0
20
40
60
80
100Reef health index
Governmente�ectivenessindex
Tourism index
Percent of population improved sanitation
Mangroveindex
Reef-dependence percentage
THE WORLD BANK
Measuring Coral Reef Ecosystem Health
Integrating Societal DimensionsEnvironment Department
THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USA
Telephone: 202.473.1816Fax: 202.522.3256
Internet: www.worldbank.org/icm
All cover images by MBRS Project, except where noted: Center—Heads of State renewing commitment to Tulum Declaration. Clockwise from top—Figure 3.1 from page 35 on Conceptual Framework; Coral reef monitoring, Belize; Yucatan Peninsula and the Gulf of Honduras, including the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System, NASA Sea WiFF; Cayos Cochinos, Honduras; Mangrove monitoring, Mexico; Rio Dulce, Guatemala
Measu
ring
Co
ral Reef Eco
system H
ealth —
Integ
rating
Societal D
imen
sion
s
36623
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Pub
lic D
iscl
osur
e A
utho
rized
Re p o r t N o . 3 6 6 2 3 – G L B
Measuring Coral Reef Ecosystem Health: Integrating Societal
Dimensions
September 2006
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd ciMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd ci 10/4/06 6:54:44 PM10/4/06 6:54:44 PM
36623
© 2006 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / THE WORLD BANK 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 USA
Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.orgE-mail: [email protected]
All rights reserved. First printing September 2006
Rights and Permissions
The material in this publication is copyrighted. Copying and/or transmitting portions or all of this work without permission may be a violation of applicable law. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank encourages dissemination of its work and will normally grant permission to reproduce portions of the work promptly.
For permission to photocopy or reprint any part of this work, please send a request with complete information to the Copyright Clearance Center Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers MA 01923, USA; telephone: 978-750-8400; fax: 978-750-4470; Internet: www.copyright.com .
All other queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to the Offi ce of the Publisher, The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522-2422; e-mail: [email protected].
Acknowledgements
This work is the product of teamwork and a close collaboration with partners both inside and outside the Bank. The overall team effort, led by Marea Hatziolos, has relied on contributions from experts across many disciplines, but nearly all with a passion for coral reefs. The need to defi ne Ecosystem Health from a multi-dimensional perspective, going beyond ecological an economic drivers to include human health, governance and cultural aspects is largely the work of David Rapport, Luisa Maffi , John Howard and Ola Ullsten. Applying this notion to measure coral reef ecosystem health—through development of a conceptual framework for assessing the health of the MesoAmerican Reef—has been pioneered by Patricia Kramer and Melanie McField with support from Stefano Belfi ore and partners of the “Healthy Reefs for Healthy People” Initiative. John Dixon was the principal author of Chapter 3, moving from the conceptual to the operational stage in assessing MAR health and communicating these results effectively to decision-makers. Lina Ibarra oversaw the acquisition of key data, essential to the analysis of the MAR. In this context, the team also wishes to thank Carlos Gallegos, Anaite Seibt, Evelia Hernandez, Marisol Rivera, Miguel Angel Garcia, Tomas Camarena, Gerardo Gold and other researchers in the fi eld who contributed or facilitated data acquisition. The Team is extremely grateful to peer reviewers (Carlos Munoz, Uwe Deichman, and John Bryant Collier), Laura Tlaiye and Giovanni Ruta for their insightful comments and helpful suggestions on improving the paper.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd ciiMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cii 10/4/06 6:54:46 PM10/4/06 6:54:46 PM
iii
Acronyms
AGGRA Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment
CCAD Central American Commission on
Environment and Development
CBD Convention on Biodiversity
ESI Environmental Sustainability Index
ESW Economic and Sector Work
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GEF Global Environment Facility
GEM Gender Empowerment Measure
GESAMP The Joint Group of Experts on the Scientifi c
Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection
GNI Gross National Income
GPA Global Program of Action (for Protection of
the Marine Environment against Land-Based
Activities)
HDI Human Development Index
IHT Instituto Hondureño de Turismo
ILO International Labor Organization
INE Instituto Nacional de Ecología (México)
IUCN The World Conservation Union
MA 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MAR MesoAmerican Reef
MDG Millennium Development Goals
MEA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
MPA Marine Protected Area
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
PAHO PanAmerican Health Organization
PPP Purchasing Power Parity
TTL Task Team Leader
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNEP United Nations Environment Program
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientifi c and
Cultural Organization
WHO World Health Organization
WRI World Resources Institute
WWF World Wildlife Fund
Vice President: Kathy Sierra
Sector Director: James Warren Evans
Sector Manager: Laura Tlaiye
Team Leader: Marea E. Hatziolos
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd ciiiMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd ciii 10/4/06 6:54:46 PM10/4/06 6:54:46 PM
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd civMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd civ 10/4/06 6:54:46 PM10/4/06 6:54:46 PM
v
Contents
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. v
Chapter 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................1 1.1. Context and Rationale .........................................................................................................................1 1.2. Objectives ...........................................................................................................................................2 1.3. Audience ............................................................................................................................................3 1.4. Dissemination Strategy ........................................................................................................................3
Chapter 2. A Framework for Measuring Societal Dimensions of Coral Reef Ecosystem Health .................................5 2.1. Defi ning Ecosystem Health ...................................................................................................................5 2.2. Developing Indicators of Sociocultural Health .......................................................................................9 2.3. Candidate Indicators .........................................................................................................................11 2.4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................19
Chapter 3. Applying the Framework to the Mesoamerican Reef ...........................................................................21 3.1. Elements of an Indicator Scorecard ....................................................................................................24 3.2. The MAR Countries: A Proposed Reef/Coastal Sustainability Index ........................................................32 3.3. Blue Flags/Red Flags: Using Indicators to Improve Management ..........................................................36 3.4. Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................39
Literature Cited ..............................................................................................................................................43
Annexes1. Environmental Context of the MAR .............................................................................................................452. Individual Profi le Cards for Selected Economic Variables .............................................................................473. Sources for Table 3.2 Indicators .................................................................................................................534. 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and Other Indices .................................................................55
BoxBox 1. Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative ...............................................................................................3
MapsMap 2.1. Density of Reef Fish at selected sites in the MAR ..................................................................................6Map 2.2. Pesticide Residue Levels in the MAR ....................................................................................................7Map 2.3. Biological and Cultural Diversity in Mesoamerica ..............................................................................16Map 3.1. MAR Eco-Region and MPA sites ........................................................................................................22
v
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cvMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cv 10/4/06 6:54:46 PM10/4/06 6:54:46 PM
Figures 1.1. Conceptual Framework: Indicators of Reef Health & Social Well-Being .........................................................83.1. Composite Index of Overall Reef/Ecosystem Health for the Four MAR countries ..........................................35
Tables2.1. Criteria for Indicator Selection ...................................................................................................................92.2. Indicator Framework ...............................................................................................................................112.3. Socioeconomic Indicators ........................................................................................................................122.4. Governance Indicators ............................................................................................................................152.5. Cultural Indicators ..................................................................................................................................172.6. Health Indicators ....................................................................................................................................183.1. National-Level Contextual Indicators (Data from 2002–2004) ...................................................................263.2. Socioeconomic/Governance/Cultural Indicators for Improved Reef Management .......................................273.3. Comparison of Coral Reef Health Indicators ............................................................................................333.4. Overall Reef/Ecosystem Health Indicators .................................................................................................34
vi
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cviMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cvi 10/4/06 6:54:47 PM10/4/06 6:54:47 PM
Executive Summary
“Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems
more rapidly and extensively than in any other comparable
period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly
growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fi ber, and
fuel. Approximately 20% of the world’s coral reefs were
lost and an additional 20% degraded in the last several
decades of the 20th century, and approximately 35% of
mangrove area was lost during this time.’’Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment - Synthesis Report 2005.
Coral reefs, in addition to being the world’s richest
repositories of marine biodiversity and a source of natural
products with far reaching human health and technological
applications, are critical economic assets for nearly 100
countries around the world. They provide goods and
services worth hundreds of billions of dollars annually
in tourism, fi sheries, coastal protection, biodiversity,
sustenance and income to coastal communities.
The root causes of the rapid deterioration of coral reefs
that we are witnessing today lie in direct impacts from
human activities, e.g., over fi shing, destructive fi shing
practices, chronic pollution, sedimentation from degraded
watersheds, and physical alteration associated with
coastal development, tourism, oil and gas exploration.
Increasingly, however, indirect impacts of human activities
linked to climate change and changes in the global
nitrogen cycle are having profound impacts on coral
reefs. Bleaching, increased outbreaks of disease (both
in frequency and type), and greater storm frequency
and intensity are acting as major system drivers along
with more direct human assaults on reefs. These act
synergistically. Poorly managed reefs are more stressed
and less resilient to externalities beyond the control of
local decision-makers.
The Caribbean serves as a microcosm of the events
playing out on the global scale.
“There has been a major and possibly catastrophic decline
in the coral reefs of the wider Caribbean, including the reefs
of the nearby Atlantic, with the estimated decline in live
coral cover of many of the reefs from about 50% cover…just
25 years ago to about 10% cover on these reefs now.” --
Clive Wilkinson, Status of Coral Reefs of the World 2004
Less than a year since these observations were published,
Caribbean reefs experienced the most intense bleaching
episode on record and have been buffeted by a series of
hurricanes, including Hurricane Wilma, which left many
reefs shattered, covered with sediment and vulnerable to
disease. With this rapid erosion of reef health and function,
go the livelihoods and welfare of millions of people who
depend on them directly. Estimates of economic losses
from coral reef degradation in the Caribbean alone range
from $350-870 million/yr by 2015 to coastal countries
which currently receive benefi ts valued collectively at $3-4
billion/yr (Burke and Maidens, Reefs at Risk 2004). What is
alarming about the Caribbean is the rapid transformation
in many areas of once healthy reefs to shadows of their
former vitality and biodiversity.
Reversing such degradation is important to coastal
nations, particularly those with a strong dependence on
vii
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cviiMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cvii 10/4/06 6:54:47 PM10/4/06 6:54:47 PM
viii
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
marine ecosystem goods and services. But knowing how
and when to respond requires a better understanding of
coral reef ecosystem health and the drivers responsible
for change. A comprehensive assessment of coral reef
ecosystem health needs to take into account not only
ecological dimensions, but the human dimension as well.
This study goes well beyond prior efforts to measure coral
reef health based largely on biophysical indicators. These
include, typically, water quality/chemistry; biological
community structure, including coral reef fi sh and coral
assemblages; the extent of coral reef cover vs. algal cover
(the latter indicating signs of eutrophication) and more
recently, evidence of coral bleaching and coral disease,
particularly in the Caribbean.
Here our emphasis is on identifying a complementary
suite of socio-cultural indicators which include economic,
governance, cultural and human health aspects, to
capture the links between social and ecological factors
that shape coral reef ecosystem health. Selecting which
indicators to measure these attributes requires the
application of a simple screen. To be useful, indicators
must pass the test of:
Relevance
Data availability
Scientifi c soundness
Management responsiveness
Communicability (Transparency)
Taken together and monitored over time, the indicators
selected from both biophysical and socio-cultural realms
can act as reliable signals of actual change or potential
change in reef ecosystem response to human and
environmental pressures.
n
n
n
n
n
Developing the conceptual framework for such an
integrated set of indicators and applying it in practice,
is the objective of “Healthy Reefs for Healthy People,”
a joint initiative between the World Bank, the Summit
Foundation, the World Wildlife Fund, Perigee International
and the Central American Commission for Environment
and Development, through a WB/GEF supported project
entitled, “Conservation and Sustainable Use of the
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System. The partnership
aims to provide decision makers in the region with
a set of metrics to accurately assess the health of the
Mesoamerican Reef (MAR). This includes the world’s
second longest Barrier Reef and a system of outstanding
marine habitats, diverse biological and human
communities extending from the Yucatan Peninsula in
Mexico through Belize, Guatemala, and the north coast
of Honduras to the Bay Islands.
As part of the Bank’s contribution to this effort, this report
focuses on identifying an appropriate set of socio-cultural
indicators to complement progress made thus far on
the biophysical aspects of coral reef ecosystem health,
and to apply these indicators to the four countries of the
MAR. Equally important is developing an interpretation
framework to communicate these fi ndings to policymakers
and managers.
All indicators are not created equal. Depending on what
they measure, some will be more or less relevant to the
questions at hand, will have data available on their state
at levels of disaggregation essential to the analysis, will
be more or less robust, sensitive to changes in policy or
management interventions and easy to communicate
to a target audience. The report sets up a process for
selection of a discrete set of indicators appropriate for
the MAR and some comparator countries and develops a
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cviiiMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cviii 10/4/06 6:54:47 PM10/4/06 6:54:47 PM
ix
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Coastal/Reef Sustainability Index based on the following
6 components:
Percent of total population served by sanitation
services
n
Tourism quality
Mangrove loss
Reef-dependence
Governance effectiveness
Reef ecological health.
n
n
n
n
n
Mexico
02040
6080
100Reef Health Index
Government Effectiveness
Index
Tourism Index
% pop. Improved sanitation
Mangrove Index
Reef-dependence %
0
20
406080
100Reef Health Index
Government Effectiveness
Index
Tourism Index
% pop. Improved sanitation
Mangrove Index
Reef-dependence %
Guatemala
020
40
60
80100
Reef Health Index
Government Effectiveness
Index
Tourism Index
% pop. Improved sanitation
Mangrove Index
Reef-dependence %
Belize
020
40
6080
100Reef Health Index
Government Effectiveness
Index
Tourism Index
% pop. Improved sanitation
Mangrove Index
Reef-dependence %
Honduras
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cixMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cix 10/4/06 6:54:48 PM10/4/06 6:54:48 PM
x
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
A composite picture of coral reef ecosystem health emerges
for each of the four MAR countries. These composites
are visually represented in the form of hexagons whose
6 points are aligned along a continuum from 0-100
refl ecting the maximum and minimum normalized values
for that indicator among the four MAR countries. The six-
sided space which emerges is easily compared among
the four countries or with a benchmark in the region to
determine ecosystem health relative to some standard.
Another management approach is to utilize the indicators
that have been identifi ed to see what the “package” of
indicators looks like in a better-managed location, as
opposed to a site where there are more management
challenges. To this end, a blue fl ag/red fl ag comparison
has been identifi ed and the relevant indicators for
each examined. A blue fl ag scenario is one where reef
conservation and economic activities are more in balance
and appear on a more sustainable path. In contrast, a red
Indicator Blue Flag values Red Flag values
Income level p.c. higher lower and/or stagnant
ESI index high low
HDI rank lower higher
Population with sanitation high (~100%) lower (60% or less)
Tourism index higher lower
Room rate high/rising low/falling
Government eff ess index high low
Corruption index lower high/rising
Reef share of economy hogher/growing? lower/falling?
Reef health index high/rising low/falling
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cxMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cx 10/4/06 6:54:49 PM10/4/06 6:54:49 PM
xi
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
fl ag location is one where considerable problems exist—
often a combination of factors that result in both direct
overuse of the reef resources as well as stresses placed on
those resources from the outside.
In both cases, the result is a visual representation of
coral reef ecosystem health along a multi-dimensional
landscape, which is amenable to comparison and easily
interpreted by decision-makers. Values for these indicators
may be location specifi c, with some areas demonstrating
more positive than negative characteristics. However,
assigning values to discrete reef systems should be a
participatory exercise, where reef managers and nearby
communities are involved. Bringing stakeholders together
to assess reef ecosystem health based on intimate
knowledge of the reef and the status of socio-economic/
governance indicators is an excellent way to identify
trouble spots and gain ownership for an action plan.
Both the hexagonal windrose and blue fl ag/red fl ag
representation of indicators in the four countries, raise
concerns about the health of the MAR. Threats to the MAR
are increasing daily with tourism and population growth
(including migration) driving development pathways.
Given the value of the MAR—economically, culturally and
ecologically—to the region, it is essential that decision-
makers understand the effects of their policy choices in
the context of the MAR—its current status and prospects
for long-term health. The indicators presented in this work
help to make these connections clear, making the public
and politicians alike more accountable for their actions.
Like any measures, these can be refi ned with better data
and experience, but the process outlined here represents
an important step in the development of an integrated,
discrete, and cost-effective set of indicators to measure
change in coral reef ecosystem health and its implications
for sustainable development.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cxiMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cxi 10/4/06 6:54:49 PM10/4/06 6:54:49 PM
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cxiiMeasuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd cxii 10/4/06 6:54:50 PM10/4/06 6:54:50 PM
1
Chapter 1Introduction
1.1. Context and Rationale
It is widely recognized that the earth’s ecosystems
are failing (MEA 2005; UNEP et al. 1998). From the
fi rst international conference on the environment at
Stockholm in 1972 to the recent 2002 World Summit
on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, nation-
states and international bodies have continued to
express grave concern about the rapid deterioration
in the resilience and vitality of the earth’s ecosystems.
Ambitious action plans—such as the 1992 Rio Summit’s
Agenda 21—have been devised with the sole purpose
of arresting and reversing the unparalleled loss in
the vitality of the earth’s ecosystems, and signifi cant
commitments have been made at the global, sub-
global, and regional scales. But there has yet to be any
signifi cant turnaround. The 2005 Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (MA), the fi rst global assessment of the state
of the earth’s ecosystems, confi rmed that most systems
are under severe threat, and fi ve—including global
fi sheries and aquatic ecosystems—are especially at risk.
The continued degradation of the world’s coral reefs
(Wilkenson and others 2004, Burke and Maidens 2004,
Aronson and others 2000, Kramer and others 2000) is a
clear manifestation of this trend.
The fundamental causes are rooted in the consequences
of unprecedented pressures from human activity on the
environment: release of waste residuals to air, water,
and land; over-harvesting of renewable resources; the
purposeful or accidental introduction of exotic species;
physical restructuring of the landscape (particularly through
large dams and diversions, urbanization, agriculture,
etc.); and the global impacts of climate change.
According to the MA, some 60 percent of the benefi ts that
the global ecosystem provides to support life on Earth (such
as fresh water, clean air and a relatively stable climate)
are being degraded or used unsustainably. Wetlands and
coral reefs, according to the report, are being degraded
and lost at a more rapid rate than other ecosystems.1
Reversing such degradation is strategically important
to coastal nations, particularly those with a strong
dependence on marine ecosystem goods and services,
small-island states, and small coastal nations or local
economies.
A comprehensive assessment of ecosystem health needs
to take into account not only traditional ecological
dimensions, but the human dimension as well. The evolving
literature on ecosystem health (Rapport et. al.) stresses the
essential interdependence between ecosystem and human
health, as well as the notion that a better understanding
of the linkages among socioeconomic activity, cultural
vitality, human health, and the ecological processes that
regulate the biophysical system is essential to reversing
the degradation of the latter. In response, management
actions are needed at many levels, including:
Identifying and tracking the most fundamental drivers
of ecosystem transformation. There are a number of
n
1 http://www.millenniumnassessment.org/en/index.aspx
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:1Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:1 10/4/06 6:54:50 PM10/4/06 6:54:50 PM
2
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
considerations here, including demographic changes,
environmental refugees, and income disparities.
Recognizing the potential for human activities to enhance
as much as degrade the environment. Traditional
relations of indigenous peoples to their ecosystems
suggest that human activities also have the potential
for maintaining and in some cases even enhancing
ecosystem resilience.
Appreciating the dynamics of ecosystems, with their
inherent uncertainties and surprises. Human activities do
not generally manifest their full impacts on ecosystems
immediately. The cumulative effects of many activities
on the environment unfold over time, which manifests
itself not only in changes in biophysical properties,
but also in changes in the socioeconomic and cultural
dimensions of ecosystems, including changes in human
health vulnerabilities. In short, environmental change
and human well-being are interdependent.
1.2. Objectives
In this study, various tools that are being developed to
measure the relationship between ecosystem health and
societal trends are applied in the context of coral reef
ecosystem health. In so doing, the study attempts to
go well beyond prior efforts to assess coral reef health,
based largely on biophysical indicators. The objective
is to identify a suite of indicators that capture the multi-
dimensional nature of reef ecosystem health, and when
taken together, can act as reliable warning signals
for changes in economic sustainability, quality of life,
and human health which track with trends in coral reef
ecosystem response.
The development and application of this multi-dimensional
metric of coral reef health is then applied to the Mesoamerican
n
n
Reef (MAR). Box 1 illustrates how this framework can be
used. The product of this ESW is the identifi cation and
characterization of an integrated set of societal indicators
that, along with previously defi ned biophysical indicators,
can be used to describe the status and trends in the health
of coral reef ecosystems. To test the utility of this approach,
the study then applies it to develop an appropriate subset
of sociocultural, governance, and human health indicators
for the Mesoamerican Reef. It creates an interpretation
framework for analyzing MAR health and reporting it to
decisionmakers, including comparisons with other countries
in the larger Caribbean region.
The resulting indicator framework can be used to provide
managers or other stakeholders with a set of indicators to
communicate to decision-makers and the general public,
positive or negative trends in the health of coral reefs.
Thus, while the end product of this analysis will be specifi c
to the MAR, the process of selection of a set of appropriate
socio-cultural indicators that can be integrated with
traditional biophysical indicators of reef health has utility
well beyond the context of the MAR. The tools developed
in this process can be adapted for use by reef managers
and social scientists to report on the state of coral reef
ecosystems around the world. Consulting with a range
of stakeholders—from reef managers to public offi cials,
social scientists, NGOs, business entrepreneurs and local
communities--to test the validity and public understanding
of proposed indicators, is an essential element in this
process. This analytical work and complementary efforts
under the Healthy Mesoamerican Reef Initiative, represent
important fi rst steps in broadening our understanding of
the concept of coral reef ecosystem health, our ability to
track it through indicators that resonate with the general
public and to communicate results effectively to those in a
position to intervene.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:2Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:2 10/4/06 6:54:50 PM10/4/06 6:54:50 PM
3
INTRODUCTION
1.3. Audience
While the tools and analytical framework developed
here are particularly relevant to stakeholders in the four
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef countries (of Belize, Guatemala,
Honduras and Mexico), they are likely to resonate with
any country that depends on coral reef ecosystem goods
and services, to underpin economic growth, and to
provide livelihoods, food, and environmental security to
its people. Small Island Developing States (SIDS), which
are highly dependent on marine resources and are
especially vulnerable to climate change, are important
likely users of this work. Communicating the consequences
of accelerating declines in coral reef ecosystem health is
ultimately a matter of concern not only to countries with
coral reefs, but to the larger global community, concerned
with the health of the oceans. As the canaries in the
coal mine, coral reefs are proxies for ocean health and,
hence, the health of our Blue Planet. Monitoring it and
understanding how best to intervene is of interest to all
of us.
1.4. Dissemination Strategy
The report will be delivered to the client—the Central
American Commission on Environment and Development-
CCAD) and the four MAR countries—and presented in
a series of formal presentations and consultations with
stakeholders as part of the Tulum + 8 process. This
process aims to obtain a renewed commitment at the
The MAR is the focus of a partnership among the World Bank, the World Wildlife Fund, the Summit Foundation, Perigee International and a GEF/World Bank regional project, Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System. The Healthy Mesoamerican Reef Ecosystem Initiative (HMREI)2, whose goal and message is “Healthy Reefs for Healthy People,” focuses on the world’s second longest Barrier Reef. This system of outstanding habitats, species complexes, biogeography and cultural resources includes several World Heritage Sites within its boundaries. It extends from the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico south along the coast of Belize, Guatemala, and the north coast of Honduras through the Bay Islands.
The initiative aims to provide decision makers in the region with a set of metrics to accurately and routinely assess the health of the MAR, a regional public good vital to the economic and social well-being of 2 million people who live within its drainage basin. It seeks to develop the key levers by which resource managers can monitor, assess, and evaluate actions taken to restore the health to one of the world’s most biologically and culturally diverse ecosystems. The impetus for this initiative was the Tulum Declaration (1997), which committed these four nations to cooperate in the conservation and management of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef.
Box 1. Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative
2 The Initiative is growing, with over 70 individual contributors, and with The Nature Conser-vancy and Environmental Defense now participating as institutional members, and several other groups ready to engage.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:3Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:3 10/4/06 6:54:51 PM10/4/06 6:54:51 PM
4
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
highest levels of government to long-term stewardship of
the Mesoamerican reef, preserving its health and its ability
to provide essential benefi ts to the people of the region. In
addition, the study will be presented in global workshops
and conferences dealing with marine management issues
to provide a platform for engaging multi-disciplinary
audiences, including economists, health professionals,
ecologists, and anthropologists.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:4Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:4 10/4/06 6:54:51 PM10/4/06 6:54:51 PM
5
2.1 Defi ning Ecosystem Health
Ecosystem health and environmental health are not
synonymous. In practice, environmental health refers to
the health of humans in the context of some environmental
variable, usually expressed in negative terms--for example,
exposure to toxic substances, or disease (Rapport et al
1985.). In contrast, ecosystem health pertains to the
sustainability of ecosystem functions in the presence of
human activities. It focuses on whether ecological functions
are maintained so as to avoid potential adverse effects on
maintenance of renewable resources (such as fi sheries),
human health (through disruption of food supplies, or
increased exposure to vector-borne diseases), sustainable
livelihoods and cultural survival.
Ecosystem health can be looked at in terms of both
ecological functions and social well-being and the
degree to which both exhibit properties of resilience and
adaptation to changing environments. The dimensions of
social well-being include socioeconomic aspects (such as
sustainable livelihoods), governance, cultural health and
human health. While one or more dimensions of ecosystem
health (such as economic well-being) may appear to thrive
at the expense of others (such as biophysical health),
this condition cannot ultimately be sustained. Long-term
ecosystem health implies health in all of its dimensions.
This holistic concept of ecosystem health can be used as
a starting point to determine links between social and
ecological factors that may act as ecosystem drivers
and ultimately as a way to understand how these factors
interact over time to determine coral reef ecosystem health.
This ESW focuses on the human dimension, particularly
socioeconomic activity, cultural practices, human health
and governance systems. Our goal is to derive robust
indicators in each of these domains. These, then, can be
drawn from to develop a coherent subset of indicators
which can be used to assess coral reef ecosystem health
within a given national or regional context. Our aim is to
apply this more holistic approach to broaden our concept
of coral reef health and more accurately gauge the health
of the MAR from a “humans in” perspective.
As noted in the introduction, this focus on socio-cultural/
governance indicators, complements efforts to develop
indicators of coral reef health from an ecological
perspective. Until very recently, most monitoring of coral
reefs has recorded only bio-physical indicators, e.g.,
water quality/chemistry; biological community structure,
including coral reef fi sh and coral assemblages; the extent
of coral reef cover vs. algal cover (the latter indicating
signs of eutrophication) and more recently, evidence of
coral bleaching and coral disease, particularly in the
Caribbean.
For example, Maps 2.1 and 2.2 show the biomass
of hervivorous fi sh and pesticide residue levels
(Hexachlorocyclohexanes) at predetermined sampling
sites along the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef. Data indicates
Chapter 2A Framework for Measuring Societal Dimensions of Coral Reef Ecosystem Health
3 These data are part of a baseline survey of the health of the MAR, carried out under the World Bank/GEF Project (Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System), which is a partner in the Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:5Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:5 10/4/06 6:54:51 PM10/4/06 6:54:51 PM
6
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
heavy concentrations even in select Marine Protected
Areas.3 These biophysical indicators are only a small
subset of ecological indicators typically used to monitor
reef health by coral reef managers and scientists.
However, recently, socio-economic monitoring of human
populations in close proximity to coral reefs, has begun to
be incorporated into coral reef monitoring programs. This
has come about since the publication of fi eld guides and
manuals (e.g., Socioeconomic Monitoring for Coral Reef
Management in Asia, Bunce et al 2001 and Socioeconomic
Monitoring for Coral Reef Management in the Caribbean,
Bunce et al 2003; Christie et al 2003), in response to
the need for managers to understand peoples’ attitudes
toward and dependency on reefs to improve the quality
of their interactions and the fl ow of benefi ts from healthy
reefs now and in the future.
This has provided an impetus to the coral reef community
to become more interdisciplinary and to broaden the
dialogue on coral reef health and sustainability to
include discussions of positive human-reef interactions
and feedback loops which are mutually reinforcing and
sustainable.
An evaluation of the health of ecosystems should go well
beyond ecological measures of health. It should also take
into account relationships between ecological conditions,
human health, cultural values and practices, sustainable
livelihoods and governance. These various aspects do not
necessarily move in the same direction; for example, in
the short term overexploitation of environments may lead
temporarily to increases in socioeconomic well-being and
human health for some sectors of society, while at the
same time resulting in biophysical (ecological) degradation
(Noronha 2003, 2004). In the longer term, however,
continued ecosystem degradation inevitably carries
adverse impacts for all aspects of human well-being,
particularly with respect to human health, sustainable
livelihoods and cultural integrity. Once a society achieves
a certain degree of economic prosperity, however, there
is a greater attention to and demand for environmental
quality.
Map 2.1. Density of Reef Fishat selected sites in the MAR
Source: MBRS Project, Synoptic Monitoring Program.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:6Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:6 10/4/06 6:54:52 PM10/4/06 6:54:52 PM
7
A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
Measuring ecosystem health involves a multidisciplinary
approach (ideally including measures of ecological
integrity, economic sustainability, human health,
governance and culture) at multiple spatial scales (local,
national and regional if ecosystems are transboundary).
The relationship of biophysical aspects of ecosystem
health to societal well-being is evident. Clean water and
air, productive habitats and intact coastlines all provide
direct benefi ts to society. The socioeconomic elements of
ecosystem health are more intuitive and less well defi ned.
For instance, economic activity, while a sign of a productive
ecosystem, can, if taken to an extreme, lead to stress on
ecosystems and a loss of ecosystem integrity and function.
Part of this loss of function is refl ected in resilience to
disturbance and susceptibility to externalities, like climate
change and disease. This takes up valuable energy and
compromises a system’s ability to produce continuous
goods and services, reducing the benefi ts to society.
While less studied, the relationship of human health to
ecosystem health is gaining increasing attention. Clearly,
ecological imbalances are a major source of present-
day human health vulnerabilities, both directly through
exposure to vector-borne and water-borne diseases and
indirectly through impacts on food and water availability.
Governance—that is, ways and means of achieving
policy goals—could play a key role in achieving coral
reef ecosystem health. Without the appropriate buy-in by
communities and decision makers, it may prove diffi cult
to maintain or restore the health of large-scale coral reef
ecosystems, like the MAR. Key indicators of the process
of governance should form an essential component of
measuring ecosystem health. Here we have an opportunity
to break new ground in identifying a meaningful array of
governance indicators of healthy ecosystems.
Similarly, little work has been done on indicators of
cultural resilience and sustainability. The core diffi culties
have to do with the lack of an established framework
for assessing cultural “health”. In some interpretations,
“culture” encompasses everything that is learned; in other
interpretations, culture is restricted to actions that are
Map 2.2. Pesticide Residue Levels in the MAR
Source: MBRS Project, Synoptic Monitoring Program.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:7Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:7 10/4/06 6:54:55 PM10/4/06 6:54:55 PM
8
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
motivated by a deeply held set of beliefs and practices.
Such actions may, for example, pertain to stewardship of
natural resources. Ideally, indicators in this domain should
relate as closely as possible to identifying and quantifying
those cultural practices that are most conducive to
sustaining a healthy ecosystem.
These principles and interrelationships can be illustrated
more effectively in Figure 2.1. Developed for the Healthy
Reefs for Healthy People Initiative (McField and Kramer,
2004), this framework divides attributes of coral reef
health into four key categories: (i) structural attributes; (ii)
functional attributes; (iii) major drivers of system change
Source: Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative (2006).
Figure 1.1. Conceptual Framework: Indicators of Reef Health & Social Well-Being
•Coral diversity•Fish diversity•Focal species
(threatened & endangered species)
•Coral cover•Coral:algal
ratio•Fish abundance•Rugosity
•Water quality (temperature, salinity, transparency)
•Ocean color•Sedimentation
rates
•Coral reef extent
•Mangrove extent
•Seagrass extent
•Coral recruitment
•Coral size frequency
•Fish recruitment
•Fish size frequency
•Human sewage biomarkers
•Tourism index•Costal
development index
•Land use change-footprint
•Contaminant accumulation (sediment & biota)
•Molecular biomarkers of pollutants
•FORAM index (nutrient loading)
•Fish density & size
•Conch/lobster abundance
•Spawning aggregations
•% fishers with alternative livelihood options
•Biomarkers of stress
•Foram index of UV stress
•Coral bleaching index
•Bleaching resistance/ resilience ranking
•Contaminant accumulation (human breast milk)
•Cholera•Safe water/
sanitation•Reproductive
health index
•Stratification of wealth
•Adjusted net savings
•% income from reef
•ESI- environmental sustainability index
•# ethno-languages
•Net in/out migration
•Gender & cultural equality
•Human development index
•Area under protection
•MPA effectiveness ratings
•World Bank governance indicators
•Coral mortality•Coral disease
prevalence•Coral bleaching
prevalence
•Coral growth•Number of
bioeroders on corals
•Net reef accretion
•Herbivorous fish abundance
•Diadema abundance
•Fleshy macroalgal index
•Fish bite rates•Green turtle
abundance
Biodiversity Community Structure
Tourism/Coastal Development
Agriculture & Inland Runoff
Overfishing Global Climate Change
Health Economic Cultural Integrity
Policy/Law
Abiotic Factors
HabitatExtent
Reproduction & Recruitment Coral Condition Reef Accrection
BioerosionHerbivory
STRUCTURE ATTRIBUTES FUNCTION ATTRIBUTES
DRIVERS of CHANGE SOCIAL WELL-BEING & GOVERNANCE
HEALTHY MESOAMERICAN REEF
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:8Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:8 10/4/06 6:54:58 PM10/4/06 6:54:58 PM
9
A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
which can alter (i) and (ii); and, (iv) aspects of human and
social capital which determine the relationship of people
or communities to the reef and the way in which it is used
and managed.
Drawing from this framework, indicators for sociocultural
health of reef ecosystems can be derived. Selection of
indicators should, however, take into account a number
of considerations, as described below.
2.2 Developing Indicators of Sociocultural Health
Major Criteria for Selection of Indicators. To be
heuristic, indicators must satisfy fi ve key criteria, as shown
in Table 2.1: (1) relevance; (2) scientifi c soundness;
(3) feasibility and cost-effectiveness; (4) management
responsiveness; and (5) communication. These are
described in Table 2.1, below
Everything is Linked—How to choose the right
indicators? It is a truism to say that everything is linked—
especially in coastal ecosystems—but this does not mean
that everything must be measured and everything is
equally important. Still, it has been observed around the
world that those societies that do better in meeting social
and national needs often tend to do better in managing
their environment (Dixon and Acharya 2002). This is more
than just an “income affect,” whereby richer countries have
more resources to spend and hence do more. The same
higher income levels also contribute to the stresses that
affect coral reefs, especially the land-based stresses from
construction and increased production of various waste
products. Therefore, the social and cultural organizations
Relevance to reef ecosystem health Does the indicator measure and is sensitive to, socioeconomic, governance, cultural and human health phenomena and trends that are directly or indirectly related to the health of the reef ecosystem? Is this a measure of a healthy or unhealthy state, impacting pressures and behaviors and policy responses to achieve a healthy reef?
Data availability Is the indicator based on readily available and routinely collected data, or data collectable at a reasonable cost- benefi t ratio and in a timely manner, with suffi cient spatial and time coverage and quality in all participating countries?
Scientifi c soundness Is the indicator conceptually and methodologically well founded, representative of established approaches and standards adopted by the scientifi c community, international and regional organizations and national and local practices in the target region?
Management responsiveness Is the indicator responsive to management interventions related to key policy goals and objectives for the region and can it be measured in relation to progress toward agreed-upon targets and timetables?
Communicability (Transparency) Can the indicator be readily communicated to policy makers, eventually as an early warning signal, be understood by stakeholders and the public in a non-scientifi c form and express an unambiguous message about the health of the reef ecosystem in question?
Table. 2.1. Criteria for Indicator Selection
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:9Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:9 10/4/06 6:54:59 PM10/4/06 6:54:59 PM
10
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
that accompany development are probably more
important than income per capita. These have a positive
spillover in the management of natural resources and are
often referred to as either “social capital” or governance.
Unfortunately, social capital has proved to be a very
diffi cult variable to measure, although recent attempts
to measure “governance” via composite indicators have
shown considerable promise.
The implication of this “linkage” effect is that broader
economic/ socioeconomic indicators, whether at a national
or regional level, are also very useful in identifying what
is happening (or not) at the level of the reef. The ultimate
goal of this exercise is to develop a set of indicators that
help reef planners and managers understand changes in
their location, track forces that are helping or harming
the reef and also track and measure the impacts of
investments and policy changes. Once refi ned, this set of
indicators should provide a reasonably accurate measure
of human-reef ecosystem health that should track with
other independent assessments of coral reef health. Local
knowledge and on-the-ground expertise are essential
to this process of verifi cation. The results should “feel
right.”
Indicators Indicate, they do not Dictate. An important
caveat to keep in mind when dealing with indicators is
that they are, as they imply, indicative of something
quantifi able about variables of concern. Very few indicators
are completely unambiguous—in this case, almost any
of them can be used to tell a story that is either positive
or negative for reef health. For example, one proposed
indicator would measure population density in the coastal
area. This indicator can be read two ways: more people
can be a positive sign (indicating economic growth, job
opportunities, attraction to capital and investment) or a
negative sign (indicating increased consumptive use of
the resource, more pollution and more construction). The
defi nitive interpretation would require knowledge of other
factors such as quality of water and sanitation services,
income distribution, health indices, etc.
Economists always say “it depends,” and in this case
the meaning of an indicator very much depends on the
links between population density and other variables.
Therefore, a set of indicators should be selected which
tell a plausible story. Similarly, using the indicators being
proposed here, it would be hypothesized that one set of
indicators might well tell a troubling story for healthy reefs
for healthy people: that is, low income levels, inequitable
distribution of income, low levels of sanitation and potable
water supply, high under-5 mortality rates, low revenues
per hotel room night, low levels of social capital or
governance and weak rule of law. Conversely, the same
indicators with the other signs would tell a different story:
high income levels, good distribution of income, low under-
5 mortality rates, high levels of wastewater treatment and
potable water supply, good governance and rule-of-
law indicators. This sign change lends interpretation of
indicators to be communicated to decision-makers as a
“blue fl ag”—on the right track, or “red fl ag”—warning!
Such scenarios have been developed for specifi c countries
to illustrate this point. They are presented at the end of
Chapter 3.
This study developed a short list of candidate indicators for
each of the four major domains: socioeconomic, culture,
human health and governance. Within each domain,
indicators were selected on the basis of the above criteria.
The fi nal selection (reducing the indicator list in each area
to no more than 3 or 4 indicators) can best be done with
input from the fi eld.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:10Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:10 10/4/06 6:54:59 PM10/4/06 6:54:59 PM
11
A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
2.3. Candidate Indicators
In the following sections, for each topic area we present
a narrative followed by a table providing a short list of
candidate indicators for that topic. Candidate indicators
in socioeconomic conditions, human health and
governance benefi t from considerable previous research,
whereas in the culture area the development of indicators
is breaking entirely new ground. The goal of this analysis
is to develop a small set of indicators with readily available
data, or for which a compelling case may be made for
data collection.
Socioeconomic Indicators. Two main themes can be
identifi ed from the literature: social aspects (demography,
relative wealth, human health) and economic activities
(productive activities based on coastal resources, and
marine transport). These two themes can be divided into
more specifi c sub-themes and issue areas, as follows.
For each issue area, we propose several core indicators,
which are expanded in Table 2.3, below. These core
indicators may be generally referred to as pressures
or drivers of change, states, or responses and may be
measured at different spatial and temporal scales: (1)
national level, (2) sub-national level (such as coastal
departments or departments in watersheds draining into
a reef ecosystem such as the MAR and (3) local or site
level (individual reefs or sites). While indicators at the
national and sub-national level may be comparable
across countries and regions, indicators at the site level
may refl ect only the local situation. Also, values for
indicators will likely vary from level to level, thus care must
be taken not to interpret the mean value of an indicator at
the national level, for its value at the local level.
After the validation of the indicators at the national and
local level, it may be possible to select one representative
indicator for each issue area. However, some of the
indicators are by defi nition ambiguous — e.g., tourism or
aquaculture — as they can express both trends impacting
on the reefs or alternative ways to promote coastal
economy: only an examination of the data at the local
level and the use of qualitative information can assist in
the process of identifying more discriminating indicators.
Governance Indicators. The selection of governance
indicators is based on the role of formal governing
structures at all levels of governments, but will also take
into account informal (civil society), permanent, or ad hoc
structures. Those structures may not have authoritative
power, but can be (and often are) called upon to participate
in decision making with an advisory function, either in a
mandatory or a non-mandatory way.
Theme Subtheme Issue area
Social aspects Demography Population change Relative wealth Poverty Equity Human Health Sanitation
Economic activities Resource use Coastal development Tourism Fisheries Agriculture/Aqua-culture Mineral extraction Transportation Marine transportation
Table 2.2. Indicator Framework
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:11Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:11 10/4/06 6:55:00 PM10/4/06 6:55:00 PM
12
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
Issue area Policy questions Specifi c Topic Indicator
Population and Poverty Are population dynamics sustainable? Population in coastal areas Population growth and density within a certain distance of the coast (watershed, 100 km, coastal municipalities, 10 km) Migration Net migration to the coast Net out migration Incidence of social issues associated with immigration Are income levels and well-being Income % population below national poverty line distributed fairly? / income levels (WB/UNDP) Equity (Gini index) Is human development improving? Human well-being Changes in the HDI (UNDP)
Adjusted Net Savings Are investments in natural and social capital Public expenditures in education % of Gross National Income adequately accounted? and NRM.
Resource use change (land) Is coastal development managed sustainably Coastal development pressure % natural habitats converted Ratio of second to fi rst homes Road infrastructure density Is tourism being managed sustainably Tourism pressure No. hotels/beds Ratio tourists/residents Certifi cations No. tourism certifi cations awarded Alternative livelihoods % income derived from alternative livelihoods
Issue Area Is agriculture being managed sustainably? Natural habitats converted to − % habitat conversion agriculture or aquaculture Use of pesticides − Concentration of pesticide residues in sediment/tissue of indicators species Use of fi sh feeds − Effl uent water quality Certifi cation of farms − % farm land certifi ed Policy Questions Specifi c Topic − Indicators Is deforestation being reduced? Aerial extent of native forests − % habitat conversion Sustainable forestry or − % of “certifi ed companies” Reforestation − Extent of reforestation (ha) Are solid wastes being treated? Solid wastes − Volume of solid wastes being discharged Land fi lls − No. of land fi lls Disposal protocols − Availability of disposal protocols for hazardous waste Is customary land tenure being altered? Land tenure − Land tenure (value of real estate, land sale transactions, including community land and foreign investments)
Table 2.3. Socioeconomic Indicators
(continued on next page)
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:12Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:12 10/4/06 6:55:00 PM10/4/06 6:55:00 PM
13
A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
Are traditional agricultural practices Agricultural practices − Agricultural practices (including fi res) sustainable? Is there activity to reduce pollution at the Waste disposal -- Actions to reduce pollution, including local level? waste disposal
Resources use change (sea) Is sea-based tourism managed sustainably? Cruise ship arrivals Cruise ship arrivals (and # visitors/day; % of resident population) # of certifi ed cruise ship activities Are fi sheries being managed sustainably? Fish stocks − % stocks fi shed within safe limits − # of certifi ed fi sh product programs Closures − Institutionalization of regional closures Is marine transportation impacting the Ports and associated infrastructure − Port State Control functioning? environment? Ship traffi c − Traffi c (tankers, cruise ships, etc.) ? Is sewage (urban, industrial, hazardous) being − volume of waste treated/day adequately managed to minimize − Rate of inspections related to port environmental impact? state control − % untreated effl uent Local Resource change (sea) Alternative livelihoods − New jobs associated with tourism created or no. tourism businesses owned by locals (associative vs. private) Fishing practices − Evidence of sustainable fi shing practices (including fi shing grounds, gears, engines)
Table 2.3. Socioeconomic Indicators (continued)
Issue area Policy questions Specifi c Topic Indicator
Governance relates to the systems and processes of
decision making, the legal framework and institutions
through which decisions are made in society, the ways
in which these interrelate and their relevance and
relationship to the various constituent parts of a nation
(Salim and Ullsten 1999). Governance can be broadly
defi ned as, “the set of traditions and institutions by which
authority in a country is exercised. This includes (1) the
process by which governments are selected, monitored
and replaced, (2) the capacity of the government to
effectively formulate and implement sound policies and
(3) the respect of citizens and the state for the institutions
that govern economic and social interactions among
them. (World Bank Institute 2005: “Governance Matters
IV: 1996-2004.”)
In the context of natural resource management as
envisaged in the Healthy Reefs for Healthy People
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:13Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:13 10/4/06 6:55:01 PM10/4/06 6:55:01 PM
14
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
Initiative, governance seems to manifest in the following
dimensions: the character of land tenure and users’
rights arrangements for the exploitation of resources such
as forests and fi sheries; the distribution of the benefi ts
deriving from those and other natural resources; the
degree of equality between males and females; and the
displacement of communities and groups.
Governance arrangements—or their absence—also have
consequences for how power is being used. This is evident
in the relations between government and people, between
corporations and people and increasingly between
government and corporations. How to handle land use
and other natural resource matters often hinges on how
disputes between stakeholder groups are being resolved.
The purpose of designing and making use of indicators
is to provide a measure of how well agreed-upon policies
are working. If indicators are responsive to policy changes,
they will help government and civil society to know what
causes failure or success in reaching established goals
and how to respond in an adequate way.
While other indicators may be termed policy indicators
when they refl ect existing policies—or status indicators
when they refer to human health, cultural or natural
situations—governance indicators could be categorized
as process indicators. They have less to do with the policy
content and more with how and under which social (and
constitutional) circumstances decisions are made and
what degree of legitimacy they enjoy from members of
the affected communities and other concerned citizens.
Candidate governance indicators are provided in Table 2.4
below. Criteria for the choice of indicators are based on
policy goals that have widespread international support.
Cultural Indicators. The development of cultural
indicators is a fairly new endeavor in the fi eld of
indicators. Organizations such as UNEP, IUCN,
UNESCO and the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) are
grappling with this issue in the context of their current
interest in the interlinkages between biodiversity and
cultural diversity. Thus far, only a few researchers have
undertaken the identifi cation of cultural indicators of
this sort and this work is still breaking new ground.
There are few if any widely accepted standards as yet in
this emerging area.
Thus far, perhaps the most frequently used global cultural
indicator has been a measure of the world’s cultural
diversity, which takes linguistic diversity (number of
different languages spoken worldwide) as a proxy for the
variety of cultures. In recent times, this indicator has been
used to correlate global cultural diversity with measures of
global biodiversity. Initial work to correlate biological and
cultural diversity, using linguistic diversity as a proxy, led
to cross-mapping of the global geographic distributions
of biological and cultural diversity and to analyses of
the overlaps in these distributions. This early work was
done in particular by taking WWF’s representation of the
world’s ecoregions and mapping the world’s languages
onto the ecoregions (Oviedo, Maffi and Larsen 2000,
Skutnabb-Kangas, Maffi and Harmon 2003). These as
well as later mappings that use different representations of
global biodiversity (for example, Stepp and others 2004)
consistently show that areas of high biodiversity and high
cultural diversity tend to coincide, especially in the Tropics
(Amazon Basin, Central Africa, Indomalaysia/Melanesia).
Biologically megadiverse countries also tend to be
culturally megadiverse (Harmon 2002). Mesoamerica is
a case in point, as seen in Map 2.3.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:14Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:14 10/4/06 6:55:01 PM10/4/06 6:55:01 PM
15
A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
For southern Mexico and Central America, this cultural
diversity includes several Mayan peoples, plus Lenca, Pipil,
Hicaque, Garífuna, Miskito, Creoles of mixed African and
European ancestry, Mestizos/Ladinos, as well as small
Asian, Middle-Eastern and Euro-American immigrant
populations. For coastal populations, fi shing is the
main subsistence activity, complemented by small-scale
agriculture, animal husbandry, as well as hunting and
gathering of wild resources. To varying degrees, they also
engage in commercial fi shing, tourism and other market-
driven activities. Participation in the market economy
and other aspects of majority culture has brought rapid
sociocultural change to these communities. Nevertheless,
a strong link between healthier forest and marine
ecosystems and the locations of indigenous peoples’
territories in southern Mexico and Central America was
apparent in a mapping project carried out by the Center
for the Support of Native Lands (Chapin 2003).
All this points to the relevance of traditional beliefs,
knowledge and practices related to species, ecosystems
and ecological relations for the purposes of biodiversity
conservation, including in marine ecosystems (Drew
in press). In its Article 8j, the CBD calls for the Parties
to the Convention to “respect, preserve and maintain
knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous
and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles
relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of
Issue area Policy questions Specifi c Topic Indicator
Governance Is the public good well managed? Good Governance Voice and accountability Does government “work”? Political stability and absence of violence Government effectiveness Regulatory quality Rule of law Control of Corruption Is there evidence of “good governance” Land tenure Changes in land tenure at the subnational level? Implementation of Levels of implementation of decentralization decentralization
Environmental Is environmental awareness and Protected areas Indices of management of effectiveness of MPAsGovernance stewardship increasing? % marine/coastal under protection Compliance with no-take areas Public participation Levels and satisfaction of public in decision making processes (including EIAs) Environmental organizations No. of active local associations (including NGOs, cooperatives, etc).
Environmental lawsuits Environmental lawsuits successfully completed Environmental Sustainability Index Various (see Annex 4)
Table 2.4. Governance Indicators
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:15Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:15 10/4/06 6:55:02 PM10/4/06 6:55:02 PM
16
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
biological diversity.” From this recognition also stems the
importance of adopting cultural indicators in relation to
the assessment of the state of biodiversity. The CBD’s 2010
target has chosen “status and trends of linguistic diversity
and number of speakers of indigenous languages” as a
proxy for measuring the state and trends in traditional
knowledge, innovations and practices relevant to the
conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity (Balmford
and others 2005). Here, the choice of language as a
proxy for traditional knowledge is due to the absence
of global data on the status and trends of traditional
knowledge.
At the same time, at regional or local levels it also
becomes more feasible (as well as desirable) to develop
indicators that will more accurately refl ect the dynamics
of cultural phenomena. This is particularly relevant in
relation to what might be seen as the two main and
interrelated, dimensions of cultural “health:” persistence
and resilience. Persistence refers to the ability of a culture
Map 2.3. Biological and Cultural Diversity in Mesoamerica
Map credits: J.R. Stepp et al., Ethnobiology Lab, Department of Anthropology, University of Florida, 2005
Note: Purple = Mayan language;
Brown = non-Mayan ethnic language
Plant diversity is indicated along a scale from green (low) to red (high).
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:16Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:16 10/4/06 6:55:02 PM10/4/06 6:55:02 PM
17
A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
or cultural group to maintain its core set of values, beliefs,
knowledge and practices (somewhat akin to the concept
of ecological integrity). Resilience refers to the ability of
a culture or cultural group to adapt to new conditions
without losing structure and function (in a way similar to
the ecological concept of resilience).
The list below is a fi rst attempt to propose a general
set of indicators to assess cultural “health” as relevant
to ecosystem health. The proposed indicators are not
necessarily ones that can (or should) always be quantifi able
and lend themselves to statistical manipulation. Qualitative,
evaluative data are needed in this domain, although in
some cases it may also be possible to gather quantitative
data. Currently, what data are being collected, are not
typically available at disaggregated administrative levels.
Health Indicators. Human health is best considered
in the context of ecosystem health. The ecosystem health
approach is particularly important since global economic
and global environmental conditions—all externalities
and beyond the control of the population in any given
ecosystem—can have deleterious effects on the health of
the people in that system. The circulation of pollutants in
the ocean and in the air coming from the global burning
of fossil fuels and the release of toxins into water will have
deleterious effects on a large ecosystem even though the
regional people are not responsible for these problems.
The reverse is also true. Local deforestation and pesticide
use will contribute to global environmental pollution and
greenhouse gases. Human health must be considered
not only at individual, community and regional levels, but
also at a global level, looking at the interaction of the
individual with the global environment.
The complexity of interactions on ecosystem health makes
it impossible to have “clean” indicators as far as health
is concerned; that is, health indicators that respond
proportionately to improvements in a target region’s
coral reef ecosystem health. Health is the result of many
independent and interdependent variables. A useful
model may be to consider health indicators as true health
indicators, disease indicators, or risk indicators.
Issue area Policy questions Specifi c Topicr Indicator
Cultural Identity Are language losses being addressed? Loss of languages LRate of loss of languages ((CBD) % young people speaking native languages Bilingual education Availability of bilingual education
Is the level of education and literacy adequate? Literacy Levels of literacy (UNESCO)
Are traditional customs being maintained? Traditional customs % of families practicing traditional customs
Are gender issues being addressed? Gender biased economic # of males/females being displaced from workforce displacement or home
Is culture being diluted? In-migration of outsiders % migration into traditional areas
Table 2.5. Cultural Indicators
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:17Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:17 10/4/06 6:55:03 PM10/4/06 6:55:03 PM
18
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
Health indicators such as life expectancy, infant survival,
educational level, immunization rate and optimal body
mass index are good indicators of the health of the general
population, but do not provide any direct evidence of
any relation to the health or destruction of a particular
ecosystem.
Human disease indicators show the prevalence of various
diseases in the population and can provide a weak
association with the health of a given reef ecosystem.
Examples for the MAR region would be the annual
incidence of malaria, diarrheal disease, and ciguatera
poisoning (a toxin elaborated by marine bacteria that
results in major nerve damage in the human). Reductions
of these diseases may be interpreted as benefi ts of a
restored MAR.
Risk indicators identify potential problems before they
become obvious. Examples are the levels of various
organochlorides, pesticide residues, heavy metals,
silicates, etc in the people of the MAR region. Intuitively,
the lower the level of a toxin in a person’s body, the
more likely the person will not be at risk of a deleterious
effect from that toxin. Similarly, a falling level of the toxin
Issue area Policy questions Topic Indicator
Health Is life expectancy increasing? Mortality Maternal and infant or under 5 mortality rates (UNDP, WHO) % deaths by respiratory diseases (PAHO) % deaths by heart diseases (PAHO)
Are major diseases being Incidence of key diseases Incidence of AIDS (WHO) successfully combated? Incidence of gastroenteritis (PAHO, GESAMP)
Is access to safe water equitable Safe drinking water % populations with access to safe drinking water (UNEP, and increasing? WHO)
Is access to improved sanitation Improved sanitation % population with access to improved sanitation (UNEP, equitable and increasing? WHO)
Are recreational waters complying Recreational water quality % recreational waters complying with standards with quality standards?
Is seafood safe? Food safety Food quality certifi cation (seafood)
Do people have access to Nutrition % population consuming X amount of protein and source suffi cient nutrition based on existing resources?
Are health issues along coastal Public health concerns Fraction of awareness programs (waste disposal, sexual areas being addressed? education, etc.) specifi c to coastal issues (numerator) vs. national issues (denominator)
Table 2.6. Health Indicators
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:18Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:18 10/4/06 6:55:04 PM10/4/06 6:55:04 PM
19
A FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS OF CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH
may be a good marker of an improved environment.
However, due to lifetime persistence of many toxins in the
human body, a fall in the level of a toxin may not ever
occur even if the environment is cleared of the toxin. The
risk indicators that are chosen must meet the following
criteria: 1) the toxin must be important in the target
region; 2) the toxin must have been studied for some
time in the region to determine changes in concentration;
3) there is a relatively easy and non-invasive method of
determining the body burden of the toxin in humans; and
4) the method chosen must be acceptable to the people
who are to be studied.
For the MAR, a potentially excellent indicator is the
quality of human breast milk and, in particular, the
levels of persistent toxins that are excreted in breast
milk. Analysis of breast milk from nursing mothers in
the region may provide a snapshot of the cumulative
toxicology of the region. Comparing the concentrations
of toxins in the breast milk of nursing mothers in the
region with those not dependent on the MAR is a good
indicator of the effects of differing environments. Further
data collection and analysis of this indicator is pending
for the MAR.
2.4. Conclusions
In this chapter we developed a framework for socioeconomic,
governance, cultural and human health indicators for coral
reef ecosystem health, to complement those indicators
developed earlier for biophysical indicators of reef health.
Although this conceptual framework is applicable to coral
reef ecosystems generally, it has been developed with the
Mesoamerican Reef in mind. We incorporate state-of-the-
art thinking on ecosystem health, which views human and
coral reef health as complementary and interconnected
processes. We then provide a provisional list of potential
indicators in each of the main topic areas: socio-economic,
culture, human health and governance, based on a set of
explicit criteria for candidate indicators.
This list remains to be further defi ned, based on relevance
and the availability of data, along with various other criteria
outlined in the chapter. In the following chapter, we test this
approach by focusing in on a subset of these variables,
which are indicative of conditions in the MAR across the
various socio-cultural and governance dimensions and
relatively easy to communicate to decision makers and
the general public.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:19Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:19 10/4/06 6:55:04 PM10/4/06 6:55:04 PM
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:20Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:20 10/4/06 6:55:05 PM10/4/06 6:55:05 PM
21
Applying the Framework to the Mesoamerican Reef
The Mesoamerican reef (MAR) is a complex ecological
system embedded in an equally complex social system (see
Annex 1). People—at all levels, from individuals and fi rms
to municipalities and governments—both use and affect the
MAR, and there are cause-effect links in both directions. It
is now widely recognized that the threats to the vitality of
the MAR derive from the cumulative impact of a range of
human activities, including tourism, agriculture, shoreline
development, and over-harvesting of marine resources.
The challenge of identifying and quantifying indicators as
a management tool is complicated by myriad interactions
between social systems and ecological systems. For
example, people directly use the MAR—for fi shing,
snorkeling, diving, collecting of corals and mollusks—
and also indirectly affect the MAR via various land-
based environmental impacts, such as the production of
wastewater, nutrients, soil erosion, and solid wastes.
A Rich Resource and Poor People
Studies carried out in the four MAR countries (Map 3.1)
point out that the populations living in watersheds that
drain into the system tend to be poorer than the national
averages. Problems with sewage disposal and solid
waste management (as well as sedimentation and agro-
chemical contamination) are all common. These land-
based problems are also among the biggest threats to the
marine ecosystem.
This situation—a very rich marine ecosystem and very poor
populations living adjacent to it—is both symptomatic
and telling. Those most closely linked to the MAR often
unintentionally pose one of the largest threats to its
sustainability, and have the least immediate economic
incentive to maintain and protect the ecosystem (with the
possible exception of Belize and parts of Mexico because of
the large share of their economies attributable to the tourism
sector (Dixon and Acharya, 2002)). The management
challenge, therefore, is to make the resident populations in
the coastal and watershed areas more active stakeholders in
the health of the MAR, and recognize that healthy reefs are
related to healthy people. Of course, governments and the
private sector are also major sources of pollution and reef-
damaging activities, and need to be involved. Fortunately,
however, these latter two groups often have access to more
resources to address the problems if they chose to do so.
By engaging the various stakeholders (both public and
private, individuals and fi rms) into the process of problem
identifi cation and solution, those who are the present
source of management problems become part of the
solution via enlightened self-interest. This is neither easy
to do, nor will it happen quickly, but it does provide the
most feasible long-term solution to the problem of creating
healthy reefs and (economically) healthy populations.
Many of the products planned within the Healthy Reefs
for Healthy People initiative aim to address this need by
providing information demonstrating these linkages.
The Role and Limits of Indicators
Since sustainable management of the MAR is as much
a social as it is a scientifi c challenge, indicators need to
Chapter 3
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:21Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:21 10/4/06 6:55:05 PM10/4/06 6:55:05 PM
22
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
Map 3.1. MAR Eco-Region and MPA sites
measure both physical and social variables (Dixon, 2005).
Indicators monitor both the present state of affairs, as well
as changes over time. The draft guidebook (Volumes 1
and 2) currently under development for the Healthy Reef
for Healthy People initiative contains indicators grouped
into four broad categories: (1) reef structure, (2) reef
functions, (3) drivers of change, and (4) social well-being
and governance. Over 50 indicators have been initially
identifi ed across these four broad areas of concern (see
Chapter 2). These indicators can in turn be used to develop
other outputs that contribute to the overall measure of
reef ecosystem health.
For example, a proposed “reef scorecard” for each of
the four MAR countries will contain a mix of indicators
of ecological, physical, economic, and social variables.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:22Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:22 10/4/06 6:55:05 PM10/4/06 6:55:05 PM
23
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO THE MESOAMERICAN REEF
These indicators set the stage for a better understanding
of the main management challenges, and whether or not
a policy change or intervention is having an impact. One
example of the scorecard approach is presented at the
end of this chapter as an overall reef/ecosystem health
index. This is based on six indicators (some of which are
composite indicators) and has been illustrated as a six-
sided polygon, whose dimensions are determined by the
values of these indicators for any given reef ecosystem.
Another is the red fl ag/blue fl ag approach, which attempts
to alert decision makers to areas of concern regarding
the values and direction key indicators are taking, or
to provide positive reinforcement for governance and
stewardship when indicators appear to be moving in the
right direction.
A word of caution: The indicator work presented here
represents an initial attempt to blend ecological and social
indicators into a management/decision-based framework
for managers of the MAR. Given the large pool of
potential indicators available and the data problems with
many of them, a decision was made to focus on a subset
of social and ecological indicators and use available
data. We have tried to be open about the assumptions
made, the data sources, and how the different indices
were developed. One hope is that this initial result will
provoke discussion among coral reef users and managers
on how to better refl ect what is happening, and draw
forth better data where they are available. In particular,
the overall reef/ecosystem health index and the red fl ag/
blue fl ag approaches should be considered as “works in
progress.”
Present conditions (ecological, political, economic, and
social) in each of the four countries took years to develop,
and the indicators that refl ect the present situation are not
likely to change dramatically in a year or two. Major policy
changes will take time to implement; indicators that measure
these impacts will also respond, but slowly over time.
The Scale Issue
The analytical and indicator issue is further complicated
by the fact that four countries are directly involved and the
area “of infl uence” of the land portion of each country
varies greatly. Virtually all of Belize is linked to some
degree to the MAR, while for Mexico the link is largely
with one part of one state—Quintana Roo. Guatemala
and Honduras fall somewhere in between.
The implications of scale are that in some cases national-
level indicators are good proxies for the reef-ecosystem/
economic links—such as Belize. In other cases—such as
Mexico—national-level indicators have only tangential
links to what is going on along the coast of the state of
Quintana Roo and the MAR.
Therefore, while national-level indicators in Belize are
relevant to MAR management decisions, in the other
three countries indicators measured at the sub-national
(departmental and municipal levels) level will usually
be more relevant and useful. In theory, almost all of the
identifi ed indicators (the variables/defi nitions, not the
actual values) will be the same at both the national and the
sub-national level—such as indicators on income, waste
treatment, and health outcomes. However, when scale is
an issue, we should be cautious about using indicators
measured at the national level to monitor changes at the
sub-national level. Because of data constraints, it may
be necessary to begin with the national-level indicators
(these indicators are usually available), and then develop
the counterpart sub-national level indicators over time.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:23Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:23 10/4/06 6:55:06 PM10/4/06 6:55:06 PM
24
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
The Cause-Effect Issue
With the plethora of potentially available indicators
(Chapter 2), how does one identify a smaller core set of
key indicators that are meaningful and useful for policy
and management? Some indicators directly measure the
health or status of the reef and are of obvious interest.
Many more indicators, however, have potential links to the
reef but are part of the broader socioeconomic/cultural/
political context within which reefs are managed.
The challenge is to identify a small set of indicators that
meet the fundamental requirements of indicators, outlined
in Chapter 2:
Objectivity
Data availability
Usefulness/ Applicability
Relevance to Policy
Communicability.
and help to tell a plausible story about the system in
question. This is a tall order, but one that can be met, at least
in the fi rst instance. There are many international datasets
that can be used to begin this process. These are used
in the identifi cation of contextual indicators, presented in
Table 2.1 Obtaining values for key indicators at the level of
the MAR—the area of people-reef interaction—has been
more challenging. This has required data mining from
the published and grey literature, requests for information
from public offi cials and NGOs operating in the region,
donor projects and other sources on the ground.
This chapter presents an initial attempt to refi ne and apply
the conceptual framework and candidate socio-cultural
indicators presented in Chapter 2, to the four countries
n
n
n
n
n
of the MAR. It identifi es a subset of relevant indicators,
presents the data that exist, and discusses the links between
indicators and important management issues for the MAR.
These indicators and their values can feed directly into
a number of practical tools being developed under
the Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative, to help
managers and decision makers interpret and disseminate
their monitoring data to improve the quality of conservation
decisions. These include:
• Report Scorecard. The report card is a grading system
to track the status of ecological and human indicators
compared to historic conditions and proposed
conservation targets. It will summarize key indicators
and track their status over time to help foster public
understanding of the health of the MAR and to garner
political support to maintain its health.
• Brochure. (periodic updates about the initiative are
available online at http://www.healthyreefs.org
• Profi le Cards. The profi le of each indicator will be
synthesized into concise indicator cards geared to
decision makers, managers, and the public (examples
are provided in Annex 2).
• Practitioner’s Guidebook. The guidebook will be
a practical manual intended to help practitioners
interpret and understand how to use the integrated
framework of ecological and socioeconomic indicators
and incorporate the information into improving their
sustainable management strategies.
3.1. Elements of an Indicator Scorecard
Tables 3.1 and 3.2 contain a subset of socioeconomic,
governance, and human health indicators (identifi ed in
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:24Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:24 10/4/06 6:55:06 PM10/4/06 6:55:06 PM
25
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO THE MESOAMERICAN REEF
Chapter 2), that can be combined with already identifi ed
indicators for reef structure and reef function to help
track the “health” of coral reefs and the populations that
depend on/affect them. This is a fi rst attempt to narrow
the list or potential indicators that might be used, largely
based on available data. The list of indicators will evolve
in response to the data that are available.
The socioeconomic indicators are presented at two
levels. The fi rst is a broad level that “sets the stage” at
the national or local level and helps place any country in
context when compared to its neighbors. These indicators
are readily available for the national level, and can
often be obtained for the provincial/local level, albeit
with some additional effort. The second set includes
indicators that are directly related to management of the
coral reef and associated coastal areas. These are listed
in two categories: some fall within the drivers of change
category, and some fall within the social well-being and
governance set.
Setting the Stage: Economic Measure of National/ Departmental Populations
National-level indicators are readily available. Even though
the coastal population of each country varies, the national
indicators give a general sense of what is happening
within each country—such as levels of development and
income and major potential issues.
The following indicators (largely taken from the World
Bank’s 2005 Little Green Data Book) are an initial set
of national level indicators that, although they are only
tangentially linked to reef health, provide valuable
contextual information:
Population (millions)
Urban population (% of total)
GNI per capita (Atlas method)
HDI (Human Development Index)
Adjusted Net Savings (Genuine Savings) (% of GNI)
Agricultural land (% of land area)
Fertilizer consumption (100 gms/ ha arable land)
Mangrove loss (1990 and 2000 area, % change)
Access to an improved water source (% of total
population)
• Rural (% rural population)
• Urban (% urban population)
Access to sanitation (% total population)
• Rural (% rural population)
• Urban (% urban population)
Under-5 mortality rate (per 1,000 live births)
Table 3.1 presents the most recent data for these indicators
for the four MAR countries, the Dominican Republic and
the Bahamas, largely (but not entirely) based on the 2006
Little Green Data Book.
A fairly plausible picture emerges of the four MAR
countries and the Bahamas and the DR. Mexico dominates
the region, given its size and income. The Bahamas is
the richest country, followed by Mexico and then Belize.
Honduras and Guatemala are the most rural and the
poorest countries as also refl ected in their low human
development index rankings. The under-5 mortality rates
also track these general patterns: lowest in the Bahamas,
middling in Mexico, higher in the other countries, and
highest in Guatemala (although still substantially below
the recent rates in the poorest countries in the world).
If Table 3.1 sets the stage, more detailed information is
needed at either the national or local level to analyze the
health of the reef-social ecosystem
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:25Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:25 10/4/06 6:55:07 PM10/4/06 6:55:07 PM
26
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
Series Name Belize Guatemala Honduras Mexico Dominican Republic Bahamas
Population (millions) 0. 3 12.3 7 103.8 8.8 0.3
Urban population (% of total) 48.5 47 46 76 59.7 89.7
GNI per capita, Atlas method (current US$) 3940 2190 1040 6790 2100 14920
HDI Overall Rank 91 117 116 53 95 49
Adjusted Net Savings (% of GNI) n/a 1.2 20.8 5.3 16.3 n/a
Agricultural land (% of land area) 7 43 26 56 76 1
Fertilizer consumption (100 grams per hectare of arable land) 671 1307 470 690 818 1000
Mangrove cover (ha) 1990* 78,317 17,800 117,000 1,420,200 23,500 142,000
Mangrove cover (ha) 2000* 62,700 15,800 50,000 500,000 23,500 140,000
Per cent change from 1990 to 2000 –20% –11% –57% –65% –20% –1%
Improved water source (% of population with access 91 95 90 91 93 97
Improved water source, rural (% of rural population with access) 82 92 82 72 85 86
Improved water source, urban(% of urban population with access) 100 99 99 97 98 98
Improved sanitation facilities (% of population with access) 47 61 68 77 57 100
Improved sanitation facilities, rural (% of rural population with access) 25 52 52 39 43 100
Improved sanitation facilities, urban (% of urban population with access) 71 72 89 90 67 100
Mortality rate, under-5 (per 1,000) 39 45 41 28 32 13
Note: Belize, Mexico, and Bahamas are upper middle-income countries; Guatemala, Honduras, and the DR are lower middle income. Source: World Bank, 2006, Little Green Data Book, Washington, DC. *FAO. For a detailed list of sources by indicator, please refer to ANNEX 3.
Table 3.1. National-Level Contextual Indicators (Data from 2002-2004)
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:26Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:26 10/4/06 6:55:07 PM10/4/06 6:55:07 PM
27
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO THE MESOAMERICAN REEF
Belize Guatemala Honduras Mexico Bahamas Dom. Rep
(National /Local Level) National /Local National/Local National/Local National Local National National
Drivers of Change
Coastal Population Density/km2 /10 /105 /57 n/a 50 22 100
Tourism: Mean Occupancy rate /41% 47% 43% 58% 74% 75 %(est) n/a
Mean cost of hotel room US$75 low cost US$41 n/a US$110 US$200 n/a
Social Well-being and Governance
Economic
Income share from reef-dependent activities (%) 31 n/a /46 n/a 55 60 n/a
Gini Index N/A 48.3 55 54.6 50.5 n/a 47.4
Adjusted Net Savings (% of GNI) 2 3.1 20.8 6 n/a 24.3
Health
% Waste Water Treated 57 1 3 15 n/a 80 49
% population served by sanitation 47 61 68 77 92 100 57
Causes of Death among Children under 5 years of age (%) by Diarrheal diseases 3.5 13.1 12.2 5.1 n/a 0.8 11.7
Cultural Integrity
Main ethno-languages spoken in the Quiche/, Cakchiquel, Nahuati, Creole + coastal area Creole,Garifuna Mam, Tzutujil /Garifuna, Miskito n/a Yucatan, dialects n/a Zapoteco, Mixteco
% of population in coastal areas born outside the area n/a 50 70 40 60 n/a n/a
Governance
ESI (Environmental Sustainability Index) Not ranked 44 47.4 46.2 61.22 n/a n/a
Governance effectiveness index 61.1 18.8 27.9 56.7 ? n/a n/a
% of coastal area under protectionMPA mgt. effectiveness 27 0 11 67 2 43
Total # MPAs rated and # rated good/poor//inadequate/unknown 12=1/8/2/1 3=0/0/1/2 12=0/1/2/9 9=0/0/7/2 9=0/1/0/8 15=0/4/2/9
Table 3.2. Socioeconomic/Governance/Cultural Indicators for Improved Reef Management
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:27Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:27 10/4/06 6:55:08 PM10/4/06 6:55:08 PM
28
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
Indicators for Improved Reef Management: Socioeconomic/cultural indicators for improved reef management
A second set of indicators has been compiled with values for
coastal areas in order to provide specifi c information on the
dependence of the coastal population on fi sheries, tourism,
and other activities directly linked to the coral reefs. These
indicators are presented in Table 3.2. This set of indicators
deals explicitly with socioeconomic/cultural factors affecting
the reef. These indicators fall into two of the four broad
groupings found in Figure 2.1 (derived from the report
Healthy Reefs for Healthy People, Year in Review: 2005):
drivers of change, and social well-being and governance.)
Depending on data availability, indicators are presented for
the lowest administrative level for which they are available.
This will often be at the municipal, departmental, or state
level. Gathering local-level data on these indicators is an
ongoing process, and will require primary data collection
in some cases. To the extent possible, information for
these indicators at the local level has been compiled and
presented in Table 3.2 for the four MAR countries and
two comparator countries: the Dominican Republic and
the Bahamas. For ease of comparison with Figure 2.1,
the indicators in Table 3.2 are divided between the two
headings: (1) drivers of change, and (2) social well-being
and governance. However, the indicators in Table 3.2 use
only selected indicators from Figure 2.1 and add indicators
from other sources.
The data are from both the national and local level; in some
cases, both national- and local-level data are presented
(as in the case of Mexico). Although local-level indicators
are preferred, they are not always available. In the case
of Belize or the Bahamas, there is little difference between
national and local level—both are small countries where
the link between the reefs and inland areas and activities
are direct and evident.
Table 3.2 indicators include the following, grouped
according to different subheadings.
Drivers of change
Coastal population density. In general, the more people
who live in the coastal zone, the greater the potential
impact on the reef. This comes via both direct impacts
from use of the reef (fi shing, collecting reef products, or
recreational uses), or, even more importantly in most cases,
from land conversion to housing and other infrastructure
(and resulting sedimentation of coastal waters) and the
associated problems of nutrient and bacterial fl ows and
storm run-off and their negative impacts on reef health
The easiest way to measure this potential impact is to
have an indicator of coastal population density per
square kilometer, and monitor this number over time.
When combined with information on other variables such
as new housing or infrastructure development, and the
treatment and disposal of wastewater and sewage, it is
possible to get a good idea of this important potential
source of pressure on the adjacent coral reefs.
Tourism index based on average hotel room rates and
average occupancy rate. This proposed indicator is one
that is possible to estimate at the local level and is very
informative—both with respect to the actual number (e.g.
how many dollars per night on average for hotel rooms
as well as occupancy rates) as well as the trend over time.
Occupancy rates (percent of rooms sold during any given
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:28Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:28 10/4/06 6:55:08 PM10/4/06 6:55:08 PM
29
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO THE MESOAMERICAN REEF
period) are a valuable indicator of the balance between
supply and demand. Since the physical environment is
not sold per se, hotel room rates can serve as a proxy for
the quality of the environment. Although different types
of tourism development will have different environmental
impacts and may have very different average room rates,
when one observes a decline over time in room rates it is a
clear indication that there are potential problems: declines
often signal issues such as a degrading resource, lower
average and net revenues, and less money available for
environmental management.
In Hawaii, for example, these numbers are reported
regularly in the press for each of the major islands and the
changes over time and the average amount per room (and
occupancy rates) track very well with many other variables
related to the health of the ocean environment. In the MAR
countries, for example, if one location averaged $75 per
room night and another averaged $150, one would expect
that there was also a measurable difference in the “health”
of the reef in the two sites. The actual composition of this
index is described in the Annex 2 profi le cards.
Social Well-being and GovernanceEconomic Variables
Income share from reef-dependent activities. It matters a
great deal if people are directly dependent on reefs for their
income (e.g. fi shing, collecting products, tourism) or if their
impact is via other land-based actions (land development,
agriculture or wastewater disposal). This proposed
indicator is important to take in context—depending on
the activity, a higher share of reef-dependent income can
be both good and bad for the reef. In one location (e.g.
Belize) where recreational uses and tourism are important,
people who are dependent on the reef are likely to be
more sensitive to the health of the reef and the effect of
reef management on their incomes. In locations where
fi shing is a more important activity, people may be poorer
and have fewer options. As reef-dependent income grows
in size, the reef resource is degraded (Dixon 1997; Dixon
and Kelsey, 2004).
One important variable in determining the impact of reef-
dependent activities is whether or not the reef-dependent
income comes from “consumptive direct uses” such as
fi shing, or “non-consumptive” direct uses such as scuba
diving. Consumptive direct uses are more likely to be
damaging to reef health than non-consumptive direct
uses of a similar economic size (making sure that indirect
impacts are also considered when measuring the impacts
of non-consumptive uses). A secondary indicator here
would be the division of reef-dependent income between
consumptive and non-consumptive uses of the reef. This
indicator would require estimating the total reef-dependent
income and then identifying which portion came from
consumptive uses and which came from non-consumptive
uses. In this initial effort, the simplest measure is used as
an indicator: the percent of local income coming from
reef-dependent activities.
Mangrove cover and rate of change: A particularly useful
indicator in the MBRS countries is the change in mangrove
area over time. Many coastal areas in the MBRS countries
are covered with mangroves and they serve important
ecological functions in maintaining the coral reef and
associated fi sh population, protecting water quality,
and providing various benefi ts for coastal populations.
Mangroves are also under pressure from development/
alternative land uses and are being lost at a rapid rate
in many countries. Table 3.1 includes mangrove area
in 1990 and 2000, and the percent reduction between
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:29Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:29 10/4/06 6:55:09 PM10/4/06 6:55:09 PM
30
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
1990 and 2000. As seen, the rate of mangrove loss varies
from almost none (the Bahamas) to over 65% over 10
years (Mexico). These levels may well have increased over
the last fi ve years in parts of the MAR, with the extensive
coastal development and tourist infrastructure underway
along much of the Costa Maya through to central Belize.
As an indicator the rate of mangrove loss gives valuable
information on both the potential loss of the ecosystem
services associated with mangroves, as well as the overall
stewardship of the coastal zone. Lower rates of mangrove
loss usually indicate better and more sustainable coastal
management, and increased recognition of the important
ecosystem links between land use and coral reefs and fi sh
populations. Mangroves also provide important benefi ts
to the coastal areas as buffers to storm surges and storm
damage.
Adjusted net savings, or Genuine Savings. This indicator
is a powerful measure of national-level decision making
and the commitment of a country to saving for sustainable
growth. The indicator is based on the measured gross
savings rate for a country with adjustments for investment
in education and subtractions for use on non-renewable
resources (e.g., energy and minerals) or non-sustainable
management of renewable resources like forests. The
underlying rationale is that we should be concerned
with both the magnitude of gross savings (and hence
investments in a better future) as well as the sources of
that savings—are they sustainable or not? Hence the use
of the terms “genuine savings” or “adjusted net savings.”
This is a composite indicator that refl ects many different
policy variables and would be extremely diffi cult to
estimate at the local level. It is placed in Table 3.2 to give
an indication of national-level policies, and providing an
overall sense of whether a country’s development path is
sustainable or not.
Human Health Variables
Just as economic variables are important in identifying
the types of economic and social forces affecting people
(income levels, distribution of income, population density),
health variables also provide valuable information about
societies.
Three health-related indicators are of particular interest
with respect to nutrient loads in surface waters and their
known negative impacts on healthy reefs: the percentage
of local population served by sanitation and the percentage
of waste water treated are excellent measures of the
provision of basic services to human communities, and
indicators of water quality likely to be found in adjacent reef
environments. The percentage of death due to diarrheal
disease in children under 5 is a refl ection of the above
two indicator states and a measure of the degree of the
water quality problems.. All three indicators relate directly
to people, but also have direct links to the health of coral
reefs, which are extremely sensitive to water quality. National
data are readily available for these, but information about
conditions at the local-level needs to be collected4 to more
accurately guage potential affects on reef.health.
Cultural Integrity
The social/cultural composition of the coastal community
is of great interest. A more settled, stable population
4 A search of UN and other data sources for the Caribbean revealed no information on waste water treatment consistently available below the national level.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:30Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:30 10/4/06 6:55:09 PM10/4/06 6:55:09 PM
31
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO THE MESOAMERICAN REEF
may well have traditional patterns of resource use and
conservation that might be lacking in a very heterogeneous
population with many new immigrants in the population.
Not only are newly arrived groups less likely to have
established customs with respect to natural resource use
and management, but they may well speak different
languages or see their coming to the coastal area as
temporary and therefore feel less sense of belonging or
caring about protecting the natural environment.
Social and cultural indicators were explored at length in
Chapter 2.1; however, little data at the local level are
available. This highlights the need to include more cultural
data in regular socioeconomic monitoring. Two indicators
for which data are available are included in Table 3.2:
the main ethno-languages spoken in the coastal area (to
give an indication of cultural mix and potential traditional
stewardship in an area), and the percentage of population
in the coastal area born outside of the area. The latter
indicator is a good measure of stability in a population,
and the impacts (both good and bad) of rapid population
growth and cultural change.
Again, as with many other indicators, it is not clear if
more languages or more immigration is good or bad – it
depends. These indicators do give a good indication of
the type of socio-cultural setting within which policies
are introduced, and the potential complexity of the social
system in each location.
Governance: Policy/Law
Societies work within institutional and legal frameworks,
either formal or informal. Our working assumption is
that societies where institutions and legal systems are
more developed (and enforced) are more likely to have
better resource management than similar societies with
weak institutions. This complex of issues is also often
referred to as “governance.” Measuring institutions (and
their effectiveness) is never easy, so several indicators
have been proposed that examine these questions from
different aspects.
ESI. The environmental sustainability index (ESI)
benchmarks the ability of nations to protect the environment
over the next several decades. It does so by integrating
76 data sets—tracking natural resource endowments,
past and present pollution levels, environmental
management efforts, and a society’s capacity to improve
its environmental performance—into 21 indicators of
environmental sustainability. These indicators permit
comparison across the following fi ve fundamental
components of sustainability: (1) environmental systems;
(2) environmental stresses; (3) human vulnerability to
environmental stresses; (4) societal capacity to respond
to environmental challenges; and (5) global stewardship
(See Annex 2 and http://www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005_
policysummary.pdf ).
Making rules is easy; enforcing them is often much more
diffi cult. The government effectiveness index is a composite
measure of the effectiveness with which a government
delivers services. The corruption index provides a valuable
insight into the level of corruption in a country. Although
this is a national-level indicator, it usually provides a strong
signal as to the level of corruption at the local level and
the general enforcement of laws and regulations. More
corrupt countries will almost always do more poorly in
managing the environment than countries at a similar level
of economic development, but where corruption is less
of a problem. In Table 3.2, the government effectiveness
index is used as an indicator.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:31Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:31 10/4/06 6:55:10 PM10/4/06 6:55:10 PM
32
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
The area under protection, normally measured as
a percentage of land and/or (in this case) aquatic
area controlled by a country or region, is a commonly
used indicator of basic commitment to protection of
biodiversity. It says little, however, about the effectiveness
of that protection. Therefore an additional measure, MPA
effectiveness, has been added to supplement the fi rst
indicator. Both indicators are presented in Table 3.2 and
provide both a quantitative assessment of marine/coastal
area protected, as well as a qualitative assessment of that
protection.
3.2. The MAR Countries: A Proposed Reef/Coastal Sustainability Index
The four MAR countries can be compared within the context
of the indicator framework presented here. Tables 3.1 and
3.2 contain both the more generic “contextual” indicators
as well as a series of more coastal area/reef-area-specifi c
indicators. Data is a problem—many indicators are only
available at the national level, and the coverage and
defi nition of local-level indicators is spotty.
To add to the challenge, indicators of reef health are
also quite mixed. The area of coverage for each MAR
country varies, the period covered by each measure
is not always the same, and various indicators can be
interpreted differently in the different countries. The
guidelines now being developed under the Healthy
Reefs for Healthy People initiative will help meet this
challenge.
Table 3.3 presents an attempt to develop such an index
based on data collected from 1999−2001 under the
AGRRA (Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef Assessment)
program—a fi rst attempt to assess the condition of coral
reefs throughout the western Atlantic and Gulf region.
Table 3.3 offers a comparison of selected coral reef
health indicators and provides another way to assess reef
health at the country level. Although some of the data is
missing for Guatemala and Honduras, the information
in this table can be used to develop a fi rst cut composite
index of reef health.5.
The real challenge is to link the various indicators available
for each site (both land-based and reef-dependent) to
develop a better picture of the different threats to the
reef and management possibilities (Dixon and Acharya,
2002). One way to envision this is to develop a “wind
rose” picture for each of the four MAR countries, whereby
the different rays would be different indicators or indices
measured on a common framework or scalar. This
approach is similar to that used for the environmental
sustainability index mentioned above and described in
Annex 2. The indicators, or composite indices, for the
coastal/ reef sustainability wind rose are drawn from
Tables 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3.
The proposed coastal/reef sustainability index has the
following six components:
Percentage of total population served by sanitation
services (indicator: percentage of population served
by sanitation, maximum value 100).
Tourism index (indicator: a composite index composed
n
n
5 It is important to keep in mind, though, that some of the data are now 7 years old and condi-tions may have deteriorated since then, with major bleaching and hurricane events in recent years. Ecological baseline data collected under the MBRS Synoptic Monitoring Program, along with data from a comprehensive assessment of biophysical variables in the MAR, are currently being analyzed. These will provide a more accurate measure of change in the ecological health of the MAR.for comparison with trends in socio-economic and governance data sets.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:32Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:32 10/4/06 6:55:11 PM10/4/06 6:55:11 PM
33
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO THE MESOAMERICAN REEF
of hotel occupancy rates, with a scale from 0 to 100%,
and average room rate per night normalized for the
sample MAR countries; both components are equally
weighted with a maximum potential value of 100).
Mangrove index (To calculate a ray for mangrove areas
and their loss, we use the information on the 10 year
rate of loss, determine the average annual value, and
assign a value for the ray equal to 100 (on the hexagon
edge) for no loss, and arbitrarily assign a value of zero
(the origin) for a 10 percent annual rate of loss. With
this scale the values for each country are calculated
with values closer to zero for those countries with rapid
mangrove loss, and values closer to 100 for those
countries with little or no loss.
n
Reef-dependence index (indicator: percentage of local
economy dependent on the coral reef, from 0 percent
minimum to 100 percent maximum).
Governance effectiveness index (indicator: the 2004 World
Bank governance effectiveness index, normalized to 100
within the sample MAR countries, and taking a value of
0 at the origin and 100 at the point of the hexagon).
Reef-health index (indicator: based on the coral reef
health indicators from Table 3.3, normalized to 100
within the sample MAR countries, and equally weighted
among the various individual indicators.)
The hexagon has six rays (or radians), each of which has
been normalized so that a “perfect” score will be the same
n
n
n
Tropical Western Meso-American Indicator Atlantic Reef Mexico Belize Guatemalaa Hondurasb Bahamas Jamaica
Live coral cover % 20 14 15 13 9 10 25 11
Coral recruits (#/m2) 3.5 2.8 2.4 3.4 n/a n/a 5.5 2.9
MacroalgalIndex (% macroX canopy ht) 129 80 99 62 n/a n/a 165 244
Parrotfi sh biomass (g/100m2) 2074 1083 1203 1376 n/a n/a 2407 669
Commerciallysignifi cant fi shbiomass (g/100m2) 1493 1302 1259 953 n/a n/a 1709 183
All data from AGRRA database except where noted (see www.agrra.org). Data averaged 1999–2001. Note a Fonseca 2000. Note b WWF 2001. Data table compiled by Healthy Reefs for Healthy People Initiative (www.healthyreefs.org)
Table 3.3. Comparison of Coral Reef Health Indicators
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:33Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:33 10/4/06 6:55:11 PM10/4/06 6:55:11 PM
34
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
length from the center of the hexagon to one of the six
points. Hence the actual composite reef-ecosystem health
measure for each country (linking the actual point along
the ray for each indicator) will defi ne an area for each
country, somewhere between 0 and 100 percent of the
potential maximum area. If a country had a perfect score
for each measure, the area enclosed within the country-
specifi c hexagon would be just equal to the maximum
area of the hexagon. If a country scored zero on each
measure, the country-specifi c area covered would also
be zero.
Defi ning and quantifying the different rays is a challenge.
Two of the measures are percentages between 0 and
100—population with access to sanitation and share of
reef-dependent activities in the economy. For the other
components, we have “normalized” most measures so
that the maximum potential value for any ray is set at the
maximum found in the four MAR countries. This is just an
assumption, but it defi nes the maximum score possible
for each indicator, and any country’s individual score is
thus their value for the indicator divided by the maximum
potential value. This process yields a value for each ray of
Tropical Western Meso-American Dominican Atlantic Reef Mexico Belize Guatemala Honduras Bahamas Republic
Reef Health Index 111 87 84 92 60 67 137 n/a
Government Effectiveness Index n/a n/a 93 100 31 46 n/a n/a
Tourism Index n/a n/a 87 55 42 40 138
% pop. Improved n/a n/a 77 47 61 68 100 57sanitation
Mangrove change rate* n/a n/a 35 80 89 43 99 80
Reef-dependence % n/a n/a 54.7 31 n/a 46 60 n/a
Eco-Reef Health Index 72 67 57 52 107 69
*Based on the data in Table 3.1 the following values are used for the windrose: Mexico , 35 (e.g. based on a 6.5% annual rate of loss), Honduras, 43, Guatemala, 89, Belize, 80, the Dominican Republic, 80, and the Bahamas , 99 (based on an annual rate of loss of only 0.1%) (no. ha in 1990 and 2000, and percent loss)
Table 3.4. Overall Reef/Ecosystem Health Indicators
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:34Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:34 10/4/06 6:55:11 PM10/4/06 6:55:11 PM
35
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO THE MESOAMERICAN REEF
Figure 3.1. Conceptual Framework: Indicators of Reef Health & Social Well-Being
Mexico
02040
6080
100Reef Health Index
Government Effectiveness
Index
Tourism Index
% pop. Improved sanitation
Mangrove Index
Reef-dependence %
0
20
406080
100Reef Health Index
Government Effectiveness
Index
Tourism Index
% pop. Improved sanitation
Mangrove Index
Reef-dependence %
Guatemala
020
40
60
80100
Reef Health Index
Government Effectiveness
Index
Tourism Index
% pop. Improved sanitation
Mangrove Index
Reef-dependence %
Belize
020
40
6080
100Reef Health Index
Government Effectiveness
Index
Tourism Index
% pop. Improved sanitation
Mangrove Index
Reef-dependence %
Honduras
between. 0.0 and 1.0. Table 4 contains the actual values
for each indicator for each of the countries included in
the analysis (the four MAR countries and two additional
comparator countries) and the normalized value for each
ray. Table 4 also contains an overall reef/ecosystem health
index value, defi ned as the average of the six components
for each country. Again, the rays have been defi ned so
that a perfect score would yield an average value of 100.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:35Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:35 10/4/06 6:55:12 PM10/4/06 6:55:12 PM
36
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
(six rays times a maximum value of 100 points for each
ray, divided by six; if the number of rays is less, the division
is reduced to the appropriate number of observations).
Figure 3 presents the hexagons for the sample countries.
While the process of creating these wind rose hexagons is
synthetic, it offers one way to develop a visual presentation
of different factors affecting reef health and sustainability
of resource use and can be easily modifi ed/updated as
new and better data and indicators are developed. The
six indicators chosen were selected to refl ect a variety of
factors and keep the resulting fi gures manageable in size.
If many more indicators (and rays) are added, one moves
from a hexagonal shape to a larger polygon.
The results are not too surprising: within the MAR countries,
Mexico does best with an average overall reef/ecosystem
health index of about 72. Belize is second with a score of
67, then Guatemala at 57 and Honduras trailing behind
with a score of 52. With respect to comparator countries,
the Bahamas scores 107 (based on only 5 rays) and the
Dominican Republic scores much lower (69), based on
only two rays. The overall reef/ecosystem health indices
seem about right given what we know about the differences
in economic and environmental management among the
different countries.
This is an initial attempt to use mixed socioeconomic and
physical indicators to understand the health of this linked
people-reef ecosystem. The overall reef/ ecosystem health
index is not perfect, of course, and is very dependent both
on the component items as well as the values for each
component. Still, this approach offers a promising way
to use indicators and data to monitor what is happening
with reef-people interactions, and to track changes over
time. It should be a useful management tool—both to
understand what is happening, and to look for trends over
time. As data and understanding are refi ned, naturally
there will be corresponding changes in the indicators.
3.3. Blue Flags/ Red Flags: Using Indicators to Improve Management
Understanding the links between healthy reefs and healthy
populations is the primary raison d’etre of this work.
Although each location in the MAR is unique, there are
certainly examples of better-managed reef systems and
examples of poorly managed reef systems. This is true
both between countries and within countries. The overall
reef/ ecosystem health index presented above is one
approach. Another management approach is to utilize
the indicators that have been identifi ed to see what the
“package” of indicators looks like in a better-managed
location, as opposed to a site where there are more
management challenges. Are their warning signs for
selected indicators that would signal growing problems (a
red fl ag) or potential solutions (a blue fl ag)? This concept
is similar to the “biological hotspot” concept that is also
widely used to manage biodiversity resources.
To this end, a red fl ag/blue fl ag comparison has been
identifi ed and the relevant indicators for each examined.
A red fl ag location is one where considerable problems
exist—often a combination of factors that result in both
direct overuse of the reef resources as well as stresses
placed on those resources from the outside. In contrast,
a blue fl ag scenario is one where reef conservation and
economic activities are more in balance and appear on a
more sustainable path. These characteristics may be very
location-specifi c—within one country (or even one marine
protected area) there may be both red fl ag and blue fl ag
locations.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:36Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:36 10/4/06 6:55:12 PM10/4/06 6:55:12 PM
37
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO THE MESOAMERICAN REEF
It is important to realize that the red fl ag/blue fl ag scenarios
are not meant to be judgmental. Often, factors outside of
the reef manager’s control are the principle problems in
the red fl ag scenario (and the blue fl ag scenario) locations.
The usefulness of this exercise is that the red fl ag/blue fl ag
distinction helps to indicate where problems exist or are
likely to develop, and where policy and other measures
are starting to have a positive impact.
Looking at the data in Tables 1, 2, and 3, and the maps
presented earlier, we consider two quite-different cases:
a blue fl ag example and a red fl ag example. In this
case, the blue fl ag reef is located in the Bahamas and
the red fl ag reef is located in Belize. This is based on the
assumption that the selected reef in the Bahamas is, on
average, in a better state than the selected reef in Belize.
One should also note that in the case of reef health there
can be major impacts due to climatic and shadow effects
(such as bleaching and disease incidence related to
climate change) that are quite beyond the control of any
individual reef manager or country.
Nevertheless, the data and indicators are interesting. As
seen in Table 3.1, both Belize and the Bahamas have
small populations (around 300,000 people each). The
Bahama Islands are much more urban (89 percent
versus 49 percent for Belize) and richer. Average GNI
per capita (gross national income) in the Bahamas
is almost three times that of Belize: $14,920 versus
$3,940. This wealth is refl ected in better infrastructure
services in the Bahamas in terms of potable water and
sanitation coverage (almost 100 percent in the case of
the Bahamas versus less than half that for Belize), and
a higher overall rank of the Bahamas in the human
development index: place number 49 for the Bahamas
versus 91 for Belize (for comparison, Mexico’s rank is
number 53, while the DR’s is 95; for the HDI, a lower
number is better).
Looking at Table 3.2, we begin to see a clearer pattern
with respect to a number of key reef-related indicators.
Tourism is a more important part of the economy on the
Bahamas (some 60 percent of the Bahamas’ income
comes from reef-dependent activities versus about 31
percent—23 percent from tourism and 8 percent from
fi sheries—for Belize). Corruption and governance are also
bigger issues in Belize than in the Bahamas, as refl ected in
various governance and corruption indicators (see Table
3.2 and Annex 4).
As mentioned earlier, reef health (Table 3.3) and
economic health are the result of a combination of
factors. Income levels are obviously an important part of
the mix: higher incomes per capita allow more investment
in various forms of infrastructure and management. And
yet incomes alone do not explain all—governance and
corruption variables (and general rule of law measures)
are powerful explanatory variables. Concrete indicators
like provision of sanitation, and management of liquid
and solid waste track reasonably well with environmental
quality measures.
Social factors such as the extent that a population is
native-born or consists of in-migrants are also potentially
important explanatory variables. Causality is not always
direct or unidirectional: a rapidly growing population is
one result of rapid economic growth (as in the case of
Quintana Roo and the growth in Cancun and Cozumel).
In other cases, a very diverse population may mean loss of
traditional reef or resource conservation and management
skills. Interpreting these relationships depends on several
contextual factors, many of which are not included here.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:37Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:37 10/4/06 6:55:13 PM10/4/06 6:55:13 PM
38
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
In general, the red fl ag/blue fl ag approach alerts
managers to different trends in indicator values, with
contrasting effects. When we observe a set of indicators
that are all tending one way with negative implication
for reef ecosystem health, then a red fl ag is raised; if the
same indicators are tending in the other direction with a
positive inference for reef ecosystem health, then a blue
fl ag is raised. In many cases, of course, not ALL indicators
will move in unison, and therefore the red fl ag/blue fl ag
system has to be used with caution and with reference
to other measures of reef health and sustainability. In
addition, there will probably be both red fl ag and blue
fl ag locations within any individual country.
With all of these caveats, the following indicators and
their general values are offered as characterizing red fl ag
and blue fl ag situations:
Indicator Blue Flag values Red Flag values
Income level p.c. higher lower and/or stagnant
ESI index high low
HDI rank lower higher
Population with sanitation high (~100%) lower (60% or less)
Tourism index higher lower
Room rate high/rising low/falling
Government eff ess index high low
Corruption index lower high/rising
Reef share of economy hogher/growing? lower/falling?
Reef health index high/rising low/falling
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:38Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:38 10/4/06 6:55:13 PM10/4/06 6:55:13 PM
39
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO THE MESOAMERICAN REEF
There is an obvious link between the overall reef/ ecosystem
health index results and the red fl ag/blue fl ag approach.
Both rely on a common pool of indicators and insights.
Whereas the former quantifi es the values into a wind rose
and a numerical index, the red fl ag/blue fl ag approach is
more qualitative, and is designed to look more at trends
and raise warning fl ags where appropriate.
This approach can also help target specifi c areas for
special attention. In this regard, it serves a bit like the
canary in the cage in old English coal mines: miners
brought canaries into the mines with them since the birds
were sensitive to methane gas (potentially explosive and
lethal) and would stop singing when methane levels rose
(often in advance of when the miners themselves would
notice any change in gas levels). Hence ,the “canary in
the cage” served an early warning function, not unlike the
red fl ag/blue fl ag idea.
In the MAR countries and the comparator countries, at a
national level one would probably assign a blue fl ag to
the Bahamas and a red fl ag to Belize. New development
pressure on Belize’s coral reefs related to expanding cruise
ship and coastal tourism as well as planned petroleum
exploration in sensitive coastal areas suggest that threats
to the reef are growing and increasing vigilance is
warranted. Within any individual country different reef
systems would probably earn either red fl ags or blue fl ags.
The designation is designed to highlight locations where
important management issues exist and where there is
danger of signifi cant negative impact on both the reef
and the population living in the coastal area. Assigning
values to these indicators for discrete reef systems should
be a participatory exercise, where reef managers and
nearby communities are involved. Bringing stakeholders
together to assess reef ecosystem health based on
intimate knowledge of the reef and the status of socio-
economic/governance indicators is an excellent way to
identify trouble spots and gain ownership for an action
plan. The process of identifying/assigning red fl ags or
blue fl ags is an excellent way to promote public/private
dialogue among different stakeholders—the same groups
who are as much part of the solution as they are a source
of problems.
3.4 Conclusions
Indicators can help us to see status and trends in the
condition of a given system through a different lens, and
in a more objective light, if appropriately selected. They
are potentially powerful tools for better management,
but they must be used and interpreted with care. The end
result is very dependent on the skill of the user.
In this analysis we have tried to demonstrate the rationale
for selecting beyond the traditional pool of indicators of
ecosystem health to include information about the social
and economic condition of the human populations who
interact with these systems. It is they who determine the
health of the system and ultimately its fate, thus it makes
sense to include attributes which relate to society’s well
being to the extent that it derives from and infl uences the
ecosystem in question.
In the case of coral reefs, we have included information on
coastal population density, access to improved sanitation,
economic dependency of surrounding populations and
their cultural identity with the reef as essential determinants
of the state of the system. These are in addition to
fundamental ecological and structural attributes of the
reef, which are clearly important in gauging its health now
and in the future.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:39Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:39 10/4/06 6:55:13 PM10/4/06 6:55:13 PM
40
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
In the case of the MAR, the identifi cation and application
of a handful of robust indicators to characterize reef
ecosystem health and inform decision makers about sliding
trends is extremely timely. With new heads of state taking
offi ce in two of the four countries (Honduras and Mexico)
and an opportunity to seek a renewed commitment from
all four heads of state to the principles and objectives of
the Tulum Declaration in support of an updated Action
Plan for the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef, informing public
debate is critical.
Threats to the MAR are increasing daily with tourism
and population growth/migration driving development
pathways. Given the value of the MAR—economically,
culturally and ecologically—to the region, it is essential
that decision-makers understand the effects of their policy
choices in the context of the MAR—its current status and
prospects for long-term health. The indicators presented
in this work help to make these connections clear, making
the public and politicians alike more accountable for
their actions. Like any measures, these can be refi ned
with better data and experience, but the process outlined
here represent an important step in the development of
an integrated, discrete, cost-effective set of indicators to
measure coral reef ecosystem health.
Epilogue
Data and indicators serve three main functions: they
establish a benchmark as to the present state of affairs,
they can be used to measure changes over time, and they
can help track whether different policy interventions are
having an impact on the ground.
In the case of the four MAR (MesoAmerican Reef)
countries, this paper has presented a variety of ways in
which indicators and data can be used to understand
what is happening to each country’s coral reefs, and
better manage these important, but vulnerable, resources.
In particular, the approaches presented here link the
social/ economic dimensions of human populations to
the ecological/ biophysical measures of coral reef health.
Coral reefs cannot be managed in isolation from the
communities who depend on them and affect their health.
As such, the indicators work acknowledges that coral
reefs are important both as ecological and as economic
resources, and their well-being and management are
directly linked to the economic well-being of the people
living in the coastal areas.
In and of themselves, data have little value. The information
contained in both the “windroses” and the Red Flag/ Blue
Flag (RF/BF) measures will only make a difference if it is
used by the public and by decision makers to improve
resource management. To this end, there are various
ways that this indicator work can help make a practical
difference, and three “next steps” are sketched out here.
First, there is an important role for indicators and
associated measures in increasing awareness by the
general public of what is happening to the coral reef
ecosystem within each country. The “windroses” are
largely based on published information and serve as a
“snapshot” at a point in time. They have value in informing
the public as to the state of the coral reef ecosystem. In
contrast the Red Flag/ Blue Flag indicator should ideally
be developed in a participatory manner that involves
major stakeholders within each country. Since the RF/BF
designations refl ect both absolute levels as well as rates
and direction of change for different indicators, they are
best developed through an iterative, consultative process
that involves reef managers, government offi cials, local
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:40Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:40 10/4/06 6:55:14 PM10/4/06 6:55:14 PM
41
APPLYING THE FRAMEWORK TO THE MESOAMERICAN REEF
NGOs and the general public – all stakeholders in the
management of coral reef ecosystems. In addition, what
is considered to be a Red Flag site in one country may be
a Blue Flag in another – local variations and differences
are very important, as are abrupt changes in the values
of key indicators, which can signal a worrisome turn of
events.
Second, the indicator work presented here can be directly
used by decision makers at both the national level as well
as at the local/ resource management level. For example,
the “windroses” help benchmark how one country is
doing compared to its neighbors. The windroses also
illustrate how the coral reef ecosystem within a country
responds to policy changes and interventions over time.
The broader set of indicators behind the “windrose”
also suggest problem areas and emerging challenges
and thereby help focus attention on important policy
questions.
In contrast, the RedFlag/BlueFlag indicators help target
interventions (and prioritize investments) to specifi c
locations within each country’s coral reef ecosystem, and
thus help focus scarce human and fi nancial resources.
The participatory process for developing Red Flags/ Blue
Flags also helps to involve more stakeholders in both
problem identifi cation and the search for implementable
solutions.
Third, preparation of a bi-annual “State of the Reef” report
has been proposed for the MAR. Ideally, this report would
be commissioned by the heads of state of the countries
themselves and prepared by a third party and would draw
heavily on the holistic approach toward measuring coral
reef ecosystem health advocated here as part of the Healthy
Reefs for Healthy People initiative. While comparisons
between different locations is inevitable in any State of the
Reef report, the intention is to use this Report to highlight
the economic, ecological and cultural importance of the
Mesoamerican Barrier Reef, and identify areas in need of
special attention.
Such a State of the Reef report, or other periodic
assessments using this indicators framework, can also
feed into broader global assessments of coral reefs
prepared regularly by the Global Coral Reef Monitoring
Network (GCRMN) for reefs in 16 regions of the world.
Similarly, the methods used here could complement the
biophysical monitoring carried out by ReefCheck partners
of thousands of coral reef sites around the world, to
augment these fi ndings and place them in a large context
of overall coral reef ecosystem health in the region.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:41Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:41 10/4/06 6:55:14 PM10/4/06 6:55:14 PM
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:42Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:42 10/4/06 6:55:14 PM10/4/06 6:55:14 PM
43
Literature Cited
AGRRA. 1998–2001. (Atlantic and Gulf Rapid Reef
Assessment) http://www.agrra.org/
Aronson R.B., W.F. Precht, I.G. Macintyre, and T.J. Murdoch.
2000. “Coral bleach-out in Belize.” Nature 405:3.
Balmford, A. and others. 2005. “The Convention on
Biological Diversity’s 2010 Target.” Science 307:
212–213.
Bunce, L. et al 2000. Socioeconomic Manual for Coral
Reef Management. Global Coral Reef Monitoring
Network, Australian Inst. Marine Science, Townsville,
Australia, 251 p.
Bunce, L. et al 2003. Socioeconomic Monitoring Guidelines
for Coastal Managers in the Caribbean: Socmon
Caribbean. World Commission on Protected Areas and
Australian Institute of Marine Science, Australia.
Burke, L. and J. Maidens. 2004. Reefs at Risk in the
Caribbean. Washington, D.C.: World Resources
Institute.
Chapin, M. 2003. “Indigenous Peoples and Natural
Ecosystems in Central America and Southern Mexico.”
Map insert. National Geographic Magazine, February
2003.
Christie, P., B.J. McCay, M.L. Miller, C. Lowe, A.T. White,
R. Stoffl e, D.L. Fluharty, L. Talaue-McManus, R.
Chuenpagdee, C. Pomeroy, D.O. Suman, B.G. Blount,
D. Huppert, R.L. Villahermosa Eisma, E. Oracion,
K. Lowry, R.B. Pollnac 2003. Toward developing a
complete understanding: A social science research
agenda for marine protected areas. Fisheries
28(12):22–26.
Daily, G. 1997. Nature’s Services: Societal Dependence on
Natural Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Dixon, John A. (1997). “Economic Values of Coral Reefs:
what are the issues?” in Coral Reefs: Challenges and
Opportunities for Sustainable Management, Marea
Hatziolos, Anthony Hooten, and Martin Fodor, eds.
The World Bank, Washington DC.
Dixon, John A and Gayatri Acharya (2002). “Can the
Environment Wait in a Developing Country?” South
African Journal of Management and Science. Vol 5,
No. 2, pp. 277–87.
Dixon, John A and Jonathan Kelsey (2004). Economic
Valuation of Coral Reef Ecosystems: A Practical Guide.
(Draft). NOAA, CRMP, Silver Springs, MD.
Dixon, John A (2005). “The MDGs, Indicators, and
Conservation of Natural Resources and Biological
Diversity—measurement and policy use,” report
prepared for IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.
Drew, J.A. “The use of traditional ecological knowledge
in marine conservation.” Conservation Biology
(forthcoming).
Dryzek, S.J. 1994. Ecology and Discursive Democracy:
Beyond Liberal Capitalism and the Administrative
State. Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar Publishing
Limited.
FAO. Status and trends in Mangrove Extent and Cover
Worldwide: North and Central America. http://
www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/
docrep/007/j1533e/J1533E109.htm
Froese, R. and D. Pauly. 2004. FishBase. www.fi shbase.org
(January 31, 2005).
Harmon, D. 2002. In Light of Our Differences: How
Diversity in Nature and Culture Makes Us Human.
Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:43Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:43 10/4/06 6:55:15 PM10/4/06 6:55:15 PM
44
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
Healthy Reefs for Healthy People, Year in Review. 2005.
http://www.healthyreefs.org
Kramer, P., and others. 2000. “Status of coral reefs
of northern Central America: Mexico, Belize,
Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador.”
In Wilkinson, Clive 2000, Status of Coral Reefs of
the World, Australian Institute of Marine Science,
Townsville.
Kramer, P.A. and P.R. Kramer. 2002. Ecoregional Conservation
Planning for the Mesoamerican Caribbean Reef.
Washington, D.C.: WWF.
Maffi , L., ed. 2001. On Biocultural Diversity: Linking Language,
Knowledge, and the Environment. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Institution Press.
McField, M. and P. Kramer. 2004. “The challenge of defi ning
‘reef health’ in the Mesoamerican reef: The search for
yardsticks and a meaningful index of reef integrity.” A
background paper for the Healthy Mesoamerican Reef
workshop, Miami, June 2–4, 2004.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Living Beyond our Means:
Natural Assets and Human Well Being. 2005. UNEP.
http://www.millenniumassessment.org/en/index.aspx
Noronha, L. 2003. “A conceptual framework for the
development of tools to track health and well-being
in a mining region: Report from an Indian study.”
In: Rapport, D.J, and others, eds. 2003. Managing
for Healthy Ecosystems. Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis
Publishers.
Noronha, L. 2004. “Ecosystem approaches to human
health and well-being: Refl ections from use in a mining
context.” Ecohealth 1, Supplement 2, pp 16–23.
Oviedo, G., L. Maffi , and P.B. Larsen. 2000. Indigenous
and Traditional Peoples of the World and Ecoregion
Conservation: An Integrated Approach to Conserving
the World’s Biological and Cultural Diversity. Gland,
Switzerland: WWF-International and Terralingua.
Rapport, D.J., H.A. Regier, and T.C. Hutchinson. 1985.
“Ecosystem behaviour under stress.” The American
Naturalist 125: 617–640.
Rapport, D.J., and others, eds. 2003. Managing for
Healthy Ecosystems. Boca Raton: Lewis Press.
Rapport, D.J. and D. Mergler. 2004. “Expanding the practice
of ecosystem health.” EcoHealth 1, Supplement 2: 4–7.
Salim, E. and O. Ullsten. 1999. Our Forests… Our
Future. Report of the World Commission on Forests
and Sustainable Development. Angela Cropper, ed.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Skutnabb-Kangas, T., L. Maffi , and D. Harmon. 2003.
Sharing a World of Difference: The Earth’s Linguistic,
Cultural, and Biological Diversity and map The
World’s Biocultural Diversity: People, Languages, and
Ecosystems. Paris: UNESCO.
Stepp, J.R. and others. 2004. “Development of a GIS for
global biocultural diversity.” Policy Matters 13: 267–70.
UNEP/GPA. 2002. Water Supply & Sanitation Coverage in
UNEP Regional Seas: Need for Regional Wastewater
Emission Targets? The Hague: UNEP/GPA.
Wilkinson, C., ed. 2004. Status of coral reefs of the world:
2004. Cape Ferguson, Townsville, Queensland:
Australian Institute of Marine Science.
World Bank. 2001. Project Appraisal for the Conservation
and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef
System. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
World Bank. 2005. Little Green Data Book. Washington,
D.C.
World Bank. 2006. Honduras Country Assistance Strategy
(CAS). Concept Note.
World Bank Institute. 2005. “Governance Matters IV: 1996–
2004.” Washington, D.C. http://www.worldbank.org/
wbi/governance/index.html
Yale. 2005. Environmental Sustainability Index http://
www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005_policysummary.pdf .
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:44Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:44 10/4/06 6:55:15 PM10/4/06 6:55:15 PM
45
Environmental Context of the MAR
The population in the watersheds draining into the MAR
is estimated at 11.5 million (from UNEP/GPA 2002,
adapted from Burke & Maidens 2004).6 Population
dynamics present different patterns in the four MAR
countries. The whole of the population of Belize and the
state of Quintana Roo, Mexico live within 100 km of the
coast, while half of the population of Honduras lives on
the Caribbean coast and only 5 percent of Guatemala’s
population do. Signifi cant population growth is occurring
in Quintana Roo (77 percent growth during the period
1990−2000, primarily as a result of migration from
other parts of Mexico due to the economic boom along
the coast); and populations are growing in Honduras and
Guatemala as well.
Poverty continues to be a major problem in Honduras
and Guatemala, with very little decrease in poverty levels/
extreme poverty over the last ten years. Inequality has also
changed little, with GINI indexes in Guatemala, Honduras
and Mexico hovering between the high 40s and mid-50s
for the last decade. In Honduras, 71% of indigenous
populations live in poverty (World Bank 2006, Honduras
CAS Concept Note).
Coastal development represents one of the main threats
to the MAR (World Bank 2001; Kramer and Kramer
2002, Burke and Maidens 2004). Coastal construction
and the conversion of coastal habitat has destroyed
sensitive wetlands (mangroves) and coastal forests and
led to an increase in sedimentation. The effects of coastal
development are compounded by insuffi cient measures
for the treatment of wastewater.
Tourism, particularly coastal- and marine-based, is
the fastest growing industry in the region. The state of
Quintana Roo in Mexico is experiencing signifi cant
growth in the tourism infrastructure all along the coast
up to the border with Belize. The conversion of mangrove
forest into beach front tourist resorts along the Riviera
Maya south of Cancun has left coastlines vulnerable
and was largely responsible for the loss of thousands of
tons of high quality beach sand tourist revenues in the
wake of Hurricane Wilma in 2005. This trend is being
echoed in Belize, where eco-tourism appears to be giving
way to large-scale tourism development, involving the
transformation of entire cays, lagoons and mangrove
forests, to accommodate cruise ship arrivals, recreational
facilities and other tourism demands.
Despite the rapid expansion of tourism, over-fi shing
is considered the most critical threat to the MAR (Burke
and Maidens 2004). Intensive artisanal and industrial
fi shing has occurred in the region since the 1960s,
with recent increased pressure on valuable commercial
species (particularly spiny lobster, conches, groupers, and
snappers). The management of individual fi sheries varies
throughout the region, but ineffective regulation and
enforcement, illegal fi shing, and transboundary issues
are common (Kramer and Kramer 2002). Aquaculture
is also rapidly expanding in the MAR region, resulting
Annex 1
6 Belize, 226 thousand people (100% of the population of the country); Guatemala, 6,202 thousand people (about 55% of total population); Honduras, 4,271 thousand people (about 67% of total population); Mexico, State of Quintana Roo, 875 thousand people (100% of the population of the state).
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:45Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:45 10/4/06 6:55:16 PM10/4/06 6:55:16 PM
46
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
in conversion of some coastal habitat (Froese and Pauly
2004).
Improper land use in coastal watersheds is a major
cause of pollution from agrochemicals, pesticides, and
other toxic substances. Nutrients and organic matter
from land sources, both point and non-point, including
from contaminated groundwater, are also a cause of
declining coastal water quality (see Map 2.2). Declining
water quality affects coral growth, and eutrophication
induces the growth of fl eshy algae and sponges, non-
calcifying invertebrates, and bioeroding organisms,
which negatively affect coral reefs. Toxic chemicals also
affect growth rates in corals as well as fi sh, with effects
on fecundity and overall fi tness (McField and Kramer
2004).
While the MAR region is not located within the major transit
routes for oil transportation in the Caribbean, 90 percent
of commerce in the region is transported by ship, and
million of gallons of oil and derivatives are transported to
and from oil terminals in the region each month (World
Bank 2001). Pollution from operational and accidental
spills is a threat, as is the discharges of sewage and solid
waste from ships and recreational boats, whose numbers
and size are increasing rapidly. The recent discovery
of signifi cant oil reserves during exploratory drilling in
coastal wetlands in southern Belize poses a more serious
threat.
From the above, it is clear that people at all levels both
use and affect the MAR, resulting in cause-effect links in
both directions.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:46Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:46 10/4/06 6:55:16 PM10/4/06 6:55:16 PM
47
Variable Name: Coastal population density
What is it? The coastal population is the number of
people who live in whatever is defi ned as the “coastal
area” of a state/ province or country.
Why do we measure it? A major cause of reef
degradation is growing populations in coastal areas and
associated environmental problems coming from land
conversion (e.g. soil erosion and sedimentation; loss of
mangroves and coastal wetlands), disposal of solid waste,
and treatment and disposal of wastewater (including both
runoff as well as sewage).
What is it telling us? There are more people in a given
coastal area and more pressure on the land and marine
environment. The greater the population density also
usually means increased demand for both consumptive
uses of reefs (e.g. fi shing) as well as non-consumptive
uses such as recreation.
How do we measure it? The proposed indicator is
population per square kilometer in the defi ned coastal
area. A second-best indicator would be total population
in the coastal area.
Usefulness as an indicator: The direct links of
increased population to various threats to and uses of the
coral reef are well known. Both the baseline indicator (the
present number) as well as changes over time (the growth
in coastal populations) tells planners a lot about potential
management problems.
Conservation objective: It is rarely feasible to suggest
reducing costal populations or even stopping growth.
Therefore the usefulness of this indicator is identifying the
types of management issues that are likely to be most
important in the future (and, in conjunction with land use
planning) try to reduce some of these impacts.
Benchmark: No benchmark is appropriate. One could
start with the present situation in each country and set
targets such as “growth in coastal populations no more
than the national average, or no more than 1.5 times the
national average” or something like that. The problem
is that coastal populations are growing rapidly in all
countries around the world.
Target: No target is appropriate. The management
objective is the work with the economic forces that attract
people to coastal areas to minimize damage to the reefs
and maximize benefi ts to the coastal populations.
Variable Name: GINI index
What is it? The GINI index measures the distribution
of national income across the nation’s population.
Population is usually divided into fi ve quintiles—each with
20 percent of the population. The poorest 20 percent are
in the bottom quintile and the richest 20 percent are in
the top quintile. A perfect income distribution—everyone
Annex 2Individual Profi le Cards for Selected Economic Variables
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:47Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:47 10/4/06 6:55:16 PM10/4/06 6:55:16 PM
48
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
in a country has the same income per capita—produces
a GINI index of 100. The worse the income distribution
among the population of the country, the higher is the
GINI index (it is always between 0 and 100).
Why do we measure it? Income is always distributed
unevenly; each country has richer people and poorer people.
A very unequal distribution of income, however (a low GINI
index), is a good indicator of both economic and social
disparities in a society. The larger these income disparities,
the harder the reef management challenge in most cases.
What is it telling us? GINI index tells us about the equity
within any society and also the changes over time shows
whether or not economic growth is benefi ting just a few,
or all members of a society.
How do we measure it? The GINI index measures
the area between the Lorenz curve (a plot of the
cumulative percentage of total income received against
the cumulative percentage of recipients, starting with the
poorest individuals or households) and a hypothetical
curve of absolute equality, expressed as a percentage of
the maximum area under the line. Thus a GINI index of 0
represents perfect equality, while an index of 100 implies
perfect inequality.
Usefulness as an indicator: This is a very useful
“snapshot” indicator of who gets the money in a society, not
just whether or not average income per capita is growing.
Conservation objective: A better GINI index, especially
if measured at the local level, indicates a wider sharing of
the economic benefi ts of economic growth, and hopefully
making more people “stakeholders” in the conservation
and management of healthy reefs.
Benchmark: An objective would be to have the GINI
index be constant or decline over time, thereby indicating
improved sharing of economic growth among the
population.
Target: In the ideal world, a target for the GINI index
would be 0—complete equality of income distribution
within a population. Since a GINI index of 0 is never
obtainable, we propose a target of 35 to 45. Most
developing countries have GINI indices of 40 to 60;
the MAR countries are all in the 50s (Guatemala 59.9;
Honduras 55.0; Mexico 54.6). For comparison, the United
States is 44.6, Canada 33.1, and Brazil 59.3.
Variable Name: Income share from reef-dependent activities
What is it? This indicator measures the share of total
income in the coastal zone that is directly (or indirectly)
dependent on the reef system and its health. It gives a
good indication of the importance of the coral reef to the
coastal economy and also indicates the extent that the
local populations (and political decision makers) are likely
to be involved “stakeholders” in reef management.
Why do we measure it? The larger the share of
reef-dependent income (from such activities as fi shing,
recreation and tourism, transportation, other uses) in total
income, the easier it is to make the political case that the
reefs are important economic as well as ecosystem assets
that need management and care.
What is it telling us? This indicator tells us what part of
the economic activity in the coastal area is potentially at
risk if reefs are not managed well.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:48Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:48 10/4/06 6:55:17 PM10/4/06 6:55:17 PM
49
ANNEX 2 - INDIVIDUAL PROFILE CARDS FOR SELECTED ECONOMIC VARIABLES
How do we measure it? Regional economic accounts
need to be disaggregated to assign that portion of
production and services that comes from coral reef
ecosystems (broadly defi ned). Obvious components
include fi shing and related processing, as well as ocean-
based recreation and tourism (both direct uses such as
scuba diving and snorkeling, as well as indirect uses
such as beachfront resorts and all of the related services
provided to tourists and national visitors).
Usefulness as an indicator: A very useful indicator
of the economic importance of this often “unpriced”
economic and ecological asset—a healthy coral reef.
Conservation objective: By identifying the economic
importance of the coral reefs it is easier to obtain money
(both from national governments and from visitors) to
maintain and protect the reefs. This includes both land-
based infrastructure investments (especially for wastewater
and solid waste treatment, as well as control of soil erosion)
as well as in-situ management on the reefs themselves.
Benchmark: No benchmark is appropriate. The number
will vary country-by-country depending on the nature
of the coastal economy. We may assume that a higher
value is good, since this will mean a larger share of the
population are potential stakeholders in sustainable reef/
ecosystem management.
Target: No target is appropriate.
Variable Name: Mangrove Area and Rate of Change
What is it? This is a measure of the area of mangroves in the
coastal zone and the annual rate of change in that area.
Why do we measure it? Mangroves are a common and
important part of the coastal ecosystem and are directly
linked to the health of nearby coral reefs and associated
fi sh populations. Mangroves also provide important
ecosystem services to the coastal population including
water fi ltration and purifi cation, trapping of sediment,
provision of bird and animal habitat, and storm surge
protection to inland areas. Mangroves are also frequently
lost as a result of coastal development, aquaculture
and changes in water fl ows due to regulation of rivers
upstream, and therefore are directly affected by policy
and management decisions.
What is it telling us? This indicator tells us how a society
is managing costal development and the extent to which
natural ecosystems are being protected. Rapid loss of
mangroves is often a sign of poorly planned and managed
development, often with important consequences for the
sustainability of other parts of the ecosystem.
How do we measure it? This indicator measures the
change in mangrove area as a percentage loss (or gain)
over a given period (in this case, from 1990-2000); it may
be positive but more often is a negative number. The rate of
change is usually expressed on an annual basis, calculated
over the number of years between observations.
Usefulness as an indicator: The change in mangrove
area is a useful indicator of both the pattern and speed
of coastal development, as well as the extent to which
natural ecosystems are being protected and managed.
The period over which change may be measured depends
on the availability of accurate data (usually satellite data)
and the ability of the measurements to detect real change
over time. Mangrove cover and rate of loss has direct
implications for the health of nearby coral reefs.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:49Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:49 10/4/06 6:55:17 PM10/4/06 6:55:17 PM
50
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
Conservation objective: The objective should be very little
or no net loss of mangroves. In areas of signifi cant loss due
to poor management decisions in the past, conservation
objectives should include restoration of mangrove habitat
to levels which ensure adequate recruitment of juvenile fi sh
to adjacent reefs, through new, low-cost techniques.
Benchmark: No net annual loss of mangroves.
Target: No net annual loss of mangroves, or a real
increase in mangrove cover in countries which have
suffered signifi cant mangrove losses, through restoration.
Variable Name: Percent of population born outside of the coastal region
What is it? This is a measure of the stability of a
population and whether or not growth is from the original
population or fed by in-migration from other areas.
Why do we measure it? The “newer” the population
in a coastal area, the less likely there are established
patterns of resource conservation and use based on
long-time personal experience. Newer populations are
also less likely to be socially cohesive, and less willing
to make conservation investments today to ensure future
benefi ts.
What is it telling us? This indicator tells us how rapidly
an area is growing and the extent to which this population
growth is fueled by in-migration.
How do we measure it? This indicator measures the
percent of the coastal population who were born in
another location—both within the country and outside of
the country.
Usefulness as an indicator: Very useful as a “snapshot”
of social change in an area and as a highlighter of potential
problems—linguistic, social, governance, others.
Conservation objective: No objective, although job
creation for the area’s original population may well be
a government objective, and can also help to make
“stakeholders” of peoples whose traditional life styles
may be changing as a result of changed coral reef
management policies.
Benchmark: No benchmark is appropriate.
Target: No target is appropriate.
Variable Name: Tourism Index—Occupancy levels and average hotel room rates per night
What is it? This index is a direct measure of the popularity
of a site and the amount that people are willing to pay to
visit a location, and how much hotel operators are able to
charge. Occupancy levels tell about the balance of supply
and demand, and will also affect average room rates—
a large increase in supply of rooms will initially usually
decrease average room rates.
Why do we measure it? The “better” the destination
(including the health of the reef and the general marine
environment), the more that hotels can charge and the more
that people are willing to pay to stay there. As opposed to
most of the other indicators, this is one where people directly
“vote” with their own money as to what they are willing to
pay, and how they perceive the resource. Higher occupancy
levels mean more demand at the given price (assuming no
major changes in the supply of hotel rooms).
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:50Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:50 10/4/06 6:55:18 PM10/4/06 6:55:18 PM
51
ANNEX 2 - INDIVIDUAL PROFILE CARDS FOR SELECTED ECONOMIC VARIABLES
What is it telling us? This indicator tells us both the
average revenue per hotel night and percent of rooms
occupied, as well as changes over time. In the case of
coastal tourist destinations, a higher average room rate
usually means that a better “product” is being offered,
and that there is also more income to help pay for
management and conservation of the marine resource.
How do we measure it? This indicator measures
average rates per room per night—not the “listed” rate
(so-called rack rates), but what rooms are actually sold
for. Occupancy rates are the percent of hotel rooms
“sold” in any given period of time. The index is composed
of two parts, equally weighted: the average occupancy
rate (between 0 and 100 percent), and the average room
rate in dollars normalized to 100 based on the highest
average in the sample countries. Thus the two values each
have potential maximum values of 100; each is divided
by 2 and then added together.
Usefulness as an indicator: Very useful as a measure
of people’s willingness to pay for the “commodity” being
sold. In the case of the MAR locations, an important part
of what is being sold is the marine environment.
Conservation objective: No objective per se, although
we hypothesize that higher average room rates will also
translate into a greater willingness to pay for conservation
and management (and treatment of wastes) by those
selling these services. One may wish to develop several
categories of rooms for any given site: e.g small ecolodges,
motels, larger hotels, all-inclusives.
Benchmark: No benchmark is appropriate, although
seeing what neighboring countries (or competing
destinations) charge for room rates provides useful
information. Operators desire 100 percent occupancy,
but this is rarely achieved. Occupancy rates in the high
80 percent range are commonly observed in very popular
locations; 100 percent can occur in peak periods.
Target: A constant or increasing average room rate, and
constant or increasing occupancy rates.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:51Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:51 10/4/06 6:55:18 PM10/4/06 6:55:18 PM
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:52Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:52 10/4/06 6:55:19 PM10/4/06 6:55:19 PM
53
Annex 3Sources for Table 3.2 Indicators
Drivers of Change Indicators
Coastal Population Density/km2
Burke, L., Maidens, J. 2004. “Reefs at Risk in the
Caribbean”. World Resources Institute, Washington D.C.
Tourism: Mean Occupancy Rate Tomas Camarena-MBRS. Fax/phone communication April
2006
In the case of Honduras data was obtained from phone
conversation between the TTL and the Head of IHT
(03/31/06).
Social Well Being and Governance Indicators:
Economic Indicators
Income Share from Reef-Dependent ActivitiesIn the case of Belize, data comes from phone conversation
between the TTL with Head of Fisheries in Belize
(11/04/06)
In the case of Honduras data are for Roatan only, and
include revenues from Artesanal Fishing, Industrial
Fishing and Tourism services).Source: IHT, Astrid Mejia
(Calculated from a report by Ed Taylor, 2002 on Roatán´s
Total Gross Island Product.
In the Case of Mexico, data comes is divided on 53.9%
that comes from Tourism and 0.8% that comes from
Fisheries. Source: (Marisol Rivera-Instituto Nacional de
Ecologia, Mexico)
Gini IndexNational Data
Source: WRI. 2005. The Wealth of the Poor Report.
Local data
In the case of Mexico, data comes from fi les sent by
Marisol Rivera-INE. Her source was SEDESOL (2000),
Indicators and Dimensions used by the habitat program in
its selection of cities bigger than 100 thousand habitants,
2000. XI-XII Population and Household Census. http://
www.planjuarez.org/fi les/pdf_107.pdf
Adjusted Net Savings (% of GNI)World Bank. 2005. Little Green Data Book.
Health Indicators
% of Waste Water TreatedNational data
UNEP-ROLAC, CEHI/PAHO. 2003. Análisis de Diferentes
Indicadores Relacionados con la Problemática del Agua
enAmérica Latina y el Caribe. Tabla II.3.1
% Population Served by SanitationNational data
World Bank.2005. Little Green Data Book.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:53Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:53 10/4/06 6:55:19 PM10/4/06 6:55:19 PM
54
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
Causes of Death among Children under 5 years of age (%) from Diarrhoeal DiseasesWHO. 2006. World Health Statistics 2006: (data
corresponds to year 2000)
http://www.who.int/whosis/whostat2006_mortality.pdf
Cultural Integrity Indicators
Number of Ethno-languages Spoken in the Coastal AreaData provided by Stefano Belfi ore (23/03/06)
Adapted from UNESCO 2000; Gordon 2005 Ethnologue:
Languages of the World, 15th ed. Dallas, Tex.: SIL
International. Online version: http://www.ethnologue.
com/
Note: Offi cial language, italics=indigenous language
% of Population in Coastal Areas Born Outside the AreaNational data
ILO. 1999. International Labor Migration Data Base www.
ilo.org Geneva
Local data
Data provided by Patrica Kramer extracted from Villar,
D., 2005. “Migrations among the Indigenous Language
Speaking Population in South Eastern Mexico”. http://
repositories.cdlib.org/ccpr/olcp/ccpr-cp-004-05
Governance Indicators
ESI (Environmental Sustainability Index)National Data
Source:Yale University. 2005.
Note: The Environmental Sustainability Index benchmarks
the ability of nations to protect the environment over the
next decades.
Local data
In the Case of Quintana Roo-Mexico, data provided by
Marisol Rivera-INE
Source: CESPEDES (2001) http://www.cce.org.mx/
cespedes/IndiceDeSustentabilidadAmbiental.aspx
Corruption IndexD. Kaufmann, A. Kraay, and M. Mastruzzi. 2005.
“Governance Matters IV: Governance Indicators for 1996–
2004”. The World Bank. Washington, D.C.
% of Coastal Area under ProtectionWRI.2004. Reefs at Risk in the wider Caribbean.
Note: This will include the Golf of Mexico for Mexico.
Total MPAs/Management Effectiveness (categories: good/poor/inadequate/unknown)WRI. 2004. Reefs at Risk in the Caribbean.
Note: data corresponds to the No. of MPAs in respective
countries and then effectiveness ranking according
to good/poor/inadequate and unknown categories
respectively. These data will be updated for the MBRS soon
based on information reported by MPA managers using a
tracking tool to evaluate MPA management effectiveness
at each site.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:54Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:54 10/4/06 6:55:19 PM10/4/06 6:55:19 PM
55
Annex 42005 Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) and Other Indices
The 2005 Environmental Sustainability Index
(ESI) benchmarks the ability of nations to protect
the environment over the next several decades.
It does so by integrating 76 datasets—tracking natural
resource endowments, past and present pollution levels,
environmental management efforts, and a society’s
capacity to improve its environmental performance—into
21 indicators of environmental sustainability.
These indicators permit comparison across the following
fi ve fundamental components of sustainability:
environmental systems; environmental stresses; human
vulnerability to environmental stresses; societal capacity
to respond to environmental challenges; and global
stewardship. The issues refl ected in the indicators and the
underlying variables were chosen through an extensive
review of the environmental literature, assessment of
available data, rigorous analysis, and broad-based
consultation with policy makers, scientists, and indicator
experts.
The ESI provides a powerful environmental decision-
making tool tracking national environmental performance
and facilitating comparative policy analysis. It enables
a more data-driven and empirical approach to policy
making. While absolute measures of sustainability remain
elusive, many aspects of environmental sustainability can
be measured on a relative basis with results that provide
a context for policy evaluations and judgments. Such
comparisons are especially important in the new context
of worldwide efforts to advance the environment related
aspects of the Millennium Development Goals.
Higher ESI scores suggest better environmental
stewardship. The fi ve highest-ranking countries are
Finland, Norway, Uruguay, Sweden, and Iceland—
all countries that have substantial natural resource
endowments, low population density, and have managed
the challenges of development with some success.
The indicators and variables on which they are constructed
build on the well-established “pressure-state-response”
environmental policy model. The issues incorporated and
variables used were chosen through an extensive review
of the environmental literature, assessment of available
data, rigorous analysis, and broad-based consultation
with policymakers, scientists, and indicator experts. While
they do not provide a defi nitive vision of sustainability, the
collection of indicators and variables that form the 2005
ESI provide (1) a powerful tool for putting environmental
decision making on fi rmer analytical footing; (2) an
alternative to GDP and the human development index for
gauging country progress; and (3) a useful mechanism
for benchmarking environmental performance.
Country ESI Ranking compared Country Ranking to other countries
Mexico 46.2 95
Belize Not ranked Not ranked
Guatemala 44 116
Honduras 47.4 87
Source: http://www.yale.edu/esi/ESI2005_policysummary.pdfNote: Mexico’s low ranking was of enough concern to their President (V. Fox) that he subsequently became more engaged with Yale and was interested in how to improve their ranking
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:55Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:55 10/4/06 6:55:19 PM10/4/06 6:55:19 PM
56
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
Mexico
0
62
47
47
41
100
37
Environmental Systems
ReducingStresses
Reducing HumanVulnerability
Social and InstitutionalCapacity
Global Stewardship
ESI: 46.2
Ranking: 95
GDP/Capita: $7,945
Peer group ESI: 52.1
Variable coverage: 74
Missing variables imputed: 1
Guatemala
0
2942
50
41
54
Environmental Systems
ReducingStresses
Reducing HumanVulnerability
Social and InstitutionalCapacity
Global Stewardship
ESI: 44.0
Ranking: 116
GDP/Capita: $3,584
Peer group ESI: 48.9
Variable coverage: 61
Missing variables imputed: 8
100
Environmental Sustainability Indicator Profi les for MAR Countries
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:56Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:56 10/4/06 6:55:20 PM10/4/06 6:55:20 PM
57
ANNEX 4 - 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY INDEX (ESI) AND OTHER INDICES
Honduras
0
2742
58
44
59
Environmental Systems
ReducingStresses
Reducing HumanVulnerability
Social and InstitutionalCapacity
Global Stewardship
ESI: 47.4
Ranking: 87
GDP/Capita: $2,312
Peer group ESI: 46.7
Variable coverage: 61
Missing variables imputed: 7
100
Environmental Sustainability Indicator Profi les for MAR Countries (continued)
Human Development Index (HDI)
The HDI—human development index—is a summary
composite index that measures a country’s average
achievements in three basic aspects of human
development: longevity, knowledge, and a decent standard
of living. Longevity is measured by life expectancy at birth;
knowledge is measured by a combination of the adult
literacy rate and the combined primary, secondary, and
tertiary gross enrollment ratio; and standard of living by
GDP per capita (PPP US$).
See graph and table on the next page.7
This dataset presents estimates of six dimensions of
governance covering 209 countries and territories for
fi ve time periods: 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004.
These indicators are based on several hundred individual
variables measuring perceptions of governance, drawn
from 37 separate data sources constructed by 31 different
organizations. We assign these individual measures of
governance to categories capturing key dimensions of
governance, and use an unobserved components model
to construct six aggregate governance indicators in each
of the four periods. We present the point estimates of the
dimensions of governance as well as the margins of error
for each country for the four periods. These margins of
error are not unique to perceptions-based measures of
governance, but are an important feature of all efforts
7 Graphs and table compiled by Patricia Kramer, 2006.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:57Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:57 10/4/06 6:55:20 PM10/4/06 6:55:20 PM
58
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
Year
1
1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2002
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
MexicoBelizeGuatemalaHonduras
Human Development Index Trends
INDICATOR MEXICO BELIZE GUATEMALA HONDURAS
HDI Overall Rank 53 91 116 117
Human development index (HDI) value 2003 0.814 0.753 0.667 0.663
Life expectancy at birth (years) 2003 75.1 71.9 67.8 67.3
Adult literacy rate (% ages 15 and above) 2003b 90.3 76.9 80.0 69.1
Combined gross enrollment ratio for primary, secondary and tertiary schools (%) 2002/03c 75 77 62 61
GDP per capita (PPP US$) 2003 9,168 6,950 2,665 4,148
Life expectancy index 0.83 0.78 0.71 0.70
Education index 0.85 0.77 0.74 0.66
World Bank Governance Indicators Dataset, 2004
(continued on next page)
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:58Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:58 10/4/06 6:55:21 PM10/4/06 6:55:21 PM
59
ANNEX 4 - 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY INDEX (ESI) AND OTHER INDICES
INDICATOR MEXICO BELIZE GUATEMALA HONDURAS
GDP index 0.75 0.71 0.55 0.62
GDP-HDI rank 7 –19 3 –11
Human poverty index (HPI-1) 12 33 44 32
MDG Children under weight for age (% under age 5)† 1995–2002c 8 6 24 17
GEM 34 59 n/a 70
Seats in parliament held by women (% of total) MDG(a) 21.2 9.3 8.2 5.5
b Poverty line is equivalent to $1.08 (1993 PPP US$).c Data refer to the most recent year available during the period specifi ed.† Denotes indicators used to calculate the human poverty index (HPI-1). For further details, see technical note .(a) Data are as of March 1, 2004. Where there are lower and upper houses, data refer to the weighted average of women’s shares of seats in both houses.
World Bank Governance Indicators Dataset, 2004
to measure governance, including objective indicators.
We also address various methodological issues, including
the interpretation and use of the data given the estimated
margins of error, signifi cance of changes over time, and
correlation between governance and income.
The World Bank defi nes governance as the traditions and
institutions by which authority in a country is exercised for
the common good. This includes (a) the process by which
those in authority are selected, monitored and replaced;
(b) the capacity of the government to effectively manage
its resources and implement sound policies; and (c) the
respect of citizens and the state for the institutions that
govern economic and social interactions among them.
Above text from Website: http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/
governance/index.html
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:59Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:59 10/4/06 6:55:21 PM10/4/06 6:55:21 PM
60
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
INDICATOR MEXICO BELIZE GUATEMALA HONDURAS
WB Corruption Index, 2004 48.7 54.7 28.1 30.5
WB Government Effectiveness Index, 2004 56.7 61.1 18.8 27.9
WB Political Stability Index, 2004 44.7 66.0 22.8 26.7
WB Rule of Law Index, 2004 45.9 58.5 18.8 34.3
WB Regulatory Quality Index, 2004 68.0 62.1 49.3 39.4
WB Voice and Accountability Index, 2004 56.8 74.3 36.4 46.1
Year
70.0
1996 1998 20042000 2002
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Mexico
BelizeGuatemalaHonduras
Control of Corruption is a measure of the extent of corruption, conventionally defi ned as the exercise of public power
for private gain. It is based on scores of variables from polls of experts and surveys.
WB Corruption
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:60Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:60 10/4/06 6:55:21 PM10/4/06 6:55:21 PM
61
ANNEX 4 - 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY INDEX (ESI) AND OTHER INDICES
WB Government Effectiveness
Year
70.0
80.0
1996 1998 20042000 2002
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Mexico
BelizeGuatemalaHonduras
Government effectiveness combines responses on the quality of public service provision, the quality of the bureaucracy,
the competence of civil servants, the independence of the civil service from political pressures, and the credibility of the
government’s commitment to policies.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:61Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:61 10/4/06 6:55:22 PM10/4/06 6:55:22 PM
62
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
WB Political Stability Index
Political stability and absence of violence combines several indicators that measure perceptions of the likelihood
that the government in power will be destabilized or overthrown by possibly unconstitutional and/or violent means,
including domestic violence and terrorism.
Year
70.0
80.0
90.0
1996 1998 20042000 2002
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Mexico
BelizeGuatemalaHonduras
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:62Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:62 10/4/06 6:55:22 PM10/4/06 6:55:22 PM
63
ANNEX 4 - 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY INDEX (ESI) AND OTHER INDICES
WB Rule of Law Index
Rule of law includes several indicators that measure the extent to which agents have confi dence in and abide by the
rules of society. These include perceptions of the incidence of crime, the effectiveness and predictability of the judiciary,
and the enforceability of contracts.
Year
70.0
80.0
1996 1998 20042000 2002
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Mexico
BelizeGuatemalaHonduras
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:63Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:63 10/4/06 6:55:22 PM10/4/06 6:55:22 PM
64
MEASURING CORAL REEF ECOSYSTEM HEALTH: INTEGRATING SOCIETAL DIMENSIONS
Regulatory quality focuses more on the policies themselves, including measures of the incidence of market-unfriendly
policies such as price controls or inadequate bank supervision, as well as perceptions of the burdens imposed by
excessive regulation in areas such as foreign trade and business development.
WB Regulatory Quality Index
Year
70.0
80.0
90.0
1996 1998 20042000 2002
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Mexico
BelizeGuatemalaHonduras
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:64Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:64 10/4/06 6:55:22 PM10/4/06 6:55:22 PM
65
ANNEX 4 - 2005 ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY INDEX (ESI) AND OTHER INDICES
WB Voice and Accountability Index
Year
70.0
80.0
90.0
1996 1998 20042000 2002
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Mexico
BelizeGuatemalaHonduras
Voice and accountability includes in it a number of indicators measuring various aspects of the political process, civil
liberties, political and human rights, measuring the extent to which citizens of a country are able to participate in the
selection of governments.
Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:65Measuring Coral Reef 10-4-06.indd Sec1:65 10/4/06 6:55:23 PM10/4/06 6:55:23 PM
Global Environment Facility Coordination TeamEnvironment Department
THE WORLD BANK1818 H Street, NWWashington, DC 20433 USATelephone: 202.473.1816Fax: 202.522.3256Email: [email protected]: www.worldbank.org/gef
Top Related