Monitoring ecological and socioeconomic indicators ... - IngentaConnect

BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, 69(2): 847–859, 2001

MONITORING ECOLOGICAL AND SOCIOECONOMIC INDICATORS FOR CORAL REEF MANAGEMENT IN COLOMBIA Nohora Galvis Castro ABSTRACT Public policy should be based upon objective criteria that assures the proper management of coral reefs in Colombia. Four matrices of environmental and socioeconomic indicators have been characterized, in coral reef area per year, in order to monitor changes of quality and quantity of natural resources, while pointing out the benefits they provide to the community, as well as the effectiveness of management. Users of the reef, such as fishermen, tourists, coastal developers, researchers, students and managers need to be involved in monitoring programs and objective decision making. International programs such as CARICOMP and Reef Check provide the data required for each matrix which serves as an instrument to discuss with the community trends at regional and global scales, and as a way to implement strategies of National Policy for Integrated Coastal Management. Monitoring these indicators with the community can enhance public participation to achieve social benefits and to make environmental policies work.

Governments seeking sustainable development in the coastal zones require both socioeconomic and ecological criteria in order to design policies. Until recently, there has been more emphasis on the economic growth regardless of the social and environmental effects. The United Nations in 1963 published the first collection of social indicators in the Compendium of Social Statistics. Environmental considerations began to be included in the accounting systems of many countries after the Summit of Rio in 1992. Agenda 21 calls for the identification of indicators that assist reaching goals of equity and ecological sustainability. OECD (1993) presents a core of indicators for environmental performance reviews. Under this goal, international workshops have been held such as SCOPE (1995) and TCA (1995). Furthermore, the World Bank (1995) and the United Nations have implemented projects on indicators of sustainability, DPCSD (1995). Indicators are tools to measure change, results, or impacts caused by activities, projects, and programs (CIENES-OEA, 1995). Winograd et al. (1996) have presented a conceptual framework to develop and use environmental indicators for decision making in Latin America and the Caribbean. In Colombia, the Inter-Institutional Committee for Environmental Accounting (CICA) was created in 1992. It is now comprised of the Administrative Department of Statistics (DANE), the National General Auditory (CGN), Institute for Environmental Studies and Meteorology (IDEAM), the Ministry of Environment, and the National Planning Department (DNP). The DNP encourages the creation of matrices of ecological and socioeconomic indicators to evaluate the effectiveness of management, based on the System of Indicators for Planning and Monitoring, SIPSA (DNP, 1998). For example, Pescador (1998) has developed indicators to evaluate projects carried out by the Institute for Marine Research, INVEMAR. However, the approach of using indicators to evaluate institutional accomplishment in Latin America has been criticized by Cohen and Franco (1988), based on possible limitations due to hidden meanings attached to an ideological framework. CIENES-OEA (1995) also considers that governmental institutes use indicators to measure just the performance of programmed activities in order to justify their expenses and get further financial support, but they do not concentrate their efforts 847

848

BULLETIN OF MARINE SCIENCE, VOL. 69, NO. 2, 2001

on measuring the impact of their activities on the population. In a report for the Coastal Zone and Wetlands Group of the Colombian Ministry of Environment, some priorities have been established to follow an ecosystemic approach within a perspective of integrated coastal management to develop indicators and future environmental accounting for adequate ecosystem management (Galvis, 1998). Regarding coral reefs specifically, there has been a historical process to understand the importance of monitoring in Colombia. Galvis (1987, 1989a, 1992, 1994, 1996a,b, 1998, 1999), Alvarado (1992), and Garzón et al. (1993, 1998, 1999) have emphasized the need for implementation of such a program. In 1999, INVEMAR launched a national monitoring program with a strong emphasis on ecological considerations, with a lack of attention paid to the socioeconomics of coral reefs. At the international level, the study of the socioeconomic aspects of coral reefs is a priority. The World Bank, the United Nations, the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network, and the International Coral Reef Initiative, among other international organizations, promote cross-disciplinary research (Hatziolos et al., 1998). In Colombia, coastal development proposals should consider multidisciplinary information that participatory monitoring can provide in order to assure the sustainable use of coral reefs. METHODS The main criteria that were considered in the selection of indicators were their effectiveness for management and their efficiency or feasibility for coral reef monitoring. Cause-effect relationships were considered among the possible detectors of changes in natural and human-made phenomena, in order to be able to select parameters that can be used to measure improvement in management. Ecological and socioeconomic indicators were suggested according to sources of primary and secondary information. Information was input to fill matrices of indicators according to the specifications of the Regional United Nations Environmental Program (Winograd et al., 1996). Matrices were developed based on EXCEL sheets that can be interconnected within and between each other and that can be compared in space-and-time series (FEN-IDEADE, 1998; Galvis, 1998). Validity of the selected indicators is based on the Delphi Methodology (Riera, 1993). This means that the process of selection has received feedback from different multidisciplinary working groups, such as the Office of Economic Analysis of the Ministry of Environment. Additionally, some indicators were presented during important national and international meetings: National Seminar on Policy Science and Technologies of the Sea (Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia, 26–30 October 1998); Workshop on Community-Based Monitoring Programs for Coral Reefs (Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia, 28 October 1998); to some participants of ITMEMS (Townsville, Australia, 23–26 November 1998); and the Workshop of the Global Coral Reef Monitoring Network (Orpheus Island, Australia, 27 November–1 December 1998). They were also presented at this conference (International Conference on Scientific Aspects of Coral Reef Assessment, Monitoring, and Restoration, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, 14–16 April 1999) and in EXPOBUCEO (Santafé de Bogotá, Colombia, 8– 9 May 1999).

RESULTS In Colombia, there are three protected areas with coral reefs located in the Pacific and three located in the Caribbean (Fig. 1). There are already two monitoring programs in Colombia, CARICOMP and Reef Check. These have an international framework. They produce series of data recorded in the SIMAC or national monitoring system, with some of the ecological indicators presented in Table

GALVIS CASTRO: INDICATORS FOR CORAL REEF MANAGEMENT IN COLOMBIA

849

Figure 1. Location of coral reef areas and two case studies in Colombia.

1. For example, very few lobsters and no Nassau grouper have been seen during the Reef Check sampling. This could indicate that this species has been affected either by overfishing or habitat destruction. However, reports of a maximum of a lobster per reef were confusing to the general public and especially to the fisheries researchers who are used to seeing indicators of Catch per Effort Unit (CPEU) and landing weights. Looking at the logbooks of scuba divers over the past 10 yrs, reports are similar. More than one lobster seen per dive (30 min) in the same area could be a good indicator of sustainable management in a Colombian area. The only socioeconomic indicators that are being monitored at present are CPEU of some commercial species, activities of industrial enterprises (fisheries), and the positive response of the community to get involved in Reef Check (tourism and environmental education). The series of data for the first two indicators are being recorded by the Instituto Nacional de Pesca y Acuicultura, INPA. For the third indicator, since 1997 (IYOR), the Colombian coordinator of Reef Check has led the monitoring, with the willing participation of 40 governmental and non-governmental organizations, including active participation from academia, the private sector, and the community. Almost 200 volunteers participated in the educational talks and sampling events held in 21 sites from the Eastern

850


Pacific and the Caribbean Sea. The participation of many marine biologists provided a high level of accuracy to the data recording. Four matrices of indicators have been identified for objective decision making (Tables 1,2,3,4). The logic for the construction of these matrices starts at the top-left. Each coral reef area has its value functions for the group of indicators. These groups of indicators follow a sequence from the right to the left. Of the 151 total number of indicators identified: 27 measure pressure per area; 35 evaluate the state of nature; 36, the impact; 29, the response of the community; and 24, the local management scheme. The study of the changes in the values of these indicators in time and space can assist in local environmental and socioeconomic accounting. Furthermore, the relationship between cause and effect can guide the implementation of multidimensional models. Among the indicators for ecological impact (Table 1), it is important to define the sustainability index, based on Galvis (1987, 1989a). The dynamics of coral reefs can be reflected by the bottom composition. For example, if there is a diminishing population of herbivores, there will be an increase of edible algae; and if this is accompanied by nutrient enrichment, algae will occupy available substrate, winning the competition over coral colonization. Socioeconomic indicators look at the level of exploitation of coral reef resources; satisfaction of basic and secondary needs of their users; economic instruments; and the effectiveness of management. The socioeconomic indicators of Colombian coral reefs (Table 2,3,4) were divided by activity: tourism, fisheries, and coastal development. DISCUSSION ICRI (1999) underlined the need for producing data and information for management. The coordinators of global monitoring programs, Clive Wilkinson (GCRMN) and Gregor Hodgson (Reef Check), organized a session on monitoring during this conference (International Conference on Scientific Aspects of Coral Reef Assessment, Monitoring, and Restoration, held 14–16 April 1999 in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida). The rationale of that session was that monitoring is a very time-consuming and expensive proposition that should be based on cost-effectiveness criteria. This is particularly true in developing countries with scarce financial resources and social priorities, as in Colombia. Questions like Why? What? How? How often? to monitor coral reefs in Colombia had already been addressed by Galvis (1992, 1994, 1996). Indicators were not selected based upon correlations for two reasons: (1) there are insufficient data series (significant correlations vary spatially and temporally according to exogenous, endogenous, and state variables, Galvis, [1992]), and (2) correlations should not be the only criteria for selecting indicators. Kelly and Harwell (1989) suggest the relevance of identifying indicators that should be measured to detect potential changes in ecological endpoints. The criteria for selection should be based upon sensitivity to stress, rapid response, life span, ease/economy of monitoring, relevant endpoint, and monitoring feedback to regulations (Kelly and Harwell, 1989). Spellerberg (1991) recommended choosing bioindicators with narrow tolerances to environmental variables that injure without killing the organism (that is, unless mortality is measured). According to Kelly and Harwell (1989), it is necessary to define physio-ecological responses and recovery at


851

Table 1. Ecological indicators for coral reef management in Colombia. Variable

Pressure Loss of area CORAL REEFS (km2) and OF COLOMBIA species (#) (Figure 1) Extinctions

State Impact Response Community Coverage (%) Ecological monitoring and number indices: of bioindicators Coral mortality REEF CHECK (bacteria, fungi, algae, Coral morbidity GCRMN Frequency, vertebrates i n t e n s i t y a n d and Stress # of volunteers duration of invertebrates) natural and Colonization Partnerships man-made Physical and Support $ phenomena chemical Corallivory parameters Scientific Herbivory monitoring Carnivory CARICOMP Competition (INVEMAR)

Management Policy of integrated coastal management Environmental accounting SIMAC Scientific and environmental education Spawning Protected areas

Regulations Restoration programs by Sustainability # universities Enforcement # profesionals and # students Cause and effect relationships Biodiversity

organism, community, and ecosystem level. The selected organisms should have limited dispersal, be easy to sample, be relatively common, and have different age-classes (Spellerberg, 1991). Selected indicators are feasibly measured and cover the possibilities of cause-effect relationships, as drawn from a profound literature review (e.g., Proceedings of the Coral Reef Symposium on Practical, Reliable, Low Cost Monitoring; Methods for Assessing the Biota and Habitat Conditions of Coral Reefs, Annapolis, Maryland, 26–27 January 1995), and can be confirmed by the application of Delphi techniques. In agreement with Hughes (1993), this monitoring program should have enough flexibility to add and drop variables and indicators in response to new conditions. It would be a mistake to gather the same data year after year if conditions were to warrant a change of focus (Hughes, 1993). The continuing process of validation to select practical, reliable, low-cost indicators of coral reef vitality and management effectiveness should be based on Delphi techniques or multidisciplinary working groups and intersector participation. This coordinating mechanism would this assure long-term logistical and financial support, taking into account the substantial time, effort, and expense involved in the analysis of data. Most of the data can be gathered by participants of international programs, such as CARICOMP, Reef Base, and Reef Check. The efforts started with Galvis (1998) under the national policy of integrated coastal management should continue to involve the research institutions of gov-

852


Table 2. Socioeconomic indicators related to tourism for coral reef management in Colombia. Variable CORAL REEFS OF COLOMBIA (Figure 1)

Pressure Intensity

State Impact Tourists/area/time Coral fragmentation # amateur and professional divers Overfishing

Response Management Community Zoning plan involvement Protected and Frequency Ecotourism non-protected Duration areas # boats Siltation Contingent Anchoring valuation Mooring Tourists/boat Eutrophication bouys Scuba diving Travel cost Placement # Ships/area/time Algal competition Snorkeling Environmental # Boats/area/time education Algal Swimming colonization Other recreational Nutrient cycling activities Waste production

ernment and academia in ecological and socioeconomic accounting for adequate ecosystem management. ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS.—The implementation of programs to prevent and attend potential disasters is vital. Natural and human-made phenomena can be categorized by intensity, frequency, duration, and magnitude. Bio-physio-chemical parameters can be recorded by meteorological, hydrological, and sedimentological sampling by research institutions of the Ministry of Environment, such as INVEMAR and other research institutions like CIOH, and academic institutions which could support these procedures. Both diversity and abundance are good indicators of impact. Ecological indices, such the diversity, species richness per area, and number of commercially important species per area, are easily measured (Reid et al., 1993). However, recording diversity requires a taxonomic background. On the other hand, censusing of bioindicators that are socioeconomically important can be recorded by well-trained users of the reef. Bioindicators of commercial importance that are used for home consumption or for income, can be selected among different levels of biological organization, like family, genera, and species. The abundance of bioindicators selected by Reef Check (Galvis, 1998a) can be optimal parameters to respond economically, easily, and quickly to the questions of managers. Reliability depends on the level of training given to participants and the responsible feedback received by the international scientific community. The dynamics of coral reefs can also be reflected in the bottom composition. For example, if the population of herbivores is diminishing, there will be an increase of edible algae; and if this is accompanied by nutrient enrichment, algae will occupy the available substrate, thereby winning the competition for space and decreasing the possibility of allowing coral colonization. Based on quantitative research done in Pavitos Islands, Cartagena, Colombia, a Sustainability Index is proposed that relates live coral cover with algae, dead coral, and other substrate cover (Galvis, 1987, 1989a).


853

Table 3. Socioeconomic indicators related to fisheries for coral reef management in Colombia. Variable

Pressure Fishing CORAL REEFS method OF COLOMBIA (Figure 1) Effectiveness Intensity Frequency AREA Duration TIME Potential of fishery resources

State # Fishermen

Impact Income/fisher

Response Management Emigration % Incentives to Enterprises Migration % Artisanal boats Distance to Regulation % Boats for £3 fishing sites Organization Enforcement % Boats for ≥ 4 # FEU Alternative % Boats jobs and the Environmentun/motorized al education # Beneficiaries opportunity cost # Fisheries ind. Costs/trip Investment Industrial boats Revenue/trip Protected area Size of boats % Technical Overfishing Aquaculture assistance Un/Motorized commercial activites CPUE species Treaties MSY (Biologic) Demand MEY(Economic) Supply Research MSY (Social) Biomass Internalization applied to # Commercial abundance and of externalities management size species Change in productivity

Bioindicators of commercial importance can be selected among different levels of biological organization, such as family, genera, and species, that are used for home consumption or for income. Nevertheless, some bioindicators can be ecologically or economically important for one particular area or period of time, but not for another. For example, Roberts et al. (1988) precluded the use of butterflyfishes as indicators of impacts, because the census of the abundance and behavior of obligate corallivorous species were significantly, but only weakly, correlated with coral cover. White (1988) found implications for rapid assessment of reef health based on the significant correlation between total Chaetodon species numbers with habitat parameters over generalized reef areas in one geographical area. Reese (1995) suggested the use of indicator species of coral feeding chaetodontid fishes to detect low-level, sublethal changes in the coral reef habitat to develop an ‘early warning system’ for assessing perturbations to coral reefs. In addition, the Reef Check protocol has chosen counts of Corallivorous butterflyfishes (Chaetodontidae) as indicators of the legal or illegal activities practiced by the aquarium fisheries. Well-trained users of the reefs can carry out census of commercial bioindicators. Reef Check can be a facilitator to engage users in providing information to the environmental authority, in exchange for receiving technical assistance on sustainable uses of the reef or for alternative economic opportunities given by the local government. To avoid the problem caused by some ecological indicators, under different monitoring protocols, not being able to be compared due to the use of different methods and scopes, data have been recorded under the protocol of Reef Check (Galvis, 1996) and

854


Table 4. Socioeconomic indicators related to fisheries for coral reef management in Colombia. Activity Pressure State Impact COASTAL Development Inhabitants/area Production of DEVELOPMENT Sewage water Projects # of Houses # of Hotels Solid wastes Social # of Industries Liquid wastes Toxic wastes priorities of development Facilities and Biodegradability services index Cost-benefit Concentration, analyses dispersion and distance between pollution sources and reefs

Response Management Emigration % Clean production Migration % Policy Community participation Wastes