimum normalized values

for that indicator among the four MAR countries. The six-

sided space which emerges is easily compared among

the four countries or with a benchmark in the region to

determine ecosystem health relative to some standard.

Another management approach is to utilize the indicators

that have been identifi ed to see what the “package” of

indicators looks like in a better-managed location, as

opposed to a site where there are more management

challenges. To this end, a blue fl ag/red fl ag comparison

has been identifi ed and the relevant indicators for

each examined. A blue fl ag scenario is one where reef

conservation and economic activities are more in balance

and appear on a more sustainable path. In contrast, a red

Indicator Blue Flag values Red Flag values

Income level p.c. higher lower and/or stagnant

ESI index high low

HDI rank lower higher

Population with sanitation high (~100%) lower (60% or less)

Tourism index higher lower

Room rate high/rising low/falling

Government eff ess index high low

Corruption index lower high/rising

Reef share of economy hogher/growing? lower/falling?

Reef health index high/rising low/falling

Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cxMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cx 10/4/06 6:54:49 PM10/4/06 6:54:49 PM

xi

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

fl ag location is one where considerable problems exist—

often a combination of factors that result in both direct

overuse of the reef resources as well as stresses placed on

those resources from the outside.

In both cases, the result is a visual representation of

coral reef ecosystem health along a multi-dimensional

landscape, which is amenable to comparison and easily

interpreted by decision-makers. Values for these indicators

may be location specifi c, with some areas demonstrating

more positive than negative characteristics. However,

assigning values to discrete reef systems should be a

participatory exercise, where reef managers and nearby

communities are involved. Bringing stakeholders together

to assess reef ecosystem health based on intimate

knowledge of the reef and the status of socio-economic/

governance indicators is an excellent way to identify

trouble spots and gain ownership for an action plan.

Both the hexagonal windrose and blue fl ag/red fl ag

representation of indicators in the four countries, raise

concerns about the health of the MAR. Threats to the MAR

are increasing daily with tourism and population growth

(including migration) driving development pathways.

Given the value of the MAR—economically, culturally and

ecologically—to the region, it is essential that decision-

makers understand the effects of their policy choices in

the context of the MAR—its current status and prospects

for long-term health. The indicators presented in this work

help to make these connections clear, making the public

and politicians alike more accountable for their actions.

Like any measures, these can be refi ned with better data

and experience, but the process outlined here represents

an important step in the development of an integrated,

discrete, and cost-effective set of indicators to measure

change in coral reef ecosystem health and its implications

for sustainable development.

Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cxiMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cxi 10/4/06 6:54:49 PM10/4/06 6:54:49 PM

Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cxiiMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cxii 10/4/06 6:54:50 PM10/4/06 6:54:50 PM

1

Chapter 1Introduction

1.1. Context and Rationale

It is widely recognized that the earth’s ecosystems

are failing (MEA 2005; UNEP et al. 1998). From the

fi rst international conference on the environment at

Stockholm in 1972 to the recent 2002 World Summit

on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, nation-

states and international bodies have continued to

express grave concern about the rapid deterioration

in the resilience and vitality of the earth’s ecosystems.

Ambitious action plans—such as the 1992 Rio Summit’s

Agenda 21—have been devised with the sole purpose

of arresting and reversing the unparalleled loss in

the vitality of the earth’s ecosystems, and signifi cant

commitments have been made at the global, sub-

global, and regional scales. But there has yet to be any

signifi cant turnaround. The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment (MA), the fi rst global assessment of the state

of the earth’s ecosystems, confi rmed that most systems

are under severe threat, and fi ve—including global

fi sheries and aquatic ecosystems—are especially at risk.

The continued degradation of the world’s coral reefs

(Wilkenson and others 2004, Burke and Maidens 2004,

Aronson and others 2000, Kramer and others 2000) is a

clear manifestation of this trend.

The fundamental causes are rooted in the consequences

of unprecedented pressures from human activity on the

environment: release of waste residuals to air, water,

and land; over-harvesting of renewable resources; the

purposeful or accidental introduction of exotic species;

physical restructuring of the landscape (particularly through

large dams and diversions, urbanization, agriculture,

etc.); and the global impacts of climate change.

According to the MA, some 60 percent of the benefi ts that

the global ecosystem provides to support life on Earth (such

as fresh water, clean air and a relatively stable climate)

are being degraded or used unsustainably. Wetlands and

coral reefs, according to the report, are being degraded

and lost at a more rapid rate than other ecosystems.1

Reversing such degradation is strategically important

to coastal nations, particularly those with a strong

dependence on marine ecosystem goods and services,

small-island states, and small coastal nations or local

economies.

A comprehensive assessment of ecosystem health needs

to take into account not only traditional ecological

dimensions, but the human dimension as well. The evolving

literature on ecosystem health (Rapport et. al.) stresses the

essential interdependence between ecosystem and human

health, as well as the notion that a better understanding

of the linkages among socioeconomic activity, cultural

vitality, human health, and the ecological processes that

regulate the biophysical system is essential to reversing

the degradation of the latter. In response, management

actions are needed at many levels, including:

Identifying and tracking the most fundamental drivers

of ecosystem transformation. There are a number of

n

1 http://www.millenniumnassessment.org/en/index.aspx

Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:1Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:1 10/4/06 6:54:50 PM10/4/06 6:54:50 PM

2


considerations here, including demographic changes,

environmental refugees, and income disparities.

Recognizing the potential for human activities to enhance

as much as degrade the environment. Traditional

relations of indigenous peoples to their ecosystems

suggest that human activities also have the potential

for maintaining and in some cases even enhancing

ecosystem resilience.

Appreciating the dynamics of ecosystems, with their

inherent uncertainties and surprises. Human activities do

not generally manifest their full impacts on ecosystems

immediately. The cumulative effects of many activities

on the environment unfold over time, which manifests

itself not only in changes in biophysical properties,

but also in changes in the socioeconomic and cultural

dimensions of ecosystems, including changes in human

health vulnerabilities. In short, environmental change

and human well-being are interdependent.

1.2. Objectives

In this study, various tools that are being developed to

measure the relationship between ecosystem health and

societal trends are applied in the context of coral reef

ecosystem health. In so doing, the study attempts to

go well beyond prior efforts to assess coral reef health,

based largely on biophysical indicators. The objective

is to identify a suite of indicators that capture the multi-

dimensional nature of reef ecosystem health, and when

taken together, can act as reliable warning signals

for changes in economic sustainability, quality of life,

and human health which track with trends in coral reef

ecosystem response.

The development and application of this multi-dimensional

metric of coral reef health is then applied to the Mesoamerican

n

n

Reef (MAR). Box 1 illustrates how this framework can be

used. The product of this ESW is the identifi cation and

characterization of an integrated set of societal indicators

that, along with previously defi ned biophysical indicators,

can be used to describe the status and trends in the health

of coral reef ecosystems. To test the utility of this approach,

the study then applies it to develop an appropriate subset

of sociocultural, governance, and human health indicators

for the Mesoamerican Reef. It creates an interpretation

framework for analyzing MAR health and reporting it to

decisionmakers, including comparisons with other countries

in the larger Caribbean region.

The resulting indicator framework can be used to provide

managers or other stakeholders with a set of indicators to

communicate to decision-makers and the general public,

positive or negative trends in the health of coral reefs.

Thus, while the end product of this analysis will be specifi c

to the MAR, the process of selection of a set of appropriate

socio-cultural indicators that can be integrated with

traditional biophysical indicators of reef health has utility

well beyond the context of the MAR. The tools developed

in this process can be adapted for use by reef managers

and social scientists to report on the state of coral reef

ecosystems around the world. Consulting with a range

of stakeholders—from reef managers to public offi cials,

social scientists, NGOs, business entrepreneurs and local

communities--to test the validity and public understanding

of proposed indicators, is an essential element in this

process. This analytical work and complementary efforts

under the Healthy Mesoamerican Reef Initiative, represent

important fi rst steps in broadening our understanding of

the concept of coral reef ecosystem health, our ability to

track it through indicators that resonate with the general

public and to communicate results effectively to those in a

position to intervene.


3

INTRODUCTION

1.3. Audience

While the tools and analytical framework developed

here are particularly relevant to stakeholders in the four

Mesoamerican Barrier Reef countries (of Belize, Guatemala,

Honduras and Mexico), they are likely to resonate with

any country that depends on coral reef ecosystem goods

and services, to underpin economic growth, and to

provide livelihoods, food, and environmental security to

its people. Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which

are highly dependent on marine resources and are

especially vulnerable to climate change, are important

likely users of this work. Communicating the consequences

of accelerating declines in coral reef ecosystem health is

ultimately a matter of concern not only to countries with

coral reefs, but to the larger global community, concerned

with the health of the oceans. As the canaries in the

coal mine, coral reefs are proxies for ocean health and,

hence, the health of our Blue Planet. Monitoring it and

understanding how best to intervene is of interest to all

of us.

1.4. Dissemination Strategy

The report will be delivered to the client—the Central

American Commission on Environment and Development-

CCAD) and the four MAR countries—and presented in

a series of formal presentations and consultations with

stakeholders as part of the Tulum + 8 process. This

process aims to obtain a renewed commitment at the

The MAR is the focus of a partnership among the World Bank, the World Wildlife Fund, the Summit Foundation, Perigee International and a GEF/World Bank regional project, Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System. The Healthy Mesoamerican Reef Ecosystem Initiative (HMREI)2, whose goal and message is “Healthy Reefs for Healthy People,” focuses on the world’s second longest Barrier Reef. This system of outstanding habitats, species complexes, biogeography and cultural resources includes several World Heritage Sites within its boundaries. It extends from the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico south along the coast of Belize, Guatemala, and the north coast of Honduras through the Bay Islands.

The initiative aims to provide decision makers in the region with a set of metrics to accurately and routinely assess the health of the MAR, a regional public good vital to the economic and social well-being of 2 million people who live within its drainage basin. It seeks to develop the key levers by which resource managers can monitor, assess, and evaluate actions taken to restore the health to one of the world’s most biologically and culturally diverse ecosystems. The impetus for this initiative was the Tulum Declaration (1997), which committed these four nations to cooperate in the conservation and management of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef.

Box 1. Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative

2 The Initiative is growing, with over 70 individual contributors, and with The Nature Conser-vancy and Environmental Defense now participating as institutional members, and several other groups ready to engage.


4


highest levels of government to long-term stewardship of

the Mesoamerican reef, preserving its health and its ability

to provide essential benefi ts to the people of the region. In

addition, the study will be presented in global workshops

and conferences dealing with marine management issues

to provide a platform for engaging multi-disciplinary

audiences, including economists, health professionals,

ecologists, and anthropologists.


5

2.1 Defi ning Ecosystem Health

Ecosystem health and environmental health are not

synonymous. In practice, environmental health refers to

the health of humans in the context of some environmental

variable, usually expressed in negative terms--for example,

exposure to toxic substances, or disease (Rapport et al

1985.). In contrast, ecosystem health pertains to the

sustainability of ecosystem functions in the presence of

human activities. It focuses on whether ecological functions

are maintained so as to avoid potential adverse effects on

maintenance of renewable resources (such as fi sheries),

human health (through disruption of food supplies, or

increased exposure to vector-borne diseases), sustainable

livelihoods and cultural survival.

Ecosystem health can be looked at in terms of both

ecological functions and social well-being and the

degree to which both exhibit properties of resilience and

adaptation to changing environments. The dimensions of

social well-being include socioeconomic aspects (such as

sustainable livelihoods), governance, cultural health and

human health. While one or more dimensions of ecosystem

health (such as economic well-being) may appear to thrive

at the expense of others (such as biophysical health),

this condition cannot ultimately be sustained. Long-term

ecosystem health implies health in all of its dimensions.

This holistic concept of ecosystem health can be used as

a starting point to determine links between social and

ecological factors that may act as ecosystem drivers

and ultimately as a way to understand how these factors

interact over time to determine coral reef ecosystem health.

This ESW focuses on the human dimension, particularly

socioeconomic activity, cultural practices, human health

and governance systems. Our goal is to derive robust

indicators in each of these domains. These, then, can be

drawn from to develop a coherent subset of indicators

which can be used to assess coral reef ecosystem health

within a given national or regional context. Our aim is to

apply this more holistic approach to broaden our concept

of coral reef health and more accurately gauge the health

of the MAR from a “humans in” perspective.

As noted in the introduction, this focus on socio-cultural/

governance indicators, complements efforts to develop

indicators of coral reef health from an ecological

perspective. Until very recently, most monitoring of coral

reefs has recorded only bio-physical indicators, e.g.,

water quality/chemistry; biological community structure,

including coral reef fi sh and coral assemblages; the extent

of coral reef cover vs. algal cover (the latter indicating

signs of eutrophication) and more recently, evidence of

coral bleaching and coral disease, particularly in the

Caribbean.

For example, Maps 2.1 and 2.2 show the biomass

of hervivorous fi sh and pesticide residue levels

(Hexachlorocyclohexanes) at predetermined sampling

sites along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef. Data indicates

Chapter 2A Framework for Measuring Societal Dimensions of Coral Reef Ecosystem Health

3 These data are part of a baseline survey of the health of the MAR, carried out under the World Bank/GEF Project (Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System), which is a partner in the Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative.


6


heavy concentrations even in select Marine Protected

Areas.3 These biophysical indicators are only a small

subset of ecological indicators typically used to monitor

reef health by coral reef managers and scientists.

However, recently, socio-economic monitoring of human

populations in close proximity to coral reefs, has begun to

be incorporated into coral reef monitoring programs. This

has come about since the publication of fi eld guides and

manuals (e.g., Socioeconomic Monitoring for Coral Reef

Management in Asia, Bunce et al 2001 and Socioeconomic

Monitoring for Coral Reef Management in the Caribbean,

Bunce et al 2003; Christie et al 2003), in response to

the need for managers to understand peoples’ attitudes

toward and dependency on reefs to improve the quality

of their interactions and the fl ow of benefi ts from healthy

reefs now and in the future.

This has provided an impetus to the coral reef community

to become more interdisciplinary and to broaden the

dialogue on coral reef health and sustainability to

include discussions of positive human-reef interactions

and feedback loops which are mutually reinforcing and

sustainable.

An evaluation of the health of ecosystems should go well

beyond ecological measures of health. It should also take

into account relationships between ecological conditions,

human health, cultural values and practices, sustainable

livelihoods and governance. These various aspects do not

necessarily move in the same direction; for example, in

the short term overexploitation of environments may lead

temporarily to increases in socioeconomic well-being and

human health for some sectors of society, while at the

same time resulting in biophysical (ecological) degradation

(Noronha 2003, 2004). In the longer term, however,

continued ecosystem degradation inevitably carries

adverse impacts for all aspects of human well-being,

particularly with respect to human health, sustainable

livelihoods and cultural integrity. Once a society achieves

a certain degree of economic prosperity, however, there

is a greater attention to and demand for environmental

quality.

Map 2.1. Density of Reef Fishat selected sites in the MAR

Source: MBRS Project, Synoptic Monitoring Program.


7

A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH

Measuring ecosystem health involves a multidisciplinary

approach (ideally including measures of ecological

integrity, economic sustainability, human health,

governance and culture) at multiple spatial scales (local,

national and regional if ecosystems are transboundary).

The relationship of biophysical aspects of ecosystem

health to societal well-being is evident. Clean water and

air, productive habitats and intact coastlines all provide

direct benefi ts to society. The socioeconomic elements of

ecosystem health are more intuitive and less well defi ned.

For instance, economic activity, while a sign of a productive

ecosystem, can, if taken to an extreme, lead to stress on

ecosystems and a loss of ecosystem integrity and function.

Part of this loss of function is refl ected in resilience to

disturbance and susceptibility to externalities, like climate

change and disease. This takes up valuable energy and

compromises a system’s ability to produce continuous

goods and services, reducing the benefi ts to society.

While less studied, the relationship of human health to

ecosystem health is gaining increasing attention. Clearly,

ecological imbalances are a major source of present-

day human health vulnerabilities, both directly through

exposure to vector-borne and water-borne diseases and

indirectly through impacts on food and water availability.

Governance—that is, ways and means of achieving

policy goals—could play a key role in achieving coral

reef ecosystem health. Without the appropriate buy-in by

communities and decision makers, it may prove diffi cult

to maintain or restore the health of large-scale coral reef

ecosystems, like the MAR. Key indicators of the process

of governance should form an essential component of

measuring ecosystem health. Here we have an opportunity

to break new ground in identifying a meaningful array of

governance indicators of healthy ecosystems.

Similarly, little work has been done on indicators of

cultural resilience and sustainability. The core diffi culties

have to do with the lack of an established framework

for assessing cultural “health”. In some interpretations,

“culture” encompasses everything that is learned; in other

interpretations, culture is restricted to actions that are

Map 2.2. Pesticide Residue Levels in the MAR

Source: MBRS Project, Synoptic Monitoring Program.


8


motivated by a deeply held set of beliefs and practices.

Such actions may, for example, pertain to stewardship of

natural resources. Ideally, indicators in this domain should

relate as closely as possible to identifying and quantifying

those cultural practices that are most conducive to

sustaining a healthy ecosystem.

These principles and interrelationships can be illustrated

more effectively in Figure 2.1. Developed for the Healthy

Reefs for Healthy People Initiative (McField and Kramer,

2004), this framework divides attributes of coral reef

health into four key categories: (i) structural attributes; (ii)

functional attributes; (iii) major drivers of system change

Source: Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative (2006).

Figure 1.1. Conceptual Framework: Indicators of Reef Health & Social Well-Being

•Coral diversity•Fish diversity•Focal species

(threatened & endangered species)

•Coral cover•Coral:algal

ratio•Fish abundance•Rugosity

•Water quality (temperature, salinity, transparency)

•Ocean color•Sedimentation

rates

•Coral reef extent

•Mangrove extent

•Seagrass extent

•Coral recruitment

•Coral size frequency

•Fish recruitment

•Fish size frequency

•Human sewage biomarkers

•Tourism index•Costal

development index

•Land use change-footprint

•Contaminant accumulation (sediment & biota)

•Molecular biomarkers of pollutants

•FORAM index (nutrient loading)

•Fish density & size

•Conch/lobster abundance

•Spawning aggregations

•% fishers with alternative livelihood options

•Biomarkers of stress

•Foram index of UV stress

•Coral bleaching index

•Bleaching resistance/ resilience ranking

•Contaminant accumulation (human breast milk)

•Cholera•Safe water/

sanitation•Reproductive

health index

•Stratification of wealth

•Adjusted net savings

•% income from reef

•ESI- environmental sustainability index

•# ethno-languages

•Net in/out migration

•Gender & cultural equality

•Human development index

•Area under protection

•MPA effectiveness ratings

•World Bank governance indicators

•Coral mortality•Coral disease

prevalence•Coral bleaching

prevalence

•Coral growth•Number of

bioeroders on corals

•Net reef accretion

•Herbivorous fish abundance

•Diadema abundance

•Fleshy macroalgal index

•Fish bite rates•Green turtle

abundance

Biodiversity Community Structure

Tourism/Coastal Development

Agriculture & Inland Runoff

Overfishing Global Climate Change

Health Economic Cultural Integrity

Policy/Law

Abiotic Factors

HabitatExtent

Reproduction & Recruitment Coral Condition Reef Accrection

BioerosionHerbivory

STRUCTURE ATTRIBUTES FUNCTION ATTRIBUTES

DRIVERS of CHANGE SOCIAL WELL-BEING & GOVERNANCE

HEALTHY MESOAMERICAN REEF


9


which can alter (i) and (ii); and, (iv) aspects of human and

social capital which determine the relationship of people

or communities to the reef and the way in which it is used

and managed.

Drawing from this framework, indicators for sociocultural

health of reef ecosystems can be derived. Selection of

indicators should, however, take into account a number

of considerations, as described below.

2.2 Developing Indicators of Sociocultural Health

Major Criteria for Selection of Indicators. To be

heuristic, indicators must satisfy fi ve key criteria, as shown

in Table 2.1: (1) relevance; (2) scientifi c soundness;

(3) feasibility and cost-effectiveness; (4) management

responsiveness; and (5) communication. These are

described in Table 2.1, below

Everything is Linked—How to choose the right

indicators? It is a truism to say that everything is linked—

especially in coastal ecosystems—but this does not mean

that everything must be measured and everything is

equally important. Still, it has been observed around the

world that those societies that do better in meeting social

and national needs often tend to do better in managing

their environment (Dixon and Acharya 2002). This is more

than just an “income affect,” whereby richer countries have

more resources to spend and hence do more. The same

higher income levels also contribute to the stresses that

affect coral reefs, especially the land-based stresses from

construction and increased production of various waste

products. Therefore, the social and cultural organizations

Relevance to reef ecosystem health Does the indicator measure and is sensitive to, socioeconomic, governance, cultural and human health phenomena and trends that are directly or indirectly related to the health of the reef ecosystem? Is this a measure of a healthy or unhealthy state, impacting pressures and behaviors and policy responses to achieve a healthy reef?

Data availability Is the indicator based on readily available and routinely collected data, or data collectable at a reasonable cost- benefi t ratio and in a timely manner, with suffi cient spatial and time coverage and quality in all participating countries?

Scientifi c soundness Is the indicator conceptually and methodologically well founded, representative of established approaches and standards adopted by the scientifi c community, international and regional organizations and national and local practices in the target region?

Management responsiveness Is the indicator responsive to management interventions related to key policy goals and objectives for the region and can it be measured in relation to progress toward agreed-upon targets and timetables?

Communicability (Transparency) Can the indicator be readily communicated to policy makers, eventually as an early warning signal, be understood by stakeholders and the public in a non-scientifi c form and express an unambiguous message about the health of the reef ecosystem in question?

Table. 2.1. Criteria for Indicator Selection


10


that accompany development are probably more

important than income per capita. These have a positive

spillover in the management of natural resources and are

often referred to as either “social capital” or governance.

Unfortunately, social capital has proved to be a very

diffi cult variable to measure, although recent attempts

to measure “governance” via composite indicators have

shown considerable promise.

The implication of this “linkage” effect is that broader

economic/ socioeconomic indicators, whether at a national

or regional level, are also very useful in identifying what

is happening (or not) at the level of the reef. The ultimate

goal of this exercise is to develop a set of indicators that

help reef planners and managers understand changes in

their location, track forces that are helping or harming

the reef and also track and measure the impacts of

investments and policy changes. Once refi ned, this set of

indicators should provide a reasonably accurate measure

of human-reef ecosystem health that should track with

other independent assessments of coral reef health. Local

knowledge and on-the-ground expertise are essential

to this process of verifi cation. The results should “feel

right.”

Indicators Indicate, they do not Dictate. An important

caveat to keep in mind when dealing with indicators is

that they are, as they imply, indicative of something

quantifi able about variables of concern. Very few indicators

are completely unambiguous—in this case, almost any

of them can be used to tell a story that is either positive

or negative for reef health. For example, one proposed

indicator would measure population density in the coastal

area. This indicator can be read two ways: more people

can be a positive sign (indicating economic growth, job

opportunities, attraction to capital and investment) or a

negative sign (indicating increased consumptive use of

the resource, more pollution and more construction). The

defi nitive interpretation would require knowledge of other

factors such as quality of water and sanitation services,

income distribution, health indices, etc.

Economists always say “it depends,” and in this case

the meaning of an indicator very much depends on the

links between population density and other variables.

Therefore, a set of indicators should be selected which

tell a plausible story. Similarly, using the indicators being

proposed here, it would be hypothesized that one set of

indicators might well tell a troubling story for healthy reefs

for healthy people: that is, low income levels, inequitable

distribution of income, low levels of sanitation and potable

water supply, high under-5 mortality rates, low revenues

per hotel room night, low levels of social capital or

governance and weak rule of law. Conversely, the same

indicators with the other signs would tell a different story:

high income levels, good distribution of income, low under-

5 mortality rates, high levels of wastewater treatment and

potable water supply, good governance and rule-of-

law indicators. This sign change lends interpretation of

indicators to be communicated to decision-makers as a

“blue fl ag”—on the right track, or “red fl ag”—warning!

Such scenarios have been developed for specifi c countries

to illustrate this point. They are presented at the end of

Chapter 3.

This study developed a short list of candidate indicators for

each of the four major domains: socioeconomic, culture,

human health and governance. Within each domain,

indicators were selected on the basis of the above criteria.

The fi nal selection (reducing the indicator list in each area

to no more than 3 or 4 indicators) can best be done with

input from the fi eld.


11


2.3. Candidate Indicators

In the following sections, for each topic area we present

a narrative followed by a table providing a short list of

candidate indicators for that topic. Candidate indicators

in socioeconomic conditions, human health and

governance benefi t from considerable previous research,

whereas in the culture area the development of indicators

is breaking entirely new ground. The goal of this analysis

is to develop a small set of indicators with readily available

data, or for which a compelling case may be made for

data collection.

Socioeconomic Indicators. Two main themes can be

identifi ed from the literature: social aspects (demography,

relative wealth, human health) and economic activities

(productive activities based on coastal resources, and

marine transport). These two themes can be divided into

more specifi c sub-themes and issue areas, as follows.

For each issue area, we propose several core indicators,

which are expanded in Table 2.3, below. These core

indicators may be generally referred to as pressures

or drivers of change, states, or responses and may be

measured at different spatial and temporal scales: (1)

national level, (2) sub-national level (such as coastal

departments or departments in watersheds draining into

a reef ecosystem such as the MAR and (3) local or site

level (individual reefs or sites). While indicators at the

national and sub-national level may be comparable

across countries and regions, indicators at the site level

may refl ect only the local situation. Also, values for

indicators will likely vary from level to level, thus care must

be taken not to interpret the mean value of an indicator at

the national level, for its value at the local level.

After the validation of the indicators at the national and

local level, it may be possible to select one representative

indicator for each issue area. However, some of the

indicators are by defi nition ambiguous — e.g., tourism or

aquaculture — as they can express both trends impacting

on the reefs or alternative ways to promote coastal

economy: only an examination of the data at the local

level and the use of qualitative information can assist in

the process of identifying more discriminating indicators.

Governance Indicators. The selection of governance

indicators is based on the role of formal governing

structures at all levels of governments, but will also take

into account informal (civil society), permanent, or ad hoc

structures. Those structures may not have authoritative

power, but can be (and often are) called upon to participate

in decision making with an advisory function, either in a

mandatory or a non-mandatory way.

Theme Subtheme Issue area

Social aspects Demography Population change Relative wealth Poverty Equity Human Health Sanitation

Economic activities Resource use Coastal development Tourism Fisheries Agriculture/Aqua-culture Mineral extraction Transportation Marine transportation

Table 2.2. Indicator Framework


12


Issue area Policy questions Specifi c Topic Indicator

Population and Poverty Are population dynamics sustainable? Population in coastal areas Population growth and density within a certain distance of the coast (watershed, 100 km, coastal municipalities, 10 km) Migration Net migration to the coast Net out migration Incidence of social issues associated with immigration Are income levels and well-being Income % population below national poverty line distributed fairly? / income levels (WB/UNDP) Equity (Gini index) Is human development improving? Human well-being Changes in the HDI (UNDP)

Adjusted Net Savings Are investments in natural and social capital Public expenditures in education % of Gross National Income adequately accounted? and NRM.

Resource use change (land) Is coastal development managed sustainably Coastal development pressure % natural habitats converted Ratio of second to fi rst homes Road infrastructure density Is tourism being managed sustainably Tourism pressure No. hotels/beds Ratio tourists/residents Certifi cations No. tourism certifi cations awarded Alternative livelihoods % income derived from alternative livelihoods

Issue Area Is agriculture being managed sustainably? Natural habitats converted to − % habitat conversion agriculture or aquaculture Use of pesticides − Concentration of pesticide residues in sediment/tissue of indicators species Use of fi sh feeds − Effl uent water quality Certifi cation of farms − % farm land certifi ed Policy Questions Specifi c Topic − Indicators Is deforestation being reduced? Aerial extent of native forests − % habitat conversion Sustainable forestry or − % of “certifi ed companies” Reforestation − Extent of reforestation (ha) Are solid wastes being treated? Solid wastes − Volume of solid wastes being discharged Land fi lls − No. of land fi lls Disposal protocols − Availability of disposal protocols for hazardous waste Is customary land tenure being altered? Land tenure − Land tenure (value of real estate, land sale transactions, including community land and foreign investments)

Table 2.3. Socioeconomic Indicators

(continued on next page)


13


Are traditional agricultural practices Agricultural practices − Agricultural practices (including fi res) sustainable? Is there activity to reduce pollution at the Waste disposal -- Actions to reduce pollution, including local level? waste disposal

Resources use change (sea) Is sea-based tourism managed sustainably? Cruise ship arrivals Cruise ship arrivals (and # visitors/day; % of resident population) # of certifi ed cruise ship activities Are fi sheries being managed sustainably? Fish stocks − % stocks fi shed within safe limits − # of certifi ed fi sh product programs Closures − Institutionalization of regional closures Is marine transportation impacting the Ports and associated infrastructure − Port State Control functioning? environment? Ship traffi c − Traffi c (tankers, cruise ships, etc.) ? Is sewage (urban, industrial, hazardous) being − volume of waste treated/day adequately managed to minimize − Rate of inspections related to port environmental impact? state control − % untreated effl uent Local Resource change (sea) Alternative livelihoods − New jobs associated with tourism created or no. tourism businesses owned by locals (associative vs. private) Fishing practices − Evidence of sustainable fi shing practices (including fi shing grounds, gears, engines)

Table 2.3. Socioeconomic Indicators (continued)


Governance relates to the systems and processes of

decision making, the legal framework and institutions

through which decisions are made in society, the ways

in which these interrelate and their relevance and

relationship to the various constituent parts of a nation

(Salim and Ullsten 1999). Governance can be broadly

defi ned as, “the set of traditions and institutions by which

authority in a country is exercised. This includes (1) the

process by which governments are selected, monitored

and replaced, (2) the capacity of the government to

effectively formulate and implement sound policies and

(3) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions

that govern economic and social interactions among

them. (World Bank Institute 2005: “Governance Matters

IV: 1996-2004.”)

In the context of natural resource management as

envisaged in the Healthy Reefs for Healthy People


14


Initiative, governance seems to manifest in the following

dimensions: the character of land tenure and users’

rights arrangements for the exploitation of resources such

as forests and fi sheries; the distribution of the benefi ts

deriving from those and other natural resources; the

degree of equality between males and females; and the

displacement of communities and groups.

Governance arrangements—or their absence—also have

consequences for how power is being used. This is evident

in the relations between government and people, between

corporations and people and increasingly between

government and corporations. How to handle land use

and other natural resource matters often hinges on how

disputes between stakeholder groups are being resolved.

The purpose of designing and making use of indicators

is to provide a measure of how well agreed-upon policies

are working. If indicators are responsive to policy changes,

they will help government and civil society to know what

causes failure or success in reaching established goals

and how to respond in an adequate way.

While other indicators may be termed policy indicators

when they refl ect existing policies—or status indicators

when they refer to human health, cultural or natural

situations—governance indicators could be categorized

as process indicators. They have less to do with the policy

content and more with how and under which social (and

constitutional) circumstances decisions are made and

what degree of legitimacy they enjoy from members of

the affected communities and other concerned citizens.

Candidate governance indicators are provided in Table 2.4

below. Criteria for the choice of indicators are based on

policy goals that have widespread international support.

Cultural Indicators. The development of cultural

indicators is a fairly new endeavor in the fi eld of

indicators. Organizations such as UNEP, IUCN,

UNESCO and the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) are

grappling with this issue in the context of their current

interest in the interlinkages between biodiversity and

cultural diversity. Thus far, only a few researchers have

undertaken the identifi cation of cultural indicators of

this sort and this work is still breaking new ground.

There are few if any widely accepted standards as yet in

this emerging area.

Thus far, perhaps the most frequently used global cultural

indicator has been a measure of the world’s cultural

diversity, which takes linguistic diversity (number of

different languages spoken worldwide) as a proxy for the

variety of cultures. In recent times, this indicator has been

used to correlate global cultural diversity with measures of

global biodiversity. Initial work to correlate biological and

cultural diversity, using linguistic diversity as a proxy, led

to cross-mapping of the global geographic distributions

of biological and cultural diversity and to analyses of

the overlaps in these distributions. This early work was

done in particular by taking WWF’s representation of the

world’s ecoregions and mapping the world’s languages

onto the ecoregions (Oviedo, Maffi and Larsen 2000,

Skutnabb-Kangas, Maffi and Harmon 2003). These as

well as later mappings that use different representations of

global biodiversity (for example, Stepp and others 2004)

consistently show that areas of high biodiversity and high

cultural diversity tend to coincide, especially in the Tropics

(Amazon Basin, Central Africa, Indomalaysia/Melanesia).

Biologically megadiverse countries also tend to be

culturally megadiverse (Harmon 2002). Mesoamerica is

a case in point, as seen in Map 2.3.


15


For southern Mexico and Central America, this cultural

diversity includes several Mayan peoples, plus Lenca, Pipil,

Hicaque, Garífuna, Miskito, Creoles of mixed African and

European ancestry, Mestizos/Ladinos, as well as small

Asian, Middle-Eastern and Euro-American immigrant

populations. For coastal populations, fi shing is the

main subsistence activity, complemented by small-scale

agriculture, animal husbandry, as well as hunting and

gathering of wild resources. To varying degrees, they also

engage in commercial fi shing, tourism and other market-

driven activities. Participation in the market economy

and other aspects of majority culture has brought rapid

sociocultural change to these communities. Nevertheless,

a strong link between healthier forest and marine

ecosystems and the locations of indigenous peoples’

territories in southern Mexico and Central America was

apparent in a mapping project carried out by the Center

for the Support of Native Lands (Chapin 2003).

All this points to the relevance of traditional beliefs,

knowledge and practices related to species, ecosystems

and ecological relations for the purposes of biodiversity

conservation, including in marine ecosystems (Drew

in press). In its Article 8j, the CBD calls for the Parties

to the Convention to “respect, preserve and maintain

knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous

and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles

relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of


Governance Is the public good well managed? Good Governance Voice and accountability Does government “work”? Political stability and absence of violence Government effectiveness Regulatory quality Rule of law Control of Corruption Is there evidence of “good governance” Land tenure Changes in land tenure at the subnational level? Implementation of Levels of implementation of decentralization decentralization

Environmental Is environmental awareness and Protected areas Indices of management of effectiveness of MPAsGovernance stewardship increasing? % marine/coastal under protection Compliance with no-take areas Public participation Levels and satisfaction of public in decision making processes (including EIAs) Environmental organizations No. of active local associations (including NGOs, cooperatives, etc).

Environmental lawsuits Environmental lawsuits successfully completed Environmental Sustainability Index Various (see Annex 4)

Table 2.4. Governance Indicators


16


biological diversity.” From this recognition also stems the

importance of adopting cultural indicators in relation to

the assessment of the state of biodiversity. The CBD’s 2010

target has chosen “status and trends of linguistic diversity

and number of speakers of indigenous languages” as a

proxy for measuring the state and trends in traditional

knowledge, innovations and practices relevant to the

conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Balmford

and others 2005). Here, the choice of language as a

proxy for traditional knowledge is due to the absence

of global data on the status and trends of traditional

knowledge.

At the same time, at regional or local levels it also

becomes more feasible (as well as desirable) to develop

indicators that will more accurately refl ect the dynamics

of cultural phenomena. This is particularly relevant in

relation to what might be seen as the two main and

interrelated, dimensions of cultural “health:” persistence

and resilience. Persistence refers to the ability of a culture

Map 2.3. Biological and Cultural Diversity in Mesoamerica

Map credits: J.R. Stepp et al., Ethnobiology Lab, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, 2005

Note: Purple = Mayan language;

Brown = non-Mayan ethnic language

Plant diversity is indicated along a scale from green (low) to red (high).


17


or cultural group to maintain its core set of values, beliefs,

knowledge and practices (somewhat akin to the concept

of ecological integrity). Resilience refers to the ability of

a culture or cultural group to adapt to new conditions

without losing structure and function (in a way similar to

the ecological concept of resilience).

The list below is a fi rst attempt to propose a general

set of indicators to assess cultural “health” as relevant

to ecosystem health. The proposed indicators are not

necessarily ones that can (or should) always be quantifi able

and lend themselves to statistical manipulation. Qualitative,

evaluative data are needed in this domain, although in

some cases it may also be possible to gather quantitative

data. Currently, what data are being collected, are not

typically available at disaggregated administrative levels.

Health Indicators. Human health is best considered

in the context of ecosystem health. The ecosystem health

approach is particularly important since global economic

and global environmental conditions—all externalities

and beyond the control of the population in any given

ecosystem—can have deleterious effects on the health of

the people in that system. The circulation of pollutants in

the ocean and in the air coming from the global burning

of fossil fuels and the release of toxins into water will have

deleterious effects on a large ecosystem even though the

regional people are not responsible for these problems.

The reverse is also true. Local deforestation and pesticide

use will contribute to global environmental pollution and

greenhouse gases. Human health must be considered

not only at individual, community and regional levels, but

also at a global level, looking at the interaction of the

individual with the global environment.

The complexity of interactions on ecosystem health makes

it impossible to have “clean” indicators as far as health

is concerned; that is, health indicators that respond

proportionately to improvements in a target region’s

coral reef ecosystem health. Health is the result of many

independent and interdependent variables. A useful

model may be to consider health indicators as true health

indicators, disease indicators, or risk indicators.

Issue area Policy questions Specifi c Topicr Indicator

Cultural Identity Are language losses being addressed? Loss of languages LRate of loss of languages ((CBD) % young people speaking native languages Bilingual education Availability of bilingual education

Is the level of education and literacy adequate? Literacy Levels of literacy (UNESCO)

Are traditional customs being maintained? Traditional customs % of families practicing traditional customs

Are gender issues being addressed? Gender biased economic # of males/females being displaced from workforce displacement or home

Is culture being diluted? In-migration of outsiders % migration into traditional areas

Table 2.5. Cultural Indicators


18


Health indicators such as life expectancy, infant survival,

educational level, immunization rate and optimal body

mass index are good indicators of the health of the general

population, but do not provide any direct evidence of

any relation to the health or destruction of a particular

ecosystem.

Human disease indicators show the prevalence of various

diseases in the population and can provide a weak

association with the health of a given reef ecosystem.

Examples for the MAR region would be the annual

incidence of malaria, diarrheal disease, and ciguatera

poisoning (a toxin elaborated by marine bacteria that

results in major nerve damage in the human). Reductions

of these diseases may be interpreted as benefi ts of a

restored MAR.

Risk indicators identify potential problems before they

become obvious. Examples are the levels of various

organochlorides, pesticide residues, heavy metals,

silicates, etc in the people of the MAR region. Intuitively,

the lower the level of a toxin in a person’s body, the

more likely the person will not be at risk of a deleterious

effect from that toxin. Similarly, a falling level of the toxin

Issue area Policy questions Topic Indicator

Health Is life expectancy increasing? Mortality Maternal and infant or under 5 mortality rates (UNDP, WHO) % deaths by respiratory diseases (PAHO) % deaths by heart diseases (PAHO)

Are major diseases being Incidence of key diseases Incidence of AIDS (WHO) successfully combated? Incidence of gastroenteritis (PAHO, GESAMP)

Is access to safe water equitable Safe drinking water % populations with access to safe drinking water (UNEP, and increasing? WHO)

Is access to improved sanitation Improved sanitation % population with access to improved sanitation (UNEP, equitable and increasing? WHO)

Are recreational waters complying Recreational water quality % recreational waters complying with standards with quality standards?

Is seafood safe? Food safety Food quality certifi cation (seafood)

Do people have access to Nutrition % population consuming X amount of protein and source suffi cient nutrition based on existing resources?

Are health issues along coastal Public health concerns Fraction of awareness programs (waste disposal, sexual areas being addressed? education, etc.) specifi c to coastal issues (numerator) vs. national issues (denominator)

Table 2.6. Health Indicators


19


may be a good marker of an improved environment.

However, due to lifetime persistence of many toxins in the

human body, a fall in the level of a toxin may not ever

occur even if the environment is cleared of the toxin. The

risk indicators that are chosen must meet the following

criteria: 1) the toxin must be important in the target

region; 2) the toxin must have been studied for some

time in the region to determine changes in concentration;

3) there is a relatively easy and non-invasive method of

determining the body burden of the toxin in humans; and

4) the method chosen must be acceptable to the people

who are to be studied.

For the MAR, a potentially excellent indicator is the

quality of human breast milk and, in particular, the

levels of persistent toxins that are excreted in breast

milk. Analysis of breast milk from nursing mothers in

the region may provide a snapshot of the cumulative

toxicology of the region. Comparing the concentrations

of toxins in the breast milk of nursing mothers in the

region with those not dependent on the MAR is a good

indicator of the effects of differing environments. Further

data collection and analysis of this indicator is pending

for the MAR.

2.4. Conclusions

In this chapter we developed a framework for socioeconomic,

governance, cultural and human health indicators for coral

reef ecosystem health, to complement those indicators

developed earlier for biophysical indicators of reef health.

Although this conceptual framework is applicable to coral

reef ecosystems generally, it has been developed with the

Mesoamerican Reef in mind. We incorporate state-of-the-

art thinking on ecosystem health, which views human and

coral reef health as complementary and interconnected

processes. We then provide a provisional list of potential

indicators in each of the main topic areas: socio-economic,

culture, human health and governance, based on a set of

explicit criteria for candidate indicators.

This list remains to be further defi ned, based on relevance

and the availability of data, along with various other criteria

outlined in the chapter. In the following chapter, we test this

approach by focusing in on a subset of these variables,

which are indicative of conditions in the MAR across the

various socio-cultural and governance dimensions and

relatively easy to communicate to decision makers and

the general public.



21

Applying the Framework to the Mesoamerican Reef

The Mesoamerican reef (MAR) is a complex ecological

system embedded in an equally complex social system (see

Annex 1). People—at all levels, from individuals and fi rms

to municipalities and governments—both use and affect the

MAR, and there are cause-effect links in both directions. It

is now widely recognized that the threats to the vitality of

the MAR derive from the cumulative impact of a range of

human activities, including tourism, agriculture, shoreline

development, and over-harvesting of marine resources.

The challenge of identifying and quantifying indicators as

a management tool is complicated by myriad interactions

between social systems and ecological systems. For

example, people directly use the MAR—for fi shing,

snorkeling, diving, collecting of corals and mollusks—

and also indirectly affect the MAR via various land-

based environmental impacts, such as the production of

wastewater, nutrients, soil erosion, and solid wastes.

A Rich Resource and Poor People

Studies carried out in the four MAR countries (Map 3.1)

point out that the populations living in watersheds that

drain into the system tend to be poorer than the national

averages. Problems with sewage disposal and solid

waste management (as well as sedimentation and agro-

chemical contamination) are all common. These land-

based problems are also among the biggest threats to the

marine ecosystem.

This situation—a very rich marine ecosystem and very poor

populations living adjacent to it—is both symptomatic

and telling. Those most closely linked to the MAR often

unintentionally pose one of the largest threats to its

sustainability, and have the least immediate economic

incentive to maintain and protect the ecosystem (with the

possible exception of Belize and parts of Mexico because of

the large share of their economies attributable to the tourism

sector (Dixon and Acharya, 2002)). The management

challenge, therefore, is to make the resident populations in

the coastal and watershed areas more active stakeholders in

the health of the MAR, and recognize that healthy reefs are

related to healthy people. Of course, governments and the

private sector are also major sources of pollution and reef-

damaging activities, and need to be involved. Fortunately,

however, these latter two groups often have access to more

resources to address the problems if they chose to do so.

By engaging the various stakeholders (both public and

private, individuals and fi rms) into the process of problem

identifi cation and solution, those who are the present

source of management problems become part of the

solution via enlightened self-interest. This is neither easy

to do, nor will it happen quickly, but it does provide the

most feasible long-term solution to the problem of creating

healthy reefs and (economically) healthy populations.

Many of the products planned within the Healthy Reefs

for Healthy People initiative aim to address this need by

providing information demonstrating these linkages.

The Role and Limits of Indicators

Since sustainable management of the MAR is as much

a social as it is a scientifi c challenge, indicators need to

Chapter 3


22


Map 3.1. MAR Eco-Region and MPA sites

measure both physical and social variables (Dixon, 2005).

Indicators monitor both the present state of affairs, as well

as changes over time. The draft guidebook (Volumes 1

and 2) currently under development for the Healthy Reef

for Healthy People initiative contains indicators grouped

into four broad categories: (1) reef structure, (2) reef

functions, (3) drivers of change, and (4) social well-being

and governance. Over 50 indicators have been initially

identifi ed across these four broad areas of concern (see

Chapter 2). These indicators can in turn be used to develop

other outputs that contribute to the overall measure of

reef ecosystem health.

For example, a proposed “reef scorecard” for each of

the four MAR countries will contain a mix of indicators

of ecological, physical, economic, and social variables.


23

APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO THE MESOAMERICAN REEF

These indicators set the stage for a better understanding

of the main management challenges, and whether or not

a policy change or intervention is having an impact. One

example of the scorecard approach is presented at the

end of this chapter as an overall reef/ecosystem health

index. This is based on six indicators (some of which are

composite indicators) and has been illustrated as a six-

sided polygon, whose dimensions are determined by the

values of these indicators for any given reef ecosystem.

Another is the red fl ag/blue fl ag approach, which attempts

to alert decision makers to areas of concern regarding

the values and direction key indicators are taking, or

to provide positive reinforcement for governance and

stewardship when indicators appear to be moving in the

right direction.

A word of caution: The indicator work presented here

represents an initial attempt to blend ecological and social

indicators into a management/decision-based framework

for managers of the MAR. Given the large pool of

potential indicators available and the data problems with

many of them, a decision was made to focus on a subset

of social and ecological indicators and use available

data. We have tried to be open about the assumptions

made, the data sources, and how the different indices

were developed. One hope is that this initial result will

provoke discussion among coral reef users and managers

on how to better refl ect what is happening, and draw

forth better data where they are available. In particular,

the overall reef/ecosystem health index and the red fl ag/

blue fl ag approaches should be considered as “works in

progress.”

Present conditions (ecological, political, economic, and

social) in each of the four countries took years to develop,

and the indicators that refl ect the present situation are not

likely to change dramatically in a year or two. Major policy

changes will take time to implement; indicators that measure

these impacts will also respond, but slowly over time.

The Scale Issue

The analytical and indicator issue is further complicated

by the fact that four countries are directly involved and the

area “of infl uence” of the land portion of each country

varies greatly. Virtually all of Belize is linked to some

degree to the MAR, while for Mexico the link is largely

with one part of one state—Quintana Roo. Guatemala

and Honduras fall somewhere in between.

The implications of scale are that in some cases national-

level indicators are good proxies for the reef-ecosystem/

economic links—such as Belize. In other cases—such as

Mexico—national-level indicators have only tangential

links to what is going on along the coast of the state of

Quintana Roo and the MAR.

Therefore, while national-level indicators in Belize are

relevant to MAR management decisions, in the other

three countries indicators measured at the sub-national

(departmental and municipal levels) level will usually

be more relevant and useful. In theory, almost all of the

identifi ed indicators (the variables/defi nitions, not the

actual values) will be the same at both the national and the

sub-national level—such as indicators on income, waste

treatment, and health outcomes. However, when scale is

an issue, we should be cautious about using indicators

measured at the national level to monitor changes at the

sub-national level. Because of data constraints, it may

be necessary to begin with the national-level indicators

(these indicators are usually available), and then develop

the counterpart sub-national level indicators over time.


24


The Cause-Effect Issue

With the plethora of potentially available indicators

(Chapter 2), how does one identify a smaller core set of

key indicators that are meaningful and useful for policy

and management? Some indicators directly measure the

health or status of the reef and are of obvious interest.

Many more indicators, however, have potential links to the

reef but are part of the broader socioeconomic/cultural/

political context within which reefs are managed.

The challenge is to identify a small set of indicators that

meet the fundamental requirements of indicators, outlined

in Chapter 2:

Objectivity

Data availability

Usefulness/ Applicability

Relevance to Policy

Communicability.

and help to tell a plausible story about the system in

question. This is a tall order, but one that can be met, at least

in the fi rst instance. There are many international datasets

that can be used to begin this process. These are used

in the identifi cation of contextual indicators, presented in

Table 2.1 Obtaining values for key indicators at the level of

the MAR—the area of people-reef interaction—has been

more challenging. This has required data mining from

the published and grey literature, requests for information

from public offi cials and NGOs operating in the region,

donor projects and other sources on the ground.

This chapter presents an initial attempt to refi ne and apply

the conceptual framework and candidate socio-cultural

indicators presented in Chapter 2, to the four countries

n

n

n

n

n

of the MAR. It identifi es a subset of relevant indicators,

presents the data that exist, and discusses the links between

indicators and important management issues for the MAR.

These indicators and their values can feed directly into

a number of practical tools being developed under

the Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative, to help

managers and decision makers interpret and disseminate

their monitoring data to improve the quality of conservation

decisions. These include:

• Report Scorecard. The report card is a grading system

to track the status of ecological and human indicators

compared to historic conditions and proposed

conservation targets. It will summarize key indicators

and track their status over time to help foster public

understanding of the health of the MAR and to garner

political support to maintain its health.

• Brochure. (periodic updates about the initiative are

available online at http://www.healthyreefs.org

• Profi le Cards. The profi le of each indicator will be

synthesized into concise indicator cards geared to

decision makers, managers, and the public (examples

are provided in Annex 2).

• Practitioner’s Guidebook. The guidebook will be

a practical manual intended to help practitioners

interpret and understand how to use the integrated

framework of ecological and socioeconomic indicators

and incorporate the information into improving their

sustainable management strategies.

3.1. Elements of an Indicator Scorecard

Tables 3.1 and 3.2 contain a subset of socioeconomic,

governance, and human health indicators (identifi ed in


25


Chapter 2), that can be combined with already identifi ed

indicators for reef structure and reef function to help

track the “health” of coral reefs and the populations that

depend on/affect them. This is a fi rst attempt to narrow

the list or potential indicators that might be used, largely

based on available data. The list of indicators will evolve

in response to the data that are available.

The socioeconomic indicators are presented at two

levels. The fi rst is a broad level that “sets the stage” at

the national or local level and helps place any country in

context when compared to its neighbors. These indicators

are readily available for the national level, and can

often be obtained for the provincial/local level, albeit

with some additional effort. The second set includes

indicators that are directly related to management of the

coral reef and associated coastal areas. These are listed

in two categories: some fall within the drivers of change

category, and some fall within the social well-being and

governance set.

Setting the Stage: Economic Measure of National/ Departmental Populations

National-level indicators are readily available. Even though

the coastal population of each country varies, the national

indicators give a general sense of what is happening

within each country—such as levels of development and

income and major potential issues.

The following indicators (largely taken from the World

Bank’s 2005 Little Green Data Book) are an initial set

of national level indicators that, although they are only

tangentially linked to reef health, provide valuable

contextual information:

Population (millions)

Urban population (% of total)

GNI per capita (Atlas method)

HDI (Human Development Index)

Adjusted Net Savings (Genuine Savings) (% of GNI)

Agricultural land (% of land area)

Fertilizer consumption (100 gms/ ha arable land)

Mangrove loss (1990 and 2000 area, % change)

Access to an improved water source (% of total

population)

• Rural (% rural population)

• Urban (% urban population)

Access to sanitation (% total population)

• Rural (% rural population)

• Urban (% urban population)

Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000 live births)

Table 3.1 presents the most recent data for these indicators

for the four MAR countries, the Dominican Republic and

the Bahamas, largely (but not entirely) based on the 2006

Little Green Data Book.

A fairly plausible picture emerges of the four MAR

countries and the Bahamas and the DR. Mexico dominates

the region, given its size and income. The Bahamas is

the richest country, followed by Mexico and then Belize.

Honduras and Guatemala are the most rural and the

poorest countries as also refl ected in their low human

development index rankings. The under-5 mortality rates

also track these general patterns: lowest in the Bahamas,

middling in Mexico, higher in the other countries, and

highest in Guatemala (although still substantially below

the recent rates in the poorest countries in the world).

If Table 3.1 sets the stage, more detailed information is

needed at either the national or local level to analyze the

health of the reef-social ecosystem

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n


26


Series Name Belize Guatemala Honduras Mexico Dominican Republic Bahamas

Population (millions) 0. 3 12.3 7 103.8 8.8 0.3

Urban population (% of total) 48.5 47 46 76 59.7 89.7

GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 3940 2190 1040 6790 2100 14920

HDI Overall Rank 91 117 116 53 95 49

Adjusted Net Savings (% of GNI) n/a 1.2 20.8 5.3 16.3 n/a

Agricultural land (% of land area) 7 43 26 56 76 1

Fertilizer consumption (100 grams per hectare of arable land) 671 1307 470 690 818 1000

Mangrove cover (ha) 1990* 78,317 17,800 117,000 1,420,200 23,500 142,000

Mangrove cover (ha) 2000* 62,700 15,800 50,000 500,000 23,500 140,000

Per cent change from 1990 to 2000 –20% –11% –57% –65% –20% –1%

Improved water source (% of population with access 91 95 90 91 93 97

Improved water source, rural (% of rural population with access) 82 92 82 72 85 86

Improved water source, urban(% of urban population with access) 100 99 99 97 98 98

Improved sanitation facilities (% of population with access) 47 61 68 77 57 100

Improved sanitation facilities, rural (% of rural population with access) 25 52 52 39 43 100

Improved sanitation facilities, urban (% of urban population with access) 71 72 89 90 67 100

Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000) 39 45 41 28 32 13

Note: Belize, Mexico, and Bahamas are upper middle-income countries; Guatemala, Honduras, and the DR are lower middle income. Source: World Bank, 2006, Little Green Data Book, Washington, DC. *FAO. For a detailed list of sources by indicator, please refer to ANNEX 3.

Table 3.1. National-Level Contextual Indicators (Data from 2002-2004)


27


Belize Guatemala Honduras Mexico Bahamas Dom. Rep

(National /Local Level) National /Local National/Local National/Local National Local National National

Drivers of Change

Coastal Population Density/km2 /10 /105 /57 n/a 50 22 100

Tourism: Mean Occupancy rate /41% 47% 43% 58% 74% 75 %(est) n/a

Mean cost of hotel room US$75 low cost US$41 n/a US$110 US$200 n/a

Social Well-being and Governance

Economic

Income share from reef-dependent activities (%) 31 n/a /46 n/a 55 60 n/a

Gini Index N/A 48.3 55 54.6 50.5 n/a 47.4

Adjusted Net Savings (% of GNI) 2 3.1 20.8 6 n/a 24.3

Health

% Waste Water Treated 57 1 3 15 n/a 80 49

% population served by sanitation 47 61 68 77 92 100 57

Causes of Death among Children under 5 years of age (%) by Diarrheal diseases 3.5 13.1 12.2 5.1 n/a 0.8 11.7

Cultural Integrity

Main ethno-languages spoken in the Quiche/, Cakchiquel, Nahuati, Creole + coastal area Creole,Garifuna Mam, Tzutujil /Garifuna, Miskito n/a Yucatan, dialects n/a Zapoteco, Mixteco

% of population in coastal areas born outside the area n/a 50 70 40 60 n/a n/a

Governance

ESI (Environmental Sustainability Index) Not ranked 44 47.4 46.2 61.22 n/a n/a

Governance effectiveness index 61.1 18.8 27.9 56.7 ? n/a n/a

% of coastal area under protectionMPA mgt. effectiveness 27 0 11 67 2 43

Total # MPAs rated and # rated good/poor//inadequate/unknown 12=1/8/2/1 3=0/0/1/2 12=0/1/2/9 9=0/0/7/2 9=0/1/0/8 15=0/4/2/9

Table 3.2. Socioeconomic/Governance/Cultural Indicators for Improved Reef Management


28


Indicators for Improved Reef Management: Socioeconomic/cultural indicators for improved reef management

A second set of indicators has been compiled with values for

coastal areas in order to provide specifi c information on the

dependence of the coastal population on fi sheries, tourism,

and other activities directly linked to the coral reefs. These

indicators are presented in Table 3.2. This set of indicators

deals explicitly with socioeconomic/cultural factors affecting

the reef. These indicators fall into two of the four broad

groupings found in Figure 2.1 (derived from the report

Healthy Reefs for Healthy People, Year in Review: 2005):

drivers of change, and social well-being and governance.)

Depending on data availability, indicators are presented for

the lowest administrative level for which they are available.

This will often be at the municipal, departmental, or state

level. Gathering local-level data on these indicators is an

ongoing process, and will require primary data collection

in some cases. To the extent possible, information for

these indicators at the local level has been compiled and

presented in Table 3.2 for the four MAR countries and

two comparator countries: the Dominican Republic and

the Bahamas. For ease of comparison with Figure 2.1,

the indicators in Table 3.2 are divided between the two

headings: (1) drivers of change, and (2) social well-being

and governance. However, the indicators in Table 3.2 use

only selected indicators from Figure 2.1 and add indicators

from other sources.

The data are from both the national and local level; in some

cases, both national- and local-level data are presented

(as in the case of Mexico). Although local-level indicators

are preferred, they are not always available. In the case

of Belize or the Bahamas, there is little difference between

national and local level—both are small countries where

the link between the reefs and inland areas and activities

are direct and evident.

Table 3.2 indicators include the following, grouped

according to different subheadings.

Drivers of change

Coastal population density. In general, the more people

who live in the coastal zone, the greater the potential

impact on the reef. This comes via both direct impacts

from use of the reef (fi shing, collecting reef products, or

recreational uses), or, even more importantly in most cases,

from land conversion to housing and other infrastructure

(and resulting sedimentation of coastal waters) and the

associated problems of nutrient and bacterial fl ows and

storm run-off and their negative impacts on reef health

The easiest way to measure this potential impact is to

have an indicator of coastal population density per

square kilometer, and monitor this number over time.

When combined with information on other variables such

as new housing or infrastructure development, and the

treatment and disposal of wastewater and sewage, it is

possible to get a good idea of this important potential

source of pressure on the adjacent coral reefs.

Tourism index based on average hotel room rates and

average occupancy rate. This proposed indicator is one

that is possible to estimate at the local level and is very

informative—both with respect to the actual number (e.g.

how many dollars per night on average for hotel rooms

as well as occupancy rates) as well as the trend over time.

Occupancy rates (percent of rooms sold during any given


29


period) are a valuable indicator of the balance between

supply and demand. Since the physical environment is

not sold per se, hotel room rates can serve as a proxy for

the quality of the environment. Although different types

of tourism development will have different environmental

impacts and may have very different average room rates,

when one observes a decline over time in room rates it is a

clear indication that there are potential problems: declines

often signal issues such as a degrading resource, lower

average and net revenues, and less money available for

environmental management.

In Hawaii, for example, these numbers are reported

regularly in the press for each of the major islands and the

changes over time and the average amount per room (and

occupancy rates) track very well with many other variables

related to the health of the ocean environment. In the MAR

countries, for example, if one location averaged $75 per

room night and another averaged $150, one would expect

that there was also a measurable difference in the “health”

of the reef in the two sites. The actual composition of this

index is described in the Annex 2 profi le cards.

Social Well-being and GovernanceEconomic Variables

Income share from reef-dependent activities. It matters a

great deal if people are directly dependent on reefs for their

income (e.g. fi shing, collecting products, tourism) or if their

impact is via other land-based actions (land development,

agriculture or wastewater disposal). This proposed

indicator is important to take in context—depending on

the activity, a higher share of reef-dependent income can

be both good and bad for the reef. In one location (e.g.

Belize) where recreational uses and tourism are important,

people who are dependent on the reef are likely to be

more sensitive to the health of the reef and the effect of

reef management on their incomes. In locations where

fi shing is a more important activity, people may be poorer

and have fewer options. As reef-dependent income grows

in size, the reef resource is degraded (Dixon 1997; Dixon

and Kelsey, 2004).

One important variable in determining the impact of reef-

dependent activities is whether or not the reef-dependent

income comes from “consumptive direct uses” such as

fi shing, or “non-consumptive” direct uses such as scuba

diving. Consumptive direct uses are more likely to be

damaging to reef health than non-consumptive direct

uses of a similar economic size (making sure that indirect

impacts are also considered when measuring the impacts

of non-consumptive uses). A secondary indicator here

would be the division of reef-dependent income between

consumptive and non-consumptive uses of the reef. This

indicator would require estimating the total reef-dependent

income and then identifying which portion came from

consumptive uses and which came from non-consumptive

uses. In this initial effort, the simplest measure is used as

an indicator: the percent of local income coming from

reef-dependent activities.

Mangrove cover and rate of change: A particularly useful

indicator in the MBRS countries is the change in mangrove

area over time. Many coastal areas in the MBRS countries

are covered with mangroves and they serve important

ecological functions in maintaining the coral reef and

associated fi sh population, protecting water quality,

and providing various benefi ts for coastal populations.

Mangroves are also under pressure from development/

alternative land uses and are being lost at a rapid rate

in many countries. Table 3.1 includes mangrove area

in 1990 and 2000, and the percent reduction between


30


1990 and 2000. As seen, the rate of mangrove loss varies

from almost none (the Bahamas) to over 65% over 10

years (Mexico). These levels may well have increased over

the last fi ve years in parts of the MAR, with the extensive

coastal development and tourist infrastructure underway

along much of the Costa Maya through to central Belize.

As an indicator the rate of mangrove loss gives valuable

information on both the potential loss of the ecosystem

services associated with mangroves, as well as the overall

stewardship of the coastal zone. Lower rates of mangrove

loss usually indicate better and more sustainable coastal

management, and increased recognition of the important

ecosystem links between land use and coral reefs and fi sh

populations. Mangroves also provide important benefi ts

to the coastal areas as buffers to storm surges and storm

damage.

Adjusted net savings, or Genuine Savings. This indicator

is a powerful measure of national-level decision making

and the commitment of a country to saving for sustainable

growth. The indicator is based on the measured gross

savings rate for a country with adjustments for investment

in education and subtractions for use on non-renewable

resources (e.g., energy and minerals) or non-sustainable

management of renewable resources like forests. The

underlying rationale is that we should be concerned

with both the magnitude of gross savings (and hence

investments in a better future) as well as the sources of

that savings—are they sustainable or not? Hence the use

of the terms “genuine savings” or “adjusted net savings.”

This is a composite indicator that refl ects many different

policy variables and would be extremely diffi cult to

estimate at the local level. It is placed in Table 3.2 to give

an indication of national-level policies, and providing an

overall sense of whether a country’s development path is

sustainable or not.

Human Health Variables

Just as economic variables are important in identifying

the types of economic and social forces affecting people

(income levels, distribution of income, population density),

health variables also provide valuable information about

societies.

Three health-related indicators are of particular interest

with respect to nutrient loads in surface waters and their

known negative impacts on healthy reefs: the percentage

of local population served by sanitation and the percentage

of waste water treated are excellent measures of the

provision of basic services to human communities, and

indicators of water quality likely to be found in adjacent reef

environments. The percentage of death due to diarrheal

disease in children under 5 is a refl ection of the above

two indicator states and a measure of the degree of the

water quality problems.. All three indicators relate directly

to people, but also have direct links to the health of coral

reefs, which are extremely sensitive to water quality. National

data are readily available for these, but information about

conditions at the local-level needs to be collected4 to more

accurately guage potential affects on reef.health.

Cultural Integrity

The social/cultural composition of the coastal community

is of great interest. A more settled, stable population

4 A search of UN and other data sources for the Caribbean revealed no information on waste water treatment consistently available below the national level.


31


may well have traditional patterns of resource use and

conservation that might be lacking in a very heterogeneous

population with many new immigrants in the population.

Not only are newly arrived groups less likely to have

established customs with respect to natural resource use

and management, but they may well speak different

languages or see their coming to the coastal area as

temporary and therefore feel less sense of belonging or

caring about protecting the natural environment.

Social and cultural indicators were explored at length in

Chapter 2.1; however, little data at the local level are

available. This highlights the need to include more cultural

data in regular socioeconomic monitoring. Two indicators

for which data are available are included in Table 3.2:

the main ethno-languages spoken in the coastal area (to

give an indication of cultural mix and potential traditional

stewardship in an area), and the percentage of population

in the coastal area born outside of the area. The latter

indicator is a good measure of stability in a population,

and the impacts (both good and bad) of rapid population

growth and cultural change.

Again, as with many other indicators, it is not clear if

more languages or more immigration is good or bad – it

depends. These indicators do give a good indication of

the type of socio-cultural setting within which policies

are introduced, and the potential complexity of the social

system in each location.

Governance: Policy/Law

Societies work within institutional and legal frameworks,

either formal or informal. Our working assumption is

that societies where institutions and legal systems are

more developed (and enforced) are more likely to have

better resource management than similar societies with

weak institutions. This complex of issues is also often

referred to as “governance.” Measuring institutions (and

their effectiveness) is never easy, so several indicators

have been proposed that examine these questions from

different aspects.

ESI. The environmental sustainability index (ESI)

benchmarks the ability of nations to protect the environment

over the next several decades. It does so by integrating

76 data sets—tracking natural resource endowments,

past and present pollution levels, environmental

management efforts, and a society’s capacity to improve

its environmental performance—into 21 indicators of

environmental sustainability. These indicators permit

comparison across the following fi ve fundamental

components of sustainability: (1) environmental systems;

(2) environmental stresses; (3) human vulnerability to

environmental stresses; (4) societal capacity to respond

to environmental challenges; and (5) global stewardship

(See Annex 2 and http://www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005_

policysummary.pdf ).

Making rules is easy; enforcing them is often much more

diffi cult. The government effectiveness index is a composite

measure of the effectiveness with which a government

delivers services. The corruption index provides a valuable

insight into the level of corruption in a country. Although

this is a national-level indicator, it usually provides a strong

signal as to the level of corruption at the local level and

the general enforcement of laws and regulations. More

corrupt countries will almost always do more poorly in

managing the environment than countries at a similar level

of economic development, but where corruption is less

of a problem. In Table 3.2, the government effectiveness

index is used as an indicator.


32


The area under protection, normally measured as

a percentage of land and/or (in this case) aquatic

area controlled by a country or region, is a commonly

used indicator of basic commitment to protection of

biodiversity. It says little, however, about the effectiveness

of that protection. Therefore an additional measure, MPA

effectiveness, has been added to supplement the fi rst

indicator. Both indicators are presented in Table 3.2 and

provide both a quantitative assessment of marine/coastal

area protected, as well as a qualitative assessment of that

protection.

3.2. The MAR Countries: A Proposed Reef/Coastal Sustainability Index

The four MAR countries can be compared within the context

of the indicator framework presented here. Tables 3.1 and

3.2 contain both the more generic “contextual” indicators

as well as a series of more coastal area/reef-area-specifi c

indicators. Data is a problem—many indicators are only

available at the national level, and the coverage and

defi nition of local-level indicators is spotty.

To add to the challenge, indicators of reef health are

also quite mixed. The area of coverage for each MAR

country varies, the period covered by each measure

is not always the same, and various indicators can be

interpreted differently in the different countries. The

guidelines now being developed under the Healthy

Reefs for Healthy People initiative will help meet this

challenge.

Table 3.3 presents an attempt to develop such an index

based on data collected from 1999−2001 under the

AGRRA (Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment)

program—a fi rst attempt to assess the condition of coral

reefs throughout the western Atlantic and Gulf region.

Table 3.3 offers a comparison of selected coral reef

health indicators and provides another way to assess reef

health at the country level. Although some of the data is

missing for Guatemala and Honduras, the information

in this table can be used to develop a fi rst cut composite

index of reef health.5.

The real challenge is to link the various indicators available

for each site (both land-based and reef-dependent) to

develop a better picture of the different threats to the

reef and management possibilities (Dixon and Acharya,

2002). One way to envision this is to develop a “wind

rose” picture for each of the four MAR countries, whereby

the different rays would be different indicators or indices

measured on a common framework or scalar. This

approach is similar to that used for the environmental

sustainability index mentioned above and described in

Annex 2. The indicators, or composite indices, for the

coastal/ reef sustainability wind rose are drawn from

Tables 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.

The proposed coastal/reef sustainability index has the

following six components:

Percentage of total population served by sanitation

services (indicator: percentage of population served

by sanitation, maximum value 100).

Tourism index (indicator: a composite index composed

n

n

5 It is important to keep in mind, though, that some of the data are now 7 years old and condi-tions may have deteriorated since then, with major bleaching and hurricane events in recent years. Ecological baseline data collected under the MBRS Synoptic Monitoring Program, along with data from a comprehensive assessment of biophysical variables in the MAR, are currently being analyzed. These will provide a more accurate measure of change in the ecological health of the MAR.for comparison with trends in socio-economic and governance data sets.


33


of hotel occupancy rates, with a scale from 0 to 100%,

and average room rate per night normalized for the

sample MAR countries; both components are equally

weighted with a maximum potential value of 100).

Mangrove index (To calculate a ray for mangrove areas

and their loss, we use the information on the 10 year

rate of loss, determine the average annual value, and

assign a value for the ray equal to 100 (on the hexagon

edge) for no loss, and arbitrarily assign a value of zero

(the origin) for a 10 percent annual rate of loss. With

this scale the values for each country are calculated

with values closer to zero for those countries with rapid

mangrove loss, and values closer to 100 for those

countries with little or no loss.

n

Reef-dependence index (indicator: percentage of local

economy dependent on the coral reef, from 0 percent

minimum to 100 percent maximum).

Governance effectiveness index (indicator: the 2004 World

Bank governance effectiveness index, normalized to 100

within the sample MAR countries, and taking a value of

0 at the origin and 100 at the point of the hexagon).

Reef-health index (indicator: based on the coral reef

health indicators from Table 3.3, normalized to 100

within the sample MAR countries, and equally weighted

among the various individual indicators.)

The hexagon has six rays (or radians), each of which has

been normalized so that a “perfect” score will be the same

n

n

n

Tropical Western Meso-American Indicator Atlantic Reef Mexico Belize Guatemalaa Hondurasb Bahamas Jamaica

Live coral cover % 20 14 15 13 9 10 25 11

Coral recruits (#/m2) 3.5 2.8 2.4 3.4 n/a n/a 5.5 2.9

MacroalgalIndex (% macroX canopy ht) 129 80 99 62 n/a n/a 165 244

Parrotfi sh biomass (g/100m2) 2074 1083 1203 1376 n/a n/a 2407 669

Commerciallysignifi cant fi shbiomass (g/100m2) 1493 1302 1259 953 n/a n/a 1709 183

All data from AGRRA database except where noted (see www.agrra.org). Data averaged 1999–2001. Note a Fonseca 2000. Note b WWF 2001. Data table compiled by Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative (www.healthyreefs.org)

Table 3.3. Comparison of Coral Reef Health Indicators


34


length from the center of the hexagon to one of the six

points. Hence the actual composite reef-ecosystem health

measure for each country (linking the actual point along

the ray for each indicator) will defi ne an area for each

country, somewhere between 0 and 100 percent of the

potential maximum area. If a country had a perfect score

for each measure, the area enclosed within the country-

specifi c hexagon would be just equal to the maximum

area of the hexagon. If a country scored zero on each

measure, the country-specifi c area covered would also

be zero.

Defi ning and quantifying the different rays is a challenge.

Two of the measures are percentages between 0 and

100—population with access to sanitation and share of

reef-dependent activities in the economy. For the other

components, we have “normalized” most measures so

that the maximum potential value for any ray is set at the

maximum found in the four MAR countries. This is just an

assumption, but it defi nes the maximum score possible

for each indicator, and any country’s individual score is

thus their value for the indicator divided by the maximum

potential value. This process yields a value for each ray of

Tropical Western Meso-American Dominican Atlantic Reef Mexico Belize Guatemala Honduras Bahamas Republic

Reef Health Index 111 87 84 92 60 67 137 n/a

Government Effectiveness Index n/a n/a 93 100 31 46 n/a n/a

Tourism Index n/a n/a 87 55 42 40 138

% pop. Improved n/a n/a 77 47 61 68 100 57sanitation

Mangrove change rate* n/a n/a 35 80 89 43 99 80

Reef-dependence % n/a n/a 54.7 31 n/a 46 60 n/a

Eco-Reef Health Index 72 67 57 52 107 69

*Based on the data in Table 3.1 the following values are used for the windrose: Mexico , 35 (e.g. based on a 6.5% annual rate of loss), Honduras, 43, Guatemala, 89, Belize, 80, the Dominican Republic, 80, and the Bahamas , 99 (based on an annual rate of loss of only 0.1%) (no. ha in 1990 and 2000, and percent loss)

Table 3.4. Overall Reef/Ecosystem Health Indicators


35


Figure 3.1. Conceptual Framework: Indicators of Reef Health & Social Well-Being

Mexico

02040

6080



Index

Tourism Index


Mangrove Index

Reef-dependence %

0

20

406080



Index

Tourism Index


Mangrove Index

Reef-dependence %

Guatemala

020

40

60

80100

Reef Health Index


Index

Tourism Index


Mangrove Index

Reef-dependence %

Belize

020

40

6080



Index

Tourism Index


Mangrove Index

Reef-dependence %

Honduras

between. 0.0 and 1.0. Table 4 contains the actual values

for each indicator for each of the countries included in

the analysis (the four MAR countries and two additional

comparator countries) and the normalized value for each

ray. Table 4 also contains an overall reef/ecosystem health

index value, defi ned as the average of the six components

for each country. Again, the rays have been defi ned so

that a perfect score would yield an average value of 100.


36


(six rays times a maximum value of 100 points for each

ray, divided by six; if the number of rays is less, the division

is reduced to the appropriate number of observations).

Figure 3 presents the hexagons for the sample countries.

While the process of creating these wind rose hexagons is

synthetic, it offers one way to develop a visual presentation

of different factors affecting reef health and sustainability

of resource use and can be easily modifi ed/updated as

new and better data and indicators are developed. The

six indicators chosen were selected to refl ect a variety of

factors and keep the resulting fi gures manageable in size.

If many more indicators (and rays) are added, one moves

from a hexagonal shape to a larger polygon.

The results are not too surprising: within the MAR countries,

Mexico does best with an average overall reef/ecosystem

health index of about 72. Belize is second with a score of

67, then Guatemala at 57 and Honduras trailing behind

with a score of 52. With respect to comparator countries,

the Bahamas scores 107 (based on only 5 rays) and the

Dominican Republic scores much lower (69), based on

only two rays. The overall reef/ecosystem health indices

seem about right given what we know about the differences

in economic and environmental management among the

different countries.

This is an initial attempt to use mixed socioeconomic and

physical indicators to understand the health of this linked

people-reef ecosystem. The overall reef/ ecosystem health

index is not perfect, of course, and is very dependent both

on the component items as well as the values for each

component. Still, this approach offers a promising way

to use indicators and data to monitor what is happening

with reef-people interactions, and to track changes over

time. It should be a useful management tool—both to

understand what is happening, and to look for trends over

time. As data and understanding are refi ned, naturally

there will be corresponding changes in the indicators.

3.3. Blue Flags/ Red Flags: Using Indicators to Improve Management

Understanding the links between healthy reefs and healthy

populations is the primary raison d’etre of this work.

Although each location in the MAR is unique, there are

certainly examples of better-managed reef systems and

examples of poorly managed reef systems. This is true

both between countries and within countries. The overall

reef/ ecosystem health index presented above is one

approach. Another management approach is to utilize

the indicators that have been identifi ed to see what the

“package” of indicators looks like in a better-managed

location, as opposed to a site where there are more

management challenges. Are their warning signs for

selected indicators that would signal growing problems (a

red fl ag) or potential solutions (a blue fl ag)? This concept

is similar to the “biological hotspot” concept that is also

widely used to manage biodiversity resources.

To this end, a red fl ag/blue fl ag comparison has been

identifi ed and the relevant indicators for each examined.

A red fl ag location is one where considerable problems

exist—often a combination of factors that result in both

direct overuse of the reef resources as well as stresses

placed on those resources from the outside. In contrast,

a blue fl ag scenario is one where reef conservation and

economic activities are more in balance and appear on a

more sustainable path. These characteristics may be very

location-specifi c—within one country (or even one marine

protected area) there may be both red fl ag and blue fl ag

locations.


37


It is important to realize that the red fl ag/blue fl ag scenarios

are not meant to be judgmental. Often, factors outside of

the reef manager’s control are the principle problems in

the red fl ag scenario (and the blue fl ag scenario) locations.

The usefulness of this exercise is that the red fl ag/blue fl ag

distinction helps to indicate where problems exist or are

likely to develop, and where policy and other measures

are starting to have a positive impact.

Looking at the data in Tables 1, 2, and 3, and the maps

presented earlier, we consider two quite-different cases:

a blue fl ag example and a red fl ag example. In this

case, the blue fl ag reef is located in the Bahamas and

the red fl ag reef is located in Belize. This is based on the

assumption that the selected reef in the Bahamas is, on

average, in a better state than the selected reef in Belize.

One should also note that in the case of reef health there

can be major impacts due to climatic and shadow effects

(such as bleaching and disease incidence related to

climate change) that are quite beyond the control of any

individual reef manager or country.

Nevertheless, the data and indicators are interesting. As

seen in Table 3.1, both Belize and the Bahamas have

small populations (around 300,000 people each). The

Bahama Islands are much more urban (89 percent

versus 49 percent for Belize) and richer. Average GNI

per capita (gross national income) in the Bahamas

is almost three times that of Belize: $14,920 versus

$3,940. This wealth is refl ected in better infrastructure

services in the Bahamas in terms of potable water and

sanitation coverage (almost 100 percent in the case of

the Bahamas versus less than half that for Belize), and

a higher overall rank of the Bahamas in the human

development index: place number 49 for the Bahamas

versus 91 for Belize (for comparison, Mexico’s rank is

number 53, while the DR’s is 95; for the HDI, a lower

number is better).

Looking at Table 3.2, we begin to see a clearer pattern

with respect to a number of key reef-related indicators.

Tourism is a more important part of the economy on the

Bahamas (some 60 percent of the Bahamas’ income

comes from reef-dependent activities versus about 31

percent—23 percent from tourism and 8 percent from

fi sheries—for Belize). Corruption and governance are also

bigger issues in Belize than in the Bahamas, as refl ected in

various governance and corruption indicators (see Table

3.2 and Annex 4).

As mentioned earlier, reef health (Table 3.3) and

economic health are the result of a combination of

factors. Income levels are obviously an important part of

the mix: higher incomes per capita allow more investment

in various forms of infrastructure and management. And

yet incomes alone do not explain all—governance and

corruption variables (and general rule of law measures)

are powerful explanatory variables. Concrete indicators

like provision of sanitation, and management of liquid

and solid waste track reasonably well with environmental

quality measures.

Social factors such as the extent that a population is

native-born or consists of in-migrants are also potentially

important explanatory variables. Causality is not always

direct or unidirectional: a rapidly growing population is

one result of rapid economic growth (as in the case of

Quintana Roo and the growth in Cancun and Cozumel).

In other cases, a very diverse population may mean loss of

traditional reef or resource conservation and management

skills. Interpreting these relationships depends on several

contextual factors, many of which are not included here.


38


In general, the red fl ag/blue fl ag approach alerts

managers to different trends in indicator values, with

contrasting effects. When we observe a set of indicators

that are all tending one way with negative implication

for reef ecosystem health, then a red fl ag is raised; if the

same indicators are tending in the other direction with a

positive inference for reef ecosystem health, then a blue

fl ag is raised. In many cases, of course, not ALL indicators

will move in unison, and therefore the red fl ag/blue fl ag

system has to be used with caution and with reference

to other measures of reef health and sustainability. In

addition, there will probably be both red fl ag and blue

fl ag locations within any individual country.

With all of these caveats, the following indicators and

their general values are offered as characterizing red fl ag

and blue fl ag situations:

Indicator Blue Flag values Red Flag values

Income level p.c. higher lower and/or stagnant

ESI index high low

HDI rank lower higher

Population with sanitation high (~100%) lower (60% or less)

Tourism index higher lower

Room rate high/rising low/falling

Government eff ess index high low

Corruption index lower high/rising

Reef share of economy hogher/growing? lower/falling?

Reef health index high/rising low/falling


39


There is an obvious link between the overall reef/ ecosystem

health index results and the red fl ag/blue fl ag approach.

Both rely on a common pool of indicators and insights.

Whereas the former quantifi es the values into a wind rose

and a numerical index, the red fl ag/blue fl ag approach is

more qualitative, and is designed to look more at trends

and raise warning fl ags where appropriate.

This approach can also help target specifi c areas for

special attention. In this regard, it serves a bit like the

canary in the cage in old English coal mines: miners

brought canaries into the mines with them since the birds

were sensitive to methane gas (potentially explosive and

lethal) and would stop singing when methane levels rose

(often in advance of when the miners themselves would

notice any change in gas levels). Hence ,the “canary in

the cage” served an early warning function, not unlike the

red fl ag/blue fl ag idea.

In the MAR countries and the comparator countries, at a

national level one would probably assign a blue fl ag to

the Bahamas and a red fl ag to Belize. New development

pressure on Belize’s coral reefs related to expanding cruise

ship and coastal tourism as well as planned petroleum

exploration in sensitive coastal areas suggest that threats

to the reef are growing and increasing vigilance is

warranted. Within any individual country different reef

systems would probably earn either red fl ags or blue fl ags.

The designation is designed to highlight locations where

important management issues exist and where there is

danger of signifi cant negative impact on both the reef

and the population living in the coastal area. Assigning

values to these indicators for discrete reef systems should

be a participatory exercise, where reef managers and

nearby communities are involved. Bringing stakeholders

together to assess reef ecosystem health based on

intimate knowledge of the reef and the status of socio-

economic/governance indicators is an excellent way to

identify trouble spots and gain ownership for an action

plan. The process of identifying/assigning red fl ags or

blue fl ags is an excellent way to promote public/private

dialogue among different stakeholders—the same groups

who are as much part of the solution as they are a source

of problems.

3.4 Conclusions

Indicators can help us to see status and trends in the

condition of a given system through a different lens, and

in a more objective light, if appropriately selected. They

are potentially powerful tools for better management,

but they must be used and interpreted with care. The end

result is very dependent on the skill of the user.

In this analysis we have tried to demonstrate the rationale

for selecting beyond the traditional pool of indicators of

ecosystem health to include information about the social

and economic condition of the human populations who

interact with these systems. It is they who determine the

health of the system and ultimately its fate, thus it makes

sense to include attributes which relate to society’s well

being to the extent that it derives from and infl uences the

ecosystem in question.

In the case of coral reefs, we have included information on

coastal population density, access to improved sanitation,

economic dependency of surrounding populations and

their cultural identity with the reef as essential determinants

of the state of the system. These are in addition to

fundamental ecological and structural attributes of the

reef, which are clearly important in gauging its health now

and in the future.


40


In the case of the MAR, the identifi cation and application

of a handful of robust indicators to characterize reef

ecosystem health and inform decision makers about sliding

trends is extremely timely. With new heads of state taking

offi ce in two of the four countries (Honduras and Mexico)

and an opportunity to seek a renewed commitment from

all four heads of state to the principles and objectives of

the Tulum Declaration in support of an updated Action

Plan for the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef, informing public

debate is critical.

Threats to the MAR are increasing daily with tourism

and population growth/migration driving development

pathways. Given the value of the MAR—economically,

culturally and ecologically—to the region, it is essential

that decision-makers understand the effects of their policy

choices in the context of the MAR—its current status and

prospects for long-term health. The indicators presented

in this work help to make these connections clear, making

the public and politicians alike more accountable for

their actions. Like any measures, these can be refi ned

with better data and experience, but the process outlined

here represent an important step in the development of

an integrated, discrete, cost-effective set of indicators to

measure coral reef ecosystem health.

Epilogue

Data and indicators serve three main functions: they

establish a benchmark as to the present state of affairs,

they can be used to measure changes over time, and they

can help track whether different policy interventions are

having an impact on the ground.

In the case of the four MAR (MesoAmerican Reef)

countries, this paper has presented a variety of ways in

which indicators and data can be used to understand

what is happening to each country’s coral reefs, and

better manage these important, but vulnerable, resources.

In particular, the approaches presented here link the

social/ economic dimensions of human populations to

the ecological/ biophysical measures of coral reef health.

Coral reefs cannot be managed in isolation from the

communities who depend on them and affect their health.

As such, the indicators work acknowledges that coral

reefs are important both as ecological and as economic

resources, and their well-being and management are

directly linked to the economic well-being of the people

living in the coastal areas.

In and of themselves, data have little value. The information

contained in both the “windroses” and the Red Flag/ Blue

Flag (RF/BF) measures will only make a difference if it is

used by the public and by decision makers to improve

resource management. To this end, there are various

ways that this indicator work can help make a practical

difference, and three “next steps” are sketched out here.

First, there is an important role for indicators and

associated measures in increasing awareness by the

general public of what is happening to the coral reef

ecosystem within each country. The “windroses” are

largely based on published information and serve as a

“snapshot” at a point in time. They have value in informing

the public as to the state of the coral reef ecosystem. In

contrast the Red Flag/ Blue Flag indicator should ideally

be developed in a participatory manner that involves

major stakeholders within each country. Since the RF/BF

designations refl ect both absolute levels as well as rates

and direction of change for different indicators, they are

best developed through an iterative, consultative process

that involves reef managers, government offi cials, local


41


NGOs and the general public – all stakeholders in the

management of coral reef ecosystems. In addition, what

is considered to be a Red Flag site in one country may be

a Blue Flag in another – local variations and differences

are very important, as are abrupt changes in the values

of key indicators, which can signal a worrisome turn of

events.

Second, the indicator work presented here can be directly

used by decision makers at both the national level as well

as at the local/ resource management level. For example,

the “windroses” help benchmark how one country is

doing compared to its neighbors. The windroses also

illustrate how the coral reef ecosystem within a country

responds to policy changes and interventions over time.

The broader set of indicators behind the “windrose”

also suggest problem areas and emerging challenges

and thereby help focus attention on important policy

questions.

In contrast, the RedFlag/BlueFlag indicators help target

interventions (and prioritize investments) to specifi c

locations within each country’s coral reef ecosystem, and

thus help focus scarce human and fi nancial resources.

The participatory process for developing Red Flags/ Blue

Flags also helps to involve more stakeholders in both

problem identifi cation and the search for implementable

solutions.

Third, preparation of a bi-annual “State of the Reef” report

has been proposed for the MAR. Ideally, this report would

be commissioned by the heads of state of the countries

themselves and prepared by a third party and would draw

heavily on the holistic approach toward measuring coral

reef ecosystem health advocated here as part of the Healthy

Reefs for Healthy People initiative. While comparisons

between different locations is inevitable in any State of the

Reef report, the intention is to use this Report to highlight

the economic, ecological and cultural importance of the

Mesoamerican Barrier Reef, and identify areas in need of

special attention.

Such a State of the Reef report, or other periodic

assessments using this indicators framework, can also

feed into broader global assessments of coral reefs

prepared regularly by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring

Network (GCRMN) for reefs in 16 regions of the world.

Similarly, the methods used here could complement the

biophysical monitoring carried out by ReefCheck partners

of thousands of coral reef sites around the world, to

augment these fi ndings and place them in a large context

of overall coral reef ecosystem health in the region.



43

Literature Cited

AGRRA. 1998–2001. (Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef

Assessment) http://www.agrra.org/

Aronson R.B., W.F. Precht, I.G. Macintyre, and T.J. Murdoch.

2000. “Coral bleach-out in Belize.” Nature 405:3.

Balmford, A. and others. 2005. “The Convention on

Biological Diversity’s 2010 Target.” Science 307:

212–213.

Bunce, L. et al 2000. Socioeconomic Manual for Coral

Reef Management. Global Coral Reef Monitoring

Network, Australian Inst. Marine Science, Townsville,

Australia, 251 p.

Bunce, L. et al 2003. Socioeconomic Monitoring Guidelines

for Coastal Managers in the Caribbean: Socmon

Caribbean. World Commission on Protected Areas and

Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australia.

Burke, L. and J. Maidens. 2004. Reefs at Risk in the

Caribbean. Washington, D.C.: World Resources

Institute.

Chapin, M. 2003. “Indigenous Peoples and Natural

Ecosystems in Central America and Southern Mexico.”

Map insert. National Geographic Magazine, February

2003.

Christie, P., B.J. McCay, M.L. Miller, C. Lowe, A.T. White,

R. Stoffl e, D.L. Fluharty, L. Talaue-McManus, R.

Chuenpagdee, C. Pomeroy, D.O. Suman, B.G. Blount,

D. Huppert, R.L. Villahermosa Eisma, E. Oracion,

K. Lowry, R.B. Pollnac 2003. Toward developing a

complete understanding: A social science research

agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries

28(12):22–26.

Daily, G. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on

Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Dixon, John A. (1997). “Economic Values of Coral Reefs:

what are the issues?” in Coral Reefs: Challenges and

Opportunities for Sustainable Management, Marea

Hatziolos, Anthony Hooten, and Martin Fodor, eds.

The World Bank, Washington DC.

Dixon, John A and Gayatri Acharya (2002). “Can the

Environment Wait in a Developing Country?” South

African Journal of Management and Science. Vol 5,

No. 2, pp. 277–87.

Dixon, John A and Jonathan Kelsey (2004). Economic

Valuation of Coral Reef Ecosystems: A Practical Guide.

(Draft). NOAA, CRMP, Silver Springs, MD.

Dixon, John A (2005). “The MDGs, Indicators, and

Conservation of Natural Resources and Biological

Diversity—measurement and policy use,” report

prepared for IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Drew, J.A. “The use of traditional ecological knowledge

in marine conservation.” Conservation Biology

(forthcoming).

Dryzek, S.J. 1994. Ecology and Discursive Democracy:

Beyond Liberal Capitalism and the Administrative

State. Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar Publishing

Limited.

FAO. Status and trends in Mangrove Extent and Cover

Worldwide: North and Central America. http://

www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/

docrep/007/j1533e/J1533E109.htm

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. 2004. FishBase. www.fi shbase.org

(January 31, 2005).

Harmon, D. 2002. In Light of Our Differences: How

Diversity in Nature and Culture Makes Us Human.

Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.


44


Healthy Reefs for Healthy People, Year in Review. 2005.

http://www.healthyreefs.org

Kramer, P., and others. 2000. “Status of coral reefs

of northern Central America: Mexico, Belize,

Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador.”

In Wilkinson, Clive 2000, Status of Coral Reefs of

the World, Australian Institute of Marine Science,

Townsville.

Kramer, P.A. and P.R. Kramer. 2002. Ecoregional Conservation

Planning for the Mesoamerican Caribbean Reef.

Washington, D.C.: WWF.

Maffi , L., ed. 2001. On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language,

Knowledge, and the Environment. Washington, DC:

Smithsonian Institution Press.

McField, M. and P. Kramer. 2004. “The challenge of defi ning

‘reef health’ in the Mesoamerican reef: The search for

yardsticks and a meaningful index of reef integrity.” A

background paper for the Healthy Mesoamerican Reef

workshop, Miami, June 2–4, 2004.

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Living Beyond our Means:

Natural Assets and Human Well Being. 2005. UNEP.

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx

Noronha, L. 2003. “A conceptual framework for the

development of tools to track health and well-being

in a mining region: Report from an Indian study.”

In: Rapport, D.J, and others, eds. 2003. Managing

for Healthy Ecosystems. Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis

Publishers.

Noronha, L. 2004. “Ecosystem approaches to human

health and well-being: Refl ections from use in a mining

context.” Ecohealth 1, Supplement 2, pp 16–23.

Oviedo, G., L. Maffi , and P.B. Larsen. 2000. Indigenous

and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion

Conservation: An Integrated Approach to Conserving

the World’s Biological and Cultural Diversity. Gland,

Switzerland: WWF-International and Terralingua.

Rapport, D.J., H.A. Regier, and T.C. Hutchinson. 1985.

“Ecosystem behaviour under stress.” The American

Naturalist 125: 617–640.

Rapport, D.J., and others, eds. 2003. Managing for

Healthy Ecosystems. Boca Raton: Lewis Press.

Rapport, D.J. and D. Mergler. 2004. “Expanding the practice

of ecosystem health.” EcoHealth 1, Supplement 2: 4–7.

Salim, E. and O. Ullsten. 1999. Our Forests… Our

Future. Report of the World Commission on Forests

and Sustainable Development. Angela Cropper, ed.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Skutnabb-Kangas, T., L. Maffi , and D. Harmon. 2003.

Sharing a World of Difference: The Earth’s Linguistic,

Cultural, and Biological Diversity and map The

World’s Biocultural Diversity: People, Languages, and

Ecosystems. Paris: UNESCO.

Stepp, J.R. and others. 2004. “Development of a GIS for

global biocultural diversity.” Policy Matters 13: 267–70.

UNEP/GPA. 2002. Water Supply & Sanitation Coverage in

UNEP Regional Seas: Need for Regional Wastewater

Emission Targets? The Hague: UNEP/GPA.

Wilkinson, C., ed. 2004. Status of coral reefs of the world:

2004. Cape Ferguson, Townsville, Queensland:

Australian Institute of Marine Science.

World Bank. 2001. Project Appraisal for the Conservation

and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef

System. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.

World Bank. 2005. Little Green Data Book. Washington,

D.C.

World Bank. 2006. Honduras Country Assistance Strategy

(CAS). Concept Note.

World Bank Institute. 2005. “Governance Matters IV: 1996–

2004.” Washington, D.C. http://www.worldbank.org/

wbi/governance/index.html

Yale. 2005. Environmental Sustainability Index http://

www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005_policysummary.pdf .


45

Environmental Context of the MAR

The population in the watersheds draining into the MAR

is estimated at 11.5 million (from UNEP/GPA 2002,

adapted from Burke & Maidens 2004).6 Population

dynamics present different patterns in the four MAR

countries. The whole of the population of Belize and the

state of Quintana Roo, Mexico live within 100 km of the

coast, while half of the population of Honduras lives on

the Caribbean coast and only 5 percent of Guatemala’s

population do. Signifi cant population growth is occurring

in Quintana Roo (77 percent growth during the period

1990−2000, primarily as a result of migration from

other parts of Mexico due to the economic boom along

the coast); and populations are growing in Honduras and

Guatemala as well.

Poverty continues to be a major problem in Honduras

and Guatemala, with very little decrease in poverty levels/

extreme poverty over the last ten years. Inequality has also

changed little, with GINI indexes in Guatemala, Honduras

and Mexico hovering between the high 40s and mid-50s

for the last decade. In Honduras, 71% of indigenous

populations live in poverty (World Bank 2006, Honduras

CAS Concept Note).

Coastal development represents one of the main threats

to the MAR (World Bank 2001; Kramer and Kramer

2002, Burke and Maidens 2004). Coastal construction

and the conversion of coastal habitat has destroyed

sensitive wetlands (mangroves) and coastal forests and

led to an increase in sedimentation. The effects of coastal

development are compounded by insuffi cient measures

for the treatment of wastewater.

Tourism, particularly coastal- and marine-based, is

the fastest growing industry in the region. The state of

Quintana Roo in Mexico is experiencing signifi cant

growth in the tourism infrastructure all along the coast

up to the border with Belize. The conversion of mangrove

forest into beach front tourist resorts along the Riviera

Maya south of Cancun has left coastlines vulnerable

and was largely responsible for the loss of thousands of

tons of high quality beach sand tourist revenues in the

wake of Hurricane Wilma in 2005. This trend is being

echoed in Belize, where eco-tourism appears to be giving

way to large-scale tourism development, involving the

transformation of entire cays, lagoons and mangrove

forests, to accommodate cruise ship arrivals, recreational

facilities and other tourism demands.

Despite the rapid expansion of tourism, over-fi shing

is considered the most critical threat to the MAR (Burke

and Maidens 2004). Intensive artisanal and industrial

fi shing has occurred in the region since the 1960s,

with recent increased pressure on valuable commercial

species (particularly spiny lobster, conches, groupers, and

snappers). The management of individual fi sheries varies

throughout the region, but ineffective regulation and

enforcement, illegal fi shing, and transboundary issues

are common (Kramer and Kramer 2002). Aquaculture

is also rapidly expanding in the MAR region, resulting

Annex 1

6 Belize, 226 thousand people (100% of the population of the country); Guatemala, 6,202 thousand people (about 55% of total population); Honduras, 4,271 thousand people (about 67% of total population); Mexico, State of Quintana Roo, 875 thousand people (100% of the population of the state).


46


in conversion of some coastal habitat (Froese and Pauly

2004).

Improper land use in coastal watersheds is a major

cause of pollution from agrochemicals, pesticides, and

other toxic substances. Nutrients and organic matter

from land sources, both point and non-point, including

from contaminated groundwater, are also a cause of

declining coastal water quality (see Map 2.2). Declining

water quality affects coral growth, and eutrophication

induces the growth of fl eshy algae and sponges, non-

calcifying invertebrates, and bioeroding organisms,

which negatively affect coral reefs. Toxic chemicals also

affect growth rates in corals as well as fi sh, with effects

on fecundity and overall fi tness (McField and Kramer

2004).

While the MAR region is not located within the major transit

routes for oil transportation in the Caribbean, 90 percent

of commerce in the region is transported by ship, and

million of gallons of oil and derivatives are transported to

and from oil terminals in the region each month (World

Bank 2001). Pollution from operational and accidental

spills is a threat, as is the discharges of sewage and solid

waste from ships and recreational boats, whose numbers

and size are increasing rapidly. The recent discovery

of signifi cant oil reserves during exploratory drilling in

coastal wetlands in southern Belize poses a more serious

threat.

From the above, it is clear that people at all levels both

use and affect the MAR, resulting in cause-effect links in

both directions.


47

Variable Name: Coastal population density

What is it? The coastal population is the number of

people who live in whatever is defi ned as the “coastal

area” of a state/ province or country.

Why do we measure it? A major cause of reef

degradation is growing populations in coastal areas and

associated environmental problems coming from land

conversion (e.g. soil erosion and sedimentation; loss of

mangroves and coastal wetlands), disposal of solid waste,

and treatment and disposal of wastewater (including both

runoff as well as sewage).

What is it telling us? There are more people in a given

coastal area and more pressure on the land and marine

environment. The greater the population density also

usually means increased demand for both consumptive

uses of reefs (e.g. fi shing) as well as non-consumptive

uses such as recreation.

How do we measure it? The proposed indicator is

population per square kilometer in the defi ned coastal

area. A second-best indicator would be total population

in the coastal area.

Usefulness as an indicator: The direct links of

increased population to various threats to and uses of the

coral reef are well known. Both the baseline indicator (the

present number) as well as changes over time (the growth

in coastal populations) tells planners a lot about potential

management problems.

Conservation objective: It is rarely feasible to suggest

reducing costal populations or even stopping growth.

Therefore the usefulness of this indicator is identifying the

types of management issues that are likely to be most

important in the future (and, in conjunction with land use

planning) try to reduce some of these impacts.

Benchmark: No benchmark is appropriate. One could

start with the present situation in each country and set

targets such as “growth in coastal populations no more

than the national average, or no more than 1.5 times the

national average” or something like that. The problem

is that coastal populations are growing rapidly in all

countries around the world.

Target: No target is appropriate. The management

objective is the work with the economic forces that attract

people to coastal areas to minimize damage to the reefs

and maximize benefi ts to the coastal populations.

Variable Name: GINI index

What is it? The GINI index measures the distribution

of national income across the nation’s population.

Population is usually divided into fi ve quintiles—each with

20 percent of the population. The poorest 20 percent are

in the bottom quintile and the richest 20 percent are in

the top quintile. A perfect income distribution—everyone

Annex 2Individual Profi le Cards for Selected Economic Variables


48


in a country has the same income per capita—produces

a GINI index of 100. The worse the income distribution

among the population of the country, the higher is the

GINI index (it is always between 0 and 100).

Why do we measure it? Income is always distributed

unevenly; each country has richer people and poorer people.

A very unequal distribution of income, however (a low GINI

index), is a good indicator of both economic and social

disparities in a society. The larger these income disparities,

the harder the reef management challenge in most cases.

What is it telling us? GINI index tells us about the equity

within any society and also the changes over time shows

whether or not economic growth is benefi ting just a few,

or all members of a society.

How do we measure it? The GINI index measures

the area between the Lorenz curve (a plot of the

cumulative percentage of total income received against

the cumulative percentage of recipients, starting with the

poorest individuals or households) and a hypothetical

curve of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of

the maximum area under the line. Thus a GINI index of 0

represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies

perfect inequality.

Usefulness as an indicator: This is a very useful

“snapshot” indicator of who gets the money in a society, not

just whether or not average income per capita is growing.

Conservation objective: A better GINI index, especially

if measured at the local level, indicates a wider sharing of

the economic benefi ts of economic growth, and hopefully

making more people “stakeholders” in the conservation

and management of healthy reefs.

Benchmark: An objective would be to have the GINI

index be constant or decline over time, thereby indicating

improved sharing of economic growth among the

population.

Target: In the ideal world, a target for the GINI index

would be 0—complete equality of income distribution

within a population. Since a GINI index of 0 is never

obtainable, we propose a target of 35 to 45. Most

developing countries have GINI indices of 40 to 60;

the MAR countries are all in the 50s (Guatemala 59.9;

Honduras 55.0; Mexico 54.6). For comparison, the United

States is 44.6, Canada 33.1, and Brazil 59.3.

Variable Name: Income share from reef-dependent activities

What is it? This indicator measures the share of total

income in the coastal zone that is directly (or indirectly)

dependent on the reef system and its health. It gives a

good indication of the importance of the coral reef to the

coastal economy and also indicates the extent that the

local populations (and political decision makers) are likely

to be involved “stakeholders” in reef management.

Why do we measure it? The larger the share of

reef-dependent income (from such activities as fi shing,

recreation and tourism, transportation, other uses) in total

income, the easier it is to make the political case that the

reefs are important economic as well as ecosystem assets

that need management and care.

What is it telling us? This indicator tells us what part of

the economic activity in the coastal area is potentially at

risk if reefs are not managed well.


49

ANNEX 2 - INDIVIDUAL PROFILE CARDS FOR SELECTED ECONOMIC VARIABLES

How do we measure it? Regional economic accounts

need to be disaggregated to assign that portion of

production and services that comes from coral reef

ecosystems (broadly defi ned). Obvious components

include fi shing and related processing, as well as ocean-

based recreation and tourism (both direct uses such as

scuba diving and snorkeling, as well as indirect uses

such as beachfront resorts and all of the related services

provided to tourists and national visitors).

Usefulness as an indicator: A very useful indicator

of the economic importance of this often “unpriced”

economic and ecological asset—a healthy coral reef.

Conservation objective: By identifying the economic

importance of the coral reefs it is easier to obtain money

(both from national governments and from visitors) to

maintain and protect the reefs. This includes both land-

based infrastructure investments (especially for wastewater

and solid waste treatment, as well as control of soil erosion)

as well as in-situ management on the reefs themselves.

Benchmark: No benchmark is appropriate. The number

will vary country-by-country depending on the nature

of the coastal economy. We may assume that a higher

value is good, since this will mean a larger share of the

population are potential stakeholders in sustainable reef/

ecosystem management.

Target: No target is appropriate.

Variable Name: Mangrove Area and Rate of Change

What is it? This is a measure of the area of mangroves in the

coastal zone and the annual rate of change in that area.

Why do we measure it? Mangroves are a common and

important part of the coastal ecosystem and are directly

linked to the health of nearby coral reefs and associated

fi sh populations. Mangroves also provide important

ecosystem services to the coastal population including

water fi ltration and purifi cation, trapping of sediment,

provision of bird and animal habitat, and storm surge

protection to inland areas. Mangroves are also frequently

lost as a result of coastal development, aquaculture

and changes in water fl ows due to regulation of rivers

upstream, and therefore are directly affected by policy

and management decisions.

What is it telling us? This indicator tells us how a society

is managing costal development and the extent to which

natural ecosystems are being protected. Rapid loss of

mangroves is often a sign of poorly planned and managed

development, often with important consequences for the

sustainability of other parts of the ecosystem.

How do we measure it? This indicator measures the

change in mangrove area as a percentage loss (or gain)

over a given period (in this case, from 1990-2000); it may

be positive but more often is a negative number. The rate of

change is usually expressed on an annual basis, calculated

over the number of years between observations.

Usefulness as an indicator: The change in mangrove

area is a useful indicator of both the pattern and speed

of coastal development, as well as the extent to which

natural ecosystems are being protected and managed.

The period over which change may be measured depends

on the availability of accurate data (usually satellite data)

and the ability of the measurements to detect real change

over time. Mangrove cover and rate of loss has direct

implications for the health of nearby coral reefs.


50


Conservation objective: The objective should be very little

or no net loss of mangroves. In areas of signifi cant loss due

to poor management decisions in the past, conservation

objectives should include restoration of mangrove habitat

to levels which ensure adequate recruitment of juvenile fi sh

to adjacent reefs, through new, low-cost techniques.

Benchmark: No net annual loss of mangroves.

Target: No net annual loss of mangroves, or a real

increase in mangrove cover in countries which have

suffered signifi cant mangrove losses, through restoration.

Variable Name: Percent of population born outside of the coastal region

What is it? This is a measure of the stability of a

population and whether or not growth is from the original

population or fed by in-migration from other areas.

Why do we measure it? The “newer” the population

in a coastal area, the less likely there are established

patterns of resource conservation and use based on

long-time personal experience. Newer populations are

also less likely to be socially cohesive, and less willing

to make conservation investments today to ensure future

benefi ts.

What is it telling us? This indicator tells us how rapidly

an area is growing and the extent to which this population

growth is fueled by in-migration.

How do we measure it? This indicator measures the

percent of the coastal population who were born in

another location—both within the country and outside of

the country.

Usefulness as an indicator: Very useful as a “snapshot”

of social change in an area and as a highlighter of potential

problems—linguistic, social, governance, others.

Conservation objective: No objective, although job

creation for the area’s original population may well be

a government objective, and can also help to make

“stakeholders” of peoples whose traditional life styles

may be changing as a result of changed coral reef

management policies.

Benchmark: No benchmark is appropriate.

Target: No target is appropriate.

Variable Name: Tourism Index—Occupancy levels and average hotel room rates per night

What is it? This index is a direct measure of the popularity

of a site and the amount that people are willing to pay to

visit a location, and how much hotel operators are able to

charge. Occupancy levels tell about the balance of supply

and demand, and will also affect average room rates—

a large increase in supply of rooms will initially usually

decrease average room rates.

Why do we measure it? The “better” the destination

(including the health of the reef and the general marine

environment), the more that hotels can charge and the more

that people are willing to pay to stay there. As opposed to

most of the other indicators, this is one where people directly

“vote” with their own money as to what they are willing to

pay, and how they perceive the resource. Higher occupancy

levels mean more demand at the given price (assuming no

major changes in the supply of hotel rooms).


51

ANNEX 2 - INDIVIDUAL PROFILE CARDS FOR SELECTED ECONOMIC VARIABLES

What is it telling us? This indicator tells us both the

average revenue per hotel night and percent of rooms

occupied, as well as changes over time. In the case of

coastal tourist destinations, a higher average room rate

usually means that a better “product” is being offered,

and that there is also more income to help pay for

management and conservation of the marine resource.

How do we measure it? This indicator measures

average rates per room per night—not the “listed” rate

(so-called rack rates), but what rooms are actually sold

for. Occupancy rates are the percent of hotel rooms

“sold” in any given period of time. The index is composed

of two parts, equally weighted: the average occupancy

rate (between 0 and 100 percent), and the average room

rate in dollars normalized to 100 based on the highest

average in the sample countries. Thus the two values each

have potential maximum values of 100; each is divided

by 2 and then added together.

Usefulness as an indicator: Very useful as a measure

of people’s willingness to pay for the “commodity” being

sold. In the case of the MAR locations, an important part

of what is being sold is the marine environment.

Conservation objective: No objective per se, although

we hypothesize that higher average room rates will also

translate into a greater willingness to pay for conservation

and management (and treatment of wastes) by those

selling these services. One may wish to develop several

categories of rooms for any given site: e.g small ecolodges,

motels, larger hotels, all-inclusives.

Benchmark: No benchmark is appropriate, although

seeing what neighboring countries (or competing

destinations) charge for room rates provides useful

information. Operators desire 100 percent occupancy,

but this is rarely achieved. Occupancy rates in the high

80 percent range are commonly observed in very popular

locations; 100 percent can occur in peak periods.

Target: A constant or increasing average room rate, and

constant or increasing occupancy rates.



53

Annex 3Sources for Table 3.2 Indicators

Drivers of Change Indicators

Coastal Population Density/km2

Burke, L., Maidens, J. 2004. “Reefs at Risk in the

Caribbean”. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.

Tourism: Mean Occupancy Rate Tomas Camarena-MBRS. Fax/phone communication April

2006

In the case of Honduras data was obtained from phone

conversation between the TTL and the Head of IHT

(03/31/06).

Social Well Being and Governance Indicators:

Economic Indicators

Income Share from Reef-Dependent ActivitiesIn the case of Belize, data comes from phone conversation

between the TTL with Head of Fisheries in Belize

(11/04/06)

In the case of Honduras data are for Roatan only, and

include revenues from Artesanal Fishing, Industrial

Fishing and Tourism services).Source: IHT, Astrid Mejia

(Calculated from a report by Ed Taylor, 2002 on Roatán´s

Total Gross Island Product.

In the Case of Mexico, data comes is divided on 53.9%

that comes from Tourism and 0.8% that comes from

Fisheries. Source: (Marisol Rivera-Instituto Nacional de

Ecologia, Mexico)

Gini IndexNational Data

Source: WRI. 2005. The Wealth of the Poor Report.

Local data

In the case of Mexico, data comes from fi les sent by

Marisol Rivera-INE. Her source was SEDESOL (2000),

Indicators and Dimensions used by the habitat program in

its selection of cities bigger than 100 thousand habitants,

2000. XI-XII Population and Household Census. http://

www.planjuarez.org/fi les/pdf_107.pdf

Adjusted Net Savings (% of GNI)World Bank. 2005. Little Green Data Book.

Health Indicators

% of Waste Water TreatedNational data

UNEP-ROLAC, CEHI/PAHO. 2003. Análisis de Diferentes

Indicadores Relacionados con la Problemática del Agua

enAmérica Latina y el Caribe. Tabla II.3.1

% Population Served by SanitationNational data

World Bank.2005. Little Green Data Book.


54


Causes of Death among Children under 5 years of age (%) from Diarrhoeal DiseasesWHO. 2006. World Health Statistics 2006: (data

corresponds to year 2000)

http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat2006_mortality.pdf

Cultural Integrity Indicators

Number of Ethno-languages Spoken in the Coastal AreaData provided by Stefano Belfi ore (23/03/06)

Adapted from UNESCO 2000; Gordon 2005 Ethnologue:

Languages of the World, 15th ed. Dallas, Tex.: SIL

International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.

com/

Note: Offi cial language, italics=indigenous language

% of Population in Coastal Areas Born Outside the AreaNational data

ILO. 1999. International Labor Migration Data Base www.

ilo.org Geneva

Local data

Data provided by Patrica Kramer extracted from Villar,

D., 2005. “Migrations among the Indigenous Language

Speaking Population in South Eastern Mexico”. http://

repositories.cdlib.org/ccpr/olcp/ccpr-cp-004-05

Governance Indicators

ESI (Environmental Sustainability Index)National Data

Source:Yale University. 2005.

Note: The Environmental Sustainability Index benchmarks

the ability of nations to protect the environment over the

next decades.

Local data

In the Case of Quintana Roo-Mexico, data provided by

Marisol Rivera-INE

Source: CESPEDES (2001) http://www.cce.org.mx/

cespedes/IndiceDeSustentabilidadAmbiental.aspx

Corruption IndexD. Kaufmann, A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi. 2005.

“Governance Matters IV: Governance Indicators for 1996–

2004”. The World Bank. Washington, D.C.

% of Coastal Area under ProtectionWRI.2004. Reefs at Risk in the wider Caribbean.

Note: This will include the Golf of Mexico for Mexico.

Total MPAs/Management Effectiveness (categories: good/poor/inadequate/unknown)WRI. 2004. Reefs at Risk in the Caribbean.

Note: data corresponds to the No. of MPAs in respective

countries and then effectiveness ranking according

to good/poor/inadequate and unknown categories

respectively. These data will be updated for the MBRS soon

based on information reported by MPA managers using a

tracking tool to evaluate MPA management effectiveness

at each site.


55

Annex 42005 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and Other Indices

The 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index

(ESI) benchmarks the ability of nations to protect

the environment over the next several decades.

It does so by integrating 76 datasets—tracking natural

resource endowments, past and present pollution levels,

environmental management efforts, and a society’s

capacity to improve its environmental performance—into

21 indicators of environmental sustainability.

These indicators permit comparison across the following

fi ve fundamental components of sustainability:

environmental systems; environmental stresses; human

vulnerability to environmental stresses; societal capacity

to respond to environmental challenges; and global

stewardship. The issues refl ected in the indicators and the

underlying variables were chosen through an extensive

review of the environmental literature, assessment of

available data, rigorous analysis, and broad-based

consultation with policy makers, scientists, and indicator

experts.

The ESI provides a powerful environmental decision-

making tool tracking national environmental performance

and facilitating comparative policy analysis. It enables

a more data-driven and empirical approach to policy

making. While absolute measures of sustainability remain

elusive, many aspects of environmental sustainability can

be measured on a relative basis with results that provide

a context for policy evaluations and judgments. Such

comparisons are especially important in the new context

of worldwide efforts to advance the environment related

aspects of the Millennium Development Goals.

Higher ESI scores suggest better environmental

stewardship. The fi ve highest-ranking countries are

Finland, Norway, Uruguay, Sweden, and Iceland—

all countries that have substantial natural resource

endowments, low population density, and have managed

the challenges of development with some success.

The indicators and variables on which they are constructed

build on the well-established “pressure-state-response”

environmental policy model. The issues incorporated and

variables used were chosen through an extensive review

of the environmental literature, assessment of available

data, rigorous analysis, and broad-based consultation

with policymakers, scientists, and indicator experts. While

they do not provide a defi nitive vision of sustainability, the

collection of indicators and variables that form the 2005

ESI provide (1) a powerful tool for putting environmental

decision making on fi rmer analytical footing; (2) an

alternative to GDP and the human development index for

gauging country progress; and (3) a useful mechanism

for benchmarking environmental performance.

Country ESI Ranking compared Country Ranking to other countries

Mexico 46.2 95

Belize Not ranked Not ranked

Guatemala 44 116

Honduras 47.4 87

Source: http://www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005_policysummary.pdfNote: Mexico’s low ranking was of enough concern to their President (V. Fox) that he subsequently became more engaged with Yale and was interested in how to improve their ranking


56


Mexico

0

62

47

47

41

100

37

Environmental Systems

ReducingStresses

Reducing HumanVulnerability

Social and InstitutionalCapacity

Global Stewardship

ESI: 46.2

Ranking: 95

GDP/Capita: $7,945

Peer group ESI: 52.1

Variable coverage: 74

Missing variables imputed: 1

Guatemala

0

2942

50

41

54


ReducingStresses



Global Stewardship

ESI: 44.0

Ranking: 116

GDP/Capita: $3,584




100

Environmental Sustainability Indicator Profi les for MAR Countries


57

ANNEX 4 - 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY INDEX (ESI) AND OTHER INDICES

Honduras

0

2742

58

44

59


ReducingStresses



Global Stewardship

ESI: 47.4

Ranking: 87

GDP/Capita: $2,312




100

Environmental Sustainability Indicator Profi les for MAR Countries (continued)

Human Development Index (HDI)

The HDI—human development index—is a summary

composite index that measures a country’s average

achievements in three basic aspects of human

development: longevity, knowledge, and a decent standard

of living. Longevity is measured by life expectancy at birth;

knowledge is measured by a combination of the adult

literacy rate and the combined primary, secondary, and

tertiary gross enrollment ratio; and standard of living by

GDP per capita (PPP US$).

See graph and table on the next page.7

This dataset presents estimates of six dimensions of

governance covering 209 countries and territories for

fi ve time periods: 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004.

These indicators are based on several hundred individual

variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn

from 37 separate data sources constructed by 31 different

organizations. We assign these individual measures of

governance to categories capturing key dimensions of

governance, and use an unobserved components model

to construct six aggregate governance indicators in each

of the four periods. We present the point estimates of the

dimensions of governance as well as the margins of error

for each country for the four periods. These margins of

error are not unique to perceptions-based measures of

governance, but are an important feature of all efforts

7 Graphs and table compiled by Patricia Kramer, 2006.


58


Year

1

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2002

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

MexicoBelizeGuatemalaHonduras

Human Development Index Trends

INDICATOR MEXICO BELIZE GUATEMALA HONDURAS

HDI Overall Rank 53 91 116 117

Human development index (HDI) value 2003 0.814 0.753 0.667 0.663

Life expectancy at birth (years) 2003 75.1 71.9 67.8 67.3

Adult literacy rate (% ages 15 and above) 2003b 90.3 76.9 80.0 69.1

Combined gross enrollment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools (%) 2002/03c 75 77 62 61

GDP per capita (PPP US$) 2003 9,168 6,950 2,665 4,148

Life expectancy index 0.83 0.78 0.71 0.70

Education index 0.85 0.77 0.74 0.66

World Bank Governance Indicators Dataset, 2004

(continued on next page)


59



GDP index 0.75 0.71 0.55 0.62

GDP-HDI rank 7 –19 3 –11

Human poverty index (HPI-1) 12 33 44 32

MDG Children under weight for age (% under age 5)† 1995–2002c 8 6 24 17

GEM 34 59 n/a 70

Seats in parliament held by women (% of total) MDG(a) 21.2 9.3 8.2 5.5

b Poverty line is equivalent to $1.08 (1993 PPP US$).c Data refer to the most recent year available during the period specifi ed.† Denotes indicators used to calculate the human poverty index (HPI-1). For further details, see technical note .(a) Data are as of March 1, 2004. Where there are lower and upper houses, data refer to the weighted average of women’s shares of seats in both houses.

World Bank Governance Indicators Dataset, 2004

to measure governance, including objective indicators.

We also address various methodological issues, including

the interpretation and use of the data given the estimated

margins of error, signifi cance of changes over time, and

correlation between governance and income.

The World Bank defi nes governance as the traditions and

institutions by which authority in a country is exercised for

the common good. This includes (a) the process by which

those in authority are selected, monitored and replaced;

(b) the capacity of the government to effectively manage

its resources and implement sound policies; and (c) the

respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that

govern economic and social interactions among them.

Above text from Website: http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/

governance/index.html


60



WB Corruption Index, 2004 48.7 54.7 28.1 30.5

WB Government Effectiveness Index, 2004 56.7 61.1 18.8 27.9

WB Political Stability Index, 2004 44.7 66.0 22.8 26.7

WB Rule of Law Index, 2004 45.9 58.5 18.8 34.3

WB Regulatory Quality Index, 2004 68.0 62.1 49.3 39.4

WB Voice and Accountability Index, 2004 56.8 74.3 36.4 46.1

Year

70.0

1996 1998 20042000 2002

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Mexico

BelizeGuatemalaHonduras

Control of Corruption is a measure of the extent of corruption, conventionally defi ned as the exercise of public power

for private gain. It is based on scores of variables from polls of experts and surveys.

WB Corruption


61


WB Government Effectiveness

Year

70.0

80.0

1996 1998 20042000 2002

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Mexico


Government effectiveness combines responses on the quality of public service provision, the quality of the bureaucracy,

the competence of civil servants, the independence of the civil service from political pressures, and the credibility of the

government’s commitment to policies.


62


WB Political Stability Index

Political stability and absence of violence combines several indicators that measure perceptions of the likelihood

that the government in power will be destabilized or overthrown by possibly unconstitutional and/or violent means,

including domestic violence and terrorism.

Year

70.0

80.0

90.0

1996 1998 20042000 2002

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Mexico



63


WB Rule of Law Index

Rule of law includes several indicators that measure the extent to which agents have confi dence in and abide by the

rules of society. These include perceptions of the incidence of crime, the effectiveness and predictability of the judiciary,

and the enforceability of contracts.

Year

70.0

80.0

1996 1998 20042000 2002

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Mexico



64


Regulatory quality focuses more on the policies themselves, including measures of the incidence of market-unfriendly

policies such as price controls or inadequate bank supervision, as well as perceptions of the burdens imposed by

excessive regulation in areas such as foreign trade and business development.

WB Regulatory Quality Index

Year

70.0

80.0

90.0

1996 1998 20042000 2002

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Mexico



65


WB Voice and Accountability Index

Year

70.0

80.0

90.0

1996 1998 20042000 2002

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0

Mexico


Voice and accountability includes in it a number of indicators measuring various aspects of the political process, civil

liberties, political and human rights, measuring the extent to which citizens of a country are able to participate in the

selection of governments.


Global Environment Facility Coordination TeamEnvironment Department

THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USATelephone: 202.473.1816Fax: 202.522.3256Email: [email protected]: www.worldbank.org/gef

Date post:	08-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

36623 Measuring Coral Reef Ecosystem Health Coral Reef Ecosyste… · coral reef ecosystem health...

Documents