Coral Reef Protection in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Intercoast #34Coral Reef Protection in Quintana Roo,...

_____________________________________________________________________________

Coral Reef Protection in Quintana Roo, Mexico.Intercoast #34

_____________________________________________________________________________

Bezaury, Juan andJennifer McCann

1999

Citation:Narragansett, Rhode Island USA: Coastal Resources Center.InterCoast Network Newsletter,

Spring 1999

For more information contact: Pamela Rubinoff, Coastal Resources Center, Graduate School ofOceanography, University of Rhode Island. 220 South Ferry Road, Narragansett, RI 02882Telephone: 401.874.6224 Fax: 401.789.4670 Email: [email protected]

This five year project aims to conserve critical coastal resources in Mexico by building capacity of NGOs,Universities, communities and other key public and private stakeholders to promote an integratedapproach to participatory coastal management and enhanced decision-making. This publication was madepossible through support provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Office ofEnvironment and Natural Resources Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade under the termsof Cooperative Agreement No. PCE-A-00-95-0030-05.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L N E W S L E T T E R O F C O A S T A L M A N A G E M E N T

Narragansett, Rhode Island, U.S.A. • #31 • Spring, 1998

Highlights

3ManagingTourism in East Africa

4South AfricaLaunchesCoastalProgram

8ResourceConservationin Malaysia

16Urbanizationin Denmark

22Reports FromThe Field

IntercoastSurvey ResultsShow Diverse

Readership

M ore than 200 people worldwide responded to Intercoast‘s recent readershipsurvey, and the results reveal a truly global audience withdiverse areas of interests incoastal resource management.

Readers from more than 50countries, representing an arrayof cultures, knowledge and inter-ests, provided personal and pro-fessional profile information,fields of interests, and sugges-tions to improve the look andusefulness of Intercoast.Although the majority of thosewho responded hold a Ph. D.,Intercoast appealed to many whodid not. Readers are employed asenvironmental consultants, uni-versity professors and lecturers,government employees, researchscientists and employees of non-governmental organizations.

Those surveyed indicated thatIntercoast is a valuable tool thatcan be used by some to developnational policies, create researchprojects, compare coastal man-agement strategies and interna-tional trends, network, and pre-pare seminars and workshops;while for others Intercoast servesas a source for general insight.

The more than 200 readers

(continued page 2)

Protecting the Maya ReefThrough Multi-NationalCooperationBy Juan Bezaury andJennifer McCann

O n Earth Day, June 5, 1997, heads of state from Belize,Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico,united in Tulum, Mexico to show theircommitment towards the protection

and wise use of their shared coastalhabitats, especially the coral reef, by signing onto the MesoamericanCaribbean Coral Reef SystemsInitiative. All four countries under-stand that this rich and diverse ecosys-tem, second in size only to the GreatBarrier Reef in Australia, is the basesfor many of their industries includingtourism and fisheries. Currently, land-based activities, including coastaldevelopment, have placed increasedpressures causing, in many cases,destruction or irreversible damage.

The Mesoamerican Caribbean CoralReef Systems Initiative provides aforum for all four nations to act and

manage their coastal resources region-ally. The overall goal is to take advan-tage of growing opportunities for sus-tainable development, through therational use and conservation of reefresources. Involvement and support bycoastal communities, private compa-nies, national and international non-profit organizations and government

officials is crucialto the success ofthis regional andintegrated initia-tive. Some of theobjectives includethe establishmentof protectedareas; strengthen-ing regulations;ecotourism plan-ning; securinginternational

funding; and encouraging coastal man-agement to address the need for thesustainable use and conservation of thisarea. Providing opportunities for train-ing, scientific research and monitoringare also encouraged.

Other agreements have been signed by these four nations, includ-ing the Tuxtla I and II Agreements;Agreements of the Central AmericanCommission on Environmental andDevelopment that encourage conserva-tion actions on the MesoamericanBiological Corridor; and the CartagenaAgreement on the protection and useof marine life in the Greater

Fisher in Quintana Roo, Mexico.

(continued page 24)

2 Intercoast Network • Spring 1998

that replied indicated that, on average,four other people read each issue.Intercoast’s audience is even wider as a result of readers contributing theircopies to libraries, after making therounds among coastal managers. This is in addition to those sent directly tolibraries.

Intercoast readers suggested manytopics for future issues, includingmarine environment restoration; envi-ronmental techniques and methodolo-gies; geographic information systems

(GIS) and remote sensing; effects ofclimate change; aquaculture and fish-eries; water pollution; environmentallaw and policy; integrated coastal man-agement case studies; among others.Whether the readers of Intercoast arefrom Algeria, Germany, or Tokyo, theyall shared the common desire to learnabout and understand coastal issues.

Survey respondents rated the fea-ture articles the most valued elementof the newsletter, with “Reports fromthe Field,” “Intercoast InsiderInformation” and the editorials follow-ing close behind. Intercoast’s editorswill use the survey results to tailor the

newsletter to what readers want to seeand what is most relevant and benefi-cial to their work. Intercoast strives tokeep the articles and networking infor-mation topical and up-to-date.

Readers’ suggestions on how toimprove Intercoast are useful andappreciated, and the editors urge youto continue giving feedback, even inaddition to the survey. Those whoresponded to the survey have alreadytaken the first step to help shape thepublication. We welcome your futureinvolvement with Intercoast throughthe contribution of articles and byoffering your valued opinions.

Survey(continued from page 1)

Intercoast to Begin Subscription Fee in 1999

In the past two years, Intercoast has expanded both its size and its global readership. Due to the costs associated with printing and mailing, the expense of getting Intercoast to our increasing readership has risen.One purpose of the recent Intercoast survey was to determine the willingness of our readers to pay a nominalannual subscription fee to offset these growing costs.

The response we received was that, on average, Intercoast readers would be willing to pay a subscriptionprice of US$ 10 for three annual issues with a featured topic of interest; and periodically a special editionwhich would be devoted to a single topic, such as last year’s very popular Intercoast Special Edition #1 onmangroves. Based upon the survey response, beginning with the January 1999 issue, subscribers to Intercoastwill be asked to pay an annual fee of $10.

Some respondents raised concerns about charging a subscription price. These included the issue of costlyinternational exchange rates, the desire to use credit cards rather than money orders and, most significantly,the inability of some individuals and organizations to pay a $10 annual fee. In regard to the first two concerns,we will develop systems for payment which minimize extraneous costs and complications. As for the last con-cern, we will provide the opportunity for individuals and organizations from developing countries who wish tocontinue to receive Intercoast for free if the subscription rate is a financial hardship.

Instructions for submitting payment or requesting a waiver will be published in the Fall edition ofIntercoast. We greatly value our audience and would not like to lose even one reader. We will try to accom-modate you and make the transition easy and equitable. Thank you for your continuing interest in and supportof Intercoast.

— The Editors

Intercoast Network • Spring 1998 3

By Friederike Ziegler

Managed tourism can often con-tribute to the survival of localcommunities. This was discussed duringthe workshop “Experiences in Localand Community Integrated CoastalManagement (ICM) Projects – Lessonsto Date” held in Zanzibar, Tanzania,March 4-6, 1998. The workshop wasorganized by the Secretariat for EasternAfrican Coastal Area Management(SEACAM, see Intercoast Network#30) and the Western Indian OceanMarine Science Association (WIOM-SA). Fifteen local, community-basedICM projects from the East Africanregion presented their results achievedand lessons learned. Some 70 partici-pants agreed that tourism, if contribut-ing to community development andrespectful of local traditions, is a rea-sonable means of supporting long-term development and increasing com-munity awareness of the coastal area.Two experiences, one good and onebad, are described here.

Bazaruto Archipelago –Learning From Mistakes

Bazaruto is located 20 km off thesouth coast of Mozambique, about 800km north of Maputo. The archipelagohas 2,700 inhabitants of which mostare dependent on fisheries. Three ofthe islands constitute Mozambique’sonly marine national park establishedin 1971.

The Bazaruto Project was establishedin 1989 to implement ICM. One initia-tive is to establish sustainable tourismthat also benefits the local community.From the start, a major problem hasbeen the lack of a legal mechanismto ensure that tourism revenues werereturned to the local community.However, last year an informal agree-ment was reached between island touroperators, the national park and theBazaruto project; now US$ 5 is col-

lected from each tourist entering thepark. To date, about US$ 10,000 hasbeen collected, representing some2,000 visitors. The money has beenused to build schools, a health clinicand provide other community services.Also, this money funds two full-timeeducators who patrol the beaches,answer tourists’ questions, burn litter,and monitor for illegal fishing anddestructive fishing methods.

Tourism still cannot be called sustain-able. A big problem is that cruise shipscarrying 200-400 passengers visit theisland, debark for shopping, snorkelingand diving (often creating environmen-tal problems) without contributing tothe tourist fund. The number of shipshas increased dramatically over the lastyear. Another problem is that neitherthe tour operators or the project em-ploys many local people, mainly becauselocals lack higher education.

To benefit the local community it isnecessary for the tourism industry tocontribute to the island community; toconsult with the community beforegranting tourism concessions (to avoidconflicts of interests); and to market themarine park and its ecological diversity.

Misali Island in theZanzibar Archipelago,Tanzania – A SuccessfulVenture

A tourism project started on MisaliIsland, Zanzibar, as part of the alreadyexisting Misali Island ConservationProject, begun in 1996. Misali is asmall island with an area of 0.9 sq km.It is covered with forest and surround-ed by relatively undisturbed mangrovesand coral reefs. The World TourismOrganization recommended that Misalibecome a nature conservation area, andthe introduction of low-impact tourismbe evaluated. A small-scale pilot pro-ject was started in December 1997.The project emphasizes that the localcommunity should participate in and

benefit from the project. So far, fourMisali fishers have been trained as tourguides. A tour operator in ZanzibarStone Town takes tourists by high-speed

ferry to Pemba Island, where they stayand make day trips to Misali. Touristsgive a voluntary US$ 10 donation thatis spent on the local fishers and theirfamilies.

Conflicts between the fishers andconservation interests have not arisenon Misali, since the guides are alsofishers and the conservation effortshave led to increased fish catches.Rather, the fishers are very enthusias-tic about the project and want toestablish a nongovernmental conserva-tion organization.

Misali, because of its small size,represents a manageable and realisticmodel for development of an ICMstrategy which includes conservation,community development and tourism.However, larger efforts are requiredto conserve marine resources on aregional level.

For further information contact:SEACAM, 874 Av. Amlcar Cabral,Maputo, Mozambique. Tel: 258-1-300641/2. FAX: 258-1-300638. E-mail: [email protected].

Small-Scale Tourism in Eastern Africa: Helpful or Harmful to Local Communities?

Coral reef in

Zanzibar.


T he South African coast stretchesfor some 3,200 km betweenNamibia and Mozambique. It is themeeting place of the Atlantic, Southernand Indian oceans. People are attractedto this coast because of the many dif-ferent opportunities it offers throughits rich natural resources, beauty and

economic potential. The history ofracially exclusive political and economicdevelopment has meant that indigenouspopulations have had limited access tothe coast and its resources.

The growing demands of more andmore people concentrated in coastaltowns and cities have resulted inoveruse, damage and destruction ofsome coastal resources. The Ministryof Environmental Affairs and Tourismhas initiated a Coastal ManagementPolicy Programme to prepare a policythat will guide the management ofthe coast for the benefit of currentand future generations of all SouthAfricans.

South Africa’s CoastThe South African coast is diverse.

The biophysical features range fromdesert conditions in the northwest totropical conditions in the northeast.Compared with many other coastalcountries, South Africa has few largerivers, due to relatively low seasonalrainfall, and few sheltered bays. Formuch of the year, strong winds andstormy seas are experienced alongthis high-energy coastline, movinglarge amounts of sediment northwardalong the west and east coasts.

Socioeconomic conditions also varygreatly, from isolated and poor subsis-tence farming to the urbane and sophis-ticated activities associated with mod-ern cities, notably in Cape Town, PortElizabeth, East London and Durban.This diversity is reflected in the rangeof activities that take place at the coast,including commercial farming activi-ties; residential, recreational and resortdevelopments; port activities; marinadevelopments; mining; fishing; naturereserves; and transport infrastructure,among others. There are a variety ofcultures and languages, with four of thecountry’s eleven official languagesbeing spoken along the coast, namelyAfrikaans, English, Xhosa and Zulu.

Institutional characteristics and capaci-ty also vary along the coast. While asingle national constitution applies alongthe coast, there is a marked variation inlocal and regional government struc-tures, with the incorporation of tradi-tional leadership structures being a sig-nificant feature of administration insome regions.

History and StructureThe election of South Africa’s first

democratic government in April 1994has provided a fundamentally differentcontext for public policy making.Now all South Africans can engage in ameaningful dialogue to address issuesof common concern. It is in this con-text that the Coastal ManagementPolicy Programme has been developed

and implemented.The program was born out of the

need to redress the imbalances of pastapartheid policies, and to address theproblems inherent in an uncoordinatedapproach to coastal management. Ex-tensive negotiations with a broad spec-trum of national interest groups led toagreement on a process for formulat-ing the coastal management policy andthe structures that should guide it.

Policy Committee: The Ministerof Environmental Affairs and Tourismappointed a policy committee to makerecommendations about a draft policyfor managing the coast. The policycommittee is a partnership betweengovernment and civil society, and rep-resents the interests of national gov-ernment, provincial government,business, labor, community-basedorganizations, environmental non-governmental organizations, and thesport and recreational sector. Each pol-icy committee member has equal sta-tus, and decisions are made by consen-sus. The policy committee has beenconstituted as a not-for-profit compa-ny to administer the program.

Project Management Team: A project management team has been appointed by the policy commit-tee to implement and manage the program. It is made up of individualsfrom the consulting firms of CommonGround Consulting and Watermeyer,Prestedge, Retief. It also includes individuals with skills and expertise in coastal management, general projectand process management, facilitationand public participation, and commu-nications.

Regional Managers: A group of five regional managers has beenappointed to facilitate the involvementof interested and affected partiesaround the coast, and to consolidateinformation relevant to their regions.

Funding: The British Departmentfor International Development hasgenerously provided the financialsupport for this program.

South Africa Launches Coastal ManagementProgram

Langebaan

Lagoon, part of

the West Coast

National Park

allel program of interaction with gov-ernmental actors has been implementedto ensure that national and provinciallevels of government are fully informedand involved in the process.

Specialist studies: Four specializedinvestigations to inform the policy for-mulation process have been initiated.

They include:• Related initiatives currently underway• Characterization and assessment of coastal regions and resources• Lessons learned from past experience• Legal and institutional context and capacity

ConclusionThe Coastal Management Policy Pro-

gramme marks a fundamentally newapproach to coastal management inSouth Africa. Central to this approach isbuilding new partnerships within andbetween government, civil society andthe private sector. Through these part-nerships the program hopes to developan integrated approach to coastal man-agement based on a practical policy thataddresses key coastal issues and realizesa common vision for the South Africancoast.

For further information on this pro-gram, please refer to the followingwebsite: http://www.cmpp.co.za.


Program AimsThe coastal management program

aims to achieve the following:Meaningful public participa-

tion: The program wants to ensure thatall interested and affected parties willhave the opportunity to participate inall stages of the policy formulation pro-cess. Participation is necessary to makesure that the policy addresses real issuesof concern, is based on a commonvision for the future of the coast, leadsto broad ownership of and commitmentto the policy, and results in its effectiveimplementation. Government supportand active participation is thereforevital, as is broad public participation.

Scientific integrity: The policymust build on the knowledge andunderstanding of coastal systems andresources. Scientific research also needsto be integrated with sources of tradi-tional and common knowledge, andwith the information generated throughthe public participation process of theprogram. Once the policy has beenformulated, there will be a need forongoing, integrated scientific research.

Integrated coastal manage-ment: Coastal management is a processthat ultimately requires creative part-nerships to be established betweengovernment, civil society and the pri-vate sector. Such partnerships shouldaim to promote a scientifically rigorous,but inclusive management approachthat will improve the quality of life ofcoastal communities, and those whodepend on, use and enjoy the coast. Theapproach should also maintain the bio-logical diversity, productivity and eco-logical integrity of coastal ecosystems.

Practical policy: This policy willonly be effective if it results in bettermanagement of the coast. The policymust therefore be practical and addresspriority and strategic coastal issues.Coastal management is best thoughtof as a process – it is not a one-timeactivity. This process involves policyformulation, implementation, monitor-ing and evaluating the results, and,where appropriate, making revisionsto both the policy and implementation

measures to ensure that the desiredoutcome is achieved. The process ofpolicy formulation must thereforeinclude opportunities to learn fromand adapt to direct experience and tothat gained by others. The policy for-mulation process must also strive topromote partnerships that will helpthe policy to be implemented. Onlyin this way will an effective policy bedeveloped.

Program ComponentsIntegration and analysis of in-

formation: The project managementteam is integrating and analyzinginformation from a range ofsources including informationgenerated in the course of thepublic participation process,related initiatives currentlyunderway in South Africa andpast research, among others.

Capacity building: Thisaspect of the program seeks toaddress the unequal access toresources, education, knowledgeand power experienced by dif-ferent groups within SouthAfrica. The focus of this activityis to enhance the capacity ofpeople to participate in the poli-cy formulation process. Approx-imately 30 percent of the projectbudget is devoted to this end. Itshould be noted that it is notonly disadvantaged groups who needcapacity building. A recurrent themein processes with a strong emphasison public participation is the relativedistance between specialist profession-als and lay people.

Communications: The communi-cations program includes activities atthe national and regional level to pro-vide information about the program andencourage the involvement of interestedand affected parties. It includes mediacoverage, the preparation of pamphlets,posters and booklets written in plainlanguage, as well as the production of awebsite dedicated to the program andan introductory video.

Governmental relations: A par-


By Alan T. White, Virginia Barker andGunatilake Tantrigama

H ikkaduwa and its marine sanctu-ary are representative of the is-sues facing many coastal areas in tropicalAsia where tourism and coastal devel-opment have nearly ruined valuablecoastal resources. For Sri Lanka, theHikkaduwa Marine Sanctuary is the

only accessible coral reef on the southcoast. The 4-km coastal strip (about100 hectares) is known for its coralreef, clean water and beaches. Touristscontinue to come despite increasingenvironmental degradation, primarilybecause the damage is not obvious tonew visitors. However, tourists arebeginning to recognize the problemsand threaten to go elsewhere.

Integrated coastal management(ICM) and the investment in environ-mental management to prevent degra-dation and loss of biodiversity are thekey issue in Hikkaduwa. The questionis whether or not the tourism industry,the town and the national governmentcan economically justify the rehabilita-tion and conservation of the coastalenvironment of Hikkaduwa. The con-clusion is that the program proposed

here, if carried out for more that fiveyears with any level of tourism growthequal to or exceeding 3 percent, isfinancially beneficial.

Coastal Management in Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka's national coastal zonemanagement program, established in1990, allows development within a

coastal strip300 meterswide on landand 2 km outto sea, whilepreventingunnecessaryenvironmentaldegradation,pollution anderosion.

In 1992Hikkaduwawas selectedas one of twoSpecial AreaManagement(SAM) sites

under the Coast ConservationDepartment and the Coastal ResourcesManagement Project of the Universityof Rhode Island’s (USA) CoastalResources Center and the United

States Agency for InternationalDevelopment. A cost-benefit analysisof the tourist industry and key coastalresources was done to justifying man-aging the coastal resources which sup-port tourism. Economic scenarios thatassume different levels of tourismwere used to portray the potentialfuture economic benefits fromimproved environmental management.

Management Issues andSAM Plan Objectives

Tourism in Hikkaduwa has declinedin recent years. The reason is unplannedand uncoordinated development causingdegradation of the coral reef, decliningwater quality, sedimentation, inade-quate solid waste disposal and coastalerosion, among others. In addition,coral mining, a socioeconomic andenvironmental problem, continuesnear the Hikkaduwa Marine Sanctuary.

The overall goal of the SAM plan is to protect and manage coastalresources so the community can bene-fit from a healthy environment, andthe local tourism and fishing econo-my can remain sustainable. Benefitsfrom resource management includeprotection of the coral reef and regula-tion of activities within the marinesanctuary; maintenance of water qual-ity and control of waste disposal;

Using ICM and Economics to Conserve CoastalTourism Resources in Sri Lanka

Figure 2: Cumulative socio economic NPV for 9, 6 and 3 percenttourism growth.

Figure 1: Number of tourist guest nights for high, medium and lowgrowth in Hikkaduwa with and without plan implementation.


control of shoreline development;and more nature-based tourismdevelopment.

Economic Evaluation ofHikkaduwa’s SAM Plan

For the SAM plan to merit imple-mentation, it must be competitive withother development and conservationprojects and contribute to the economicbenefits of Hikkaduwa’s tourism econ-omy. Management costs reflect pastpoor planning, infrastructure and en-forcement. These threaten the marinehabitats crucial to the tourism indus-try. The SAM plan resolves competingdemands on area resources by planningfor optimal and sustainable resourceuse. It addresses resource degradationas well as the social and economicimpacts of tourism.

To determine the project lifetime,an appraisal should consider all yearsfor which the project produces bene-fits or costs. For Hikkaduwa, since theproject has been designed to preventirreversible environmental degrada-tion, project benefits are expected toaccrue into perpetuity. In the interestof predictable analysis results, benefitsand costs of the project are only esti-mated over the first 20 years.

The economic analysis is based onfour field surveys: 1) a survey of 168Hikkaduwa business establishmentsand their revenues, costs and employ-ment; 2) a survey of 122 randomlyselected foreign visitors to Hikkaduwain 1993; 3) a survey of 96 foreigntourists’ willingness to pay for protec-tion of the beach and coral reefresources 1995; and 4) a survey tocount reef users in 1995.

Financial Analysis andSAM Plan Costs

The simplest form of economicevaluation for the SAM plan is the cashflow impacts of management options todirect project beneficiaries and contrib-utors. If the management plan is fullyimplemented by the direct beneficiariesof Hikkaduwa tourism, then this analy-sis evaluates the financial profitability of

the plan forthe localtourism indus-try. Unlike thefixed natureof the man-agement planimplementa-tion costs,tourismindustry prof-its are depen-dent on visita-tion levels.

To account for the uncertainty ofgrowth projections, three differentrates of annual growth are used: anoptimistic 9 percent increase, a mod-erate 6 percent, and a conservative 3percent increase. Hikkaduwa guestnight projections for 1995 to 2014,considering with and without planimplementation, are shown in Figure1. Without plan implementation, theresources of interest to Hikkaduwatourists areassumed tocontinue todegrade.

Financialnet presentvalue(FNPV) isthe sum ofthe presentvalues ofannual netcash flowbalancesplus any discounted“scrap values.” A positive FNPV indi-cates that the project is at least as prof-itable to the owners or stakeholders asthe next best investment alternative.FNPV calculated over the 20-year lifeof the project reveals that the plan isfinancially viable.

Social and EnvironmentalAnalyses of SAM PlanImplementation

Social benefits to area residents dueto SAM plan implementation include

solid waste management, sewage collection and treatment, improvedroads and other public infrastructure,environmental education programs,vocational training and heightened lawenforcement. The net present value(NPV) of quantifiable socioeconomiccosts and benefits of implementing theSAM plan are estimated for the threevisitation rates (Table 1). Calculationof cumulative net benefits indicatesthat for any project lifetime exceeding

four years, with any level of tourismgrowth equal to or exceeding 3 per-cent, the cumulative benefits exceedcumulative costs and the project paysfor itself (Figure 2).

The financial analyses consideredonly the costs and benefits to the tour-ism industry within the HikkaduwaSAM site, whereas the socioeconomicanalysis included impacts on the entireeconomy of the management area andsome aspects of the national economy.

Table 1. NPV of Benefits (US$ millions) From SAM PlanImplementation Derived From Various Economic Analyses

Growth Financial Socioeconomic Environmental EnvironmentalScenario Economic Economics

(net profit (with less SAM cost) consumer surplus)

High (9%) 13.2 27.8 24.5 27.1Medium (6%) 8.1 17.2 15.2 10.0Low (3%) 4.6 9.8 8.7 2.2

Table 2. Absolute and Percentage Shareof SAM Project Beneficiaries/Cost Burdens

Project Beneficiary/ NPV of Benefits Percentage Burden Holder (US$ millions) Share

Local tourism industry 8.86 72.5International community 5.64 21.7Local community 0.52 2.0National economic welfare 0.98 3.8

SAM plan costs 3.47 72.6Coral miners 1.31 27.4

(continued page 28)


By Donna J. Nickerson,George Chong and Kevin Hiew

I n Malaysia, the Department of Fisheries (DOFM) established a sys-tem of marine parks to protect impor-tant marine resources including coralreefs, which contribute to biodiversityand fisheries production. Tourism hasbeen a natural development of themarine parks and also one of the rea-sons for expanding the scope of marinepark management.

DOFM is establishing a Special AreaManagement Plan (SAMP) for PulauPayar Marine Park and the surroundingarea. The SAMP project is beingimple-mented by DOFM in collabo-ration with the Bay of BengalProgramme of the Food andAgriculture Organization (FAO). Thegoal of the SAMP is to promote theconservation and sustained productionand use of the area’s reef resources.Building on existing marine park man-agement, the SAMP will be used as amodel for other marine park islandsin Peninsular Malaysia and to developa national integrated coastal manage-ment (ICM) framework.

Pulau Payar Marine Park, establishedoriginally as a Fisheries Protected Areain 1987, was the first marine park inMalaysia. Since then, marine waterssurrounding 34 additional islands weregazetted as marine parks by DOFM.Prior to the SAMP, park managementfocused mainly on the environmentwithin two nautical miles and on activ-ities directly associated with tourism.The SAMP expands on the progressmade under the park management tonow begin to address a wider scope of issues (and stakeholders) that affectthe sustainability of the park.

The SAMP approach is incremental.The first phase was to form a workinggroup to complete the groundworkneeded to take the SAMP process to a

wider audience. The second phase wasto characterize the geographic areaunder the SAMP to help identify andunderstand the issues and problems,their probable causes and the possiblesolutions. The third phase is developingsolutions with input from a wideraudience of local decisionmakers.

The Alor Star Workshop The project held a workshop in Alor

Star, Malaysia, in October 1997, thatmarked the transition between the sec-ond and third phase. The results of thescientific characterization activitiesunder the second phase were presentedto the SAMP participants. The work-shop enabled interactions between thestate agencies, universities and non-governmental organizations that willparticipate in the SAMP.

Participants were invited from 17 agencies and organizations. Topicsincluded: 1) progress in the SAMPactivities at the national level to pre-pare for the interagency state levelSAMP development and implementa-tion work; 2) early results of the scien-tific characterization findings; and 3) participants’ recommendations onissues for management, probable caus-es of the issues and possible solutions.

ScientificCharacterization Results

The study indicated that reef fishcatch increased between 1986 to 1996in the vicinity of the Pulau Payar MarinePark. This included landings of 10coastal districts of Kedah State and 18coastal districts of Langkawi Island.Fish catch of non-reef fish had declinedduring this same period. Further, thestatus and trends analysis comparedcatch of fishers that fished outside thevicinity of the marine park (i.e., greaterthan 25 nautical miles) to catch takenin the vicinity of the park (i.e., less than25 nautical miles). Results indicated

that while catch near the park had beenconsistently higher during 1986-1994than catch outside the park, catchtaken near the park decreased during1995-1996 relative to catch outsidethe park.

Findings of the coral reef habitatanalysis indicated a similar decline in1996. Live coral coverage between1982 and 1994 at five sites were ana-lyzed; the same sites were again moni-tored in 1996. While coverage increasedafter the establishment of the marinepark, coverage at the sites most heavilyused by tourists (i.e., Jetty and Float)declined after 1994; declines were lessat those sites less used by tourists andonly visited by divers (i.e., Kaca).

A study of tourism trends and im-pacts revealed that divers caused littledamage to the reef. However, snorkel-ers and swimmers caused significantdamage by trampling of corals. Parkvisitor numbers have increased from1,373 in 1988 to over 91,000 in 1997.The number of visitors is monitoreddaily by the DOFM park rangers.

Demographic trends analysis ofKedah State indicated that the coastalpopulation in the study area has expe-rienced a 38 percent growth from1970-1991. However, Kedah’s coastaldistricts have experienced a negativegrowth rate in the three sub-districts.This may reflect the high out-migra-tion rate of young family membersfrom fishing as an occupation.

Thirty-one percent of fishers inter-viewed reported improvements in fishstocks, while 20 percent felt that fishstocks are worse off than 10 years ago.However, the majority agreed thatgovernment has taken adequate stepsto conserve the fishery resources, butthat stricter enforcement was needed,particularly on the number of boats inthe fishery. The majority also were notsatisfied with the current environmen-tal conditions along the coastal areasof Kedah.

Balancing Tourism and Resource Conservation in Malaysia’s Pulau Payar Marine Park


At the workshop, smaller workinggroups discussed SAMP issues: declinein the fishery resources (overfishing);impacts from tourism development;impacts from changes in land and sea-based development; and protectionof marine biodiversity and ecosystemhealth.

A second workshop is being plannedthat will ensure greater participationfrom stakeholders who are direct usersof the resources, such as fishers andtour/dive operators. The workshop willbe geared towards exchanging viewswith the wider public on the SAMPobjectives and potential actions, andidentifying and committing to the rolesand responsibilities of all stakeholders.

Tourism in Pulau PayarMarine Park

Economic revenue for the local areaand for Malaysia as a whole is generatedfrom the use of both land and marineresources. However, sustainable useand sustainable economic revenue re-quires a healthy ecosystem. For exam-ple, much of the land development inthe coastal districts of Kedah and inLangkawi, including the Port ofLangkawi and along the mainland, hasbeen for tourism. Tourism, like fisheries,while a large revenue generator for thestate, is dependent over the long termon a biologically diverse marine andcoastal ecosystem.

Demographic trends indicated thatthe population in the Langkawi Islandsis more stable than in the Kedah coastaldistricts. The stability of Langkawi’spopulation was explicitly linked to thedevelopment of Langkawi as a touristarea. The population has not needed to migrate outside the districts for em-ployment because of the economicopportunities offered by the tourism-associated industries. However, resultsalso showed that maintaining the tour-ism industry also means maintainingthe health of the marine park ecosys-tem. Pulau Payar is a main item in thetour itinerary to Langkawi. A surveyindicated that tourists want a marinepark with clean beaches, an abundance

of reef fish, diverse coral life, peaceand quiet, friendly and helpful parkstaff, adequate facilities and adequateinformation on the marine environ-ment. More than half indicated thatthe opportunity to dive and snorkelwas an important factor. The surveyrevealed dissatisfaction with the highnumber of visitors and lack of bothguided activities and information onthe marine environment. A large per-centage indicated that an increase invisitor numbers would affect theirenjoyment of the park.

Results presented at the workshop

also indicated that unbalanced use ofthe area’s resources may also have animpact on fisheries resources and coralreef habitats. As stated earlier, whilelive coral coverage increased after theestablishment of the marine park, livecoverage at the sites most used bytourists declined after 1994 duringyears of heavy tourism. However,declines were less at sites more infre-quently used by tourists and only visit-ed by divers.

Results of the studies are not con-clusive, given the limited number ofsampling periods and gaps in informa-tion. Rather, the results were viewed

as indicative of probable effects of theidentified problems. Results strength-ened the fact that the local economywas dependent on the health of themarine park’s ecosystem.

Discussions at the workshop clearlyconcluded that both federal and statelevel participation would be equallyimportant in achieving a balancebetween development and conserva-tion. The next step in the SAMP is towork out a formal mechanism for thelong term where the federal and statelevels of multiple agencies can contin-ue to understand the interlinkages of

their activities and coordinate solutionsto ensure sustainability of the park’sresources.

For further information contact: George Chong, Head, MarineResources Branch, Department ofFisheries Malaysia, Wisma Tani, KualaLumpur 50628, Malaysia. Tel: 603-298-2011. FAX: 603-291-0305. E-mail: [email protected]; or Donna J. Nickerson, CoastalManagement Officer, FAO RegionalOffice for Asia and the Pacific,Maliwan Mansion, Bangkok 10200,Thailand. FAX: 662-280-0445. E-mail: [email protected].

Tourism is expanding the scope of marine parks in Malaysia.


By Paul Geerders, ChristianeKlöditz and Orhan Uslu

Accurate and up-to-date knowl-edge of land use and land coverin the coastal area is a basic and essentialelement for planning and managementactivities. The term “land use” in thiscontext relates to human activities orthe economic function associated withan area (e.g., urban, industrial, agricul-tural, or recreational), while “landcover” specifies the type of feature pre-sent on the earth’s surface (e.g., forest,lake, or highway).

Rapid urbanization and industrializa-tion of the world’s coasts, and resultingconflicts and problems, underline theglobal importance and vulnerability ofcoastal areas. There are many requestsfor the application of integrated coastalzone management (ICM) for improvedplanning and management of these areas.ICM implies managing coastal zones ascomplete systems, including the com-plex relations and interactions betweendifferent constituents and local com-munities. Sustainable development canonly be achieved in this way.

The successful application of conven-tional aerial photographs to map landuse and land cover has been recognizedfor decades. But recently digital photo-cameras have become a new and rapid-ly developing technology for aerialphotography with several advantagesover conventional photography. First,the images are immediately available ina computer-compatible format for quickinspection during the flight as well asfor further digital processing immedi-ately afterwards. Digital images can bedirectly displayed, manipulated andprocessed using digital image processingtechniques, including image enhance-ment, geographic information systems(GIS) and classification techniques.Furthermore, the output quality ofdigital photocameras is more reliablesince there is no “developing” process

which introduces uncertainties.Applications include updating mapsquickly, surveying remote areas, anddoing frequent surveys, for instance, to identify illegal building and dumpingactivities.

During 1997, the Institute of MarineSciences and Technology (IMST) ofDokuz Eylül University in Izmir, Turkey,in cooperation with its Dutch partnersfirst started to use digital images incoastal zone management. A surveywas done in January 1997 in Turkey,using similar means as used in 1996 ona Dutch test site. The first applicationwas during the planning of a marina insouthwestern Turkey. Encouraged by thegood results, IMST carried out manymore flights using digital photographyover several areas along the Aegeancoast. Parallel to this work, IMST fur-ther developed the technology andstarted to use digital video cameras toobtain continuous images from coastalareas. The use of video necessitated thedevelopment of software to snap indi-vidual frames out of the series of images;this complicated the processing ascompared to digital photography. Onthe other hand, shooting images fromthe airplane became fully automated.

Marine Construction in Fethiye

Digital aerial photographs weretaken from a locally hired plane alongthe southwestern coast of Turkey nearFethiye. This survey was conducted inconjunction with planned coastal con-struction related to the developmentof a marina. The images were takenfrom about 3-km altitude at predeter-mined positions. A small hand-heldglobal positioning system (GPS) wasused to check the position and courseof the plane. Each position was markedin the GPS memory for later referenceduring processing.

Immediately after the flight, the dig-ital pictures were downloaded to a

computer and processed in two ways:1) they were merged into mosaics usingPhotostyler and 2) they were convertedto a GIS format using IDRISI (IDRISI iscomputer software with professional-level GIS, image processing and spatialstatistics analytical capability). Piecingtogether the individual digital pho-tographs into one image (mosaic)resulted in a overview of the area. TheGIS format allowed comparison to the1978 map of the area and showed theup-to-date planned construction.

The advantages of using digital pho-tograph images were numerous:■ The existing maps of the area did notshow land use changes that resulted fromrapid development of the area duringthe last 20 years. Changes relevant toplanning the marina could be detectedwithout new mapping efforts, withminimal cost and time expenditures.■ The images that contained both landand sea areas were an ideal basis for thecomputer-aided design (CAD) of themarina and for visualization of theentire project for demonstration andpresentation purposes.■ The digital images contained a wealthof information able to be used as base-line data for the first steps of the envi-ronmental impact assessment for themarina.■ For coastal engineering studies (e.g.,design of wave breakers) the imageswere more reliable than existing maps.■ The coast delineation was accuratelydepicted in the images which, combinedwith the bathymetric information, madeit possible to determine dredge and fillquantities for the marina constructionto the utmost satisfaction of the client.These quantities constituted one of themost important items in the overall costestimates of the planned construction.

The Çesme RegionÇesme Peninsula is a rapidly devel-

oping tourist resort area on the westcoast of Turkey. Besides tourist develop-

Mapping Tourism in the Coastal Zone with Digital Aerial Photography


ment, many second (summer) housesare being built. The local administra-tors have been overwhelmed by thisdevelopment and are finding manage-ment difficult. To promote and dem-onstrate the potential of digital aerialphotography/video, IMST proposed tothe municipality of Çesme to prepare aGIS, based on Landsat images and aeri-al photography. Landsat images andexisting regional maps constituted thebaseline of the planned system. Aerialdigital images have been indexed to thisbaseline at subregions where additionaldetail was desired. Work started in late1997 and numerous applications of theGIS have already been substantiated:■ Areas that need a sewage systemand water supply could be delineatedwith great accuracy. Population densi-ties (variable between summer andwinter) could easily be assigned to theseregions. The total wastewater collectionand disposal system could be dividedinto self-sustained subregions that opti-mise the construction and operation ofthe whole system. The priorities andconstruction sequence of system com-ponents could be developed based oninformation extracted from the GIS.■ In the semi-arid Mediterranean re-gion, treated wastewater can be usedfor irrigation purposes. In Çesme, dig-ital imagery could define possible irri-gation areas.■ Aquaculture areas that cause environ-mental problems could be delineatedby digital imagery. Illegal operationscould be detected. For legally operatingfish farms, remediation measures canbe undertaken.■ A new drinking water reservoir hasbeen completed to supply the region.The digital images were invaluable to plan and manage the land use and to define protection measures in thecatchment area of the reservoir.■ The mayor of Çesme was very happyto show the new facilities to his colleag-ues from neighbouring municipalities.He could boast that his town was themost up-to-date among the municipal-ities on the western coast of Turkey.

Detection of CoastalErosion in the AltynovaRegion

The Altynova region is famous for itssandy beaches south of Ayvalik on thenorthern Aegean coastline of Turkey.Construction of an irrigation dam up-stream of the Madra Creek resulted insediment input to the beach region be-ing cut off. Consequently the sedimentbalance at the coast has been disturbedresulting in heavy erosion. Over sevenyears, 50,000 sq meters of beach hasbeen lost, and the coastline has recededby 200-250 m. The region’s harbourauthority asked IMST whether theextent of beach erosion could accurate-ly be determined by digital imagery andwhether beach protection measurescould be proposed. IMST concludedthat this could be achieved with highresolution digital images together withexiting maps and Landsat images.

Digital Images inEnvironmental ImpactAssessment Studies

Environmental impact assessments(EIA) require detailed information onthe present environmental conditions of the development area. Digital images/videos have proven to be a very quickand inexpensive way to provide thegeographic information at a scale that is appropriate for an EIA. Moreover,the images provide more informationon recent land cover and land use thanconventional maps. Specifically, it ispossible to detect the extent and varia-tion of flora from the images that previ-ously required extensive reconnaissancesurveys. Also, recent development ofhousing, roads, amoung others, caneasily be determined. The digitalimagery/video has become an integralpart of almost every impact assessmentundertaken at the IMST.

Cost Effective andFlexible

The use of digital aerial photographyfor monitoring and surveying is verycost effective. Digital cameras are rela-tively cheap and the ad hoc hire of a

small plane is generally not too expen-sive. Digital images require no specialhardware to process, and good, inexpen-sive photo-processing software packagesexist. In addition, packages such asIDRISI present additional options forprocessing, including precise rectifica-tion and classification.

Digital aerial photography asdescribed, forms a cost effective andflexible alternative to the traditionalmethods of monitoring and mappingcoastal areas. The method is simple andstraightforward, and can be implement-ed successfully with minimal investment.Digital aerial photography is a valuabletool in the development and imple-mentation of ICM models, especially

since digital land use maps can bemanipulated by computer to allows thepresentation of numerous alternativemanagement options.

For further information contact: Paul Geerders, P. Geerders Consult-ancy, Kobaltpad 16, 3402 JL IJsselsteinThe Netherlands. Tel/FAX: 31 306884942. E-mail: [email protected].

Coastal construction west of Izmir, Turkey


By Riyad Mistry

The Republic of Marshall Islands consists of 29 atolls and five largeislands in the central Pacific Ocean.There are 1,225 small islands and isletswith a total area of 181 sq km. Bikiniand Enewetak atolls were used foratomic weapons testing by the UnitedStates during the 1940-50s. Copra pro-duction, licensing agreements for fish-eries, aid through the Compact of FreeAssociation with the United States andexternal assistance are the primarysources of revenue to the economy.Tourist attractions include underwaterremains of World War II ships, Japanesewar relics, coral reefs and sportfishing.

Aquaculture of black pearl oysters andgiant clams, and recovery of sand fromoffshore areas hold promise for eco-nomic development.

In 1988 the total population was43,380, with an annual growth rate of3.8 percent. Almost half the populationlives on Majuro Atoll, the capital (fivesq km), and 19 percent live on EbeyeIsland in Kwajelein Atoll. Although thepopulation may be low compared toother developing countries, the litany ofsymptoms associated with rapid urban-ization are evident on Majuro Atoll.

The greatest coastal impacts occur inthe urban center of Majuro, whileEbeye is less affected. Impacts are dueto shoreline changes related to con-struction over the past 50 years,increasing population pressure, thegrowing economy, and inadequate plan-

ning and regulations. In Majuro, erosion problems are a

result of the construction of causewaysand coastal structures and dredgingactivities. The causeway along thesoutheastern coast has also restrictedwater circulation in Majuro Lagoon,lowering the water quality. A 1988report declared seven areas of thelagoon unsafe for swimming or fishing,primarily due to high coliform.

Dredging activities are minimallyregulated. Land reclamation and beach-front stabilization are often done usingpoorly designed concrete seawalls orcoral rubble enclosed in wire mesh.Armor rock blasted from reef flats isused for revetments to protect the air-port runway and several stretches ofcoastline in Majuro.

A recent influx of Asian-based livereef fish export operations and therapid increase in commercial fishingare causing concerns about the sustain-ability of the coastal fisheries.

A strong legislative frameworkexists to support coastal managementefforts. The Coast Conservation Act of1988, the Marshall Islands MarineResources Act, the NationalEnvironment Protection Act of 1984and subsequent regulations modeled onU.S. law provide a solid framework forcoastal management. Yet the existenceof a traditional land-tenure system andnegligible enforcement are obstacles to coastal programs.

Recently, the Majuro Atoll LocalGovernment (MALGOV) has taken an active role in coastal management.Erosion control efforts and fisheriesmanagement are the areas of focus.MALGOV’s activities and effectivenesshave increased as a result of a two-yearpilot project titled “Formulation of aCoastal Management Plan for MajuroAtoll,” and the creation of an intera-gency Coastal Management ProjectWorking Group. This project, support-ed by the United Nations DevelopmentProgramme with technical assistancefrom the South Pacific Applied

Geosciences Commission (SOPAC),was based on recommendations of theSouth Pacific Regional EnvironmentProgramme and SOPAC, and proposesto integrate public education, scientificstudies, government policies and proce-dures and local participation to form acoastal management program.

During the design phase in 1996, theEnvironment Protection Authority, theMarine Resources Authority, MALGOV,the Division of Lands and Surveys, anda few private organizations formulatedgoals and activities. Since projectresources were limited, only four com-ponents were targeted. The first is tolook at sand mining and dredging activi-ties. Sand is needed for construction;however its supply is limited. Sandtransport is affected by coastal mor-phology and circulation, and nearshoredredging aggravates erosion problemsand reduces reef habitat. Sand mining isgoverned by law, but regulations are notenforced. The importance of sand usagedeemed it the starting point for themanagement program. Technical activi-ties include coastal mapping (using ageographic information system) and thedevelopment of shoreline erosion con-trol strategies.

Two other components beingaddressed are governance and publicawareness. A fourth activity is to inte-grate the first three to formulate acoastal management plan. To ensure theinformation from this program is avail-able, report summaries and publicationsdescribing coastal problems and solu-tions were translated to Marshallese.

In a country with relatively meagernatural resources and dwindling rev-enues, it was important to highlight the economic importance of its naturalresources. Working group membersparticipated in resource economicsworkshops. An economic valuationstudy of Majuro Atoll's coastal resourcesindicated that its resources were valuedat $6.4 million per year and approxi-mately $115 million total present value(only the direct and indirect resource

Development on Majuro Atoll, Marshall Islands

Coastal develop-

ments, Marshall

Islands.


values were considered). Legislation is being introduced to

regulate coastal fisheries. This occurredonly after local council members wereconvinced that planning and manage-ment were essential to prevent stockdepletion. Rather than restricting fish-ing itself, the ordinance provides forregulation and enforcement at the

point of sale. It also designates protect-ed areas in the lagoon and encourageswiser anchoring practices by installingfive mooring buoys.

Rapid, unmanaged urbanization ofMajuro is occurring. In order to ensurethe sustainability of Majuro's coastalresources, a management programmust be implemented. The progress of

the Majuro Atoll project demonstratesthat the Marshall Islands is ready toparticipate in a strong coastal manage-ment program.

For further information contact:Coastal Management Project, MAL-GOV, P.O. Box 796, Majuro,Marshall Islands MH 96960. FAX:692-625-3757. E-mail: [email protected].

The Economic Benefits of Tourism in the Marine Reserve of Apo Island, PhilippinesBy H.P. Vogt

Apo Island is located in NegrosOriental in the central Philippines.It is a volcanic island covering 72hectares (ha), with a population of 460.Fishing is the main source of income.

In 1979 Silliman University, in theprovincial capital of Dumaguete, focus-ed its coral reef conservation programon the fishing community of Apo. Theunderlying principle was that only theprimary reef users could provide effec-tive protection for small-sized reserves.Since 1985, when the marine reserve of Apo was formally established, it hasdeveloped into a model site, attractingscientists, reef managers and an increas-ing number of tourists. Tourism inNegros Oriental is still in its infancy;however, it has a real potential toflourish.

Financial Benefits of theMarine Reserve

Besides the scenic setting of Apo Is-land, a major attraction for tourists isthe marine reserve. Income generatedby tourists visiting Apo was estimatedbased on data obtained during site visits.These data were grouped into categor-ies covering economic advantages anddisadvantages for fishers, resort owners,dive-tour operators, scientists and envi-ronmental groups. Results were as fol-lows:

Fishers - The financial benefits to

fishers of transporting tourists to theisland in outrigger boats is substantial.Selling souvenirs is less profitable,though. The net increase in income tofishers is less than other groups.

The core area of the marine reserve ofApo is a no fishing zone. Thus when thereserve was established, the fishers had to stop fishing at a site where fishing mayhave been profitable before. However,this potential loss may be compensatedby fish migrating from the reserve toadjacent areas, thus allowing increasedfish catches in these alternate areas.

Resort Owner - Accommodationson Apo Island are very limited. Theowner of the only resort took a seriousrisk and made a substantial investmentwhen building the facility. Income gener-ated by the resort is considerable. Itsfuture is strongly dependent on thehealth of the coral reefs and the reputa-tion of the Apo reserve.

Dive-Tour Owner - The Apo coralreefs are regarded as one of the topdive spots in the Visayas, thus diversfrequently visit Apo as part of an ex-tended dive tour. Dive-tour operatorspotentially benefit the most withouthaving to invest in the site. Economicrisks are limited because success/in-come is not dependent on one divesite alone. However, in the long term it benefits the dive operators to supportthe sustainable use of the reservesbecause the number of alternative sitesis limited.

Scientists and EnvironmentalGroups - Neither group directly benefitsfinancially. However, the Apo reserveprovides a study site for both groups.

There are no documented negativeeffects of tourism on the environment of Apo Island.

Can This Model beDuplicated in OtherReserves in NegrosOriental?

In a province where native and foreigntravelers are welcome, ecotourism may be considered an additional economicbenefit of marine reserves. As of March1997, Negros Oriental had 19 activecoral reef reserves covering a total area of 177 ha. Thus, almost 7 percent of the reefs are protected by law andmanaged by the local fishing communi-ties. Designation of these reserves doesresult in a loss of fishing grounds.

As a means to compensate for the loss(continued page 14)

Fishers will benefit

from tourism on

Apo Islands.


in fishing ground, it has been suggestedthat a fee for entering the reserve becharged. The fee should be made avail-able to the local Bantay Dagat (fishersvolunteer watch organization). This isnot done regularly because the smallnumber of tourists makes it uneconom-ical to hire a person to collect dona-

tions. Also, fees must be collected bythe municipality and not by the localfishers, thus much of the money is not spent on maintaining the reserve.

Recently, small-scale ecotourism(e.g., huts made of bamboo) has devel-oped rapidly. However, these struggleto survive because the visitor numbersare still small. Most of these places can

accommodate about 10 people and arerarely fully booked. However, moreup-market hotels and resorts haveopened in the vicinity of Dumagueteand appear to be doing well. This maybe due to the its rapid growth and theincreasing number of businesspeople.

Given the unspoiled conditions of

Apo Island(continued from page 13)

Beach Marketing Schemes –A Welsh Perspective

By Cliff Nelson

In the United Kingdom (UK) a day at the beach was once perceived ahealthy pursuit. However, over the pastfew years media headlines concerningquality of bathing waters and beachcleanliness has put strain on the Britishseaside, with potential to damage tour-ism. In particular South Wales, heavilyreliant upon coastal tourism, has comeunder intense pressure over the pasttwo years due to a large oil spill inFebruary 1996 off the PembrokeshireCoast, where the Sea Empress oiltanker went aground spilling over70,000 tons of crude oil, affecting 30miles of coastline.

To preserve and improve coastaltourism in Wales, the Wales TouristBoard, in conjunction with WelshWater, have set up a relatively newprogram, the Green Sea Initiative,designed to improve coastal watersand promote sustainable tourism.The intent is to bring bathing-beachwaters up to European Bathing WaterDirective standards through the useof high technology ultra-violet lightdisinfection sewerage systems aroundthe coast. The Welsh coast is to be pro-moted and marketed through its goalof achieving the European Blue Flagbeach award by the millennium.

Beach award systems come under avariety of formats, designed for use bylocal authorities and coastal managersto encourage tourism. In general, the

criteria that guide these schemes arebased on safety, management, cleanli-ness, public information and waterquality. The most prominent systemoperating in Europe is the EuropeanBlue Flag, introduced in 1987 by theFoundation for Environmental Edu-cation in Europe. In the UK, the BlueFlag is coordinated by the Tidy BritainGroup (TBG), the national indepen-dent litter abatement agency. The TBGalso own their own beach flag, underthe title of Seaside Award. In order todisplay the beach flag, resorts and ruralbeaches must have bathing waters thatmeet the European Bathing WaterDirective standards. In addition, theMarine Conservation Society publishesan annual Good Beach Guide, gradingBritish beaches.

Although the aims of the beach awardschemes are commendable, their pro-fusion has created confusion leading tocontinued debate over their effective-ness in marketing beaches. As part of adoctoral research program, the authorinvestigated the knowledge and under-standing of beach awards at threebeaches along the South Wales coast.Beaches of both resort and ruralnature with a gradation of water quali-ty were examined. The research wasconducted during the summer of 1996.In general, results indicated that beachusers were only marginally aware ofbeach award schemes, with only 53percent claiming to have heard of them.

Of those that claimed to know some-thing about the awards, most did nothave an accurate understanding of theawards’ specific criteria. Just over 20percent could identify which beachflags indicated safety versus danger. Ahigher percentage were aware of theBlue Flag designation compared to anyother award. However, when shown aphotograph of the Blue Flag, only 26percent recognized it. Further, only 15percent ranked attainment of a beachaward to be important when asked tocompare with other beach attributessuch as views, landscape and distancetravelled from home.

The Green Sea Initiative and the future of cleaner bathing waters is verypromising and will surely benefit coastaltourism in Wales. The only caveat is the lack of recognition and knowledge regarding beach award schemes, onwhich the Green Sea Initiative isreliant. Results of this study indicatethat the existence of many differentbeach award schemes is only servingto confuse the beach user. For theGreen Sea Initiative to be fully effec-tive, an intensive education programneeds to be implemented to create a greater awareness of beach awards. It is suggested that more emphasis beplaced on developing and marketing a unified beach award scheme, such as the European Blue Flag.

For further information contact:Cliff Nelson, University of Wales,Faculty of Business, Leisure and Food,Colchester Avenue, Cardiff, Wales,United Kingdom. Tel: 01446-741976. E-mail: [email protected].

(continued page 28)


By Henrik Suadicani

Denmark has a 7,300 km coastline,a population of five million andan area of 43,000 sq km, entirely with-in 50 km of the coast. In Denmarkthere are 170,000 summer cottages in

455 sq km. Surrounding Copenhagenthere are 36,100 summer cottages.Frederiksborg County alone has 32,000cottages of which 26 percent are locat-ed in Graested-Gilleleje municipality.

History of the AreaGilleleje is a fishing village dating

back to before the Middle Ages. In earlytimes, villagers transported goods toand from Copenhagen and other citiesaround Kattegatt. Trade increased andthe first harbor was built in 1873. In1896 the first railroad was constructed,thus beginning the expansion of thesmall isolated village to a major fishingcommunity.

Tourism in the coastal villages beganin the 1890s. Artists came to paint theprimitive people living an exotic life-style; with the painters came curioustourists. The first tourists rented roomsin the local fishers’ houses. By the turn

of the century the first hotels andsummer homes were built in the areaat Gilleleje (Figure 1 – 1898).

Starting in the late 1800s, Copen-hagen’s upper classes spent summers inthe country, often building villas andcottages on the nearby coast. The rail-

road, and laterthe car, made itpossible to trav-el further fromCopenhagen andsome familiesbuilt cottagesfirst at Hornbaek(10 km east ofGilleleje) andlater in Gilleleje.Often the familystayed there forthe summerwhile the hus-bands commutedto Copenhagen.By 1940 theheath, dunes and

grazed lands were completely develop-ed. At that time there were only 3,000cottages in the county.

The late 1950s marked the start of ageneral building boom in Denmark. Inthe Graested-Gilleleje municipality, ap-proximately 64 percent of the cottageswere built between 1960-79. Only 23percent were built before 1960; the

remainder are newer than 1979(Figure 2 – 1962).

The need for building regulationsbecame apparent, and laws were passedto protect the coastal zone in Denmark.The Nature Conservation Act of 1937provided a coastal protection zone of100 meters. The Danish Planning Actof 1974 divided the country into threezones that were regulated differently: anurban, a rural and a summer cottagezone. A Summer Cottage and CampingAct was passed, mandating that summercottages only be used as secondaryhouses; no one was allowed permanentresidence in a cottage. The 1990 modi-fication to the Summer Cottage andCamping Act made it possible for amunicipality to permit owners whoowned their house for longer thaneight years to make it their permanentresidence.

The planning act was supplementedin 1994 (Nature Protection Act) byincreasing the coastal protection zoneto 300 meters and imposed stricterregulations addressing altering of thenatural habitat, erecting fences, park-ing caravans and subdividing proper-ties. The aim was to protect the coastalzone from further development, andat the same time allow the neededdevelopment of cities and their infra-structure, and tourism. It prohibitedthe designation of new summer cot-tage zones and required existing areasbe reserved for holiday and leisurepurposes. Existing summer cottagezones must not be used for urban

Urbanization of the North Coast of Zealand, Denmark

Figure 1: 1898. Map coverage: 7 km x 3.5 kmHeath area: 68.5 hectares (ha) with 2 build-ingsForest area: 36 ha with no buildingsTotal number of buildings: 172

Remaining area: farmlandLoss of natural habitats, mostly heath,replaced by houses (both cottages and cityhouses) and forest. Forest area increases assummer cottages owners plant trees andconvert farmlands to forest area.

Figure 2: 1962Heath area: 6.8 ha with 4 buildings

Forest area: 76.6 ha with 106 buildingsTotal number of buildings: 1084


development, even if these areas areclose to cities and towns.

Nevertheless, in the newest regionalplan of 1997, Frederiksborg Countyallowed the municipalities to convertnine areas from cottage zones to urbanzones, a change from vacation to per-manent settlements. This violates thecoastal planning zone of the planningact. County officials justify their deci-sion by claiming that the areas alreadyhave many houses built for permanentresidence. These houses were givenpermanent resident status as a result ofthe 1990 modification to the SummerCottage and Camping Act. These own-ers have rebuilt the small cottages tomeet the demands for higher living andbuilding standards, thus many areas havechanged from cottage areas to perma-nent home areas. Also, since regulationsdo not exist for the construction ofsummer cottages, cottages will contin-ue to be upgraded to permanent struc-tures. As this occurs, and as demand forurban zones increases, these summercottage zones will be transformed tourban zones. This sort of developmentis happening throughout Denmark(Figure 3 – 1985, present stage).

The municipality and the county ofthe North Zealand coastal area attempt-ed to allow the conversion of areas fromcottage to urban zones; in essence fromvacation to permanent housing. Thiseffectively violated the countries plan-ning act. However, the Ministry for

Energy and Environment vetoed thiseffort. This is the result of the politicaldifferences between the liberal countyand the municipality on the one side,and the new government which isSocial Democratic on the other. Themore liberal tend to disregard therestrictions in the 3-km coastal pro-tection zone while the Minister forEnvironment wants to follow the plan-ning act. This attempt, if nothing else,

demonstrates that the intention of thenational planning act is not very strictand will be interpreted according topolitical considerations.

Urbanization of the North Zealandcoast of Denmark has resulted in loss ofcoastal habitat, as well as loss of pub-lic access to the shore. Although thereis to be public access to all beaches, itis often difficult to get there. Severalroads do end at the beach; however,most landowners directly on the coast

have built fences to protect their prop-erties (Figure 4). There is a nationalinitiative to secure public access; how-ever, this can only be done by buyingsites and establishing public facilities for amenities such as parking areas andtoilets. This is expensive and fundingwould be from the local government.

Another issue is coastal erosion.Since the 1930s, groins have been builtto stop coastal erosion and protect thecottages and houses. Not only has thisimpacted the scenic quality of the area,but it has caused continued loss of thesandy beaches resulting in continuedbuilding of new groins and breakwaters.Until recently, coastal protection wasdone by the individual landowners withno county regulations; now the countymust approve new projects. Also, theunderstanding of coastal dune dynamicshas improved, and the managementstrategy is slowly changing from con-structing breakwaters and still biggergroins to letting nature take its course.

There is an urgent need to addressproblems of continued urbanization

along the Danish coast. Despite theplanning act’s coastal planning zone of 3 km, and the attempts to move theurbanization inland behind the 3-kmzone, urbanization can still takes placealong the coast and especially in thesummer cottage areas.

For further information contact: Henrik Suadicani, Roskilde University,Building 10.2, P.O. Box 260, DK-4000Roskilde. Denmark. E-mail: [email protected].

Figure 4: Restricted

public access to the

beach.

Figure 3: 1985Heath area: 9.4 ha with 3 houses

Forest area: 108.1 ha with 235 buildingsTotal number of buildings: 6134


By Kenji Hotta

After World War II, by making full use of the coastal zone, Japan’seconomy has achieved tremendousgrowth. This paper examines the Keiyocoastal industrial zone (located in east-ern Tokyo Bay) and its surroundinginland area as an example of coastaldevelopment.

The coastal industrial region of Chibais 12,035 hectares (ha) of reclaimedland with a 76 km shoreline. Industriesinclude iron, steel, aluminum, glass andpetrochemical production, oil refiner-ies, electric and gas powerplants, andship manufacturing. The Keiyo coastalindustrial zone has become one of thelargest energy suppliers in Japan.

Prior to development, Chiba’s pri-mary industries were fishing and agri-culture. After development, Chibabecame one of the leading industrialregions in Japan. The shipbuildingindustry earned US$ 7.95 million in1981, ranking sixth in Japan.

Unfortunately, increases in shipping did not increase the area’s employmentopportunities, nor did it improve thestandard of living. On the contrary, thelocal economy and living standards havebeen adversely effected.

Regional IndustrialStructure

The fishing industry declined dramati-cally as the land reclamation project wasundertaken and the industrial zone wasdeveloped. Agriculture also declined;farming households decreased from104,094 in 1960 to 21,898 in 1981 dueto increased imported agricultural prod-ucts, conversion of farmlands and theredirection of the agricultural labor force.Furthermore, local industries were con-sidered the low-productivity sector of theeconomy and given secondary administra-tive treatment.

In the coastal area, 60 percent of theindustries were heavy and material-pro-ducing (iron, steel, petroleum and chemi-cal). This is far greater than the nationalaverage (26 percent), and has caused animbalance in the industrial structure.Industries in this area make only a minorcontribution to the local economy. Thisappears to be because the economy isbased on the taxes paid by individuals,rather than those paid by large corpora-tions, despite the coastal area having oneof the largest industrial zones.

Coastal industries make up 69 percentof the total industrial area, use 74 percentof industrial water and consume 70 per-cent of the fuel. The same industries pro-duce 90 percent of the sulfuric com-pounds discharged and are the largest pol-luter. Nevertheless, the coastal industrialregion employs only 24 percent of theentire work force.

Positive impacts of the coastal indus-tries are less than the inland industries.Small- and medium-sized industries arelarger contributors to the local economythan the huge coastal industries. The ques-tion is, why has the economy of the

coastal industrial zone not flourished?

Depressed EconomyThe primary reason for the industrial

zone’s depressed economy is that theregion is a mere production space for large corporations that have theirheadquarters outside Chiba (mostly inTokyo). Trade (sales) and account trans-actions are not conducted in Chiba,they are carried out at the corporateheadquarters.

Second, products manufactured inthe coastal industrial zone have nothingto do with the local industries. Forexample, Chiba is the largest producerof steel and ethylene; however, thereare few factories which process and usethese materials in Chiba. The Keihinindustrial zone, located in westernTokyo Bay, purchases the raw steel andethylene and produces value-addedproducts with high economic values,thus enhancing Keihin’s economy.

Third, the coastal industries in Chibaare not labor-intensive industries; themanufacturing systems are largely auto-mated to save labor costs. Therefore,these factories do not create largeemployment opportunities.

As a result, neither the people noreconomy benefit from the industrialzone because the flow of money andresources is primarily out of the region.

EnvironmentalDegradation and Increased Financial Burden

The residents have lost valuablecoastal recreational area. The industrialzone created a barrier restricting beachaccess. Residents see this as the loss ofcultural, historical and spiritual bene-fits. In addition, tidal lands havedecreased from 7,757 ha in 1945 toabout 985 ha at present. Water qualityhas deteriorated due to increased ship-ping traffic and oil discharges. Industrial

Development of a Coastal Industrial Zone in Tokyo Bay: A Less Successful Project

(continued page 21)

Changes of the reclaimed area.(Tokyo Bay)


By Virginia G. Witmer

L ocal ecotour businesses in Virginia,USA, introduce the state’s naturalresources to thousands of visitors eachyear. The Virginia Coastal ResourcesManagement Program, a network ofVirginia state agencies and local govern-ments that links state laws and policiesto protect and enhance coastal resources,is working to ensure that responsible,educated ecotour guides and ecotourists,and an ecotourism code of ethics, playa vital role in the future protectionand health of Virginia’s unique eco-systems. This includes promoting sus-tainable development of a successfulecotourism industry.

Experts agree that ecotourism mustbe a carefully planned industry that issensitive to and respectful of naturalresources, and benefits the local stew-ards of the resources. “By not compro-mising unique and fragile resources,ecotour businesses are protecting theirown assets,” says Sarah Mabey, authorof a draft voluntary ecotour guide cer-tification program and curriculum forVirginia’s Eastern Shore. The curricu-lum was contracted by the VirginiaCoastal Program. The concept behindthe certification program is that natur-al resources constitute shared capital.To ensure the resources are protected,private businesses, citizens, organiza-tions and public agencies all must rec-ognize their collective responsibility forguarding their assets.

In August 1997 the Virginia CoastalProgram initiated meetings with thestate’s coastal ecotourism business com-munity, local and state natural resourcemanagers, and others interested inecotourism to discuss the future ofecotourism and outline the elementsand steps necessary to develop a suc-cessful initiative. The Virginia CoastalProgram introduced the voluntaryecotour guide certification conceptand the draft curriculum prepared for

Virginia’s Eastern Shore. Participants in the ecotourism

meetings agreed that an ecotour guidecertification program could help: 1)protect natural resource capital frommisuse caused by a simple lack ofknowledge; 2) provide a valuable mar-keting edge to guides who earn an of-ficial “seal of approval;” and 3) fosterthe sustainable growth of Virginia’secotourism industry. Certified busi-nesses could operate as members ofan ecotourism association and agreeto certain operating standards. Toearn certification, ecotour businessesor guides would berequired to partici-pate in regionalworkshops or train-ing to ensure thatthey acquire knowl-edge specific toVirginia’s ecologicaldistinct bio-regions.The number of visitors an area can accommodate, without harming thenatural resourceswould also need tobe considered foreach bio-region.Once training wascompleted, the busi-ness could use an official certificationlogo in their marketing.

Peter Hangen, Virginia Beach’s rec-reation supervisor, agreed that certifi-cation could give local operators amarketing edge and help keep touristdollars invested in the local economy.“A strong association of local ecotourbusinesses could be a great marketingtool for local communities and theecotour businesses, and the minimumstandards required for certificationwould help us ensure quality experi-ences and a return of visitors to theseareas,” stated Mr. Hangen.

Many local operators agreed that

there is a business benefit to a certifica-tion program. A network of certifiedVirginia ecotour guides and businesseswould present a tremendous opportu-nity to build a sustainable ecotourismindustry in Virginia. In March, theseoperators joined state and local gov-ernment representatives and peopleinterested in protection of Virginia’snatural resources to form the VirginiaEcoTourism Association (VETA). Theassociation will represent those with avested interest in ecotourism in thestate, including scientists, conserva-tionists, resource managers and educa-tors, as well as ecotourism businesses,and will provide a new forum for com-munication, networking and marketing.Members of the association plan to

continue development of a voluntaryecotour guide certification program forVirginia’s coastal areas. The VirginiaCoastal Program and VETA hope thatthis pilot certification program willserve as a model statewide.

For further information contact:Laura McKay, Program Manager,Virginia Coastal Program, VirginiaDepartment of EnvironmentalQuality, 629 East Main Street, 6thFloor, Richmond, Virginia 23219,USA. Tel: 804-698-4323. FAX: 804-698-4319. E-mail:[email protected]: http://www.deq.state.va.us/envprog/coastal.html.

Ecotourism in Virginia, USA: How can we Ensure its Success?

Birdwatching on

the Eastern Shore,

Virginia.


Coral Reef Ecosystems Suffer as a Result of Global Change

T he United States’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has confirmedthat during the 1997-98 El Niño, coralbleaching has occurred in the WesternHemisphere at sites in the Florida Keys,Baja California, the Pacific coast ofPanama, the Yucatan coast, the CaymanIslands, and the Netherlands Antilles.In the Eastern Hemisphere, reefs inthe Red Sea and the Seychelles haveexperienced some bleaching.

This February, NOAA reported thatEl Niño-related increases in oceantemperatures in the Pacific Ocean arecausing coral reef bleaching around theGreat Barrier Reef, Australia. Coralbleaching results when increased watertemperatures cause the coral tissue toexpel zooxanthellae, a type of algaethat lives in the coral structure and is essential to the coral’s survival.

Bleaching has been observed onmany inshore reefs of central GreatBarrier Reef, particularly off Townsville,after temperatures in the water reached29-30°C (84-86°F). Corals there usual-ly thrive in temperatures no higher than28°C (82°F). These “hot spots” havebeen identified by NOAA satellite dataand confirmed by field data.

NOAA also reported El Niño-relatedcoral bleaching of the Galapagos Islandsoff the coast of Ecuador. Surface tem-peratures there are about 30°C (86°F).

Corals there thrive as long as tempera-tures remain at or below 27°C – thenormal maximum sea surface temper-ature at this site. An increase of one ortwo degrees can be deadly to the coral.

This news comes within days of areport by an international workinggroup of scientific experts that met inBoston, Massachusetts, USA, January3-11, 1998, to discuss growing con-cerns about the survival of coral reefecosystems facing global change and

local stresses. The group, sponsored bythe Scientific Committee on OceanicResearch (SCOR) and the Land-Ocean Interactions in the CoastalZone (LOICZ) core project of theInternational Geosphere-BiosphereProgramme (IGBP), and with the sup-port of the NOAA Coastal OceanProgram, produced an interdisciplinarysynthesis with important implicationsfor research, assessment and manage-ment. The report stated that coral reefsmay be threatened by rising concentra-tions of carbon dioxide in the atmos-phere and associated changes in theintensity of storms and rainfall. Theability of reef plants and animals tomake the limestone skeletons that build reefs is being reduced by risingatmospheric carbon dioxide concen-trations. In 30 to 100 years this mayinterfere with coral growth, whichcould threaten the sustainability

of coral reefs worldwide. Geological, evolutionary and eco-

logical evidence was assembled to showthat while corals and reefs can resist orrecover from localized stresses such asstorms, predation or disease, they donot survive in isolation; the survival of any one reef depends on the nature,health and history of neighboring com-munities. Current practices of coralreef conservation and resource man-agement in developing countries focuson immediate local threats, but doesnot consider the climatic forcing atlonger, larger scales. Of these, increas-ing concentrations of atmospheric CO2,frequency and intensity of tropicalstorms, and runoff of terrestrial sedi-ments and nutrients are predicted tobe the major contributors to negativechanges in some reefs. When com-pounded by the chronic, local distur-bances such as destructive harvestingand pollution, the relatively slow changesin global climate caused by man canmarkedly decrease coral reef growth.

The effects of global change, be theyincreasing CO2 concentrations, El Niñoor runoff of terrestrial sediments andnutrients, make it apparent that majorrevisions are urgently needed to con-cepts of how corals and reef eco-sys-tems will respond to global change,and that more effective research, con-servation and resource managementstrategies need to be developed.

For NOAA information contact: Joyce Gross, Tel: 202-482-8360. E-mail: [email protected].

Video animation of coral reef hotspots and sea surface temperatures areavailable on the World Wide Web at:http://manati.wwb.noaa.gov/orad–click “Experimental Products,” fromthere, click “Coral Bleaching Hotspots.”

For a still image of the area of coralbleaching off Australia, go to:http://manati.wwb.noaa.gov/oradand click on “What's New.”

For SCOR, contact: Bruce G.Hatcher, Dalhousie University,Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, B3H4J1. Tel: 902 477 8093. FAX: 902 4943736. E-mail: [email protected].

Coral reefs may

suffer from global

change.


By Timothy Tyrrell

T ourism has been the fashionable industry of the 1980s and 1990s;it has been the beneficiary of nationaland international attention. It is poisedto claim the title of the largest industryin the world. As a result, considerableresearch has been devoted to the studyof tourism. The findings are not sur-prising.

Study results reinforce the idea that resources should not be wasted,whether they are natural or culturalresources. We have also learned thatresidents, businesses, governments andvisitors can be the recipients of differ-ent types of impacts from tourismdevelopment. These are wide and var-ied and include all manners of econom-ic, social and environmental impacts.

We are still learning about the linksbetween natural and cultural resourcesand their importance to residents andvisitors. We are also still learning sim-ple lessons about how the actions ofone individual or group can influencethe well-being of others.

The industry is also learning. Theeconomic downturn of 1990 and early1991 forced the tourism industry totake a good look at itself. One resultwas a new focus on sustainability andthe potential importance of eco-tourism. Both are concepts that put

A View on the Developing Tourism Industrygreater emphasis on social and environ-mental issues. It is not yet clear howthese will change the industry.

One of the major lessons is thatregardless of the political system,tourism is a heavily community-basedindustry. Regardless of the ambitiousgoals for state and regional tourismdevelopment, it is the community thathosts the visiting population. Attractionsand services are packaged at the com-munity level and tourists choose desti-nations where travel time between is ata minimum in order optimize use ofvaluable leisure time. As a consequence,local businesses, town councils andchambers of commerce are found to bethe greatest promoters of the industry.In addition, town council members,planners, fire and police departmentchiefs, and social organizations all directthe daily operations of the industry.Together these groups influence zoningrestrictions, taxes, fees and other regu-lations. Control extends to ownershipof a large share of attractions and facili-ties (such as parks and beaches).Although the primary purp

Date post:	31-Jan-2021
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	4 times
Download:	0 times

Coral Reef Protection in Quintana Roo, Mexico. Intercoast #34Coral Reef Protection in Quintana Roo,...

Documents