narragansett, rhode island, u.s.a. • #32 • fall 1998 this ...•codes of conduct for coastal...

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

Narragansett, Rhode Island, U.S.A. • #32 • Fall 1998

FO

CU

S

ON

:

CO

AS

TA

L

EC

ON

OM

IC

S

Dear Intercoast Readers:In the past two years, Intercoast has expanded

both its size and readership. Intercoast is currentlysent to readers in more than 130 countries.The resulthas been an increase in printing and mailing costs. Inturn, this has made getting Intercoast to our reader-ship very expensive.

To help defer these increasing costs, beginning withthe Winter 1999 issue, there will be an annual scrip-tion fee of US$10.00.The fee can be paid by check,money order or international money order ONLY.Toreceive the Winter 1999 issue, your payment must becleared by December 31, 1998. Intercoast will not bemailed until bank clearance of payment is received.

This is the Last FREEIssue of

For readers from developing countries who cannotafford the subscription fee, Intercoast will be providedfree of charge. Please write or E-mail a request for afee waiver to Noëlle F. Lewis, Intercoast Newsletter,Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island,Narragansett Bay Campus, Narragansett, RI 02882USA. FAX: 401-789-4670. E-mail: [email protected].

If you wish to receive Intercoast and are not request-ing an exemption, please complete the form below andreturn it with your payment.

We greatly value our audience and would not like tolose even one reader.

Enclosed is US$__________ for a ____ year subscription to Intercoast.

Salutation ____Mr. ____Mrs. ____Miss ____Ms. ____Dr.

Last Name First Name

Organization Title/Position

Address

Telephone FAX E-mail

Subscription Order Form

The European Union for Coastal Conservation (EUCC) is currently developing a databaseand website that will provide useful information to regional planners, local authorities andnatural resource managers on the European coastal zone.The services will be developed invarious steps. Key topics for the first stage (1999) will be:

•Good practice examples•Codes of conduct for coastal zone management•International policies and conventions•Ecological assessments•International funding opportunities

The website will provide summary information, references and training information, andmore. For this, the EUCC is looking for websites describing or summarizing good practices,success and failure stories in coastal zone management (to be hyperlinked to the group’swebsite), and experts already working in (or preparing) coastal zone management projects.

Please contact: Albert Salman at the EUCC,The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected].

Coastal Zone Management Good PracticeDatabase–Links to Existing Websites

Highlights

3EstuaryManagement

5Effects ofHabitat Change

8Value of OpenSpace

13HazardMitigation

14High Price ofOverfishing

ThemeAdvisor:

ThomasGrigalunas

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. • #32 • Fall 1998

Economic Values of EcologicalServices from a MangroveEcosystemBy Miguel A. Cabrera, JuanCarlos Seijo, Jorge Euan andEduardo Pérez

With an area of 2,500 km2, the Terminos Lagoon,

Campeche, Mexico, is Mexico’s mostimportant estuarine/lagoon system.This enormous wetland has numerousecological subsystems (e.g., estuaries,mangroves, swamps, etc.). Their useand exploitation tied to activities suchas cattle raising, fishing, forestry, oilextraction and ecotourism are impor-tant economically and also affect theenvironment. For example, conversionof mangroves to alternative uses hasdecreased the habitat quality forspecies living there. Thus, the econom-ic benefits generated by the economicactivities in the lagoon have beenachieved at a considerable ecologicalcost. It is important to assess thesecosts, since generally human activities

in mangrove areas do not include intheir accounting the economic value ofthe ecological services that could sufferfrom these activities.

In 1995 the CINVESTAV-IPNUnidad Merida and the EPOMEXProgram of the Universidad Autonomade Campeche, joined forces to assessthe value of some uses and ecologicalservices rendered by this mangroveecosystem to the inhabitants of Ciudaddel Carmen. The valuation techniquesused and the estimated economic val-ues are summarized below. Results areexpressed in terms of the economicvalue of one hectare (ha) of mangrovefor each one of the uses and ecologicalservices identified.

Value as a TimberResource

The mangroves of Terminos Lagoonare dominated by three species andcover an area of 127,000 ha:

(continued page 2)

Rhizophora mangle, Avicennia germi-nans and Laguncularia racemosa. Theirwood is used to produce charcoal andrustic housing. Their economic benefitswere estimated through the NetRevenue Method. The basic stages andproduction methods in their exploita-tion and processing were identified.Surveys on cut rates, landing places,distribution channels, production costsand sales price were carried out toestimate total costs over a year (fixedcosts, variable costs and opportunitycosts of capital and handwork) andrevenues (Table 1).

The results show that 86.7 percentof wood was used in charcoal produc-tion. Considering that 600 ha of man-groves are annually exploited, the eco-nomic value of one mangrove ha forcharcoal production was estimated atUS$451/year and for rustic housing atUS$631/year. In the case of charcoalproduction, discounting at 8 percent(over a 30-year period), gives a pre-sent value per ha of US$5,528 and dis-counting at 3 percent gives a presentvalue of US$9,291. In the case of rus-tic housing production, discounting atthe same rates gives US$7,735 andUS$12,999, respectively.

It should be mentioned that therates of cutting and wood productionhave been increasing as a result ofmore activities that use charcoal as afuel (chicken and meat restaurantgrills). There are no controls to ensureproper harvesting methods which min-imize impacts, nor are there recoveryprograms to ensure sustainability ofthe resource.

Table 1. Total costs and revenues associated with mangroveexploitation, per one hectare of mangrove.

Mangroves Total Price Total Total Net Use Production (US$/ton) Revenues Costs Revenues

(ton/yr) (US$/yr) (US$/yr) (US$/yr)

Charcoal 14,760 21.6 318,816 84,175 234,641

Rustic Housing 2,256 32.4 73,095 22,562 50,533

Total 17,016 391,911 106,737 285,174

2 Intercoast Network • Fall 1998

Value to the FisheriesThe Productivity Approach was used

to evaluate the economic impact on theecological services associated withchanges in the surface area of man-groves. The mangrove’s ecological ser-vices are defined as their support as anatural habitat and food supply to fish-eries. This methodology attributes the

possible changes in catches to changesin fishing effort and mangrove covering.In other words, it does not have speciesbiomass as an input of the productionfunction.

Species considered were those wherea cause-effect relationship existsbetween abundance and mangrove sur-face (e.g., shrimp (Penaeus setiferus),blue crab (Callinectes sapidus), grunts(Lutjanus synagris and Lutjanus griseus)and oyster (Crassostrea virginica)).Results in Table 2 show that catchesdecreased when a mangrove ha wasconverted to an alternate use. The eco-nomic value of one mangrove ha wasestimated at US$1,578/year. Discount-ing at 8 percent and 3 percent gives apresent value per ha of US$19,350 andUS$35,520, respectively.

Value as a WaterFiltering Service

The Alternative Cost Method wasused to value the ecological service of

filtering residual waters. Essentially,the method uses the cost of an alterna-tive or similar project as a referencefor determining the economic value ofthat ecological service. The cost ofcleaning residual waters carried out bya tertiary treatment plant was consid-ered as the alternative.

Surveys were conducted in Ciudaddel Carmen in order to estimate thetotal volume of residual waters thatare directly discharged on mangrove

areas by houses with no sanitary ser-vices. As a result of the survey, the vol-ume of residual waters discharged inthe mangrove areas was estimated tobe 10,208 m3/year. In Campeche Statethe savings for this service wasUS$190,973/year. The annual value ofthis ecological service for one ha ofmangrove was obtained by dividing thetotal annual cost by the mangrove areareceiving residual waters (160 ha).Therefore, the economic value of thisfiltering mangrove service was aboutUS$1,193/year. Discounting at 8 per-cent and 3 percent in the same timehorizon gives a present value per ha ofUS$14,631 and US$24,589, respec-tively.

Value as a CriticalHabitat for ThreatenedSpecies

The mangrove ecosystem as a criti-cal habitat was evaluated by assessingthe willingness of Ciudad del Carmen

inhabitants to pay for maintenance,i.e., to pay a fee to support conserva-tion and monitoring activities of thisecosystem.

The methodology used wasContingent Valuation. It was based onsurvey information collected from 16colonies of Ciudad del Carmen. A totalof 262 individuals (96 percent)responded to the questionnaire.Respondents’ ages were between 14and 84 years old, an average age of 35years. The survey showed that thosewho would pay (48 percent) and thedollar amount they were willing to pay(US$14/year) were greater in thosewith higher incomes. Thirty-three per-cent of the individuals in the mediumincome level were willing to payUS$6/year, and 22 percent of therespondents in the lower income levelwere willing to pay US$4.60/year.Independent of their willingness topay, 10 percent of the respondentswere willing to use part of their freetime in activities related to mangroveconservation: cleaning, surveillanceand environmental education.

These results, when extrapolated toall houses at Ciudad del Carmen, esti-mated the value of the mangroves atUS$128,873. Keeping in mind that thetotal mangrove area of TerminosLagoon is 127,000 ha, the economicvalue of one ha of mangrove as a criti-cal habitat was US$1.02/year.

Other goods and services, whichcould be classified as subsistence,rarely are considered in studies ofmangrove valuation. They will beincorporated as we better understandthis particular mangrove ecosystem.

For further information contact:Miguel A. Cabrera. FisheriesBioeconomics and ModellingLaboratory. CINVESTAV-IPN UnidadMérida. A.P. 73 Cordemex. C.P.97310. Mérida, Yucatán, México. FAX: 99-812917. E-mail: [email protected].

Economic Values(continued from page 1)

Table 2. Effect of reduction of one ha of mangrove surface in the catch of mangrove dependent species and the

corresponding values of this indirect use.

Mangrove Catch Economic Ecological Expected Indirect Dependent (tons) Value of Dependence Catch Use Species Catches Degree Decrease Value

(‘000 US$) (ton/ha/yr) (US$/ha/yr)

Shrimp 1942.4 9,250.0 0.21 0.321 1529.0Blue crab 164.4 131.0 0.11 0.014 11.2Grunts 43.4 83.0 0.14 0.005 9.0Oyster 120.4 134.0 0.28 0.026 29.4

Total Value 9,598.0 1578.6

Intercoast Network • Fall 1998 3

By James J. Opaluch, Thomas A. Grigalunas, Jerry Diamantides andMarisa Mazzotta

Coastal environments providemany amenities that make them

popular places to live, work and play.Yet, development can lead to degrada-tion of the very same natural assetsthat initially attracted people to coastalareas. Members of the University ofRhode Island’s department of environ-mental and natural resource economicsare helping estuary managers assessmanagement options, as part of anintegrated coastal area planning effortfor the Peconic Estuary, New York,USA.

Located on the east end of LongIsland, New York, the Peconic estuarysystem comprises more than 100,000acres, with over 100 distinct bays, har-bors, rivers and tributaries. Most havegood to excellent water quality. ThePeconic estuary system provides thepublic with many important benefits.However, rapid development of thesurrounding area threatens water qual-ity and other important amenities.

The Peconic Estuary Program, cre-ated as part of the National EstuaryProgram, is an alliance of federal, stateand local interests working to developa Comprehensive Conservation andManagement Plan (CCMP) to restore,protect and maintain the naturalresources in the Peconic estuary sys-tem. Because a limited budget doesnot allow all environmental problemsto be addressed, priorities must beestablished that are based, at least inpart, upon obtaining greatest publicbenefit for a given budget. The projectwill help managers develop the CCMPby assessing public values for resourcesof the estuary.

Project DescriptionThe project has three phases. Phase I

considers estuarine-dependent eco-nomic sectors and their impacts on thelocal economy. Phase II focuses largelyon non-market values of natural ameni-ties. Phase III will usethe informationdeveloped in Phases Iand II to analyze andprioritize policyoptions for theCCMP.

Phase I: Phase Iwas designed to iden-tify estuarine-depen-dent economic sec-tors and their impactson the local econo-my. Using very con-servative (low) esti-mates, we found thatthe 29 estuarine-dependent sectorsinclude over 1,010establishments,employ more than 7,000 people, paywages in excess of US$117 million andhave total revenues of over US$400million. Overall, estuarine-dependenteconomic activity conservativelyaccounts for a minimum of 20 percentof the local economy. As a group,tourism and recreation establishmentsdominate estuarine-dependent activityand comprise over 80 percent of theidentified estuarine-dependent eco-nomic activity.

Phase II: Phase II focuses largely onnon-market values of natural amenitiesand recreational services provided bythose amenities. Phase II is comprisedof a recreation study, a resource valua-tion analysis, a property value studyand a wetlands productivity analysis.

The recreational study is based on asurvey asking respondents about theirrecreational activities on the east endof Long Island, the area surroundingthe estuary. An estimated total of 8.4

million recreation days occur each yearon the east end. Swimming constitutesthe single largest activity, with an esti-mated 2.4 million recreation days,closely followed by bird/wildlife view-ing (2.3 million recreation days).

Monetary values (consumer’s sur-plus) for key recreational uses wereestimated. Preliminary estimates ofvalue per person per day are aboutUS$9 per day for swimming, US$19per day for boating and US$40 per dayfor fishing. These numbers imply totalvalues of US$12.1 million for swim-ming, US$18.0 million for boating andUS$23.4 million for fishing.

Also estimated was how recreationalvalues are affected by environmentalquality. This information can be usedto estimate the values to recreationalusers from policies that influence theseattributes. Thus, given estimates ofchanges in water quality due to a poli-cy initiative, e.g., upgrading a sewagetreatment plant, one can estimate theresultant increase in value of recre-ational activities. For example, theresults imply that US$1.3 million inannual benefits to recreational swim-

Environmental Economics in EstuaryManagement: The Peconic Estuary Program

(continued page 4)

Depiction of the Peconic esutary system


ming result from a 10 percentimprovement throughout the estuaryin all water quality parameters consid-ered (nitrogen concentrations, col-iform counts, brown tide cell countsand water clarity).

The resource survey identified pub-lic priorities for preserving or enhanc-ing local natural resources (farm land,open space, salt marsh, eel grass andunpolluted shellfish areas). The resultscan also be used to estimate monetaryvalues of these amenities, but it isbelieved that the relative amenity val-ues are more reliable measures ofpublic values. Relative values can beused, for example, to determine thebest set of restoration or enhancementactions to implement with a fixedbudget.

The estimates from the resourcesurvey indicate public values for gen-eral levels of amenities provided forthe Peconic area as a whole. However,people living immediately adjacent tothese amenities may be affected in dif-ferent ways. For example, it wasfound that the public places high val-ues on farmland as an amenity.However, living immediately adjacentto a farm was found to be undesirable,perhaps due to odors from fertilizersor threats of contaminating wells byagricultural chemicals. In contrast,parks or conservation areas provideopen space amenities to the region asa whole, and also provide additionalbenefit to those living in the immedi-ate vicinity.

A property value model was usedto quantify benefits to residents livingin the immediate vicinity of amenities.The property value model is a statisti-cal approach that relates propertyattributes to selling prices, not unlikereal estate appraisals. The idea is thatthe premium paid for houses in theimmediate vicinity of an amenity indi-cates a willingness to pay to live nearthe amenity, and is a measure of bene-fits received by those living nearby.

Thus, it can be identified how hav-ing an amenity nearby affects housingprices by estimating how differentattributes affect the sales price of aproperty. Our estimate considersattributes of the property, like squarefootage of the house, square footage ofthe yard, number of bedrooms, num-ber of bathrooms and the age of thehouse. Also considered were neighbor-hood characteristics, like zoning anddistance to schools. Finally, to capturethe effects of amenities, characteristicssuch as whether there is parkland orfarmland in the immediate vicinity ofa property were assessed.

It was found that having adjacentparkland adds to the value of a house,while adjacent farmland detracts fromthe value of residential houses. Thus,the amenity value of parkland needs toconsider both the general value to thePeconic region as a whole, as estimat-ed in the resource analysis discussedabove, plus the amenity value to thosewho live in the immediate vicinity,estimated in the property value study.The amenity value of farmland needsto consider the value as a generalamenity to the Peconic region as awhole, minus the impact to those liv-ing in the immediate vicinity.

Finally, a wetlands productivitystudy was carried out. This studyviews wetlands as assets that producevarious outputs that are valued bysociety. For example, wetlands serveas habitat that contributes to fish,birds and other biota that are directlyor indirectly valued by society.

Wetlands productivity was valuedat US$600 per acre for mud flats,US$3,300 per acre for salt marsh andUS$9,800 per acre for eelgrass. Notethat this represents only one compo-nent of services provided by wetlands.For example, these estimates don’tconsider services like storm protec-tion, nutrient filtering, visual ameni-ties, ‘non-use’ values or other possiblevalues.

Phase III: The primary goal ofPhase III is to use the estimates of usesand values developed in Phases I and II

to analyze policies for the CCMP. Thisassessment involves several steps,including:

1. Identifying a set of resourcepreservation and restoration actions.

2. Determining the costs of theseprograms.

3. Using the results from Phases Iand II to identify benefits of the pro-grams.

4. Identifying and evaluating a set ofalternative means for financing actions.

Financing is an especially challeng-ing task, as the public increasinglyrejects the notion of raising taxes as aquick fix to fund programs. More cre-ative means of financing managementactions must be developed throughmeans such as charging those who cre-ate problems, using the ‘polluter paysprinciple,’ or charging those who ben-efit from a policy action through userfees.

ConclusionsIn an era of tight budgets, expendi-

tures of public funds for research andmanagement are under increasedscrutiny. Thus, agencies must demon-strate that expenditures of public fundsachieve goals that benefit the public.This project represents a major effortto integrate public values withresearch in the natural sciences to helpassess policy options for coastal areamanagement. A hallmark of this workis the close collaboration of environ-ment economists with scientists,resource managers and citizen groups.Collaborative effort among researchersof various disciplines, resource man-agers and members of the public isessential in addressing important anddifficult issues in coastal management.

For further information contact:James J. Opaluch, Environmental &Resource Economics, Lippitt Hall,University of Rhode Island, Kingston,Rhode Island, 02881 USA. Tel: 401-874-4590. FAX: 401-782-4766. E-mail: [email protected]:http://www.uri.edu/cels/enre/.

Peconic Estuary(continued from page 3)


stress, it is just a different community. A consequence of the theorem is

that one cannot safely state that anyanthropogenic alteration is undesirable.Indeed, the concept put forward by thistheorem is the foundation for actionswhere an environment is deliberatelyaltered to accomplish a desired change.Desired changes include restorationactions to return an environment towhat it once was (or at least perceivedto have been), and actions taken to cre-ate an environment with a more desir-able assemblage of species. An exampleof the non-restorative alteration is theintroduction of hard substrates andthree-dimensional structure, e.g., artifi-cial reefs, to a soft-bottomed environ-ment to create a desired community.The hard substrates and the new struc-ture provide new niches.

Theorem 2. The sustainablesize of a population is directlyproportional to the amount ofhabitat available.

Expressed differently, if half a popu-lation’s habitat is lost, the steady statepopulation size will be reduced by half.This is also assumed to be true wherethe adult population size is limited bybreeding or nursery area. A reductionin the amount of a breeding or nurseryarea could reduce the standing stock ofthe adult population in a different area.A problem in the ready application ofthis theorem is often a lack of knowl-edge as to whether the size of a popula-tion is limited by the amount of breed-ing, nursery or adult areas.

Given the complex and varied lifehistories of marine populations, and thegeneral problems in accurately estab-lishing population sizes, testing and val-idation of this theorem will not be easy.Still, the theorem seems a reasonableworking assumption to make when

By Kenneth R. Hinga

Human societies change marine environments. Many changes

are unplanned consequences of otheractions and are viewed as detrimental;others result from deliberate actionstaken to make a particular area moresuitable or useful to a group of people.

Whether considering a single pro-ject that will alter the marine environ-ment, or developing an overall multi-faceted plan for a marine area, it isimportant to consider the changes thatwill result from the proposed actions.However, it is often impractical in theplanning phase to undertake detailedbiological studies and exercises of pre-dictive ecological models for each ofpotentially numerous options that mayoccur. It would be helpful to have afew guiding principles to quickly esti-mate the biological consequences,especially in the early phases of plan-ning.

The purpose of this article is to lista few principles that can be used toestimate biological impacts whenextensive ecological studies are notpractical.

Three general types of changes tomarine environments are consideredhere:

• Alteration of the physical propertiesof habitat (such as the introduction ofhard substances or changes in waterproperties).

• Loss of the total amount of habitat(such as through filling of wetlands).

• Fragmentation of habitat (barriersdividing marine ecosystems into small-er contiguous parcels of like habitat).

General principles, posed as theo-rems, are given to describe the generalresponse of marine ecosystems. Onetheorem is given for each of the alter-ations listed above. These theoremsshould be regarded as workinghypotheses as there is still much to

learn about the responses of marineecosystems to change. These theoremswill be verified, altered or perhapsrejected as understanding of themarine environment increases.

Theorem 1. An alteration of the environment will result in a change in the biologicalcommunity.

A basic tenet of ecology is that eachspecies is adapted to a particular niche.Every environment provides a numberof niches that may be inhabited by cor-responding species. If an environmentis altered such that different niches areavailable, the species inhabiting thatenvironment will change in response.The time it will take the assemblage ofspecies to change depends upon therate of introduction and establishmentof new species.

Of course, minor changes to anenvironment may not result in a readi-ly observable change in the communitystructure. Many marine populationshave a very variable abundance in bothspace and time. This property oftenmakes it hard to observe changes inthe community brought about by alter-ations to the environment.(Community is used here to mean sim-ply an assemblage of species and notwith a more restrictive meaning thatimplies interconnectedness or interde-pendence between populations.)

Theorem 1 puts a different perspec-tive on physical alteration than is com-monly taken. It is often assumed that asection of the marine environment, saya portion of an estuary, which has beenaltered is under stress. The originalcommunity that inhabited the estuarymay be under stress when the condi-tions in the estuary were first altered.However, if a new community oforganisms is established, which areadapted to the new conditions, thenthe new community is not under

Predicting the Effects of Habitat Change onMarine Populations

(continued page 6)


faced with establishing the conse-quences of filling wetlands or under-taking similar actions.

Theorem 3. Habitat fragmen-tation is not usually a problemfor marine species.

To state the theorem as a practicalexample, a one-hectare mud flat ispretty much the same as a 10-hectaremud flat, when viewed on a per-square-meter basis. Certainly, thiswould seem so from a clam’s point ofview.

This theorem does not imply thatstructures dividing marine habitats willnot cause changes to the communities.It is hard to imagine that a structuredividing a marine environment couldbe built which would not affect thephysical properties of the habitat.However, it is the change in physicalproperties, addressed in Theorem 1,which is responsible for the alteration,not the change in contiguous habitatsize.

A corollary accompanies this theo-rem:

Corollary 3.1 The need for trans-portation corridors is unlikely to beimportant in the marine environment.

If one has followed the trends inhabitat protection and conservationbiology for terrestrial ecosystems, thistheorem and corollary seem at oddswith current thinking. However,marine ecosystems have propertiesthat make them fundamentally differ-ent from terrestrial ecosystems.Marine ecology textbooks invariablypoint out major differences including:

• The marine environment is a three-dimensional fluid environment withinhabitants in the fluid itself. (Few ter-restrial organisms actually live in theair and, high-soaring birds excepted,the third dimension in terrestrial envi-ronment is only as high as the vegetat-ed canopy.)

• Marine environments often have aheavy reliance on planktonic primary

production (i.e., phytoplankton vs.trees).

• Dispersal of planktonic larvae is ameans of reproduction and dispersalfor most benthic marine animals (fewland animals disperse by wind-driventransport).

With such fundamental differences,perhaps it is reasonable to expect guid-ing principles to be different formarine and terrestrial environments.

The corollary dismissing the needfor transportation corridors in themarine environment is a consequenceof the typically high dispersal capacityof most marine species. Plankton andnekton species are either passively dis-persed by water movements or areable to swim to suitable habitats. Evenamong the bottom-dwelling sessile(attached) species about 80 percenthave pelagic larvae which are readilydispersed by water movements.Dispersion while in the planktonicform will provide opportunities forlarvae to be introduced to new areas.

Locally important exceptions to thecorollary might be found among sessileor slow-moving benthic organisms thatdo not have planktonic larvae.Examples of these include some gas-tropod mollusks (snails and whelks)which lay a small number of eggs firm-ly attached to hard substrate. One mayexpect these slow moving and non-lar-val-dispersing organisms to be ineffec-tive, or at least very slow to surmountsignificant artificial barriers.

It is important that this theoremonly be applied to truly marinespecies. Marine species are definedhere as those with gills, and marineplankton too small to need gills.Marine-related, air-breathing speciesare not covered by this theorem andprobably can be viewed as terrestrialspecies. Marine and brackish environ-ments with emergent vegetation, suchas salt marshes and mangroves may bethought of as a transition betweenmarine and terrestrial environmentsand may be expected to incorporateproperties of both.

ConclusionThis short set of theorems, or

working hypotheses, should providesome simple guidance to the types ofimpacts that may be expected whenactions are proposed which will altermarine environments. The theoremsare no substitute for a detailed exami-nation of local species present, andtheir population dynamics. However,in the planning stages of a project it isoften useful to have a glimpse of thenature of the impacts that may beexpected.

(A discussion of other changes notconsidered here, especially the effectsof additions of chemicals or other sub-stances to marine environments, canbe found in Hinga, K.R. (1995)“Predicting the effects of changes tothe marine environment: the effects ofmultiple changes.” Appendix C in: B.Vestal et al., Methodologies andMechanisms for Management ofCumulative Coastal EnvironmentalImpacts. Part 1–Synthesis, withAnnotated Bibliography, NOAACoastal Ocean Program DecisionAnalysis Series No. 6. Silver Spring,MD, USA, upon which this article wasbased.)

For further information contact: Kenneth R. Hinga, Graduate School ofOceanography, University of RhodeIsland, Narragansett, RI 02882 USA.Tel: 401-874-6888. FAX: 401-874-6889. E-mail: [email protected].

Habitat Change(continued from page 5)


By Heung-Dong Lee

Korea is a relatively small, denselypopulated country, with a very

important marine sector. The value ofcoastal land is very high, creating sub-stantial economic pressures to fill inintertidal and nearshore areas. Fillingof these lands has long been a contro-versial coastal management issue inKorea. These pressures are greatestalong the west coast where landfillingis relatively inexpensive. At the sametime, there is an increasing awarenessof the value of the productive naturalservices provided by coastal wetlands.These services include habitat for fish,shellfish and marine birds; wasteassimilation; and natural environmentsof aesthetic appeal. A major issue hin-dering sound coastal managementdecisions has been the lack of informa-tion about the economic value of thenatural services of coastal areas. Dueto the lack of such information, land-filling and development pressures havedominated until recently.

Recognizing these concerns, theKorea Maritime Institute (KMI) wasasked to assess the economic value ofwetlands services. The work focusedon identification of services providedby wetlands and quantification of theireconomic value. This article provides abrief background on the issue, outlinesthe services considered, and method-ologies employed, and presents resultsand their implications.

Korean tidal wetlands totalled240,000 hectare (ha) in 1998, with 83percent of Korea’s tidal wetlands locat-ed along the west coast. KyunggiProvince, including Inchon City (locat-ed near Seoul), has 84,000 ha, or 35percent of the total wetland area.Wetlands in this area of KyunggiProvince alone have been reduced by40,000 ha over the last 10 years.

Landfilling has occurred for manyyears and has increased in scale. Some

1,795 coastal sites with an area ofabout 969 km2 have been converted,starting from the colonial period ofJapan, up to 1998. Up until the end ofthe 1960s, the average size of filledsites was fairly small (15 ha), but dur-ing the 1970s increased to 83 ha.Large-scale landfilling along the westcoast started inthe 1990s, withthe average areafilled being1,230 ha.

A recent eco-nomic evaluationof coastal wet-lands in Koreadescribes therapid evolutionof the nationalprogram forKorean coastalwetland utiliza-tion. It also ana-lyzes the func-tions providedby Korean wet-lands and theirvalue, usingmethods forvaluing marketand non-market services. Four func-tional values of domestic wetlandswere assessed in the pilot areas(Hongbo, Kunchang, Daebu andYongchong):

• Fishery production–Market price isused to value the fishery products har-vested in tidal wetlands. These prod-ucts include fish, shellfish and seaplants produced by aquaculture.

• Habitat–The habitat function for thecommercial fishery was estimated(spawning and grow out) in the tidalwetlands. The evaluation uses the mar-ket price of commercial fish catch.

•Waste assimilation–This evaluationuses the replacement cost (cost tobuild and operate) based on the treat-ment of biological oxygen demand

(BOD) of the waste treatment facili-ties.

• Aesthetics–This estimate is based onbenefit-transfer of the result of a will-ingness to pay survey for recreationalactivities in Louisiana and Florida,USA.

Other potential economic values,such as passive use value and others,were not considered due to lack oftime and resources, but may be includ-ed later.

For the fisheries productivity andhabitat functions, gross values, not netvalues, were calculated, and the esti-mation is an annual value, not a dis-counted value.

Fisheries production and habitat. The value of fisheries pro-duction is estimated according to thelicensed fishery rights in the fourareas. Average production value inthese areas is US$10,000 annually perha.

The functional value of fish habitatis evaluated for the large-size wetlandsin areas like Hongbo and Yongchongarea; these average US$7,600 annuallyper ha.

(continued page 8)

Use and Value of CoastalWetlands in Korea

Productivity value of coastal wetlands in Korea

Region Size (ha) Value Productivity (US$1,000) (US$1,000/ha)

Fishery production(a)

Hongbo 781 8156.1 10.4

Kunchang 40 384.2 9.6

Daebu-do 286 2,397.2 8.4

Yongchong-do 310 3,284.3 10.6

Total 1,418 14,222.2 10.0 (aver.)

Habitat function(b)

Hongbo 1,644 11,354.4 6.9

Yongchong-do 1,224 10,601.1 8.6

Total 2,872 21,955.5 7.6 (aver)

Waste treatment (c)

Waste Facility 4.2

Aesthetic function (d) 0.2

Total value of wetlands (a+b+c+d) US$22,000/ha


Waste assimilation. The value ofwaste assimilation in tidal wetlands isassessed using the replacement costmethod, i.e., the cost of constructingand operating facilities for waste treat-ment. This cost implies an averageassimilation value of tidal wetlands ofUS$4,200 annually per ha.

Aesthetic value. This value isbased on ‘benefit transfer’ and uses theresults from the United States whichshow a value of US$200 annually forrecreational usage in tidal wetlands.Current recreational usage of Koreanwetlands is not high; however, the aes-thetic value of wetlands would beincreased with ecotourism and seabirdwatching in the tidal wetlands (thevalue may be viewed as akin to an‘option price’). A value of US$200 perha does not seem unreasonable.

The total economic value of sustain-able use by preserving tidal wetlands isestimated to be US$22,000 annuallyper ha (see table). This estimatereflects the fact that Korean tidal wet-lands are used intensively for produc-tion of fishery products. Further, the

fishery values are gross values, i.e.,costs of production or harvesting havenot been considered.

As noted at the outset, landfilling inKorea to date has been based on mar-ket pressures for development.Resource policy has focused on recla-mation for industrialization, urbaniza-tion and self-sufficiency of food pro-duction. There has been a lack of fullappreciation of the value of naturalservices wetlands provide. Economicanalysis as described in this article cancontribute to establishing protectiongoals and the design of institutionalreforms to improve the managementof coastal areas. Assessing the econom-ic value of wetlands, however, clearlyis difficult and many refinements andadditional research are needed. Byimproving and extending assessmentsof the value of wetland services,coastal resource managers can basedecisions on more accurate evaluationof the resource services wetlands pro-vide. With this information, thesescarce resources could be managed,taking into account both market andnon-market values.

The relatively high estimated valuesfor coastal wetlands reported here sug-

gest that policies that have exclusivelypursued economic growth may requiremodification, if the value of naturalservices is taken into account. Now,the focus can be expanded to encom-pass environmental policy. Viewed thisway, wetland policy might shift fromregarding wetlands as private assets toconsidering wetlands as valuableregional and national assets in need ofprotection.

In conclusion, economic evaluationof tidal wetlands has an important rolein contributing to well-informed poli-cy decisions. Still, much uncertaintyremains concerning wetland servicesand their value. More research is need-ed to expand and refine estimates tocontribute to decisions about whetherto preserve the wetlands for the bene-fit of present and future generations oruse them for their benefits from devel-opment.

For further information contact:Heung-Dong Lee, MarineEnvironment & Safety, 154-10,Samsung-dong, Kangnam-ku, Seoul,135-090, Korea. Tel: 82-2-553-1530.FAX: 82-2-565-7097. E-mail:[email protected].

By Robert J. Johnston

Coastal resources provide a widearray of goods and services that

are highly valued by residents andtourists, yet are not generally traded inorganized markets. These goods andservices include scenic views, unpol-luted surface and ground water, publicaccess to the coast, outdoor recreationopportunities and natural resourcesused for subsistence by local residents.Due to the lack of a measurable mar-ket value for these services, their eco-

nomic importance is often overlooked.However, the non-market value of ser-vices provided by coastal resources isno less important than traditional eco-nomic value measured through marketactivity. In many cases, non-marketedresource services substitute for goodsand services that would otherwise bepurchased, or augment the value ofmarketed goods, leading to a higherquality of life for local residents andvisitors. Non-market values reflect thismeasurable increase in quality of life.

Given the importance of non-mar-ket goods and services, economists

have developed a variety of methods tomeasure non-market values. Thesemethods allow coastal managers toaccount for the value of non-marketedresources when considering policyoptions, and to include non-marketvalues in benefit-cost analysis. One ofthe most common of these methods isthe property value, or ‘hedonic’method. This method takes advantageof the relationship between non-mar-keted services of open space, waterquality, or other coastal resources, andthe measurable market value of localhomes. For example, protected open

The Value of Open Space in a U. S. CoastalCommunity

Korean Wetlands(continued from page 7)


space (a valued resource in manycoastal environments) provides a widevariety of services including scenicviews; outdoor recreation; insulationfrom noise and other aspects of theurban landscape; and protection fromerosion, flooding and other physicalhazards. These services are valued byhomeowners, making communitieswith a large quantity and/or quality ofopen space more attractive than simi-lar communities without such ameni-ties. As a result, home buyers are will-ing to pay more for local housing,reflecting the values of the services(and increased quality of life) providedby open space. The property valuemethod uses economic statistical toolsto estimate the positive impact of envi-ronmental amenities (such as openspace) on the actual value of localproperty, thereby estimating the non-market value of these amenities tolocal residents. Past analyses of thistype have demonstrated significanteconomic values associated with awide range of coastal resources,including open space, undevelopedbeaches and unpolluted air and water.

An economic study completed inthe coastal community of Middletown,Rhode Island (United States) illustratesthe use of the property value method.The community of Middletown islocated on Aquidneck Island, thelargest island in Rhode Island’sNarragansett Bay. The town has a cur-rent population of approximately19,184, distributed over 33.6 squarekilometers. Between 1980 and 1990,the town’s population increased 13percent, while the number of housingunits increased by 9.6 percent. Since1990, the town’s population hasremained relatively stable. However,construction of new houses has contin-ued, with 456 new housing unitsauthorized since 1990, representing anadditional increase of 6.4 percent. Therapid rate of housing growth has led tosignificant losses in the natural ameni-ties associated with farms, forestlandand undeveloped open space.

To illustrate the value of open space

protection in this rapidly growingcoastal community, researchers at theUniversity of Rhode Island, in cooper-ation with the Aquidneck IslandPartnership, conducted a propertyvalue analysis using data from theAquidneck Island GeographicInformation System. Results of thisanalysis illustrate the positive impact ofprotected open space on Middletownproperty values, and the substantialvalue of non-market services providedby open space (see table). For exam-ple, Middletown properties locatedwithin 400 meters of a 50-acre tract ofopen space are expected to have per-acre values at least 12 percent higherthan similar property without nearbyopen space. Properties located within400 meters of a 10-acre tract of open

space are expected to have per-acrevalues at least 3 percent higher thansimilar property without nearby openspace. These results illustrate that largeareas of protected open space lead toincreased property values inMiddletown, and that larger impactsare associated with larger tracts ofopen space. This increase reflects theincreased quality of life gained by resi-dents who live in close proximity toopen space and represents a legitimate

economic value of this coastalresource. In the policy arena, theresults of the Middletown propertyvalue analysis have illustrated the eco-nomic importance of open space tolocal residents and officials and havecontributed to a major initiative tosustain valued open space land uses onAquidneck Island.

Non-market valuation research,such as the property value analysis,allows coastal managers to considerthe economic values of wide classes ofcoastal resources, even if those valuesare not reflected in traditional mar-kets. Such information can help man-agers recognize the full range of bene-fits provided by coastal resources andmake more informed policy decisions.Although coastal managers must con-

sider a wide range of factors whendeveloping policy, non-marketresearch can ensure that the full eco-nomic importance of non-marketedcoastal resources is not overlooked.

For further information contact: Robert J. Johnston, Department ofEnvironmental and Natural ResourceEconomics, Lippitt Hall, University ofRhode Island, Kingston, RI 02881USA. E-mail:[email protected].

Property value increases associated with open space

Impact on Average Property Value

Average land value Average land value Average land value

within 400 meters within 800 meters within 1,200 meters

Baseline Scenario:

Minimal open space No Increase in No Increase in No Increase in

and no open space Property Value Property Value Property Value

tracts >1 acre

Ten Acre Scenario: 3 percent Increase 1 percent Increase <1 percent Increase

Open space characterized in Property Value in Property Value in Property Value

by one, ten acre tract

Fifty Acre Scenario: >12 percent Increase 10 percent Increase 1 percent Increase

Open space characterized in Property Value in Property Value in Property Value

by one, fifty acre tract


By Richard Klein and Ian Bateman

The shoreline management plan(SMP) for the coast of North

Norfolk, England identifies managedretreat as the preferred option for theCley Marshes Nature Reserve. TheCley Reserve–one of the oldest naturereserves in Britain–is a reclaimed salt-marsh in which a unique freshwaterhabitat has developed, fed by springsand diverted river water and protectedfrom the sea by a semi-natural shingleridge. It covers some 1.8 km2 and is aninternationally renowned birding site,where 357 bird species have beenrecorded.

Flooding Vulnerabilityand Managed Retreat

Over the past few years, it hasbecome clear that current protectionlevels of the reserve are insufficient. InFebruary 1996, a combination of hightides and strong northerly gales causedthe shingle ridge to breach. The reservewas inundated by seawater for a periodof about 10 days. The inundationcaused substantial damage to thereserve and its unique freshwater habi-tat. The combination of salt penetrationin the soil and subsequent lack of rainprevented most of the vegetation fromfully developing during the followingspring. Norfolk Wildlife Trust (NWT),which owns and manages the reserve,felt that if the present situation were todeteriorate, the number and diversityof birds would decline, thus reducingthe recreation value of the site.

The SMP argues that continued re-profiling of the shingle ridge is not aviable option as it increases its suscepti-bility to erosion and breaching. TheSMP concludes that in the medium andlong term a managed retreat is mostpreferable for the Cley Reserve. Thisconclusion corresponds with the over-all philosophy of the Ministry of

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food(MAFF), which recognizes that rigidprotection of the coastline often pre-vents the occurence of natural coastalprocesses.

MAFF has presented a managedretreat as an environmentally sound andeconomically efficient alternative tohard-engineering methods. Managedretreat aims to enable the shore todevelop under a more natural regimeand attempts to maximize the use ofnatural processes for coastal defencerather than oppose natural forces. Forthis reason, nature conservation organi-zations have generally been supportiveof managed retreat.

In essence, there are three argu-ments for managed retreat as a favor-able option for lesser developed coast-lines:

• Economic efficiency. The costs ofmaintaining flood-defense structuresmay not be justified by the benefits thatare accrued from the land that is pro-tected.

• Nature restoration and devel-opment. Managed retreat allows nat-ural processes to dominate, whichcould enhance natural values.

• Resilience to stress and shock.In view of its capacity to absorb waveenergy, a natural coastline is consideredless vulnerable to extreme events suchas storm surges and to anticipated sea-level rise.

Arguments AgainstManaged Retreat in Cley

Managed retreat is considered par-ticularly desirable when low-lying agri-cultural land can be converted into saltmarshes. However, the prime functionof the Cley Reserve is not agriculture,although parts are used for grazing cat-tle. The reserve is first and foremost abird sanctuary, and thus represents animportant value. The SMP has not con-sidered this value, other than acknowl-edging its existence, and therefore it is

premature to assume that managedretreat at the Cley Reserve will be eco-nomically efficient.

The second argument for managedretreat–the potential to enhance naturalvalues–can also be questioned in thecase of the Cley Reserve. In its presentform, the reserve is considered to poss-es great natural values, which is con-firmed by a range of national and inter-national designations (e.g., Ramsar Siteand EU Habitats Directive, among oth-ers). Considering that the seawaterflood of February 1996 was widely per-ceived as detrimental, one can questionif it would be possible at all to enhancenatural values in the reserve by meansof managed retreat. Moreover, freshwa-ter marshes are rare along the NorthNorfolk coast, while salt marshes aremore common.

The Cley Reserve VisitorSurvey

In their guidelines for the SMP, theMAFF recommends that a cost-benefitanalysis (CBA) be used to identify thepreferred management option for anygiven coastal location. In addition, theyrecommend that a CBA include thosecosts and benefits that cannot be readilyexpressed in monetary terms. Giventhe significance of the Cley Reserve tobirdwatchers, it is assumed that thedirect-use value of recreation will beparticularly important in this respect.

The two environmental valuationmethods that are highly applicable tovaluing recreation are the contingentvaluation (CV) and travel-cost (TC)methods. Both techniques are based onhuman preferences, as these shouldreflect the value that people attach tonon-marketed goods. However, the CVand TC approaches differ with respectto the type of preferences they analyze.

The CV method relies on individu-als’ expressed preferences, by means ofsurvey questionnaires. Typically, suchsurveys ask respondents questions

Managing a Coastal Freshwater Marsh as Sea-Level Rises: What is the Preferred Option?


regarding their willingness to pay(WTP) for some provision of the goodunder investigation. In the CleyReserve Visitor Survey, on-site, face-to-face interviews were conductedwith visitors to the reserve, who wereasked about their WTP both as a (high-er) entrance fee and as increased taxesto preserve the site in its present,unflooded state.

By contrast, the TC method reliesupon those preferences that arerevealed by visitors’ actions, ratherthan by their statements. The methodexamines the travel costs (both interms of their associated expendituresand the amount of time devoted totravelling) incurred by visitors, usingthese to estimate the demand curve forvisits to the site. The demand curve, ortrip-generation function, maps out therelationship between travel costs andthe frequency of visits. The area underthis curve then gives a measure of therecreation value of the site underinvestigation.

As stated, both the CV and TCmethods require information on visi-tors behaviour and preferences.Accordingly, a questionnaire wasdeveloped from which all necessarydata could be obtained.

ResultsOf the total sample of 160 visitors,

113 were willing to pay some (or high-er, as appropriate) entrance fee, while121 were willing to pay at least someextra taxes.

The uniqueness of the Cley Reserveis illustrated by the fact that onerespondent was willing to pay £2,000(£1 approximates US$1.65) of extrataxes per year to preserve the reservein its current state, while another stat-ed that he had visited the reserve 500times in the past year. Again anotherrespondent had twice travelled 710 kmfor a day trip to the reserve.

The table summarizes the annual,aggregate recreation-value estimatesderived from the various valuationanalyses. It should be clear that there isno single true measure of the reserve’s

annual recreationvalue. First, thevalue depends onthe assumed num-ber of visits peryear. Estimates arebetween 25,000and 100,000, andrecreation valueshave been calcu-lated using bothestimates. Second,different valuationmethods havebeen applied,which cannot beexpected to yieldexactly the sameresults. Third, theresults depend onfundamentalassumptions and methodological deci-sions made prior to the analysis. Forexample, the inclusion of zero-WTPresponses in the analysis is an as-yetunresolved methodological issue. Zero-bids are sometimes excluded on thebasis that such visitors may be deliber-ately understating their WTP in orderto free-ride; that is, avoid paying for agood that they clearly value. The tablereports both the whole-sample meansand the means excluding zero-bids.

Further, open-ended surveys haveoften been observed to yield lower esti-mates than those suggesting a WTP tothe respondent. This is not to say thatone of the two approaches is flawed,but that various economic and psycho-logical factors are involved that influ-ence the outcome. As the Cley Reservesurvey used an open-ended format, theCV results could best be considered asthe lower bound of an envelope ofuncertainty.

The TC results can be considered tobe conservative, too. First, no mone-tary value has been attributed to thetime visitors spent travelling to thereserve. Second, four visiting groupsfrom overseas countries could not beconsidered in the analysis, as insuffi-cient information was provided toassess their travel costs. Third and most

importantly, the large value attachedto the reserve by local residents whohave moved house in order to live inthe vicinity of the reserve is notreflected in their travel costs.

ConclusionsIn spite of the caveats outlined

above, this relatively inexpensive andmodest survey has yielded someimportant and useful information.Important conclusions from this sur-vey are:1. Reasonable yet conservative esti-mates of the Cley Reserve’s annualrecreation value are on the order of£40,000-£120,000, assuming 25,000visits per year, and £150,000-£480,000, assuming 100,000 visits. Inaddition to these estimates being con-servative, it should also be noted thatrecreation value is only one compo-nent of the total economic value of thereserve.2. The obtained values are consider-ably higher than the present annualmaintenance costs of the shingle ridgethat protects the reserve and adjacentland and property, which are normally£20,000-£30,000. Thus, if the aboveresults would be used in a CBA, asrecommended by MAFF, it would

(continued page 27)

Aggregated annual valuation results, based upon meanestimated values per household per annum.

(Figures in brackets represent 95 percent confidence limits.)

Valuation measure 25,000 visits/year 100,000 visits/year

WTP fee (incl. zero-bids) £39,500 £158,000(32,910-46,085) (131,640-184,340)

WTP fee (excl. zero-bids) £55,500 £222,000(48,135-63,018) (192,540-252,070)

WTP tax (incl. zero-bids) £119,956 £479,821(43,573-196,338) (174,290-785,351)

WTP tax (excl. zero-bids) £154,659 £618,635(56,788-252,549) (227,153-1,010,197)

Travel-cost measure £113,403 £453,612(98,783-133,101) (395,130-532,436)


By Richard Tapper

Coastal tourism is one of Malaysia’stop income earners. With the popular-ity of scuba diving and snorkelingincreasing in Malaysia, its coastal envi-ronments are under increasing pres-sure from inappropriately plannedtourism.

On the eastern coast of Malaysia,the islands of Pulau Tioman, PulauTinggi (a marine park) and PulauRedang are being developed fortourism. Sediments from the construc-tion of resorts and related infrastruc-ture, poor sewage and waste disposal,and pollution from nutrients, fuel andchemical runoff are causing significantproblems. These will grow as develop-ment outstrips service and manage-ment capacity to address these issues.The widespread use of fertilizers tomanage hotel grounds and recreationalareas, the boom in coastal hotels withgolf courses, and phosphate-containingdetergents used in hotel laundries allcontribute to eutrophication. Waterquality is affected and high bacterialcounts in some areas are a health riskto swimmers. As a result, the tourismindustry, fisheries, mangroves andcorals all suffer.

In the Mediterranean, tourism isalso a major source of pollution,adding to burdens from other sources.The resulting cocktail of pollutantsdamages wetlands, fisheries and coastalecosystems; poses a threat to humanhealth; and reduces the tourism expe-rience. Algal blooms occur in theMediterranean in some tourist areas.These blooms are a highly visible andeconomically damaging consequenceof pollution.

The United Nations EnvironmentalProgramme’s (UNEP) Blue Plan forthe Mediterranean highlights tourismdevelopment along 2,000 km of coastas a major factor in destruction of

dune systems. Tourism developmenthas contributed to near extinction ofthe monk seal and the sea turtle in theMediterranean. The Blue Plan alsoemphasizes serious water shortagesworsened by increased coastal tourism.

So what can be done to addressthese serious problems in these twowidely separated regions? A compara-tive study of coastal tourism impacts inMalaysia and the Mediterranean sug-gests that the cause of problems inboth areas lies in inadequate policyframeworks, insufficient environmentalmanagement and planning, weak moni-toring and enforcement, constraints onpublic finances and lack of publicawareness.

Ultimately, the public and privatesectors (local and national level) deter-mine how marine pollution fromtourism is controlled. However, inter-national and regional agencies mustplay an important role in defining,coordinating, supporting, implement-ing and monitoring actions by groupsof countries.

In Malaysia, strategies for tourismdevelopment and controlling environ-mental impacts are addressed in vari-ous national plans. Regional agree-ments, such as the UNEP RegionalSeas Programme: Action Plan for theProtection and Development of theMarine and Coastal Areas in the EastAsian Seas, also address tourism.

In Italy and the Mediterranean, asimilarly diverse range of plans, includ-ing the UNEP’s Blue Plan and PriorityAction Plans, and various EuropeanUnion and national legislation covermarine pollution, environmental pro-tection, and the effects of developmentand economic activity, includingtourism.

Local authorities have a key role inmanaging development, includingtourism, but their management andtechnical capabilities are often inade-

quate. Furthermore, local communi-ties whose livelihoods depend on thecoastal resources and who are oftenthe day-to-day managers of thoseresources are often not involved. Forstrategies to be effective this mustchange.

Environmental codes of conduct areone means of raising awareness of thelink between tourism and the environ-ment, and they contribute to thedevelopment of sound business prac-tices. But voluntary codes of conductneed real commitment coupled withadequate administrative support. Theymust also address siting issues andsome of the adverse socioeconomicand environmental consequences ofsiting the wrong type of tourism in thewrong place.

In the short term, the private sectordevelopers benefit from coastaltourism, and while they often have thefinancial resources to install cleantechnologies, they often fail to antici-pate and adequately invest in environ-mental protection. While some in theprivate sector are coming on board,greater cooperation with governmentat all levels is necessary to minimizeimpacts from tourism.

In the long term, for strategies tobe effective, there must be consensusbetween all governments at all levels,administrative departments andenforcement agencies.

(This article is drawn from“Tourism, Pollution and the MarineEnvironment,” a report for WorldWildlife Fund.)

For copies and further informationcontact: Richard Tapper, EnvironmentBusiness & Development Group, 16Glenville Road, Kingston uponThames KT2 6DD, U.K. Tel/FAX:+44 181 549 1988. E-mail:[email protected].

Tourism, Pollution and the Marine Environment in Malaysia and the Mediterranean


By Diana L. McClure

Nobody wants natural disasters.Along the coast of Rhode Island

(RI), USA, those living and working inshoreline communities are not alone intheir concern about minimizing theeffects of a hurricane, flood, earthquakeor other hazardous event. Propertyinsurers want to keep insurance afford-able and available. Government wantsto avoid paying again and again torespond, rescue and rebuild.Environmental organizations want topreserve environmental health and pro-tect natural resources.

How can these diverse entities agreeon actions to protect communities fromnatural hazards, taking into account theoften competing interests of those con-cerned about property rights, insuranceaffordability and availability, use offinancial resources, and the naturalenvironment? The philosophy is that onemust link respect for nature withrespect for people. People’s relationshipwith nature–either the view that peoplemust live in balance and harmony withnature, or the view that nature is a forceto be controlled–translates into therelationship between the two. Thus, therelationship is approached with an atti-tude that emphasizes cooperation oremphasizes antagonism. Humans’ inter-dependence with nature, and by exten-sion, with each other, is the cornerstoneof the concept of sustainability.

A widely used definition of sustain-ability is that as we meet the needs ofthe present generation, we cannot com-promise the ability of future generationsto meet their own needs. In a coastalstate like RI, one also must think abouthow coastal processes and coastal devel-opment might be affected by a naturalhazard event, and what impact theseverity of losses might have on thelong-term economic vitality, environ-mental health and quality of life, e.g.,

fisheries, tourism and the enjoyment ofproperty rights.

Natural disasters can affect our jobs,our homes and our children’s ability toone day have a home. The extent towhich a community can recover in a sus-tainable way is related to the decisionsthat are made pre-disaster, and to thedecisions made during recovery. Part ofthat planning musttake into accountthe role of insur-ance, since recoveryfrom disasters to alarge extent hingeson the availability ofinsurance payments.Availability, in turn,is dependent uponthe continued sol-vency of insurers.Measures taken nowto reduce the likeli-hood of catastrophiclosses improveinsurers’ ability tokeep insurance available, and thereforeimprove the community’s ability torecover.

An interest in natural hazard lossreduction and the importance of the sus-tainability concept brought together fourorganizations to form the Rhode IslandHazard Mitigation Project: Rhode IslandSea Grant at the University of RhodeIsland’s Coastal Resources Center, theRhode Island Emergency ManagementAgency (RIEMA), the FederalEmergency Management Agency(FEMA) and the Institute for Businessand Home Safety (IBHS). The purpose ofthe project is to create a disaster-resis-tant state, where communities takeresponsibility for incorporating mitiga-tion into daily practices; the state sup-ports the communities through its ownactions, policies and regulations; and theprivate sector organizes to exchangeinformation, prioritize operational issues

during a natural disaster and establish adirect link with the public sector formitigation, response and recovery.

The catalyst that brought thesegroups together was a relatively weakhurricane (Hurricane Bob) that madelandfall on the southern shore of RI in1991. Twenty-one of Rhode Island’s 39municipalities have coastal shoreline, atotal of 420 miles of coastline. Two-thirds of the state’s population of just

under one million people live in these21 communities. From 1980 to 1993,insured residential and commercialcoastal property grew in value by 153percent, from US$33 to US$83 billion.Hurricane Bob was a wake-up call forthe devastation that could occur to thecoastline and coastal development.

Following Hurricane Bob, RhodeIsland Sea Grant decided to join handswith other interested parties–not theirtraditional partners–using as the com-mon theme the devastation a major hur-ricane could cause to coastal processesand development, and the state’s econo-my.

Rhode Island Sea Grant first startedworking with RIEMA and FEMA, andlater with IBHS, to create a public/pri-vate partnership to find ways to supportthe often conflicting goals of coastal

The Rhode Island Hazard Mitigation Program: A Public/Private Partnership

Coastal erosion

in Charlestown,

Rhode Island.

(continued page 28)


Paying the High Price of OverfishingBy Anne Platt McGinn

Globally, fisheries–and the econom-ic and social benefits they offer soci-ety–are under siege. By recent UnitedNations’ estimates, a majority ofmarine fish stocks and all of theworld’s primary fishing grounds havereached peak production and are indecline. At the same time that fishpopulations are being overexploited,the areas that serve as natural fishfarms–coral reefs, tidal estuaries andocean floor environments–are beingravaged by damaging fishing gear andmethods, and life on land.

Much of the global commercialcatch depends on the 320-kilometerscoastal zone for the most vulnerablestages of life. An estimated 90 percentof commercial fish in the Bay ofBengal, for example, rely on healthymangroves as a nursery for theiryoung, while in East Africa and SriLanka, 95 percent of shrimp andmarine fish live out their entire exis-tence in coastal areas. As these valuablehabitats are filled in to make room forfish farms, industries and expandingpopulations, the species that live theresuffer precipitous declines. Once abun-dant along the U.S. Atlantic coast,stocks of menhaden have declined by26 percent in 10 years, in large partdue to the loss of coastal wetlands.

Besides storing and cycling much-needed nutrients, coastal areas alsocollect pollution, wastes and nutrient-rich effluent from upstream cities,farms and industries. Although somenutrients are necessary, having toomany is harmful. A growing threat tofish in many urban coastal areas is aprocess known as eutrophication,whereby excessive levels of nutrientsbuild up and essentially suffocate themarine environment. In addition, sea-sonal algal blooms erupt off the coastsof China, Japan and South Korea, andin the Black and Baltic seas, often har-boring toxic phytoplankton that poison

and sometimes kill fish and shellfish.Even non-toxic blooms block sunlight,absorb dissolved oxygen, and disruptfood-web dynamics, thereby robbingmarine organisms of needed food.Because of agricultural runoff in theMississippi River basin, the Gulf ofMexico has a biological ‘dead zone’about twice the size of Puerto Ricothat has in effect starved bottom-dwelling marine organisms and forcedfishers further offshore in search ofcatches.

Given an ever-growing human pop-ulace that gravitates more and more tocoastal areas, the health of these areasis likely to worsen. Already, some 2.5billion people (nearly 40 percent ofthe world’s population) live within 100kilometers of a coastline. In the next30 years, more than 6.3 billion peopleare expected to make their homes inthese densely populated corridors, fur-ther stressing the seams between landand sea.

The source of damage to valuableunderwater habitats does not stop atthe shoreline. Fishing gear and meth-ods can also cause direct harm to themarine environment by damaginghabitat areas, reducing cover frompredators, depleting food supplies andlowering local biological diversity.Some areas of the world’s oceans arefished more than others, and thereforetake a harder hit from gear. A third ofthe North Sea is intensively harvestedeach year, for instance, whereasGeorges Bank off New England, USA,was trawled with huge nets three tofour times a year between 1984 and1990, until it looked like a ‘parkinglot,’ according to one researcher. Byrecent estimates, all the ocean’s conti-nental shelves are trawled at least onceevery two years, with some areasimpacted several times a season.

In tropical reefs, a growing threat tomarine species and their habitat is theuse of cyanide poison to capture fishfor a growing US$1 billion annual live-

fish trade. Fishers dive down andsquirt just enough sodium cyanide atthe reef to stun fish, making it easy totrap them alive. Though it involves toolittle poison to harm people who latereat the fish, over time this practice cankill most reef organisms and convert aproductive reef community into agraveyard. Fueled by high profits,cyanide fishing is expected to drivevaluable tropical species to collapse incoral communities worldwide.Cyanide fishing is now reported fromFiji to Eritrea, according to a recentstudy by the Philippines-basedInternational Marine Life Alliance.

An ever present danger to marinespecies worldwide is the capture ofinnocent bystanders. In the process oftaking fish, unwanted species are oftenbrought on board and then thrownback into the sea, often dead or dying.Few of them survive the process ofbeing yanked out of their habitat andthen later dumped overboard. Knownas discards, these unwanted fish arewasted either because they are under-sized or a non-marketable sex orspecies, or because a fisher does nothave a permit to catch them. TheUnited Nations Food and AgricultureOrganization (FAO) estimates that dis-cards of fish alone, not countingmarine mammals, seabirds and turtles,total 20 million tons, equivalent to onefourth of annual marine catch. Globalbycatch–the sum of discards and unin-tentionally caught species that areretained–was estimated at more than28 million tons in 1994.

Underlying the biological signs ofexcessive fishing effort, from highrates of bycatch to damaged ecosys-tems, is the fact that world fishingfleets today are simply too large forthe available resources. Wielding morethan twice the gear and equipmentneeded to extract available resources,fishers have wiped out many individualfisheries and prompted a freefall inglobal fish stocks–and their own prof-


its. Undergirded by a system of gov-ernment bailouts that has propped itup for the last several decades, toomany big boats and too many fishersare taking too much from the sea.Although becoming more evidentamong smaller-scale outfits, the prob-lem is far worse in the commercialsector of top fishing nations, whichfield the world’s largest vessels and the greatest share of the fishing technology.

During the 1970s and 1980s, thegross registered tonnage of worldfleets, a measurement of volume,increased by 90 percent, while thetechnical capabilities of the world fleetas a whole increased more than threetimes as fast, by 330 percent, signify-ing a massive escalation of fishingpower and effort. Despite the invest-ments and improvements in fishingtechnology and harvesting capacity andthe growth in world fish catches, land-ings per gross registered ton (catchrate) declined by 62 percent overallduring these two decades (see figure).Large boats were catching less andearning less for the same amount ofeffort–a direct consequence of over-capitalization.

Rising costs and falling revenueshave made the industry financially vul-nerable. In 1989, worldwide lossesfrom overfishing amounted to roughlyUS$54 billion, based on estimatedglobal fishing costs of US$124 billionand fishing revenues of US$70 billion,according to the FAO. Since 1989, thesituation has grown even more precari-ous. Additions to the world fleet stillexceed deletions and technical capacitycontinues to mount. Current fleetsnow have at least 50 percent morecapacity than they need for world fish-ery resources, according to FAO. TheWorld Wildlife Fund concludes theproblem is much worse: the world’sfleets are 155 percent over capacity.Finding themselves caught in an eco-nomic trap of mounting debt anddeclining yields, fishers have pressuredgovernments to keep fishing quotasintact and to provide short-term eco-

nomic support. Many fishers remain afloat because

governments bear a growing share ofthe losses, through tax incentives, low-interest loans and direct subsidies.Despite the losses in the late 1980s,many governments today continue togive fishers immense amounts of subsi-dies. Using data from the few govern-ments that keep track of these expen-ditures–China, the European Union(EU), Japan, Norway, Russia and theUnitedStates–the U.S.NationalMarineFisheriesService esti-mated thatglobal fishingsubsidies in1995 totaledUS$14 toUS$20 billion.About onethird of all rev-enues fromfisheries comenot from wildcatches, butfrom govern-ment coffers inthe form ofsubsidized loans, preferential tax ratesand other means of economic support.Primarily bestowed by industrial coun-tries on failing fleets that continue tooperate under open access conditions,subsidies encourage recipients toremain in the industry and to continueoverextending themselves financially,thus further straining the resourcebase.

Another government response hasbeen to encourage fishers to shifteffort to other fishing grounds. Withsevere overfishing in the northernhemisphere, industrial countries arenow willing to pay a high price foraccess to southern waters and exclu-sive economic zones (EEZs). In 1996,the EU paid US$229 million–or 43percent of the EU’s annual monies ear-marked for addressing overcapitaliza-

tion–for access agreements with Africa,primarily for the benefit of French,Portuguese and Spanish fishing compa-nies–thereby exporting the overcapacityproblem from North to South. The ves-sel owners themselves pay only a frac-tion of the cost.

In June 1996, the EU signed a US$70million-a-year fisheries access-for-tradeagreement with Mauritania. This latestarrangement expands European rightsalong the 750-kilometer coastline con-

siderably. It stipulates a 45 percent jumpin the number of boats and a 140 per-cent increase in allowed catches as wellas first-time capture rights for highlyprized squid and octopus–despite thefact that Mauritania’s fisheries arealready fully fished and some species areoverexploited. In both Mauritania andits neighbor to the south, Senegal–twocountries whose populations are grow-ing faster than 2.5 percent per year–thedomestic fishing industry and local fish-ermen's associations protested theterms of these agreements. But theirgovernments have largely ignored theiropposition. The EU currently subsidizessimilar arrangements with 14 othernations in West and East Africa–payingless than 10 percent of the value of the

(continued page 28)

Global fleet capacity and catch rate, 1970-89


By Michael A. Rice andArthur Z. DeVera

The Dagupan City, Pangasinan,Philippines area consists of the city andtwo municipalities, Binmaley andLingayen, situated in the river-deltaestuary system of the Agno River atthe head of the Lingayen Gulf. Theregion is an important transportationcenter and fishing port. A number ofsecondary industries have developedincluding boat and fishing gear manu-facturing and fish processing.

The entire economy of the AgnoRiver estuary region is based on fishingand aquaculture. Small trawlers andboats rigged with nets or longlinesland their catch in Dagupan City. Inrecent years the gulf has experiencedsevere overfishing, leading to dimin-ished catches and fewer large boatlandings. To restore the commercialfisheries, the Philippine Bureau ofFisheries and Aquatic Resources(BFAR) proposed a ban on commercialtrawling in the gulf. Public hearingshave been ongoing since 1996, with noresolution as of June 1998.Interestingly, the commercial fishingvessels owners have aquaculture enter-prises in the area.

Aquaculture in theRegion

The Dagupan City region is wellknown for the culture of bangos ormilkfish, (Chanos chanos). Milkfish aretypically grown in shallow extensiveponds reclaimed from mangrove wet-lands. Approximately 8,700 fish pondsof this type cover about 11,300hectares (ha). There are typically 4,000fingerlings per ha and the pondsrequire minimal supplemental feeding,as ponds are fertilized to promote thegrowth of lab-lab, a complex of fila-

mentous algae and phytoplankton thatserve as food. Fish require a three-month growing period before reachingmarket size, and two or three cropcycles per nine-month growing seasonare common. Starting in the mid-1980s, a number of progressive pondoperators modified their extensiveponds by deepening and aerating them.In these semi-intensive ponds, milkfishare stocked in excess of 25,000 finger-lings per ha, and require supplementalfeeding. In 1992, pond production of milkfish was reported to be about12,000 metric tons in the estuary.Several pond operators have diversifiedtheir crops by growing shrimp inmonoculture with crop rotation or as a polyculture species with milkfish.

In 1983 the culture of serranidgroupers, known locally as lapu-lapu,was introduced. Small-scale trialsdemonstrated the commercial viabilityof grouper culture, leading toincreased production. Markets in HongKong and Singapore were developed,and by 1993 grouper production inDagupan City reached about 15,000kg per year.

Until the early 1990s, aquacultureproduction had a high degree ofspecies and technological diversity.Most aquaculture operations werelocal to the province and, to someextent, these operations were wellplaced due to community pressure.Initially, multiple uses of the water-ways occurred with minimal conflicts.For example, oysters, milkfish andgroupers were often cultured in closeproximity to fixed nets placed to cap-ture migrating fish and crustaceans.This polyculture form of aquaculturemanagement optimized output of theestuary. Some fishers profited frompolyculture practices; one example isfishers with oyster farming plots thatalso employed spat collectors thatacted as miniature reefs or fish aggre-gating devices.

Changes in the EstuaryIn the early 1990s, two events

changed the way fisheries and aquacul-ture were conducted. First, on July16, 1990, an earthquake of intensity7.8 on the Richter Scale struck theregion with devastating consequences.The commercial center of the city washeavily damaged and subsided byapproximately one meter. Many low-lying fishponds were inundated.Rebuilding of the city, which includedits fisheries and aquaculture infrastruc-ture, was very costly.

The second event was the decline inthe shrimp industry due to over-inten-sification, sub-optimum managementand disease outbreaks. The shrimpindustry had grown rapidly due to

Aquaculture in Dagupan City, Philippines

Typical 5x7

meter net

pens used to

culture milk-

fish in

the town of

Binmaley


innovations in hatchery and feed tech-nologies. The decline resulted in anover-production of aquaculture feed.To maintain their markets, some feedmanufacturers developed forms ofaquaculture that would decrease theirdependence on shrimp feeds. In theDagupan City region, the type of aqua-culture to expand rapidly was the netpen culture of milkfish. Typically, aftera municipal permit is granted, the netpens are placed in the estuaries andfish are fed on a commercially pre-pared diet for approximately threemonths until they reach market size. Inthe early years, returns on investmentof 300 percent or more in just a fewmonths were not unheard of. In justone 35 m2 net pen, as many fish couldbe reared as in a 0.5 ha extensive fish-pond, without expenses associatedwith real estate or rebuilding due tothe earthquake.

News of this success precipitated arapid expansion of the industry. By1996, in the town of Binmaley alone,records showed that there were morethan 800 registered milkfish pens, pro-ducing an estimated 1,600 tons of fishper year. This figure may be lowbecause it does not count unregisteredpens.

The rapid growth of the industrywas not without its down side. Thenearly unrestrained establishment ofthe milkfish pens led to degradedwater quality, resulting in economiclosses for operators using the moresound polyculture methods. An exam-ple is the halt of all grouper culture inthe estuary in 1995 after hypoxic con-ditions killed some groupers. Likewisebetween 1993 and 1995, oyster pro-duction declined by nearly 50 percentaccording to BFAR.

Eventually, degraded water qualitybegan to affect the milkfish pen opera-tors themselves. By 1996, overnightfish kills occurred regularly in the fishpens in the town of Binmaley.Unpublished BFAR data indicated thatsurface waters in the vicinity of thefish pens often went below 1 mg/l, thelower limit for survival of young milk-

fish. There is also preliminary evidenceof phytoplankton species compositionshifts in the estuary during hypoxicevents.

Emergency GovernmentAction

The severe economic effects of thefish kills have drawn the government’sattention. In early October 1997, theHouse of Representatives of theRepublic of the Philippines passed aresolution requiring an investigation ofthe fish kills. The severity of the situa-tion precipitated an Executive Order bythe president of the Philippines onOctober 17, 1997 which mandated thatall fish pens be removed from the estu-ary until the cause of the fish kills wasdetermined, and that a procedure forlimiting the density of fish pens beinstituted. Ironically, the overall eco-nomic productivity of the estuary maybe increased by aquaculture growthrestriction policies which promote the‘old fashioned’ multi-species methodswith managed stocking densities.

Picking up the PiecesIn general, the academic community

in the Philippines has done an excellentjob of solving production-related prob-lems such as feeds and nutrition andreproductive biology of fish and other

cultured species, but research on envi-ronmental and economic impacts islacking. Around 3,200 tons per year ofwastes from the milkfish pens are

deposited into the estuary, but no dataare available on their effects. Data areneeded to determine the carryingcapacity of fish pens in a particular riveror estuary based on hydrography andcarbon and nutrient loading. Likewise,resource economists need to quantifythe effects of the loss of diverse aqua-culture production methods on theoverall economic yield of the estuary.

Ever since the 1986 devolution ofpower to local officials, managementresponsibilities have rested primarilywith the local government in Binmaley,Lingayen and Dagupan City. Each arenow in the process of developing localordinances regarding fish cages andpens. It is recommended that futureordinances restrict the number or sizeof fish pens by setting a hard and fasttop number and size of allowable pens,and also initiate an annual open auctionsystem. An auction system will allowthe market forces of demand for per-mits to simultaneously maximizemunicipal income, while serving as ameans to protect the estuary.

(continued page 29)

Floating net

pen for ser-

ranid groupers

in the Tapuac

District of

Dagupan City.


By James Spurgeon

Coastal resources are increasinglyrecognized for the immense value theyprovide in the form of both productsand services. However, their utilizationis generally far from efficient and sus-

tainable. A few recent studies haveattempted to expand the overall eco-nomic benefits of using coastalresources on a sustainable basis.

Before the economic returns fromcoastal resources can be maximized, itis essential to have a complete under-standing of the full range of potentialuses and values of the resources and thedriving forces behind their utilization.

Economic values occur both within andoutside of organized markets. An appreci-ation is required of both the financial andeconomic values that coastal resourcescan generate.

Market valued benefits are realizedthrough transactions in the market place,

and are of concern to anyone interestedin the commercial viability of activities.This includes the owners, operators andemployees of businesses or other enter-prises. It also includes the public that con-sumes or otherwise uses the goods andservices provided.

Non-market values, on the other hand,are generally not realized within commer-cial markets. As a result, special studies

are required to estimate the value ofthese goods and services, where value ismeasured in terms of individuals’ will-ingness to pay for the items or servicesinvolved. Common examples of non-market benefits include recreationaluses of public beaches or parks, amenityservices of attractive vistas and thevalue of coastal habitats acting as fishnursery grounds. In addition, economicbenefits include the value people attachto knowing that a resource is main-tained for its potential future uses(option value) and for its continuedexistence (passive-use value).Maintaining non-market economic val-ues provided by resources are of con-cern to anyone benefiting from aresource, and because many non-mar-ket benefits are for public goods underthe management of government, localand national governments play animportant role in managing theseresources on behalf of society.

Maximizing overall economic returnsfrom coastal resources requires theright balance between encouragingincome-generating activities and main-taining or protecting the resources tocontinue providing economic but non-income-generating products and ser-vices. This trade-off must be achievedbearing in mind the long term, andhence should be based on the conceptof sustainability.

A study carried out for English

Maximizing Sustainable Financial and EconomicBenefits of Coastal Resources

Financial values generated by coastal resources, United Kingdom (1996 prices).

Sector Lundy Holy & Farne Morecambe Bay North Norfolk Isles of ScillyIslands

(£000/year) (£000/year) (£000/year) (£000/year) (£000/year)

Direct Recreation 50 400 400 1,000 300Indirect Recreation 850 5,500 150,000 15,000 20,000Fisheries 10 1,300 2,300 960 470Agriculture - - 275 250 -Ports - s >10,000 s sIndustry - - >100,000 s -s = some revenues generated but not valued.

Saundersfoot

Harbour, Wales

aspects associated with developing theharbor. One issue is the relationshipbetween changes in fishing activity andthe views of recreational boat users,locals and visitors. Increasing fishingactivity, particularly the whelk fishery,may conflict with the enjoyment of the

boat users due to the smell and messthat it is alleged to cause. At the sametime, it was recognized that increasedfishing activity may add to the enjoy-ment of visitors to the harbor. To helpassess the situation, two questionnairesurveys were conducted to assess theviews of harbor users, local residentsand visitors.

The Phase 1 investigation revealedthat the opportunity for long-termsustainable exploitation of the shell-fishery in Carmathen Bay usingSaundersfoot Harbour is limited.However, the surveys did provideinformation relating to the futuredevelopment of Saundersfoot Harbour.Ninety-eight boat users and 63 localsand visitors completed the question-naires. The analysis revealed that over50 percent of boat users objected toexpanding the existing whelk fishery,while over 50 percent approved ofincreasing yachting and commercialboating. Expanding other fishing activi-ties was not seen as a major issue.

Information was also gathered on


Nature assessed the overall financialvalue of coastal resources at five sitesin the United Kingdom recognized fortheir importance to marine wildlife.The study involved developing a basicframework to identify and categorizeall coastal related activities. Ball-parkestimates were then made for eachsector as to the annual financial rev-enues generated by activities depen-dent on the use of coastal resources(see table).

The results clearly reveal the hugefinancial revenues generated from arange of activities dependent oncoastal resources. Recreational benefitsmake up a significant proportion of theoverall financial values for the sites,especially when indirect expenditurerelating to accommodation, food andtravel are taken into account.Significant recreational activitiesincluded, among others, sailing, recre-ational fishing, SCUBA diving and vis-iting wildlife sites. When consideredtogether with fisheries, the importanceof maintaining the quality of thecoastal environment becomes appar-ent. Both activities are ultimatelydependent on maintaining biodiversity,the integrity of habitats and controllingpollution of the environment.

The study for English Nature didnot determine the non-market valuefor the different sites, although it didallude to their potential significance.However, another study, partly fundedby the Scottish Natural Heritage, doesbriefly review the overall economicbenefits relating to a range of coastalhabitats. This study provides an initialexamination of the full costs and bene-fits relating to the rehabilitation ofseven different coastal habitats. It indi-cates the relative importance of thecomponents of the total economicvalue (direct and indirect uses plusnon-use values) for each habitat, anddraws together a number of attemptsat valuations from available literature.

The review of benefits highlightsseveral points: 1. that few studies haveattempted to value the full range ofuses (and non-use values) relating to

A sheltered bay in

County Mayo,

Ireland

coastal habitats; 2. that those studiesthat have been undertaken generallyreveal potentially high use and non-usevalues. Coral reefs, for example, havebeen shown to have very substantial usevalues for recreational and coastal pro-tection benefits; areas like the Great

Barrier Reef may also have substantialnon-use value. Quantification of suchvalue can be important for benefit-costanalyses in particular cases, however, agreater understanding of environmentalvalues and the techniques used for theirvaluation is needed.

As our understanding of both thefinancial and economic values of coastalresources advances, our ability toimprove decisionmaking over their opti-mal utilization will improve. Decisionsregarding the management andexploitation of coastal resources canthen be made with the knowledge thataspects of both market (financial) andnon-market economic values are beingfully addressed. The following twoongoing projects are examples of this.

Saundersfoot Harbour,Wales

The first phase of a feasibility studywas recently completed to investigatethe potential for developing the shellfishindustry in Carmathen Bay,Pembrokeshire County, and the poten-tial role of Saundersfoot Harbour. Partof the study is to assess the economic (continued page 29)


By Richard M. Huber andStephen C. Jameson

Throughout the world, both indeveloped and developing

nations, we face complex coastal zonemanagement challenges associatedwith our attempt to achieve economicgrowth without destroying the ecolog-ical systems that support human exis-tence. Coral reef ecosystems are valu-able for many reasons. They providethousands of people with food,tourism revenue, coastal protectionand new medications for increasinglydrug-resistant diseases. Nevertheless,coral reef ecosystems are among theleast monitored and protected naturalhabitats in the world.

Coastal zone management decisionsoften require the integration ofnumerous parameters–frequentlymore than the human mind can handleeffectively. In coral reef ecosystems,these parameters include: the locationof industrial and tourist facilities,water quality issues such as nutrientconcentrations and sedimentation, fish-ing pressure and socioeconomic con-cerns, to name a few. To assist theisland states of The Maldives, Curaçaoand Jamaica (Montego Bay) in effectivecoral reef management, The WorldBank recently created a model(CORAL) using multivariate statisticalprocedures that show the result ofintegrated coastal management (ICM)decisions when a variety of parametersinteract together. Costs are incorporat-ed into the model to help decision-makers choose least-costsolutions–without making mistakesthat are, in many cases, irreversible.

Creating CORAL:Integrating ScientificData and ExpertOpinion

The team: Creating CORALrequired a true team effort. Richard

Huber (The World Bank) supervisedthe project, Stephen Jameson (CoralSeas Inc.) provided ICM and scientificadvice; Frank Rijsberman and SusieWestmacott (Resource Analysis) pro-vided the CORAL user friendly inter-face; Steve Dollar and Mark Ridgley(University of Hawaii) developed thefuzzy logic; H. Jack Ruitenbeek (H. J.Ruitenbeek Resource ConsultingLimited) provided the valuation/eco-nomics; Leah Bunce (NOAA)researched the social science; andcountless other coral reef scientistsreviewed the model assumptions andfinal product.

The primary question the modelasks is: What is the most cost-effectivemeans for achieving a given level ofcoral reef quality as expressed by per-cent coral cover?

The technology: CORAL runson a PC laptop computer. The user-friendly interface is created usingMicrosoft Word and Excel software.The fuzzy engines are in CubiCalc, thelinkage models are in MATLAB and allthe statistical work was done withSPSS software.

The science: The decision supportmodel exhibits two key features. First,it represents existing knowledge ofreef ecology at a detail and within thebounds of accuracy sufficient for pro-ject evaluation. To achieve this aim, themodel has the ability to show theeffects of nonlinear relationshipsamong pollutants, coral reefs and thereefs' larger marine environment.Second, the model is operable andprovides useful results with the infor-mation available at the location ofpotential application. Modifications tothe set of variables to consider, andhow such elements and interactionsare represented, differentiate site-spe-cific models.

A few examples of the many eco-logical test-case scenarios that havebeen simulated with the model are:

• Algae abundance as a function of theinteraction of reef fish grazing pressureand effective nutrient concentration

• Influence of algae and relief on coralcover

• Influence of algae and suspendedsediment on coral cover

• Influence of suspended sediment andsediment deposition on coral cover.

The logic: Coral reef data defi-ciencies, coupled with marked limita-tions on resources for reef researchand management in the developingtropics, led to the adoption of a fuzzy-logic (or fuzzy-sets, fuzzy-systems)approach. Fuzzy methods possess anumber of features making them par-ticularly applicable to the predictionand management of ecological sys-tems. First, they enable rigorous,quantitative system modeling eventhough the variables and their interre-lationships are described initially (i.e.,as inputs to the model) in qualitativeterms. This is especially appropriatewhen human knowledge about thebehavior of systems, such as coral reefecosystems, is approximate and impre-cise at best, making the defining ofparameters all but impossible. Theability to accommodate qualitative dataabout reef systems means that moreinformation about them, from moreand different kinds of sources, is likelyto be available. Since fuzzy logic allowssystems to be described as sets of if-then, linguistically-specified rulesrelating inputs to outputs, it offersgreat potential for utilizing humanjudgment and experiential knowledge,rather than being dependent uponmathematical theory or quantitativedatabases. Finally, relative to conven-tional control systems, those usingfuzzy methodologies have proven easi-er and quicker to develop and morerobust in operation.

The economics: Improved meth-ods for deriving estimates of coral reefbenefits, which are used in conjunction

CORAL: A Least-Cost Management DecisionSupport Model for Coral Reef Ecosystems


with the model’s cost function, arecontinually being developed. This workadapts and refines existing valuationmethods so they take account of thekey characteristics of coral reefs, andderive more accurate estimates ofcoral reef benefits for selected sites. Tokeep the analysis tractable, the modelfocuses on three methods for valuingthe benefits:

1. Direct use valuation–estimatingthe lost productivity or value in theabsence of proper protection or con-servation

2. Contingent valuation–estimatingthe benefits derived from “publicgoods”

3. Marine system biodiversity valua-tion (lower relative importance to theabove)–assessing marine biodiversityvalues using bioprospecting as the pri-mary technical basis for valuation. Ourmodeling research applies each ofthese valuation methods, and thendevelops a synthesized benefits func-tion based on the data collected duringsite-specific economic surveys.

The sociology: The socioculturalimpact assessment facet of the model-ing program examines the sociocultur-al framework of the reef user groupsand determines the sociocultural costsand benefits of management alterna-tives and changes in reef quality. Theoutputs are an assessment of usergroup activities related to coral reefsand recommendations for managementalternatives based on the socioculturalcosts and benefits of alternatives. Theseresults are then incorporated into thelarger economic valuation of the costsand benefits of coral reef managementand protection for the model.

Using CORAL for ICMDecision Support

The integration: The modelguides users through a genericapproach to planning that structuresthe development, analysis and evalua-

tion of sustainable management plans.The model is interactive, allowing userinput with respect to setting of objec-tives and criteria, definition of scenar-ios, selection of measures and strate-gies, and evaluation of impact.

• In Curaçao, the model shows thatthe most cost-effective solution tomaintain the current level of coralcover is a combination of deep-oceanoutfalls for the residential and hotelwaste water, and a reduction of thedischarges from the oil refinery. Suchmeasures also have the potential toincrease the average coral cover by upto 5 percent, and in specific sectionsby 8-12 percent. In contrast, the statusquo scenario shows a continuingdecline in coral cover.

• In The Maldives, the model showsthat the most cost-effective solutionwould be to prevent or limit the directand indirect effects of land reclamation(island enlargement) inside the reef,and prevent or limit the constructionof harbors and access channels.

• In Montego Bay, Jamaica, modelingworkshops have helped focus govern-ment officials and Montego BayMarine Park managers on criticalwater quality and fisheries issues, andhave shaped action plans in the newpark management plan that include anew park zoning plan; a watershedmanagement program; alternativeincome programs for fishermen; mer-chandise, user fee and ecotourism pro-grams for revenue generation; educa-tion, volunteer and public relationsprograms; research and monitoringprograms; and more.

The accuracy: The accuracy of themodel is dependent on the quality ofthe expert opinion and best availablequantitative data. While it is impossibleto validate the model precisely, theaccuracy of the model was assessed viapeer review of the fuzzy rules and bycomparison of model outputs withobserved field data.

ICM Capacity Buildingwith CORAL–HelpingStakeholders

Benefits to policymakers, managersand other stakeholders: The integratedsocioeconomic and ecological model,framed with a user-friendly computerinterface will benefit stakeholders by:

• Assisting the communicationbetween the various stakeholdergroups

• Facilitating the planning processrequired for successful ICM

• Providing a powerful tool to man-agers and stakeholders for demonstrat-ing the need for coastal zone manage-ment–and the impacts of status quomanagement on valuable coral reefresources and the local economy

• Identifying appropriate policy andinstitutional reforms for improving thecapture of resource values associatedwith coral reefs in developing coun-tries

• Clarifying the potential operationalrole of The World Bank and otherdevelopment assistance agencies inhelping to effect these reforms.

The dissemination strategy: Thedissemination strategy for this workfocuses on in-country workshops andseminars for user groups and stake-holders, government agencies, and pri-vate and nongovernmental organiza-tions involved in ICM. It also includesactivities to foster cooperation amongcountries on coordinated environmen-tal policies, strategies and action plansin the coastal zone; and provides aconsultation mechanism for formulat-ing, strengthening, harmonizing andenforcing environmental laws and reg-ulations.

For further information contact:Richard M. Huber, The World Bank(LCSES), 1818 H Street NW, Room I-6025, Washington, DC 20433 USA.Tel: 202-473-8581. FAX: 202-522-3540. E-mail:[email protected]. or StephenC. Jameson, Coral Seas Inc. E-mail:[email protected].

Marine EcotourismGuidelines Project Nears Completion

An initiative by The EcotourismSociety (TES), funded by RoyalCaribbean Cruiseline, is two-thirdscomplete with the completion of threestakeholder meetings in the Caribbean.The meetings were preceded by a lit-erature review focused on tourismguidelines and sustainable tourismmanagement, and by an internationalsurvey of coast-based ecotourismoperators. The survey gathered data onattitudes towards guidelines andimplementation of best practices in thetourism industry.

The stakeholder meetings were heldin St. Kitts, St. John USVI andAkumal, Mexico. Meeting co-hostsincluded the St. Kitts & Nevis Ministryof Tourism, Virgin IslandsEnvironmental Resource Station(VIERS) and Centro EcologicoAkumal. TES and Lakehead Universityof Canada, co-facilitators with TES ofthe stakeholder meeting, organizedmeetings that brought together gov-ernment officials, fisheries and tourismbusiness owners and managers, conser-vation group representatives and com-munity members to discuss issues asso-ciated with coastal tourism, and identi-fy existing and proposed coastaltourism best practices in their region.Participants were encouraged to focuson small-scale, low-consumptionforms of tourism and recreation.However, invariably larger issues suchas impacts on the cruise line industryand mass tourism resort developmentsdid arise.

The main issues identified by repre-sentatives of the three Caribbean desti-nations participating in the projectincluded: enforcement and govern-ment regulations, education (of bothtourist and local community mem-bers), water and waste management,coastal access by local people, the


LATIN AMERICA/CARIBBEAN

G L O B A L

Crown-of-ThornsCleanup Brings NorthSulawesi CommunitiesTogether

Over 250 people from NorthSulawesi joined forces on February 25,1998, to undertake a Crown-of-Thorns(Acanthaster planci) (COTs) cleanupoperation on coral reefs near Bentenan-Tumbak. The COTs cleanup was theresult of a partnership between the vil-lage communities, local government,university faculty, students, local diveand resort operators, and nongovern-mental organizations who came togeth-er to address a pressing coral reef man-agement issue. Volunteer divers andsnorkelers removed 766 COTs fromlocations experiencing the most severeinfestations.

The COTs are naturally occurringstarfish feeding on coral reefs. At times,the number of COTs exceed the capac-ity of a coral reef ecosystem. COTs areefficient predators and can consume 5-13m2 of living coral a year. While COToutbreaks do occur naturally, some sci-entists have suggested that humanactivities, such as overfishing of theCOTs predators, increase the severityand frequency of infestations, butCOTs outbreaks are still a poorlyunderstood phenomenon. One COTsinfestation in the Togean Islands ofCentral Sulawesi devoured 80 percentof living coral on a single reef in lessthan a year.

Proyek Pesisir, a projectimplemented through acooperative agreementbetween the U.S. Agency forInternational Developmentand the University of RhodeIsland, is also planning totrain community membersof the Bentenan-Tumbakcommunities to monitorcoral reefs with specialemphasis on observingCOTs populations. Throughcommunity monitoring,appropriate actions can be

taken to keep the COTs populationunder control. The cleanup is anexcellent example of how communi-ties can forge partnerships with publicand private sectors. It also demon-strates how early action can be takento address a pressing managementconcern which cannot or need notwait until long-term managementplans are completed.

Why a COTs cleanup on Bentenan-Tumbak coral reefs? During an envi-ronmental baseline survey of the coralreef areas around Bentenan-Tumbak inJune 1997, several reef areas werenoted as having a large population ofCOTs. In October, a Proyek Pesisirteam noted a potential outbreak closeto Bentenan Island–an increase innumbers from June surveys. Adetailed follow-up survey by twoProyek Pesisir staff was conducted inDecember to assess the situation. Thenumber of COTs was found to exceedthe normal level and had increasedrapidly in just six months. Afterreceiving advice from specialists,Proyek Pesisir consulted with thecommunity and recommended theCOTs cleanup.

While the cleanup was a success,additional cleanups are being plannedfor reefs not fully cleared of COTsduring this cleanup.

(Excerpted from NRM News,Newsletter of the Indonesia NaturalResources Management Program,Volume 1/No. 1, Jakarta, Indonesia.FAX: 327-5502. May 1998.)

ASIAI N D O N E S I A

R E P O R T S F R O M

T H EF I E L D

R E P O R T S

C O N T I N U E D


For further information contact:Don Robadue, Coastal ResourcesCenter, University of Rhode Island,Narragansett, RI 02882 USA. Tel:401-874-6128. FAX: 401-789-4670.E-mail: [email protected].

Implementing theEuropean Community’sHabitats Directive:Keeping it Simple!

In 1992, United Kingdom marineconservation was given long overdueimpetus by the adoption of theHabitats Directive by member states ofthe European Community (EC). Theaim of this legislation was to strength-en the United Nations’ 1992Convention on Biodiversity by protect-ing rare and threatened habitats andspecies, through the designation of sitescalled Special Areas of Conservation(SACs). Together with SpecialProtection Areas (important areas forbirds designated under the BirdsDirective), SACs form a networkcalled Natura 2000. The aim of thisnetwork is to maintain ‘favourable con-servation status’ for the rarest wildlifeacross the EC.

This was an important step formarine conservation because theDirective included estuarine andmarine areas. For a coastal nation, theUK has had very limited success inestablishing marine protected areas.While numerous voluntary marinemanagement areas exist, there are cur-rently only three sites with statutoryprotection. By implementing theHabitats Directive, approximately 50sites will be protected as SACs or‘European marine sites’ by 2004, rep-resenting significant progress in themanagement of the marine assets.

There are several hurdles to over-come before these candidate sites areformally designated, but UK govern-ment policy is to tackle implementa-tion now. Due to the piecemeal way inwhich maritime issues are currently

LATIN AMERICA/CARIBBEAN

E C U A D O R

EUROPEU N I T E D K I N G D O M

decline of local fishery, coral and man-grove populations, and the role of thetourism industry in sustainable tourism.

TES will summarize the informationfrom the participants, along with theinternational survey of tour operatorscollected by Lakehead University, todevelop a set of guidelines for eco-tourism businesses in coastal areas.

An initial draft of the guidelines willbe available for comment by lateOctober. TES invites interested partiesto review the document.

A final draft of the guidelines will beavailable in March 1999 and will incor-porate other industry guidelines includ-ing Ecotourism Guidelines for NatureTour Operators (1993) and EcolodgeGuidelines (1999).

For more information contact:Elizabeth Halpenny, Workshop andMarine Program Coordinator, TheEcotourism Society, PO Box 755, N.Bennington, VT 05257, USA, Tel:802-447-2121. FAX: 802-447-2122.E-mail: [email protected]: http://www.ecotourism.org.

Coastal ResourcesCenter to Help EcuadorCombat Damage Causedby El Niño

The Coastal Resources Center(CRC) at the University of RhodeIsland's Graduate School ofOceanography, Narragansett, RhodeIsland, USA, has been awarded aUS$225,000 contract by theGovernment of Ecuador’s CoastalResources Management Program. CRCwill provide technical assistance incoastal management to the country as itundertakes an ambitious program to

implement special environmental plansin seven critical regions of the country.In 1985, CRC helped initiate theEcuador coastal program in partner-ship with the U.S. Agency forInternational Development (USAID),and CRC was also responsible for thedesign of the Inter-AmericanDevelopment Bank's funding of cur-rent coastal conservation and manage-ment activities in Ecuador.

“This extension of CRC's ongoingwork in Ecuador provides an excellentopportunity for the country to realizethe goal of managing its coastalresources for everyone in the country'sbenefit,” said Don Robadue, projectcoordinator. “In the face of the prob-lems created by El Niño, Ecuador canserve as a model for other countriesstruggling with how to protect andpreserve their coastal areas. CRC isproud to continue its contribution tothe initiative.”

CRC will share its expertise instorm hazard mitigation techniques,which are now being applied in RhodeIsland and throughout the UnitedStates. CRC will focus its work inEcuador on helping local experts pre-pare shore use regulations and plan forstorm damage recovery, after the mostsevere El Niño event in memory.Ecuador's beaches are severely dam-aged, coastal roads and bridges havebeen washed away, and coastal agricul-ture has been disrupted, leading morepeople to move to Ecuador's over-crowded coastal cities. The lessonslearned in both Ecuador and RhodeIsland will be shared to aid future haz-ard mitigation planning initiatives.

The new contract is the secondawarded under a four-year agreementwith the University of Rhode Island aspart of its ongoing work as USAID'sflagship for advancing effective coastalmanagement internationally. CRC haspublished a book on its work inEcuador, “Eight Years in Ecuador: TheRoad to Integrated CoastalManagement,” which is used in coastalmanagement training courses world-wide.

R E P O R T S

C O N T I N U E D


regulated, new mechanisms are neces-sary to facilitate implementation.Organizations which have not tradition-ally been allies are establishing new andeffective working relationships boundby their common duty to implementthe Habitats Directive.

A good working model for the devel-opment of this process is in place at oneof the smaller SAC sites, the Fal andHelford estuaries in southwest England.This area was previously covered by avoluntary coastal zone managementproject in which many of the key orga-nizations participated. Without thisgroundwork, implementing theHabitats Directive would have been farmore arduous, as shown by many othersites. The aim is by March 1999, to havethe Fal and Helford candidate SAC bethe first operational SAC, certainly inthe UK and possibly in Europe.

The management issues covered atthe Fal and Helford sites relate to one

of the four habitats for which the sitehas been selected as a SAC, its subtidalsandbanks. These consist predominant-ly of unattached calcareous algae, com-monly called maerl, which are presentin both live beds and dead deposits. Inaddition, there are areas of eelgrass(seagrass), another threatened marinespecies. Despite the fragility of theseareas, they are subject to recreationaland occasionally commercial anchor-ing, which is especially damaging toeelgrass and live maerl. The deadmaerl is also suction dredged for use asa soil conditioner. The managementscheme will need to address theimpacts of these activities within thecontext of both nature conservationand their socioeconomic role withinthis area.

To integrate these competing objec-tives, an open and pragmatic processhas been adopted, building on the trustthat already exists. Above all, simplici-ty is stressed in what can be an over-whelmingly complex process. The truevalue of this approach is being mea-sured in the speed and relative ease inwhich these management issues arebeing resolved. While in the USA and

Australia these principles are nothingnew, coastal zone management in theUK is still struggling to find its feet. Inthe Fal and Helford estuaries, the UK isperhaps showing something of its truepotential to effectively manage themarine environment.

For further information contact:Samantha Davis, Falmouth Bay &Estuaries Initiative, Lander Building,Daniell Road, Truro, Cornwall, UKTR1 2DA. Tel: +44(0)1872 323607.FAX: +44(0)1872 240423. E-mail:[email protected].

Intercoast on the Worldwide Web

The most recent issues of Intercoast are now available on the Coastal ResourcesCenter’s Worldwide Web site at http://crc.uri.edu. Beginning with Issue #30 onCoastal Zone ‘97, the full text of Intercoast, as it appears in the printed version, will beavailable in PDF format to be downloaded. In addition, Intercoast #28, #29 andIntercoast’s Special Edition #1 are also available, however not in downloadable format.

Intercoast #30–Coastal Zone ‘97 (Winter 1998) (PDF)Intercoast #29–Indicators (Fall 1997)Intercoast Special Edition #1–Mangroves (Spring 1997)Intercoast #28–Gender (Fall 1996)

Electronic Resources

Aquaculture Network InformationCenter. Publications, newsletters and links toother aquaculture sites are found here. Address:http://ag.ansc.purdue.edu/aquatic.

Aquanet. This site covers a variety of topicsincluding aquaculture, conservation, fisheries,maritime heritage and ocean engineering.Address: http://www.aquanet.com.

Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Thesaurus.A list of terms used by ASFA indexers todescribe the contents of publications in a consis-tent, comprehensive and concise manner. Thison-line thesaurus is a rudimentary version of afully interactive thesaurus that will be completedin the near future. The present version does notreproduce the printed thesaurus in its entirety.Address: http://www.csa.com/craig/cd.html.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans ofthe Government of Canada. This site pro-vides useful information and links to the threepriority areas under Canada’s new Oceans Actincluding Marine Protected Areas, IntegratedCoastal Zone Management, and MarineEnvironmental Quality as well as links to a num-ber of other related subjects. Address:http://www.OceansConservation.com.

Estuarine Research Federation (ERF). ERFis an international organization whose purpose isto promote research in estuarine and coastalwaters, to promote communication betweenmembers of affiliated societies, to conduct meet-ings and to be available as a source of advice inmatters concerning estuaries and the coastalzone. Address: http://www.erf.org.

FAO Report on Climate Change Impacts.This site contains a publication that focuses onthe potential impacts of sea level rise on theworld’s coastal populations and agriculture. Thisis a global study mostly based on national data.Address: http://www.fao.org/sd/EIdirect/EIre0045.htm.

H. John Heinz III Center for Science,Economics and the Environment. At thissite is the United States National Oceanic and


Atmospheric Administration and the HeinzCenter’s report “Our Ocean’s Future: Themesand Issues Concerning the Nation's Stake in theOcean” and other information for improving thescientific and economic foundation on environ-mental policy. Address: http://www.heinzctr.org.

Index of Watershed Indicators (IWI). Thissite is the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency’s first national picture of watershedhealth. The Index organizes and presents aquaticresource information on a watershed basis.Address: http://www.epa.gov/surf/iwi.

International Ocean Institute (IOI). TheIOI is an independent, nongovernmental organi-zation devoted to studying and preserving theworld's oceans. The IOI has its headquarters inMalta, and Operational Centres in Canada,China, Costa Rica, Fiji, India, Japan, Malta,Senegal and South Africa. This page is sponsoredby IOI-Canada. Address: http://www.dal.ca/ioihfx.

Sustainable Ecosystems andCommunities. This is a U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency web page designed to pro-mote “Community–Based EnvironmentalProtection.” It addresses environmental priori-ties and economic well-being of communities.Tools, financial resources, case studies, publica-tions and documents, and links to related sitesare provided. Address:http://www.epa.gov/ecocommunity.

Water Quality Information Center at theNational Agricultural Library. This site hasan annotated listing of funding sources related towater resources. Address:http://www.nal.usda.gov/wqic/funding.html.

Publications Canada’s Oceans Strategy. Coastal ZonePosition Paper. The Province of BritishColumbia (Canada) has now formally stated itsposition on coastal management in a positionpaper released in June 1998. It is downloadableat http://www.luco.gov.bc.ca/news/what-snew.htm.

INTERCOASTSIDERFORMATION

Coastal Seas: The Conservation Challenge.1998. By John R. Clark. A succinct, technicalreference of coastal zone resource managementdeals mostly with methodology and providespractitioners, scholars and student with theideas, tools, materials and strategies needed tomanage coastal resources. ISBN 0-632-04955-3.Blackwell Science, Osney Mead, Oxford OX20EL, England. Tel: 01865 206206.

Economic Valuation of Natural Resources:A Handbook for Coastal ResourcePolicymakers. This handbook is a result of aseries of workshops on environmental valuation.Workshops of this sort are currently beingoffered (see Training section of InsiderInformation). National Oceanographic andAtmospheric Administration Coastal OceanProgram Decision Analysis Series No. 5.Contact: NOAA, Coastal Ocean Office, 1315East West Highway, Sta. 15140, Silver Spring,MD 20910 USA. Tel: 301-713-3338. FAX: 301-713-3338. E-mail: [email protected].

Indonesia Natural ResourcesManagement Program Newsletter. NRMNews. May 1998. Quarterly Newsletter. Volume1/No. 1. Contact: NMR News, Jl. Madiun No.3, Menteng, Jakarta 10320 Indonesia. Tel: 2305502. FAX: 327 301.

La Niña is on the Way. The 1997-98 El Niñowas one of the most significant climatic events ofthe century. As it finally disperses, La Niña con-ditions are now developing. La Niña featurescolder than normal sea surface temperatures inthe tropical Pacific Ocean. The cooling trend islikely to continue with the development of LaNiña conditions during the next three to sixmonths. The long-lead climate outlooks are avail-able at: http://nic.fb4.noaa.gov. For furtherinformation on La Niña, visit our website athttp://www.publicaffairs.noaa.gov/lanina.html.

Large Marine Ecosystems of the IndianOcean: Assessment, Sustainability, andManagement. 1998. K. Sherman, E. Okemwaand M. Ntiba (eds.). Marine experts from coun-tries of East Africa and southern Asia describethe conditions of marine resources of the largemarine ecosystem of the Indian Ocean. 394pages. Contact: Marston Book Services Ltd., POBox 269, Abingdon, Oxon OX 14 4YN, England.Tel: 44-01235-465500. FAX: 44-01235-465555.

Conference proceedings from the com-bined conference of the 13th AustralasianCoastal and Ocean EngineeringConference and the 6th Australasian Portsand Harbours Conference. Christchurch,New Zealand, September 1997. Copies ofthe two 550-page volumes which contain 180papers on research and practical examples cover-ing topics related to coastal management, engi-

use codes of conduct. It identifies how thesecodes can be used as a tool to contribute to sus-tainable development. Contact: SMI(Distribution Services) Limited, P.O. Box 119,Stevenage, Herfordshire SG1 4TP England.FAX: +44-1438-748-844. E-mail:[email protected].

SEACAM Publications. For free copies ofthe following publications contact E-mail:[email protected].

Linden, O. and Lundin, C. (eds) 1997. TheJourney from Arusha to Seychelles: Successesand Failures of Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement in Eastern Africa and Island States.Report published by Sida (Stockholm) in coop-eration with the World Bank and theGovernment of Seychelles.

Lundin, C. and Linden, O. (eds). 1997.Integrated Coastal Zone Management inMozambique. Report published by Sida(Stockholm) in cooperation with the World Bankand the Government of Mozambique.

Moffat, D. and Kyewalyanga, M. (eds). 1998.Local and Community Integrated Coastal ZoneManagement. Experiences from Eastern Africa.Report published by SEACAM in cooperationwith WIOMSA, GTZ and Sida. Contact SEA-CAM (E-mail: [email protected]) for freecopies.

Humphrey, S. and Francis J. (eds). 1997.Sharing Coastal Management Experience in theWestern Indian Ocean. Published by WesternIndian Ocean Marine Science Association(WIOMSA).

Proceedings from Secretariat for EasternAfrican Coastal Area Management (SEACAM),March 1998 Zanzibar Workshop. On March 4-7,1998, over 60 stakeholders from Eastern Africaand beyond met to discuss what constitutes asuccessful local and community integratedcoastal management project.

ConferencesNovember 8-13. 51st Annual meeting of theGulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. U.S.Virgin Islands. Fort Pierce, FL, USA. Contact:R. LeRoy Creswell, Harbor BranchOceanographic Institution, 5600 U.S. 1 North,Fort Pierce, FL 34946, USA. Tel: 516-465-2400ext. 405. E-mail: [email protected].

November 8-14. Second InternationalConference on Wetlands and Development.Dakar, Senegal. Contact: Maria Pierce, WetlandsInternational, Marijkeweg 11, PO Box 7002,6700 CA Wageningen, the Netherlands. Tel: 31-317-474711. FAX; 31-317-474712. E-mail:[email protected]/wetl_sen.html.


neering, ports and harhors. The internationalprice is $NZ195 or $US125 (packing andpostage included). Details of the contents can beseen on the WWW at http://www.cae.canter-bury.ac.nz/coastal/pacific.htm, where on-lineordering is available. To order directly contact:Una O'Grady, Centre for Advanced Engineering,University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800,Christchurch, New Zealand. E-mail:[email protected]. Tel: 64 3 3642474. FAX: 64 3 364-2069.

Perverse Subsidies: Tax DollarsUndercutting Our Economies andEnvironments Alike. 1998. By NormanMyers and Jennifer Kent, 200 pages plus chartsand tables. Price $20. ISBN 1-895536-09-x.Further information about this publication canbe viewed at: http://iisd.ca/about/prodcat/govern.htm#perverse. InternationalInstitute for Sustainable Development, 161Portage Ave. East, 6th floor, Winnipeg, ManitobaR3B 0Y4 Canada. Tel: 204-958-7700. FAX: 204-958-7710. E-mail: [email protected].

Rocking the Boat, Conserving Fisheriesand Protecting Jobs. 1998. By Ann PlattMcGinn, Worldwatch Paper #142, An in-depthanalysis concerning the status and future of glob-al fisheries, including the potential economic andsocial benefits and losses, as well as possiblesolutions to the problems facing us. WorldwatchInstitute, 1776 Massachusetts Ave., NR,Washington, DC 20036 USA. Tel: 202-452-1999. FAX: 202-296-7365. E-mail:[email protected].

Swedish Environmental ProtectionAgency. The Swedish EPA has recently pub-lished “Criteria for the Selection of MarineProtected Areas,” 1998 Swedish EPA Report#4834. Contact: Customer Services, SwedishEnvironmental Protection Agency, SE-106 48Stockholm, Sweden. E-mail: [email protected].

United States Environmental ProtectionAgency’s State Water Quality Standard.On June 18, EPA released a national strategyoutlining the process and approach for the devel-opment and adoption of numeric criteria fornutrients for state water quality standards. EPAwill develop nutrient guidance documents forvarious types of waterbodies (e.g., rivers, lakes,coastal waters and wetlands) over the next sev-eral years. The Nutrient Strategy is available athttp://www.epa.gov/ostwater/Rules/nutri-ent.html or contact Bob Cantilli. Tel: 202-260-5546.

Voluntary Industry Codes of Conduct forthe Environment. This technical paper pro-vides guidance on how to develop and effectively

November 11-14. Fifth Asian Fisheries Forum.Chiangmai, Thailand. Contact: AquaticResources Research Institute; Ninth Floor,Institute Building No. 3; ChulalongkornUniversity; Bangkok 10330; Thailand. Tel: 011-662-2188-1603. E-mail:[email protected].

November 16-19. Confronting Uncertainty inthe Evaluation and Implementation of FisheriesManagement Systems. Cape Town, South Africa.Contact: Dr. T.K. Stokes, CEFAS, LowestoftLaboratory, Lowestoft, Suffolk NR33 0HT,England, UK. E-mail: [email protected] or [email protected].

November 23-27. Biodiversity, Biotechnologyand Biobusiness. Perth, Australia. 2ndAsia–Pacific Conference on Biotechnology.Contact: Biodiversity, Biotechnology andBiobusiness, Congress West Pty Ltd, P.O. Box1248, West Perth WA 6872, Australia. FAX: 61-8-9322 1734. E-mail: [email protected].

November 29-December 3. AnnualConference of the International Ocean Institute.Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. Theme: The Crisisof knowledge. Contact: IOI—Canada, DalhousieUniversity, 1226 LeMarchant Street, Halifax,Nova Scotia B3H 3P7, Canada. Tel: 902-494-1737. E-mail: [email protected].

December 8-10. Marina 98. Cape Town, SouthAfrica. Contact: Liz Kerr, ConferenceSecretariat, Marina 98, Wessex Institute ofTechnology, Ashurst Lodge, Ashurst,Southampton, SO40 7AA, UK. Tel: 44 01703293223. FAX: 44-01703-292853. E-mail:[email protected]. Web site: http://www.wes-sex.ac.uk/conferences/marina98/.

January 25-28, 1999. 16Th Annual PacificBasin Coastal Zone Management Conference.Tumon Bay, Guam. Theme: Getting The PIC-TURE. The art of combining Partnerships,Information, Communications and Technology inUsage and Responsible Management of theEnvironment. Contact: Michael L. Ham, GuamCoastal Management Program, P.O. Box 2950,Hagalna, Guam 96932. E-mail: [email protected].

February 13-18, 1999. Glacial-InterglacialSealevel Changes in Four Dimensions. Albufeira(Algarve), Portugal. Contact: Josip Hendekovic,European Science Foundation, 1 quai Lezay-Marnesia, 67080 Strasbourg Cedex, France. Tel:33 3 88 76 71 35. FAX: 33 3 88 36 69 87. E-mail: [email protected]. Web site:http://www.esf.org/euresco.

May 17-21, 1999. 6th International Symposium


certainly be economically justifiable tocontinue to maintain the shingle ridgeon the current basis.3. Three important considerationsneed additional attention. First, fol-lowing the breaches in 1996, the costof maintenance of the shingle ridgeincreased by at least a factor of six.Should such breaching events becomemore common, then the economiccase for protection using the existingapproach becomes less clear-cut.Second, the SMP states that the cur-rent form of protection is not sustain-able in the medium to long term. This

relates to the arguments for managedretreat: resilience to stress and shock.This argument remains valid and willbecome increasingly important as sealevel rises. Third, the results of this verylocalized survey must be considered inthe broader context of the NorthNorfolk coast, as should the potentialenvironmental impacts of any coastal-defense option of the Cley Reserve onthe adjacent coast.4. Additional research is required toaddress these and other considerations.Irrespective of the outcome of futureresearch, however, the message fromthis study is clear: a significant recre-ational benefit can be accrued from amore sustainable defense scheme,

designed to protect as much of the CleyReserve as possible in its present form.

For further information contact: Peter Doktor, Conservation Officer,Norfolk Wildlife Trust, 72 CathedralClose, Norwich NR1 4DF, UnitedKingdom, Tel.: +44 1603 625540, Fax:+44 1603 630593, E-mail: [email protected].

Author’s addresses: Richard J.T.Klein, Vrije Universiteit, TheNetherlands. E-mail:[email protected] and Ian J.Bateman, University of East Anglia,United Kingdom. E-mail: [email protected].

on Model Estuaries, Biogeochemistry of TropicalEstuaries: Human and Natural Changes. Rio deJaneiro, Brazil. Contact: 6th InternationalSymposium on Model Estuaries, Dpt. DeQuimica-PUC/RJ, Rua Marques de Sao VicenteNo. 225, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil CEP:22453-900.FAX: 55 21 529 9569. E-mail: [email protected].

July 24-30, 1999. Coastal Zone ‘99 (CZ’99).San Diego, California USA. The 11th biennialinternational symposium on coastal and oceanmanagement. FAX: 617-287-5575. E-mail:[email protected]. Web site:omega.cc.umb.edu/~cz99.

November 2-6, 1999. Mediterranean CoastalEnvironment (MEDCOAST’99) and theEnvironmental Management of Enclosed CoastalSeas (EMECS’99). Antalya, Turkey. This sympo-sium aims to contribute to coastal and Marineconservation in the Mediterranean and the BlackSea, through improved integrated coastal man-agement practices. Abstracts due November 30,1998. Contact: MEDCOAST Secretariat (MED-COAST 99-EMECS 99 Joint Conference, MiddleEast Technical University, 06531 Ankara, Turkey.Tel: 90 312 210 54 29/40/30/35. FAX: 90 312210 14 12. E-mail:[email protected].

Training andEducationEnvironmental Valuation Workshops. A

NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Regional, Stateand Local Outreach project will provide compre-hensive background on the current state-of-the-art in economic techniques for valuing environ-mental resources and services (environmentalvaluation) and their applications to regional, stateand local planners; coastal zone, marine sanctuar-ies and estuary managers; and natural resourcetrustees. The workshop is designed to assist par-ticipants in understanding environmental valua-tion, the tradeoffs society is making, factors thatshould be considered in making these tradeoffs,data that are useful in making such assessments,and the questions valuation economists can helpanswer.

National Water Quality Database on WaterNavigating the Uncertain Waters of the21st Century: The Role of NewTechnologies in Building a Competitiveand Secure Maritime Infrastructure. Thereis a pressing need for a national and internationaldialog on how the revolution in navigation andinformation systems will affect the maritimebackbone of an increasingly global economy. TheInstitute of Navigation, the National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration, and the U.S. CoastGuard Academy Center for Advanced Studies issponsoring a series of workshops centered onwaterways management. For information on theconference series, contact: Steven Flynn, Tel:860-444-8369. E-mail: [email protected]. or Vincent Wilczynski, Tel: 860-444-8678. E-mail: [email protected].

Nongovernmental Training Courses. TheSecretariat for Eastern African Coastal AreaManagement (SEACAM) will be offering a seriesof NGO training courses. The objective of all the

training courses is to improve the project devel-opment and management skills of national NGOsworking on local and community coastal manage-ment projects. Participants will be representa-tives from local NGOs implementing local andcommunity coastal management projects. Forinformation contact: SEACAM, 874 Av. AmilcarCabral, Caixa Postal 4220, Maputo,Mozambique. Tel: 258-1-300641/2. E-mail:[email protected]. These will be held on thefollowing dates

Sept. 28-Oct. 2, 1998. NGO Training Coursein Tanga, Tanzania. Representatives from Tanzania,Kenya and IUCN’s East African Regional Officeand Tanga Project.

Nov. 23-27, 1998. NGO Training Course inCape Town, South Africa. Participants from SouthAfrica, Namibia and Eco-Africa.

February 1999. Moroni, Comoros.Representatives from Comoros, Seychelles,Madagascar and the Indian Ocean Commission.

April 1999. Mauritius. Representatives fromMauritius, Reunion, the Indian OceanCommission and MACOSS (umbrella NGO).

Training Course for Coastal Management.The Western Indian Ocean Marine ScienceAssociation (WIOMSA), in cooperation with theCoastal Resource Center, University of RhodeIsland (CRC/URI) and a number of otherregional partners, will offer a two-week regionaltraining course for coastal management practi-tioners from East and South Africa and the IslandStates including Comoros, Eritrea, Kenya,Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Seychelles,South Africa and Tanzania. This course will beoffered in the region during the first quarter of1999. See the next issue of Intercoast for furtherdetails.

Freshwater Marsh(continued from page 11)


catch in most cases. The United Statesand Japan have similar agreementswith nations of the South Pacific.

With mounting pressures from bothforeign and domestic boats, the termsof access agreements are coming underincreasing scrutiny. A key issue con-cerns the benefits countries forgo byallowing others to extract their ownnatural wealth and who benefits fromthe price paid for access.

Perhaps the best way to fathom thefull cost of overcapacity and overfish-

Hazard Mitigation(continued from page 13)

stewardship and coastal developmentin RI. The purpose of Rhode Island SeaGrant is to foster conscientious man-agement of coastal resources in part-nership with communities, whileRIEMA’s goal is to ensure that thestate and its communities are preparedto respond to and recover from naturaland technological hazard events.RIEMA also encourages communitiesto take action before disaster strikes,to minimize damage and thereforereduce recovery costs for federal, stateand local governments. FEMA is thenational agency whose mission guidesthe work of the state emergency man-agement agencies. The mission ofIBHS, a national non-profit organiza-tion supported by property insurers inthe United States–both personal andcommercial–is to reduce deaths,injuries, property damage, economicloss and human suffering caused bynatural disasters.

The activities generated from thispartnership include:

• Rhode Island Sea Grant is helpingRIEMA work at the community levelto incorporate mitigation planning intothe state-mandated local comprehen-sive planning process.

• RIEMA is working with IBHS tomake RI a ‘Showcase State.’ This desig-nation will be based on the adaptationof a set of 14 criteria established byIBHS to provide a framework for cre-ating disaster-resistant communities.These criteria reflect the IBHS strate-gic plan, organized around five keyresult areas: public education and out-reach, land use, new construction,retrofit of existing structures andinformation management. Followingare a few examples of the criteria:

◆ Adoption of a statewide buildingcode, enforced without amendment atthe local level (affects new construc-tion)

◆ A model wind- and flood-retro-fitted home, for statewide professionaland student education and training(retrofit; public and private sectorfinancial incentives will be developedto encourage homeowners to imple-ment these measures)

◆ Non-structural retrofit of childcare centers (public education andawareness).

Through their initiatives, RhodeIsland Sea Grant and IBHS are bothhelping RIEMA develop statewidestandards for mitigation. IBHS, RIEMAand Rhode Island Sea Grant are work-ing together to establish a statewideDisaster Recovery Business Alliance,

which will provide the linkagebetween businesses and the state forcoordinated mitigation, preparedness,response and recovery.

Insurers have long known that miti-gation (i.e., action with a long-termimpact to reduce risks to human life,property, natural resources and theeconomic health of our communities)is essential to reduce insured lossesand to maintain communities’ eco-nomic viability. The insurance industrywas instrumental in starting firebrigades, creating building codes andpushing for seat belts and air bags inautos. Now, IBHS is articulating astrong natural hazard loss reductionprogram and is working to make miti-gation a national value by helping tocreate a public demand for safe com-munities and structures. IBHS is work-ing to reduce the likelihood of futureinsured disaster losses. The RI HazardMitigation Project is a work inprogress, one worth following.

For further information contact:Diana L. McClure, Director ofShowcase Communities and SpecialProjects, Institute for Business andHome Safety, 175 Federal Street,Suite 500, Boston, MA 02110-2222USA. Tel: 617-292-2003. FAX: 617-292-2022.E-mail: [email protected].

Overfishing(continued from page 15)

ing is to realize that globally, fishersforfeit profits on the order of US$25to US$30 billion and marine catches ofnearly 20 million tons because fisheriesare not managed properly.

If the industry is to survive, it willneed to move quickly into an era ofprecautionary management and sus-tainable fishing. Among the key ele-ments are steps to protect habitatareas, reduced fishing effort and thereform of faulty economic signals. Amore fundamental change in fisheriesmanagement is also important. The keyto sustainable fishing is not decidingwho takes how many fish, but how to

balance the need to supply food andjobs with the needs of the resource.

(Excerpted from Anne PlattMcGinn, Rocking the Boat: ConservingFisheries and Protecting Jobs,Worldwatch Paper No. 142,Worldwatch Institute, Washington, DC,USA, June 1998.)

For further information contact: Anne Platt McGinn, WorldwatchInstitute, 170 Fourth St., Providence,Rhode Island 02906 USA. Tel/FAX:401-861-8031. E-mail: [email protected]. Web site:www.worldwatch.org.


Finally, the aquaculture industrymembers themselves can help theiroverall long-term economic situationby organizing a local producers organi-zation. Industry organizations of thistype can set professional standards,define customary and best manage-ment practices and bring their con-cerns to government agencies with astronger, unified voice. More impor-

Aquaculture(continued from page 17)

tantly, a professional aquaculturists’association in the Dagupan City areacan restore the process of informalself-policing by peer pressure.Industry pressure may be the mosteffective means for controlling unreg-istered and unlicensed operations thathave been alleged to be a key villain inthis version of the ‘Tragedy of theCommons.’

(This paper is condensed from anarticle appearing in WorldAquaculture (1998) 29(1):18-25.)

For further information contact:Michael A. Rice, Department ofFisheries, Animal and VeterinaryScience, University of Rhode Island,Kingston, RI 02881 USA. Tel: 401874-2943 E-mail: [email protected] Arthur Z. DeVera, Bureau ofFisheries and Aquatic Resources, 860Quezon Ave., Quezon City, 1103Philippines Tel: 632 927-7871. E-mail: [email protected].

the perceived need for other activitiesand improvements to the harbor. Amuseum, aquarium, fish market, ferrytrips along the coast, and wildlife/birdwatching boat trips were requested by40 percent of locals and visitors. Thesefigures demonstrate that perhaps theexisting coastal resources are not fullyutilized. In addition, basic harbor facil-ities such as fueling facilities, showers,toilets, lighting and landscaping wererequested by 30 percent of locals, visi-tors and/or boat users. The fact thatlocals (87 percent), visitors (75 per-cent) and boat users (84 percent) saidthat they were generally willing to paytowards harbor improvements, againindicates unsatisfied economicdemand.

A key recommendation from Phase1 was that a Harbor Improvement Planshould be developed to assess theopportunities for increasing the effi-ciency and overall economic benefitsof the existing harbor. This would beachieved by evaluating the provision ofsmall-scale harbor facilities and infra-structure, and reviewing harbor man-agement practices and charging struc-tures.

Belderrig Harbor, IrelandIn County Mayo, Ireland, a study is

looking at opportunities for developing

Benefits (continued from page 19)

Belderrig Harbor. The existing harboris a single harbor wall extending into arelatively natural but otherwise unpro-tected bay along an undeveloped sec-tion of coast. The harbor wall current-ly provides protection to six or sevenfishing boats. With declining fish catch-es, reduced profit margins and furtherunemployment looming, the localcommunity and harbor users are inter-ested in opportunities to diversify thecoastal activities it offers.

The options include building anouter breakwater, inland dredging,providing basic infrastructure and facil-ity improvements, and doing nothing.Again, a questionnaire survey is beingused, only this time targeted towardsspecialists and organizations knowl-edgeable about both the area and theappropriateness of developing poten-tial coastal activities. Key activitiesbeing evaluated include, among others,sailing, sea angling, SCUBA diving,various adventure watersports and spe-cialist educational and pleasure boattrips.

A strengths, weaknesses, opportuni-ties and threats (SWOT) analysis isbeing used to investigate the fullpotential of each activity. First impres-sions suggest that the site would beperfect for developing a safe haven forthe rapidly expanding yachting activityin Ireland. It could act as a vital step-ping stone linking the northern andsouthern sections of the west coast of

Ireland. However, initial investigations,particularly into site-specific oceanicconditions and weather patterns,reveal significant potential accessrestrictions.

The economic analysis is currentlyunderway and is identifying both thepotential net economic benefits fromthe full range of development options.An attempt is also being made toaddress any potential economic lossesassociated with developing a section ofrelatively unspoiled coastline.Indications so far suggest sufficientbenefits to justify small-scale improve-ments and facilities to supportincreased levels and diversity of recre-ational activities.

An underlying objective of anycoastal development scheme or man-agement plan must be to investigate allpotential coastal-related uses and non-use values and their associated costs.Through such careful comparisons ofbenefits and costs, those involved canbetter understand how best to opti-mize the net benefits from a combina-tion of market and non-market ser-vices provided in coastal areas.

For further information contact:James Spurgeon, Gibb Ltd, GibbHouse, London Rd, Reading, EnglandRG6 1BL.. E-mail:[email protected].

Many coastal management initia-tives–particularly in regions where thepace of change is rapid and institu-tions are weak–fail to make the transi-tion from planning to implementa-tion.Why are there somany plans, lawsand regulations,and protect-ed

areasthat lookso good onpaper butmean so little inpractice? Why iscompliance with some reg-ulations low when others benefit fromenergetic self-enforcement? This nextissue will explore these questions ofImplementation andCompliance.

Intercoast also includes articles ongeneral coastal issues and ‘Reportsfrom the Field,’ summarizing projects

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

Address service requested

Printed on recycled paper

NonprofitOrganizationU.S. Postage

PAIDWakefield, RIPermit No. 19

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

Intercoast is an international newslet-ter of coastal management, publishedthree times each year by the CoastalResources Management Project of theUniversity of Rhode Island's CoastalResources Center (CRC) and the U.S.Agency for International Development(USAID). Funding to publish Intercoast isprovided by USAID's Global EnvironmentCenter, with assistance from the NationalInstitute for Coastal and MarineManagement (RIKZ),The Netherlands.

The objective of Intercoast is to facili-tate information exchange on coastal man-agement. Readers are invited to contactNoëlle F. Lewis, Managing Editor, withquestions and comments on Intercoastand its effectiveness as a source of infor-mation on coastal management.

Intercoast NetworkNoëlle F. LewisCoastal Resources CenterUniversity of Rhode IslandNarragansett Bay CampusNarragansett, RI 02882 USATel: 401-874-6870FAX: 401-789-4670E-mail: [email protected]

Intercoast invites others to reprintarticles found in Intercoast.We wouldappreciate if you would contact Noëlle F.Lewis, at the above address, for permis-sion.

In the Next Issue of Intercoastand achievements or initiatives.Intercoast also includes ‘IntercoastInsider Information;’ listing upcoming

conferences, new publica-tions, web sites, trainingand other useful items.

Articles should be 750-1,500 words, and‘Reports from theField’ are 250-500words. Photos, mapsand other graphicsare strongly encour-aged.We do editarticles as neces-sary to fit theavailable space.

To contributeto Intercoast #33,contact Managing

Editor, Noëlle F. Lewis,Coastal Resources Center,

Graduate School of Oceanography,University of Rhode Island,Narragansett, RI, 02882 USA.Tel: 401-874-6870. FAX: 401-789-4670. CRCWeb site: http://crc.uri.edu. E-mail:[email protected].

Deadline date is December 15, 1998.Articles can be submitted electronically.

Thank you.

narragansett, rhode island, u.s.a. • #32 • fall 1998 this ...•codes of conduct for coastal...

Documents