CLME-TT/6 Prov
Barbados, February 2007
Original:
English
LIVING MARINE RESOURCE GOVERANCE FOR THE WIDER CARIBBEAN WITH
PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON NON-EXTRACTABLE RESOURCES AND LME LEVEL
MONITORING AND REPORTING
A discussion paper for the CLME Synthesis Workshop
CLME Project Implementation Unit
Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES)
University of the West Indies
Cave Hill Campus, Barbados
February 2007
Contents
1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Overall context The Wider Caribbean ......................................................................... 1
1.2
Transboundary living marine resources in the Wider Caribbean Region....................... 3
1.3
Governance Context: Legal, Policy and Institutional ..................................................... 5
2
An LME governance framework for LMR............................................................................. 6
2.1
A policy-cycle, multi-scaled governance framework ..................................................... 7
2.1.1
The policy cycle component ................................................................................... 7
2.1.2
The multi-scale multi-level component .................................................................. 8
2.1.3
Diversity in policy cycles and linkages .................................................................. 9
3
Applying the LME governance framework to the Caribbean............................................... 11
4
Institutions and mechanisms for governance of oceans and biodiversity............................. 12
4.1
Marine Biodiversity Governance.................................................................................. 13
4.2
Review of selected instruments and arrangements ....................................................... 14
4.2.1 Global
efforts ........................................................................................................ 14
4.2.2 Regional
Efforts .................................................................................................... 22
4.2.3
Efforts within the Wider Caribbean...................................................................... 30
5
LME level monitoring and reporting .................................................................................... 41
6
Conclusions and recommendations....................................................................................... 42
6.1
LME governance framework ........................................................................................ 42
6.2
Non-extractable resources and biodiversity.................................................................. 43
7 References............................................................................................................................. 45
8 Appendix 1 Economic Perspective of Value, Cost and Benefits...............................50
ii
1 Introduction
This paper has been prepared to provide stakeholders and potential partners with an overview of
a possible approach to living marine resource governance for the Wider Caribbean with
particular emphasis on non-extractable resources and LME level monitoring and reporting. The
paper is a companion paper to one that focuses exclusively on the governance of fisheries within
the Wider Caribbean.
Section 2 describes an LME governance framework that will provide the basis for the
development and implementation of the CLME Project. In Section 3, a brief explanation is
provided on the application of the framework within the Caribbean LME, given the level of
complexity surrounding the living marine resource issues confronting the Wider Caribbean
Region. Section 4 highlights existing institutions and mechanisms for governance of oceans and
biodiversity while Section 5 focuses on LME-level monitoring and reporting. The paper
concludes with a summary and recommendations on the LME governance framework and on the
governance of non-extractable resources and biodiversity within the Caribbean LME and
adjacent regions.
The CLME Project has a focus on improved governance for sustainability. Governance of living
marine resources currently emphasizes ecosystem-based management (EBM) at scales that are
appropriate to the biophysical processes of the oceans. Sixty-four large marine ecosystems
(LMEs) have been defined on a biophysical basis and proposed as ecologically-rational units in
which EBM can be applied in the marine environment.
LMEs produce about 90% of the world's total marine fish catch, but most of them have been
overexploited, with declining catches and major shifts in biodiversity (Jackson et al 2001,
Garibaldi and Limongelli 2003, Pauly et al 2002). They are also where most of the world's land-
based and ocean-based pollution and habitat alteration take place (Miles 1999, GESAMP 2001,
USCOP 2006). This places an estimated US$10.6 trillion per year of renewable goods and
services at risk (Duda and Sherman 2002, Sherman et al. 2005).
A five module approach to LMEs has been developed to facilitate LME level EBM. Three of the
modules are natural science based (productivity; fish and fisheries; and pollution and ecosystem
health), another is focused on assessing the socio-economic benefits to be gained from the
sustainable management of the ecosystem goods and services and the fifth on assessing the
governance mechanisms needed to support EBM.
1.1 Overall context The Wider Caribbean
The Wider Caribbean Region extends from the mouth of the Amazon River, Brazil, in the south,
through the insular Caribbean, Central America, the Gulf of Mexico and north along the east
coast of North America to Cape Hatteras. This area also corresponds to the region covered by the
FAO Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission (WECAFC). Within this area there are three
large marine ecosystems (LMEs): The Gulf of Mexico LME, the Caribbean Sea LME, and the
North Brazil Current LME (Figure 1). These ecosystems are closely linked, particularly the latter
two, as the oceanography of the Caribbean Sea is strongly influenced by the highly productive
upstream Brazil-Guianas Shelf LME. The Gulf of Mexico LME is most influenced by inputs
from the Mississippi and other North American rivers.
The region includes 26 countries and 19 dependent territories of 4 other countries (see Section
3). These countries range from among the largest (e.g. Brazil, USA) to among the smallest (e.g.
Barbados, St. Kitts and Nevis) in the
o
o
o
o
90 W
80
W
60 W
o
world, and from the most developed to the
W
70
50 W
USA
least developed. Consequently, there is an
extremely wide range in their capacities
N
o
30
ATLANTIC OCEAN
for living marine resource management.
GULF OF
Throughout the region, the majority of the
MEXICO LME
population inhabits the coastal zone, and
N
o
there is a very high dependence on marine
20
resources for livelihoods from fishing and
MEXICO
CARIBBEAN SEA LME
tourism, particularly among the small
island developing states (SIDS), of which
N
o
N
10
OR
there are 16. In addition 18 of the 19
VENEZUELA
T
S
H
H
E
B
L
R
PACIFIC OCEAN
F
A
L
Z
M
IL
dependent territories are SIDS. The region
E
COLOMBIA
is characterized by a diversity of national
and regional governance and institution
Figure 1. The Caribbean and adjacent Large Marine Ecosystems
arrangements, stemming primarily from
the governance structures established by
the countries that colonized the region.
The EEZs of the Caribbean region form a mosaic that includes the entire region. Consequently,
there is a high incidence of transboundary resource management issues, even at relatively small
spatial scales.
The Caribbean Sea has been severely impacted by human uses: overexploitation of most coastal
and offshore living marine resources, destruction of coastal habitats by tourism, industrial and
urban development, and degradation of the marine environment by pollution from land and ship-
based sources. Caribbean coastal states, especially Small-Island Developing States (SIDS), are
highly dependent on the marine environment for their economic, nutritional and cultural well-
being. Fisheries play a major role in Caribbean countries. Small-scale fisheries are particularly
important, but are often undervalued. As near-shore resources have become depleted, and also in
response to increasing demand for fish products, attention has turned to offshore resources,
which are inevitably shared and already fully exploited by the major fishing nations (Mahon and
McConney 2004).
The oceanography of the Caribbean region is highly variable both spatially and temporally. The
North Coast of South America is dominated by the effects of two of the largest river systems in
the world, the Amazon and the Orinoco, as well as numerous other large rivers (Muller-Karger
1993). Most Caribbean islands are more influenced by the nutrient-poor North Equatorial
Current which enters the Caribbean Sea through the passages between the Lesser Antilles. Those
islands with appreciable shelf area exhibit significant coral reef development. From Isla
Margarita west to Mexico, the continental shelf is also extensively occupied by coral reefs at
shallow depths. Seagrass beds and mangroves are also common coastal habitats.
The Wider Caribbean Region is a biogeographically distinct area of coral reef development
within which the majority of corals and coral reef associated species are endemic. Thus, as a
whole, the region is of considerable global biodiversity significance. The Meso-American
Barrier Reef is the second longest barrier reef system in the world. A regional perspective on the
the extent of impact of human use on reefs and related ecosystems has been developed by the
Reefs at Risk Project (Burke and Maidens 2004).
2
1.2 Transboundary living marine resources in the Wider Caribbean Region
Transboundary living marine resources in the Wider Caribbean Region include both fisheries and
non-extractable resources. In the latter category fall all of those living marine resources that are
not exploitable, or at least not normally exploited in the Wider Caribbean Region, for example
seabirds, reef corals and associated species and deep sea fauna. These are major components of
the region's biodiversity. At the scale of the Caribbean LME, transboundary living marine
resource management issues in the Caribbean may include:
· Migratory resources (mainly large pelagics, cetaceans, seabirds but also some coastal
pelagics);
· Sedentary resources with transboundary distribution as adults (various demersal fishes);
· Resources with transboundary larval dispersal (lobster, conch, reef organisms);
· Dispersal of pathogens, pollutants and invasive species, i.e. negative impacts that come
from another EEZ;
· Resources with transboundary trophic linkages, i.e. the existence of which depends on
productivity that comes from another EEZ.
The fisheries of the Caribbean Region are based upon a diverse array of resources. The fisheries
of greatest importance are for offshore pelagics, reef fishes, lobster, conch, shrimps, continental
shelf demersal fishes, deep slope and bank fishes and coastal pelagics. There is a variety of less
important fisheries such as for marine mammals, sea turtles, sea urchins, and seaweeds. These
fishery types vary widely in state of exploitation, vessel and gear used, and approach to their
development and management. However, most coastal resources are considered to be
overexploited and there is increasing evidence that pelagic predator biomass has been severely
depleted (FAO 1998, Mahon 2002, Myers and Worm 2003).
The fisheries use a wide variety of gear, and are primarily artisanal, or small-scale, using open,
outboard powered vessels 5-12 m in length (see Table 1). The most notable exception are the
shrimp and groundfish fisheries of the Brazil-Guianas shelf where trawlers in the 20-30 m size
range are used, and the tuna fishery of Venezuela which uses large (>20 m) longliners and purse
seiners. In many countries there has been a recent trend towards more modern mid-size vessels in
the 12-15 m range, particularly for large pelagics, deep-slope fishes and lobster and conch on
offshore banks.
The large pelagic species that are assessed and managed by the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) are the most `high-profile' species with ocean-wide
distribution sustaining the largest catches, often by distant water fleets. Few countries of the
region presently participate in ICCAT's activities. The CARICOM Caribbean regional Fisheries
Mechanism (CRFM) has been working towards the participation of CARICOM countries in
ICCAT, most recently with assistance from FAO. A main problem is that many countries of the
Caribbean, often SIDS, presently take only a small proportion of the catch of species managed
by ICCAT. These countries may, by virtue of the size and productivity of their EEZs, be entitled
to a larger share, but lack the technical capacity or the financial resources to participate in
ICCAT where their case would be made. There is the need to develop a strategic approach
through which these countries, particularly SIDS, can take part effectively individually or
collectively in ICCAT (Chakalall et al. 1998, Singh-Renton et al. 2003, Mahon and McConney
2004).
3
Numerous other large migratory pelagic species that are not managed by ICCAT are important to
the fisheries of Caribbean countries, e.g. dolphinfish, blackfin tuna, cero and king mackerels,
wahoo and bullet tunas. The information base for management of these species is virtually non-
existent. These are species for which a regional effort at management is urgent (Mahon 1996,
Mahon and McConney 2004). This effort must include the appropriate institutional arrangement
for cooperative management as required by the UN Fish Stocks Agreement.
Recreational fishing, an important but undocumented contributor to tourism economies, is an
important link between shared resource management and tourism, as the preferred species are
mainly predatory migratory pelagics (e.g. billfishes, wahoo, and dolphinfish). This aspect of
shared resource management has received minimal attention in most Caribbean countries
(Mahon and McConney 2004).
Whereas, there is the tendency to think primarily of migratory large pelagic fishes as
transboundary resources, it is important to note that coastal resources such as reef organisms,
lobster, conch and small pelagics may also have localized transboundary distributions or be
transboundary by virtue of planktonic larval dispersal. In many species, larval dispersal lasts for
many weeks (e.g., conch) or many months (e.g., lobster) and may result in transport across EEZ
boundaries. These coastal resources are also the ones most likely to be impacted by
transboundary movement of pollutants. Therefore, even these coastal resources have an
important transboundary component to their management. They are the resources that have been
most heavily exploited by Caribbean countries and are severely depleted in most areas. Their
status has been discussed and documented by FAO and WECAFC for several decades (FAO
1999).
These coastal resources are particularly important for small-scale fisheries which predominate in
the region. Small-scale fisheries provide a considerable proportion of the protein requirements
for coastal often rural communities. In most Caribbean countries, particularly island states, the
majority of the population is coastal and fisheries are a key component of food security. In
CARICOM countries average per capita consumption of fish is about double the world average
(FAO 2001).
The marine resources in the CLME supply a wide range of goods and services. In addition to
their value for food security and fishing livelihoods, Caribbean marine resources are of vital
importance wherever tourism is a significant contributor to the national economy. Reefs and
related habitats play a major role in supporting tourism through beach sand production, shoreline
stabilization and as a recreational resource. These resources also provide benefits indirectly via
the jobs, income, and tax revenue they generate. Finally, these resources have value in terms of
their historic, cultural, aesthetic, and ecological significance. Clearly these resources generate
value of unique significance to the region. Yet, these resources are under considerable pressure.
Anthropogenic factors such as over-fishing and coastal development (and the accompanying
sedimentation and pollution) threaten to diminish all of the values listed above. Sustainable and
informed management of these resources is therefore of great importance to the economies of the
region.
The main objective of such management can be seen as the sustainable utilization of the multiple
goods and services generated by marine resources, together with a socially equitable distribution
of welfare gains and losses inherent in such uses (Ledoux and Turner, 2002). The challenge in
meeting this objective is daunting, yet clear. Society must determine an acceptable level and
distribution of societal welfare, and determine the level of conservation required to achieve it.
4
Understanding how and why people value coastal and marine resources can aid in addressing this
challenge.
It is important to note that the value derived from natural amenities such as coral reefs or fish
stocks, while recognized as extremely significant, may be difficult to incorporate into policy
actions. Part of the explanation for this stems from the fact that people and governments most
often respond to monetary price signals which often differ from economic values (Dixon, 1998).
Simply put, the true value of these resources, in the Caribbean region and around the world, is
largely unknown, and as a consequence may not be given due attention. It should be emphasized
that unknown does not imply nonexistent; to the contrary, other studies that have estimated the
value of these types of services have found that their values are quite large indeed.
Economic valuation studies of these goods and services are only now beginning to reveal their
magnitude. A brief economic perspective on value, cost and benefits is provided in Appendix 1.
1.3 Governance Context: Legal, Policy and Institutional
The need for attention to the management of transboundary exploited living marine resources in
the Wider Caribbean Region is well documented. From the early 1980s it has been a main
subject for discussion by WECAFC (e.g. Mahon 1987) and was stressed at its Commission
Meeting in 1999 (FAO 1999). These issues have been discussed and agreement reached on the
need for a coordinated regional effort on shared resources at many other fora.
A number of regional and global agreements exists which seek to address the social, economic
and governance issues related to transboundary marine resource management. These include
UNCLOS, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, the FAO Compliance Agreement and the FAO Code
of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (United Nations 1983, United Nations 1995, FAO 1995a,
1995b). In addition, agreements specific to the protection and conservation of the marine
environment and biodiversity such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (United Nations
1992), the Global Program of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-
Based Activities (UNEP 1995) and the Convention for the Protection and Development of the
Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean, or the "Cartegena Convention" (1983) are among
the policy instruments available to guide decision-making. The national level implications of
several of these are being explored by the countries of the Caribbean region. These implications
include (a) the need for capacity building at the national level to take part in international and
regional level management of shared resources, and (b) the need for strengthening and expanding
the scope of regional institutions to undertake this function.
Institutional arrangements for the management of transboundary living marine resources in the
Caribbean region have been emerging, de facto, from the ongoing efforts of various institutions.
These reflect the fact that the Caribbean does not have any major fish stocks attracting large
commercial fleets, revenues from which can be expected to support a fisheries management
institution. In other parts of the world, large valuable tuna or clupeid stocks have provided the
incentive to establish management regimes to protect indigenous rights and to extract rents from
non-indigenous fleets. The emerging approach in the Caribbean is more suited to the large
diversity of resources that are already mostly exploited by indigenous fleets so that the issues
relate primarily to conservation, optimization and intra-regional equity.
In response to the above situation, the emerging arrangements are flexible and involve
networking and adaptation of existing institutions. This approach has been endorsed by the
countries of the region at the last two meetings of WECAFC (1999, 2001b). The arrangements
5
involve a number of fledgling initiatives for various types of resources. For example, in the case
of conch the Caribbean Fishery Management Council has taken the lead in approaching regional
management. However, some countries have difficulty taking part to the extent required for
successful management. For shrimp/groundfish and flyingfish, WECAFC ad hoc Working
Groups are the lead agencies. The newly established CARICOM Caribbean Regional Fisheries
Mechanism (CRFM) has identified large pelagics as a priority topic (Haughton et al 2004,
Mahon and McConney 2004).
The reality of Caribbean ocean governance is a diversity of networks of actors serving various
purposes that seldom intersect effectively. Notably absent in most cases are interactions at the
critical stage of communicating analysis and advice to shape coordinated decision-making. Thus
the importance of having a framework that focuses on critical nodes for effective LME
governance and on strengthening linkages across multiple levels became increasingly evident.
Most countries also lack capacity, and there is seldom a clear mandate by any national, sub-
regional or regional level institution for management policies that address integration among
sectors.
2
An LME governance framework for LMR
In light of the diverse, complex and dynamic situation prevailing within the Caribbean LME, the
LME 5-module approach was examined as a potential framework for addressing living marine
resource (LMR) governance. Consideration was given to all five modules. However, it was
decided to place special emphasis on the fifth module, Governance. Much has been written on
theory, effectiveness and recommendations for enhancement of governance, defined as the
ability to get things done without necessarily having the legal competence to command that they
be done (Ostrom 1990, Czempiel 1992, Stoker 1998, Kooiman et al 2005, Olsen et al 2006).
However, little guidance has been provided on how actors might practically bring about
beneficial change and, as noted by Sherman et al (2005), development of this module has lagged
behind the others. Nonetheless, the five-module indicator-based LME approach has been deemed
useful for LMEs around the world (Sherman et al 2005, Wang 2004).
In reviewing the modular approach it was noted that though important for guiding sound
decision-making, knowledge-based assessments of biophysical and socioeconomic LME
components will be under-utilized, or even unusable, if there are no governance mechanisms in
place to facilitate their uptake (Berkes et al 2001). Second, whereas the modules can provide a
framework for application of indicators for assessment and monitoring, they do not provide a
comprehensive framework within which interventions can be developed and implemented in a
coordinated way that can be communicated to all actors so that they can see where they fit into
the framework.
Rather than being one of the five modules to be undertaken in LME management, governance is
seen as overarching. This perspective also provides the opportunity to separate the `governing
system' from the `system to be governed. This overarching perspective is what the proposed
framework attempts to provide as it interprets effective governance to be determined by a set of
nested and laterally-linked institutions and actors that are both governmental and non-
governmental.
Further elaboration is provided below to give an adequate basis for interventions to enhance
governance appropriate to networks of actors within the Caribbean LME. The framework may
also be applicable outside the Caribbean. The following is extracted from a paper that has been
6
submitted to Marine Policy and is available should details and references be desired (Fanning et
al. in press).
2.1 A policy-cycle, multi-scaled governance framework
The proposed framework provides for the processes and linkages at the multiple geographic and
organizational scales that prevail in the Caribbean. In addition, the framework also accounts for
the range of policy-relevant activities practiced by a diversity of stakeholders who are influenced
by, and who exert influence on, decision-making at multiple levels. It provides all actors with the
opportunity to see how their actions can affect the sustainable management of the shared living
marine resources of the Caribbean LME. It also provides guidance on the identification of
critical areas and timing for interventions and for assessing the success of such interventions.
The framework is consistent with introducing a balanced ecosystem-based approach that
considers productivity, fish and fisheries, pollution and ecosystem health, socioeconomics and
governance. However, our emphasis as described below is on the governance module as it
applies to the Caribbean Sea LME. In this regard, Olsen et al. (2006) recognize the holistic
nature of ecosystem management and the need to understand the dynamics of function,
condition, uses and governance of a complex
system.
ANALYSIS
AND
The framework comprises two well-known
ADVICE
components of LME governance: the process
DATA AND
by which decisions are made in any governance
INFORM
-ATION
regime, i.e. the policy cycle, and the multi-scale
nature inherent in LMEs, be it jurisdictional,
DECISION
MAKING
spatial, temporal or ecological. It is based on
standard principles and values for governance:
transparency, accountability, equity,
REVIEW
AND
sustainability and participation. The proposed
EVALUATION
framework is not so much an original construct
IMPLEMENT
-ATION
as it is an identification of an existing weakly
structured, self-organized framework and the
provision of ideas on how to strengthen and
Figure 2. A generic policy cycle used for the
proposed LME governance framework.
enable it by focusing on properties that would
be essential for LME level EBM.
2.1.1 The policy cycle component
The foundation for the proposed framework is a generic policy cycle (Figure 2); an iterative
process that should lead to incremental improvement in management (Olsen et al. 2006). The
different stages in the cycle data and information, synthesis and provision of advice, decision
making, implementation and review and evaluation all require different inputs and actors,
although there is overlap.
The `data and information' stage is where much of the science and technical input takes place.
This information ought to be interdisciplinary and may range from highly technical, science-
based to local/traditional knowledge provided by stakeholders either informally or formally. We
consider this to be the primary area where the LME science-based modules of productivity, fish
and fisheries, pollution and socioeconomics make their contribution to the governance process.
7
The `analysis and provision of advice' stage is likely to be closely related to the `data and
information' stage in terms of actors involved and also draws on technical expertise. Its purpose
is to provide specific policy and management options and recommendations to decision-makers
in the next stage. In these stages of the cycle, the four LME science-based modules (productivity,
fish and fisheries, pollution and ecosystem health, and socioeconomics) contribute to governance
while the governance process itself determines the consequences of the analysis and advice being
provided and the decisions reached.
The `implementation' stage may be the least directly connected to the previous stages and will
involve the full range of tools and activities that are familiar to natural resource managers for
achieving compliance, either voluntary or enforced, as appropriate to the particular situation.
These include legislation, monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS), incentives and capacity
building. The `implementation' stage includes collection of the data needed for monitoring of the
changing states of the LME. The `review and evaluation' stage completes the cycle and mainly
feeds back into `data and information' needs, but can also provide direct inputs across the cycle
into `analysis and advice' if policy changes are called for.
Clearly, this is a simplified depiction of the cycle, of which there are many variations. The
various stages often overlap in function as actors play roles in more than one stage. There may
also be cross links that bypass various stages for some parts of the process. We do not perceive
these variations as compromising the cycle. What we consider to be important is that the cycle be
complete and iterative. This leads us to our first proposition: `Any interruption at any stage of the
policy cycle will result in dysfunctional governance of the target resources or ecosystems'.
2.1.2 The
multi-scale
multi-level component
For effective governance of LMEs,
the policy cycle described above
must be operational at several scales
Global
and levels, e.g. local, national,
regional (LME regions) and
international, in which jurisdictional
and geographical scales are
Regional
correlated (Figure 3). Discussions of
scale in natural resource
management often focus on the
degree of match between
National
institutional scale and the scale of
the resource that it is to be managed.
Local
In the proposed framework, our
attention is primarily on
jurisdictional scale and the
relationships between levels while
Figure 3. The multi-scale component of the proposed governance
acknowledging the importance of
framework with vertical and horizontal linkages among the
different policy cycles. The multi-level linkages do not necessarily
the fit of these to the systems to be
imply a controlling function.
governed as a matter to be taken up
during implementation.
8
The multi-scale framework facilitates application of the subsidiarity principle by allowing for
implementation of governance at the scale that is closest to the problem to be addressed.
The policy cycle described in the previous section may occur in a wide variety of forms
determined by several factors that will be explored later. At this point we wish to emphasize that
cycles at different jurisdictional levels have different roles in the proposed framework, each of
which is necessary but not sufficient for LME level EBM. Consequently, linkages between
jurisdictional levels are essential (Figure 3). These are bidirectional linkages that may or may not
include control. When the linkages are predominantly controlling from upper to lower levels, the
system is a conventional top-down hierarchy. Another situation is where the linkages are
predominantly for communication and cooperation. This is essentially a network structure where
the linkages facilitate self-organization. Network linkages are also typically diverse and
dynamic. They may simply be for sharing of data and information which can either be offered or
sought. Alternatively, they may be used to share ideas and concepts including principles and
values. Even further, they can be used for joint decision-making.
Different kinds of interactions are likely in each direction. For example, there is likely to be a
downward flow of information on analysis, rationale and decisions from each level to the level
below. However, flows in the other direction are equally important. They can provide
information on what is desired and feasible. These flows can lead to cross-scale relationships that
are mutually sustaining in the long term, being neither exploitative from above nor parasitic from
below. We see these upward and downward linkages in the multi-scale system are an integral
component of a functioning LME governance framework. This leads us to the second
proposition: `Vertical linkages between functional policy cycles are necessary for effective LME
governance.'
2.1.3 Diversity in policy cycles and linkages
The proposed policy-cycle based, multi-scaled LME governance framework recognizes that
there will be a diversity of policy cycle types and linkage types, and provides for this diversity to
be accommodated within a single framework. The diversity of individual and organizational
policy cycle actors from multiple jurisdictional levels is illustrated in Figure 4.
The nature of a policy cycle
may vary according to factors
All kinds of research and
All kinds of analysis that is focused on
assessment including
that determine characteristics
addressing fishery and environmental
Traditional or Local Ecological
management problems and that can lead to
including: the
Knowledge, participatory
advice that is useable by decision makers:
research, oceanography, stock
local groups, national committees, regional
sociocultural/political context;
assessment, resource
scientific bodies and NGOs
mapping, sociology and
purpose; jurisdictional scale;
economics at all scale levels
ANALYSIS
AND
ADVICE
capacity; and complexity.
DATA AND
INFORM
Bodies with a mandate to
-ATION
DECISION
MAKING
review advice and make
REVIEW
decisions, preferably
Sociocultural and political
Similar bodies to those that
AND
EVALUATION
IMPLEMENT
-ATION
binding, regarding what
are responsible for analysis
context: The sociocultural and
should be implemented to
and advice and that often
achieve sustainability in
oversee the policy cycle
political context of the
fisheries or environmental
use: local NGOs and CBOs,
community, country or LME
Primarily national and local agencies with a
Ministries or Cabinet,
mandate to put decisions into action, whether this
in which the policy cycle
regional/international
be capacity building, new legislation or direct
political bodies.
occurs will determine many of
enforcement.
its characteristics. Whereas the
Figure 4. The diversity of stakeholders that may be involved in the
establishment of common
policy cycle depending on cycle stage and scale level.
principles and values for
9
natural resource and environmental management can be pursued throughout an LME at upper
jurisdictional levels, the way in which these are approached nationally and locally must fit
cultural norms if governance is to be effective.
Purpose: Policy cycle arrangements related to living marine resource governance may be in place
for a variety of purposes: to address fisheries sustainability, biodiversity conservation, marine
recreational use, rural livelihoods, or any combination of these as well as other purposes. These
arrangements can be species-specific, fisheries specific, area-specific, focus on protected areas,
or topic-specific, such as mangrove restoration. Cycles at lower levels are most likely to be
resource and location specific, whereas those at higher levels are most likely to be oriented
towards harmonization of lower level cycles. An effective national level cycle is critical to
ensure the effective functioning of LME-level governance since it serves as the interface
between local and regional/international levels.
Jurisdictional scale: At the local level, policy cycle arrangements may be under the auspices of
community-based organizations which may either already exist for other purposes such as village
councils, or which may have a specific purpose, such as fisherfolk organizations or conservation
groups. At the national level, a given policy cycle will be undertaken most often in the
government domain and will be carried out by the government department that is responsible for
implementing particular legislation. Parastatal bodies may also have responsibility for policy
cycles, e.g. a National Parks Commission. At the regional and international levels, undertaking
policy cycles will primarily be the responsibility of intergovernmental organizations or
commissions.
Capacity: The capacity of the implementing intergovernmental organizations or commissions can
determine the nature of a mature policy cycle arrangement. In situations of limited human
resources, as often occurs in developing countries or small island developing states (SIDS), the
arrangement that is in place to address a particular management need may differ from that which
is in place to address the same need in large or developed countries. In human resource limited
systems, the emphasis may be less on technical, science-based approaches and more on
consensual, people-based ones.
Complexity: The implications of complexity in determining governance arrangements for natural
resource management are becoming increasingly clear. Policy cycles that address highly
complex systems may need to operate differently from those that address simpler ones. At the
extreme of complexity, the cycle may function primarily in a learning and adaptation mode with
implementation pertaining largely to enabling self-organization and building resilience.
A diversity of communication linkages can take place among the policy cycle components of the
LME governance framework. Whereas in conventional hierarchical systems only vertical
linkages are needed, complex systems require a richer diversity of linkages in order to be
adaptive and resilient. Many valuable linkages may be horizontal, in which policy cycles at the
same level learn from each other without being linked through the level above, although it may
be the role of each level to promote horizontal linkages at lower levels. This leads us to our third
proposition: `Horizontal linkages between functional policy cycles are often necessary for
effective LME governance.'
Linkages can take place at any point in a policy cycle and will differ accordingly. Technical
linkages amongst scientists and technologists in the data and information stages will differ
substantially from linkages amongst actors in the implementation stages trainers and enforcers.
10
There may be imbalances also. Technical linkages may be strong among the actors in the data
and information stages through the literature, internet and technical conferences, yet weak at
other stages. It appears likely that when linkages, especially vertical ones, are absent between
cycles at the `analysis and advice' and `decision making' stages, integration of governance at
higher levels is ineffective. We therefore offer a fourth proposition that `Linkages between
functional policy cycles specific to the `analysis and advice' and `decision-making' stages of the
cycle are essential for effective LME governance.'
3
Applying the LME governance framework to the Caribbean
The goal of interventions aimed at promoting effective governance of living marine resources in
the Caribbean LME would be to have fully-functional policy cycles at all appropriate levels with
the appropriate vertical and lateral linkages. The policy-cycle, multi-scale, multi-level approach
provides an avenue for change agents at all levels to make a valuable input within the context of
an overall LME governance framework. Different agents will have different focal levels. Many
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and community-based organizations (CBOs) will focus
at the local level to build effective policy cycles and to enhance linkages with other similar
agencies. Multi and bilateral donor agencies will usually focus at the national and regional levels
through intergovernmental organizations.
Interventions can be specifically targeted at establishing policy cycles or completing them by
identifying the weak stages and developing projects to strengthen them. Empirical evidence
within the Caribbean LME has led us to propose that linkages between policy cycles at the
analysis and decision-making stages are critical for effective LME governance and yet we have
found that these stages are often the weakest in marine resource management. Efforts can focus
on establishing or enhancing mechanisms for analysis and provision of advice on a regular and
timely basis and on ensuring it is considered by decision-makers in appropriate fora.
Interventions can also be specifically targeted at building or enhancing linkages. The nature of
interventions will vary with the nature of the links themselves. Where the links are primarily
communication and cooperation based, interventions will be largely aimed at enabling self-
organization and adaptation through building the capacity needed for the various interactions that
should take place in developing learning systems.
While there can be emphasis on specific links, the structure of the entire system is also likely to
be an important focus. The proposed framework is essentially of nested networks in which the
policy cycles can be seen as nodes. However, each cycle is itself a sub-network in which the
stages can be seen as nodes. Drilling deeper still, one reaches the point where individual actors
functioning within the cycles can serve as nodes. It is at this level that many cross linkages may
occur as these actors have roles in several cycles at various levels. Some nodes can be readily
identified as network hubs. It is becoming increasingly clear that network structure, characterized
by the distribution of links per node and the presence or absence of nodes with large numbers of
links, can significantly affect network resilience and power relationships.
Finally, the framework also provides a context within which to assess the status of governance
arrangements. At any level for any resource system, one can ask whether the conditions of the
four propositions are being met. Within the Caribbean LME Project, pilot projects are being
designed to test the applicability of the framework and the significance of the propositions to
effectively govern shared living marine resources. Using an EBM approach to address priority
11
areas of concern, the pilots will examine weaknesses in existing policy cycles at multiple scale
levels to identify and implement targeted and timely interventions.
4 Institutions
and
mechanisms
for governance of oceans and
biodiversity
Global management regimes have been adopted to protect the oceans, which make up two-thirds
of the surface area of the planet and are increasingly the object of environmental degradation.
Global regimes however, are not sufficient requiring the support of regional and subregional
institutions, which can reflect the multiple uses and the layers of interests involved. Upon
recognition of coastal states exclusive economic zones, the attractiveness of the oceans as a new
area for economic development has been augmented. With this, responsibility of the states in
terms of management and conservation is broadened (Miller 1996).
Many of the environmental stresses on the oceans come from activities landward of ocean
boundaries altogether (Christie 2006). In addition, the oceans as open systems with shared
marine resources used and managed by multiple stakeholders at different levels, require
arrangements that go beyond national jurisdictions and have as basis the ecosystems that support
productivity. Thus, the necessity of ocean governance to address problems at the ecosystem level
is well accepted (Christie 2006).
Governance can be understood as the arrangements set in place to achieve an objective. Hence,
ocean governance involves a framework for decision-making to address problems involving
different stakeholders who have an interest on the ocean space, its uses and resources. According
to Fanning et al (2007), governance is a key determinant for addressing impacts on productivity
levels, fish and fisheries, pollution and ecosystem health as well as enhancing socio-economic
conditions. Therefore, governance must be addressed at the outset of any effort to implement
ecosystem-based management.
Several mechanisms on a global, regional and national level provide a basis for ocean
governance. These governance frameworks range from the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), to regional and national efforts. While some of these mechanisms
provide a comprehensive framework which governs the full spectrum of ocean uses (e.g.,
UNCLOS), other efforts provide a framework to achieve a specific purpose (e.g., biodiversity
conservation) or are determined within a specific geographic space (e.g. Cartagena Convention).
Thus, each governance framework proposes specific mechanisms which involve different
stakeholders and jurisdictional levels. In addition, they determine certain interventions within the
policy cycle.
The purpose of this section is to review current efforts and arrangements for the governance of
non-extractable living marine resources/biodiversity, including monitoring and reporting. It will
first present an overview of marine biodiversity governance, highlighting its responses,
challenges and benefits. It will then review selected instruments and arrangements at three
different levels: (1) global; (2) regional; and, (3) specific to the wider Caribbean with reference
to the following: (1) purpose and area of application; (2) measures; (3) cooperation among
members states; (4) institutional arrangements; (5) rules of procedure; (6) financial mechanisms;
(7) reporting requirements; (8) assessment of success; (9) potential constraints for application;
(10) relation to the governance framework; and (11) member states.
12
4.1 Marine
Biodiversity
Governance
Marine biodiversity governance is essential for its conservation, protection and sustainable use.
Awareness of the need for structured governance systems has resulted in the adoption of
instruments at different levels. Such instruments establish principles which seek joint action
among different States and/or require the implementation of specific measures at the national and
regional levels.
The measures included address issues that range from ecosystem and species protection;
allocation of rights; equitable sharing of benefits; science and technology; education; capacity
building; traditional knowledge; and, customary practices. All within a globalization era, where
market forces place high demands on resources, and with a view of maintaining resources for
future generations requiring dynamic regimes to accommodate both development and
conservation. Thus, certain Conventions (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity) offer the
potential for reshaping the relationships between humans and nature, as well as the distribution
of social, cultural, political and economic rights, responsibilities among and within States (Le
Prestre 2002).
Certain instruments (i.e. Conventions) require the adoption of principles which make necessary a
restructuring of the economic and social regimes of the nations in order to accomplish the
required behavioral changes. In addition, the implementation of measures at the national levels
requires on many occasions the enabling of new legislation and restructuring of existing
institutions to implement new laws and regulations. Finally, given the importance of marine
biodiversity for different users and uses, a committed participation from society is fundamental.
Thus, it can be expected that the implementation of different instruments, which directly or
indirectly address marine biodiversity, poses significant challenges.
It is highlighted that challenges encountered for implementation result from the complex nature
of the instruments and their political, commercial and social implications. Challenges
encountered at the level of operation of the regimes include uncertainties on the proper role and
interrelationships of the bodies established for operationalization; difficulties dealing with the
breath of the work programmes; absence of consensual scientific knowledge in support of the
work and, insufficient or inefficient collaboration and co-operation among institutions, bilateral
and multilateral agreements, particularly when dealing with earlier agreements and the
harmonization of new principles with existing norms and rules of international law (Le Prestre,
2002). At the national level, proposed mechanisms for ocean governance (i.e. including marine
biodiversity), which require an ecosystem-based management approach on occasion fail to
provide adequate incentives. In addition, reorganization of agency structures to conform to eco-
regions and the coordination between agencies within boundaries do not fully address
governance. Primarily because of the complexity of the problems, their point of origin,
jurisdictional responses within boundaries and a mismatch between governance structures and
eco-regions (Christie, 2006). Thus, uncoordinated administrative structures, divided and
competing levels of administrative authority pose a significant obstacle for implementation and
the development of integrated initiatives. A further challenge encountered by public
administrators is devising appropriate, credible and legitimate participatory structures called for
in an ecosystem approach (Le Prestre 2002). Lack of political will or under-funded programs
pose a significant challenge for implementation at the national level (Benedict 2004). In addition,
as regards developing countries these may be confronted with potential or actual contradictions
between international norms and local norms and priorities. Although capacity building at the
13
national level is a recognized priority among different Conventions, lack of capacity remains a
constraint on the development and implementation of these instruments. Lack of capacity may
result from a brain drain effect, when government officials are promoted without fully
implementing skills learned; uneven participation in international fora by developing country
experts and inadequate communication between stakeholders and governments. A further
challenge faced regards financing, given that countries fund specific programs making planning
more difficult and potentially skewing implementation. Finally, shortcomings in national
reporting make assessment of the real degree of implementation difficult (Le Prestre, 2002).
Thus, inadequate monitoring hinders improvement of the instruments and/or may result on the
financing of actions which are not properly addressing the established objectives.
In spite of the challenges encountered for implementation of different instruments, the fact that
these have been signed and ratified by States fosters the development and operationalization of
concepts which address marine biodiversity. In addition, a concerted approach at the
international, regional and national levels has benefited marine biodiversity governance on
different aspects. These aspects include the establishment of institutional arrangements at the
international, regional and national levels that foster international co-operation; a redefinition of
biodiversity issues in socio-economic terms; the development and dissemination of new norms;
strengthened non governmental agencies and networks; and, financial support. For instance,
financing for biodiversity has increased significantly by the Global Environmental Facility. By
2001, the financial mechanism had provided support to over 130 developing countries to develop
national biodiversity strategies (Le Prestre, 2006). Ultimately, institutional arrangements
established enable a continued supervision of implementation by those States who have ratified
different Conventions and therefore maintains issues of biodiversity at the forefront. In turn, a
committed participation by society permits these issues to be addressed not only within the scope
of the governments.
4.2
Review of selected instruments and arrangements
4.2.1 Global efforts
4.2.1.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
Purpose and area of application
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) establishes a legal order for
the seas and oceans which facilitates international communication, and promotes the peaceful
uses of the seas and oceans, the equitable and efficient utilization of their resources, the
conservation of their living resources, and the study, protection and preservation of the marine
environment.
Measures
UNCLOS represents and umbrella global instrument, which recognizes both the interests and
needs of national jurisdictions and the area of the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil beyond
national jurisdiction and its resources as the common heritage of mankind. Therefore, UNCLOS
determines measures to be taken by national jurisdictions within their spaces of sovereignty and
those shared areas (i.e. high seas). In total, UNCLOS comprises 320 articles and nine annexes,
governing all aspects of ocean spaces, such as: (1) delimitation (i.e. defining territorial sea,
14
contiguous zone, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf as well as the rights and duties
of coastal and other States within these areas); (2) environmental control; (3) marine scientific
research; (4) economic and commercial activities; (5) transfer of technology; and, (6) settlement
of disputes relating to ocean matters. UNCLOS sets provisions for coastal States to adopt laws
and regulations within the areas of scope of the Convention.
As regards marine living resources UNCLOS determines measures to be taken by coastal States
within their economic exclusive zones (e.g. determine allowable catch of the living resources,
maintain and restore populations of harvested species). In addition, when a coastal State does not
have the capacity to harvest the entire allowable catch it shall give other States access to the
surplus. In turn these states have to comply with the laws and regulations stipulated by the
coastal States. In exercising their sovereign rights to explore, exploit, conserve and manage the
living resources in the exclusive economic zones, coastal States may take the necessary
enforcement measures to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted in conformity
with UNCLOS. As UNCLOS determines that the high seas are open to all States, it sets
provisions for the conservation and management of the living resources within these shared areas
(i.e. applicable to fishing rights in the area, conservation measures of stocks, restoration of
populations, conservation and management of marine mammals).
Cooperation among Member States
Cooperation among Members States is mandatory, both in the activities undertaken in common
areas (high seas) and for the compliance of the laws and regulations of coastal States adopted in
accordance to UNCLOS. As regards marine living resources, coastal States which have shared
stocks within their exclusive economic zones are required to agree upon measures to ensure their
conservation through subregional or regional organizations (applicable also to highly migratory
species). Further cooperation is warranted for the conservation of marine mammals and
cetaceans through the appropriate international organizations for their conservation, management
and study. In addition, given the freedom of the high seas, States are required to cooperate for the
conservation and management of living resources in these shared areas.
Institutional arrangements
The Secretary-General of the United Nations acts as depositary of UNCLOS and its
amendments. Among its functions, the Secretary-General reports to all State Parties, the
Authority and competent international organizations of issues related to the Convention; notifies
the Authority of ratifications and accessions; circulates amendments and convenes necessary
meetings of State Parties. Several institutional arrangements were established through UNCLOS,
in particular for the activities and measures to be carried out in the Area. As defined by
UNCLOS the Area means the seabed and ocean floor and subsoil, beyond the limits of national
jurisdiction. The institutional arrangements established include: the International Seabed
Authority and its bodies (Assembly, Council, Economic Planning Commission, Legal and
Technical Commission, Secretariat, Enterprise). In addition, UNCLOS constituted the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea.
Rules of procedure
No reservations or exceptions may be made to UNCLOS. Thus, provisions determined in the
Convention are binding to those States who have ratified it. However, a State when signing,
ratifying or acceding the Convention, can make declarations or statements in regards to the
15
harmonization of its laws and regulations with the provisions of UNCLOS. State Parties may
propose specific amendments to UNCLOS (excluding those relating to activities in the Area) and
request the convening of a conference to consider the proposed amendments. In regards to the
decision-making process, the conference must make every effort to reach agreement on any
amendments by consensus. Amendments can also be adopted by simplified procedure, when
State Parties have presented no objection to the written proposed amendments sent to them by
the Secretary-General of the United Nations within 12 months. Amendments regarding activities
in the Area are subject to approval by the Assembly and Council.
When disputes arise between States in the application or interpretation of the Convention,
UNCLOS determines certain provisions for their settlement. After all local remedies between the
concerned Parties have been exhausted; disputes are settled by a court or tribunal (i.e. the
International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an arbitral
tribunal). Decisions rendered by a court or tribunal are final and must be complied by all Parties
to the dispute.
Financial Mechanisms
Article 82 determines provisions for payments and contributions with respect to the exploitation
of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. As such, payments and contributions are
made by coastal States which exploit non-living resources of the area through the Authority,
which distributes them to State Parties to UNCLOS. In addition, Funds for the International
Seabed Authority include contributions by members of the Authority, funds received in
connection with activities in the area and funds transferred by the Enterprise.
Reporting requirements
Contracting Parties to the Convention are bound to publicize their charts and lists of
geographical coordinates defining their territorial seas, charts of sea lanes, as well as the laws
and regulations adopted in accordance to UNCLOS. In addition, Contracting Parties are required
to publish reports concerning marine pollution, fishing resources (i.e. total allowable catch in the
exclusive economic zone), information and knowledge resulting from marine scientific research.
Assessment of success
UNCLOS requires States to adopt laws and regulations within the areas of scope of the
Convention. Thus, a measure of success is the legislation set in place to address ocean issues by
those countries which have ratified the Convention.
Potential constraints for application
A potential constraint for application may be related to the wide scope of UNCLOS. In addition,
the wide disparity among countries which have ratified the Convention in political, economic
and social terms, may present a difficulty to reach agreements on measures that must be
undertaken jointly. In particular, regarding marine biodiversity it is known that while some
countries have stringent rules for the protection and conservation of marine mammals and
cetaceans, other countries continue to exploit them. Thus, it is unclear how cooperation for
conservation of marine mammals and cetaceans may be achieved.
Relation to the governance framework
16
Interventions are targeted both at the decision making and implementation stages of the policy
cycles, as States are required to enable legislation on different issues.
Member States1
Up to the 2nd of November, 2006, 152 countries have ratified UNCLOS. Of the countries within
the Wider Caribbean the following 15 have ratified the Convention: Belize, Costa Rica,
Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Brazil, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and
Tobago, Bahamas, Cuba, Haiti and Jamaica. Colombia and Dominican Republic have signed the
declaration but not ratified it.
4.2.1.2 Convention on Biological Diversity2
Purpose and area of application
The objectives of CBD are the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its
components and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization of
genetic resources, including by appropriate access to genetic resources and by appropriate
transfer of relevant technologies, taking into account all rights over those resources and to
technologies, and by appropriate funding.
CBD applies to national jurisdictions as it recognizes the sovereign right of States to exploit their
own resources pursuant to their own environmental policies.
Measures
Contracting Parties are required to develop or adopt national strategies, plans and programmes
that reflect the measures set out in the Convention, and integrate the conservation and sustainable
use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral and cross-sectoral plans, programmes and
policies.
CBD requires Contracting Parties to identify and monitor components of biological diversity,
implement in situ3 and ex situ conservation measures4.
In order to address the objective of sustainable use of components of biological diversity, CBD
requires Contracting Parties to: (1) integrate consideration of the conservation and sustainable
use of biological resources within their national decision-making; (2) protect and encourage
1 Data consulted at http://www.un.org/Depts/les/reference_files/chronological_lists-of_ratifications.htm on the 2nd
of December, 2006.
2 CBD was adopted on 5 June 1992
3 (1) The establishment and management of protected areas or areas where special measures need to be taken to
conserve biological diversity; (2) the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and maintenance of viable
populations; (3) rehabilitation and restoration of degraded ecosystems; (4) prevention of introduction or eradication
of alien species; (4) respect, preserve and maintain indigenous and local communities knowledge, innovations and
practices relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, involvement of holders of such
knowledge and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and
practices; and, (5) development of legislation and/or regulatory provisions for the protection of threatened species.
4 (1) Establish and maintain facilities for ex situ conservation and research on plant, animals and micro-organisms;
(2) adopt measures for the recovery and rehabilitation of threatened species and their reintroduction into their natural
habitats; and, (3) regulate and manage collection of biological resources from natural habitats for ex situ
conservation purposes so as not to threaten ecosystems and in situ populations of species.
17
customary use of biological resources in accordance with traditional cultural practices
compatible with conservation or sustainable use requirements; (3) support local populations to
develop and implement remedial action in degraded areas where biological diversity has been
reduced; and, (4) encourage cooperation between its governmental authorities and its private
sector in developing methods for sustainable use of biological resources.
CBD requires Contracting Parties to adopt economically and socially sound measures which can
serve as incentives for the purpose of the Convention. In addition, CBD outlines detailed
provisions for research and training; public education and awareness; impact assessment and
minimization of adverse impacts; access to genetic resources; access to and transfer of
technology; and, handling of biotechnology and distribution of benefits. To this end, CBD
requires Contracting Parties to undertake specific measures within their jurisdictions and to
cooperate with other States.
Cooperation among Members States
Given the principle that States have a responsibility to ensure that activities within their
jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the environment of other States, CBD requires
cooperation among Contracting Parties through international organizations in areas beyond
national jurisdictions and on other matters of mutual interest, for the conservation and
sustainable use of biological diversity.
CBD recognizes the needs for cooperation, in particular for developing countries. Thus,
Contracting Parties are to cooperate in providing financial and other support for in situ and ex
situ conservation measures in developing countries. In addition Contracting Parties are to
cooperate in the use of scientific advances in biological research in developing methods for
conservation and sustainable use of biological resources; establishing joint research programmes
and joint ventures for the development of technologies and cooperate amongst themselves and
international organizations in developing educational and public awareness programmes.
Cooperation is required also through bilateral, regional or multilateral arrangements; exchange of
information; establishment of joint contingency plans; access to genetic resources; access to and
transfer of technology relevant to the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity
with effective protection of intellectual property rights, among others. In promoting cooperation,
special attention must be given to the development and strengthening of national capabilities, by
means of human resources development and institutional building. Furthermore, CBD sets
provisions for the distribution of benefits from biotechnology, especially for Contracting Parties,
which provide genetic resources for research.
Institutional arrangements
The main body of CBD is the Conference of the Parties, established to keep under review the
implementation of the Convention, through ordinary and extraordinary meetings. Specialized
agencies, governmental and non-governmental organizations can participate as observers in the
meetings.
CBD established a Secretariat (provided by the Executive Director of the United Nations
Environment Programme) whose functions include: (1) arrange and service meetings; (2) prepare
reports on the execution of its functions and present them to the Conference of the Parties; and,
(3) coordinate with other relevant international bodies for the effective discharge of its functions.
The Convention also established a subsidiary body on Scientific, Technical and Technological
18
Advice, to provide the Conference of the Parties with advice relating to the implementation of
the Convention. It is open to participation by all Parties, comprised of government
representatives.
Rules of procedure
Protocols to the Convention are adopted at meetings of the Conference of the Parties.
Amendments to the Convention, Protocols and annexes are reached by consensus. When
consensus is not obtained, amendments are adopted by a two-third majority vote of the Parties
present and voting at the meeting, and are then submitted for ratification, acceptance or approval
by all Parties. No reservations may be made to the Convention, although Contracting Parties may
withdraw after two years of being a Party to it.
Financial Mechanisms
Each Contracting Party is required to provide financial support within their national activities for
the purpose of the Convention. Furthermore, developed country Parties are to provide financial
resources for developing countries, through bilateral, regional and other multilateral channels, in
order for them to pursue the objectives of the Convention.
The Global Environmental Facility of the United Nations Development Programme, the United
Nations Environment Programme and the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development, provide the institutional structure for financial support.
Reporting requirements
Contracting Parties are required to present to the Conference of the Parties reports on measures
taken.
Assessment of success
As Contracting Parties are required to adopt national strategies, plans and programmes which
include the measures set out in the Convention a measure of success of CBD includes those
national strategies in place and functioning.
Potential constraints for application
It is highlighted in the Convention that the concept of sustainable use and conservation must be
introduced at the highest national level (i.e. decision making). It is considered that this may pose
significant political constraints when trying to accommodate these concepts with high demands
for development at the national level.
Relation to the governance framework
Interventions are targeted at all levels of the policy cycle. In addition, the Conference of the
Parties represents an important linkage to review implementation of the Convention.
Members States5
There are 190 Parties to CBD. Countries within the Wider Caribbean who have ratified the
Convention include Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Brazil, Colombia, Costa
5 Data consulted at http://www.biodiv.org/world/parties.asp, 12 December 2006.
19
Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico,
Nicaragua, Panama, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Suriname,
Trinidad and Tobago, and Venezuela.
4.2.1.3 Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing
States6
Purpose and area of application
The Programme of Action implements certain principles established in Agenda 21. It presents a
basis for action in 14 agreed priority areas and defines a number of actions and policies related to
environmental and development planning that should be undertaken by small island developing
States with the cooperation and assistance of the international community. The Programme
identifies several cross-sectoral areas such as capacity-building, including human resource
development; institutional development at the national, regional and international levels;
cooperation in the transfer of environmentally sound technologies; trade and economic
diversification; and finance.
Measures
The Programme of Action focuses on (1) climate change and sea level rise; (2) natural and
environmental disasters; (3) management of wastes; (4) coastal and marine resources; (5)
freshwater resources; (6) land resources; (7) energy resources; (8) tourism resources; (9)
biodiversity resources; (10) national institutions and administrative capacity; (11) regional
institutions and technical cooperation; (12) transport and communication; (13) science and
technology; and, (14) human resource development. For each of these action areas, the
Programme outlines measures at the national, regional and international level. As regards marine
biodiversity, states are required to formulate and implement integrated strategies for its
conservation and sustainable use, with special care of endemic species and the identification of
sites with high biological significance, as well as the development of alternative economic
activities such as ecotourism. In addition, states are required to ratify and implement the relevant
Conventions (e.g. Convention on Biological Diversity). Special emphasis is given to the
customary practices known in small island developing States, therefore measures undertaken
must have a strong community-based component.
Cooperation
Given the special nature of small island developing states, the Programme requires the
international community to cooperate for its implementation, including the participation of non
governmental organizations. Particular emphasis is given to building endogenous capacities
within the states. In regards to biodiversity, the Programme calls for regional action both for the
identification of areas of high biological significance, the exchange of information and training
and the building of regional capacities.
6 The Declaration of Barbados and the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island
Developing States were adopted at the Global Conference on the Sustainable Development of Small Island
Developing States, which met in Barbados from the 25 April to 6 May 1994.
20
Institutional arrangements
Governments are responsible for the implementation of the Programme of Action. However, as
outlined in the Programme, international cooperation is essential to support national and regional
strategies. It is highlighted that the United Nations system has a key role to play in close
cooperation and coordination with other international, regional and subregional organizations. In
addition, to follow-up on the implementation of the Programme of Action it is highlighted that a
clearly identifiable, qualified and competent entity within the Department for Policy
Coordination and Sustainable Development of the United Nations Secretariat must be put in
place to provide secretariat support for intergovernmental and inter-agency coordination
mechanisms.
Financial mechanisms
Financing for the implementation of the Programme of Action comes from countries' own public
and private sectors. The Programme highlights the need to explore and utilize economic
instruments as these are viewed as an important complementary mechanism for the financing of
sustainable development at the national level. In addition, the Programme outlines the role of the
international community to provide access to adequate, predictable, new and additional financial
resources; optimizing the use of existing resources and mechanisms in accordance with chapter
33 of Agenda 21.
Reporting requirements
The Secretary-General is required to prepare analytical reports on the implementation of the
Programme of Action, including the activities undertaken at the National level. For this purpose
all States are invited to provide information on action taken to implement the Programme of
Action.
Assessment of success
States are required to implement strategies which deal with the different areas of focus within the
Programme of Action. A measure of success pertains to those national strategies in place. In
regards to marine biodiversity, a measure of success pertains to those alternative economic
activities established in the countries for conservation and sustainable use (e.g. ecotourism).
Potential constraints for application
Three main potential constraints for application are identified. First, although the Programme of
Action refers to existing mechanisms for additional funding, no specific mechanism at the
international level to support the implementation of the Programme of action was established.
Therefore, immediate action for implementation depends entirely on the national governments as
it is unclear how the existing mechanisms (i.e. those referred in chapter 33 of Agenda 21) could
be utilized specifically for the Programme. Second, although the use of GEF is outlined as a
possibility to finance certain projects, and that these would need to be prioritize (once proposed
by governments), no specific criteria is given for prioritization. It is considered that lack of such
criteria could ultimately lead to inequitable financing among the different small island
developing States from international sources. Third, there is no specific structure or mechanism
set up for the exchange or use of information, as States are only invited to provide information
on the action taken. Thus, the lack of a specific mechanism could hinder the appropriate
monitoring of the Programme of Action.
21
Relation to the governance framework
Interventions are targeted at the following stages of the policy cycle: data and information and
implementation through formulation of integrated strategies.
Member States
States from the Wider Caribbean which were present at the Conference include: Belize,
Colombia, Costa Rica, Guyana, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Venezuela, Bahamas, Cuba,
Dominican Republic, Haiti, Jamaica and USA.
4.2.2 Regional Efforts
4.2.2.1 United Nations Environment Programme Regional Seas Programme7
Purpose and area of application
The Regional Seas Programme was initiated by the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) in 1974; it covers 18 regions of the world, making it one of the most globally
comprehensive initiatives for the protection of marine and coastal environments. At present,
more than 140 countries participate in 13 Regional Seas' programmes: the Black Sea, Wider
Caribbean, East Africa, south East Asia, ROPME Sea Area, Mediterranean, North-East Pacific,
North-West Pacific, Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, South Asia, South-East Pacific, and West and
Central Africa. In addition, five partner programmes for the Antarctic, Arctic, Baltic Sea,
Caspian Sea and North-East Atlantic Regions are part of the Regional Seas effort. The Regional
Seas Programme aims to address the accelerating degradation of the world's oceans and coastal
areas through the sustainable management and use of the marine and coastal environment, by
engaging neighboring countries in comprehensive and specific actions to protect their shared
marine environment.
Measures
The Regional Seas Programme functions through an Action plan. Each regional action plan is
formulated according to the needs of the region as perceived by the Governments concerned and
adopted by them. The action plans promote the parallel development of regional legal
agreements (i.e. Conventions and Protocols) and of action-oriented programme activities. They
cover issues which range from chemical wastes and coastal development to the conservation of
marine life and ecosystems.
The Action Plans are based on the region's particular environmental concerns and challenges as
well as its socio-economic and political situation. The most common chapters included in the
Action Plans are: (1) environmental assessment (e.g. scientific baseline studies; research and
monitoring); (2) environmental management (e.g. cooperative projects on training in
environmental impact assessment); (3) environmental legislation (e.g. an umbrella Convention
which provides the legal framework for an Action Plan and a Protocol which puts the
Convention into practice); (4) institutional arrangements (e.g. who serves as secretariat for the
Action Plan); and (5) financial arrangements.
7 Data consulted at http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/Programmes/Action_Plans/Action_Plan_Guide/default.asp, 14
December, 2006.
22
Cooperation among Member States
Cooperation among Member States is mandatory as the Regional Seas programmes are
coordinated and implemented by the countries that share a common body of water. The rationale
behind the Regional Seas programme is to undertake cooperative action to address common
issues and problems.
Institutional arrangements
The work of the Regional Seas programme is coordinated by UNEP's Regional Seas Branch,
while Regional Coordination Units and Regional Activity Centers oversee the implementation of
the programmes and aspects of the regional action plans (e.g. marine emergencies, information
management and pollution monitoring). The Regional Coordinating Units are responsible for the
follow-up and implementation of legal documents, the programme of work and of strategies and
policies adopted by the member countries. Six of the Regional Seas programmes, including the
Wider Caribbean, are directly administered by UNEP. A major role of UNEP is to assist the
Regional Seas programmes to fulfill their responsibilities towards the priorities identified in
relevant UNEP Governing Council Decisions, to reach relevant targets of Agenda 21, the World
Summit on Sustainable Development Plan of Implementation and the Millennium Development
Goals.
Rules of procedure
Decisions taken at Conferences of the Parties or intergovernmental meetings guide the course of
action for the plans.
Financial mechanisms
The United Nations system provides seed money in the early stages of the regional programmes.
Governments are expected to assume financial responsibility, providing resources to regional
trust funds administered by the organization responsible for secretariat functions of the Action
Plan (often initially UNEP, later the Regional Coordination Unit or new independent regional
organizations). Ultimately, the Regional Seas programmes are expected to be financially self
sufficient.
Reporting requirements
The Regional Coordination Units and Regional Activity Centers (if established) have a central
role in information management. Thus, it may be assumed that any reporting required from the
countries involved would flow directly to these units.
Assessment of success
An interesting facet of the Regional Seas Programme is that Action Plans may be accompanied
by legally binding agreements. At present fourteen of the Regional Seas Programmes have
adopted legally-binding Conventions (including Protocols). Such Conventions express the
commitment and political will of governments to address issues on a coordinated manner and, set
out what governments must do to implement the Action Plan. Thus, the Conventions represent a
measure of success of the Regional Seas Programme to date.
Potential constraints for application
23
The Regional Seas Programme calls for cooperative actions on common issues and problems. A
potential constraint for application may be related to the priority given by each country within
specific regions to address the issues. Thus, if a country does not participate fully on measures
agreed to, the main goal may not be achieved and would hinder efforts undertaken by other
States. In addition, it is expected for the Regional Seas Programmes to be financially self
sufficient. It is unclear under what rules financing is given by each participating country (i.e.
what rationale or criteria underlies contributions of the countries). Finally, although the Regional
Coordination Unites has a central role in information management, there is no clear feedback
mechanism on monitoring and reporting.
Relation to the governance framework
Interventions are targeted at the decision making stage of the policy cycle, as it requires a
commitment at the highest national level to enter agreements for regional cooperation and
signing further Conventions which may result from the Regional Seas Programmes.
4.2.2.2 Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources8
Purpose and area of application
The purpose of the Convention is the conservation9 of Antarctic marine living resources10 and
applies to the area south of 60° south latitude and to the Antarctic marine living resources of the
area between that latitude and the Antarctic Convergence which form part of the Antarctic
marine ecosystem11.
Measures
The Convention sets certain principles for harvesting and associated activities in the area. In
addition, conservation measures for the area include: (1) the designation of the quantity of any
species which may be harvested in the area to which the Convention applies; (2) the designation
of regions and sub-regions based on the distribution of populations of Antarctic marine living
resources; (3) the designation of the quantity which may be harvested from the population of
regions and sub-regions; (4) the designation of protected species; (5) the designation of the
opening and closing of areas, regions or sub-regions for purposes of scientific study or
conservation.
Cooperation among Member States
Cooperation among Member States is given through the establishment and functions of the
Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR). In
addition, to ensure observance of the provisions of the Convention, the Convention requires the
Contracting Parties to establish a system of observation and inspection, which includes: (a) inter
8 The Convention was drawn up on 20 May 1980 in Canberra, Australia, and entered into force on 7 April 1982.
9 The term "conservation" includes rational use (Art. II.2.).
10 Means populations of fin fish, mollusks, crustaceans and all other species of living organisms, including birds,
found south of the Antarctic Convergence (Art.I.2).
11 The Antarctic marine ecosystem means the complex of relationships of Antarctic marine living resources with
each other and with their physical environment (Art.I.3).
24
alia, procedures for boarding and inspection by observers and inspectors designated by the
Members of CCAMLR; procedures for flag state prosecution; and, sanctions on the basis of
evidence resulting from boarding and inspection; and, (b) observation and inspection carried out
on board vessels engaged in scientific research or harvesting of marine living resources in the
area.
Institutional arrangements
CCAMLR is composed by each Contracting Party which participated in the meeting at which the
Convention was adopted. In addition, it has provisions for State Parties and regional economic
integration organizations to be Members. CCAMLR works through regular annual meetings and
its function is to give effect to the objectives and principles set out by the Convention. Functions
of CCAMLR include facilitating research, compiling data, analyzing, disseminating and
publishing information, identifying conservation needs and formulating, adopting and revising
conservation measures for the marine living resources of the area.
The Contracting Parties established the Scientific Committee for the Conservation of Antarctic
Marine Living Resources to provide a forum for consultation and co-operation concerning the
collection, study and exchange of information. The Scientific Committee is integrated by each
Member of CCAMLR, who appoints a representative with suitable scientific qualifications.
CCAMLR appoints an Executive Secretary who serves CCAMLR and the Scientific Committee.
CCAMLR and the Scientific Committee cooperate as appropriate with the following: (1)
Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties; (2) The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations; (3) Specialized Agencies; (4) Inter-governmental and nongovernmental organizations
which could contribute to their work; (5) Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research; (6)
Scientific Committee on Oceanic Research; and, (7) International Whaling Commission.
Rules of procedure
Conservation measures adopted by CCAMLR are notified to all its Members. After 180 days of
notification, these measures are binding upon all Members of CCAMLR. Decisions of CCAMLR
are taken by consensus on matters of substance and by simple majority of the Members present
and voting on other matters.
Financial mechanisms
Each Member of CCAMLR contributes to the annual budget of CCAMLR and the Scientific
Committee, prepared by the Executive Secretary and adopted by consensus. Contributions of the
Members are determined with two criteria: the amount harvested and an equal sharing among all
Members of CCAMLR. Specific financial regulations are adopted by CCAMLR, and financial
activities are subject to annual audit by external auditors. If a Member fails to pay its
contributions for two consecutive years, it does not have the right to participate in the decision
making process.
Reporting requirements
Members of CCAMLR are required to provide statistical, biological information relevant to the
functions of CCAMLR and the Scientific Committee. In addition, Members are required to
inform on the steps taken to implement the conservation measures adopted. Contracting Parties
must transmit to CCAMLR measures taken, including the imposition of sanctions for any
violation.
25
Assessment of success
CCAMLR and its subsidiary bodies have clear objectives and functions. It is considered that a
clear definition within the institutional arrangements (i.e., objectives, rules of procedure, etc.)
may facilitate implementation and thus, represents a measure of success.
Potential constraints for application
It is considered that the existence of a mechanism for conservation measures no to be binding to
its Members is a loophole which could become a disincentive for its own Members.
Relation to the governance framework
Establishment of CCAMLR and its subsidiary bodies represents a formal linkage among the
States for purposes of the Convention. As regards, marine biodiversity, interventions are targeted
at the data and information and implementation stages of the policy cycle, through provision of
information and measures for monitoring, control and surveillance.
Member and State Parties
As of December of 2005, Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Chile, European Community,
France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Republic of Namibia, New Zealand, Norway,
Poland, Russian Federation, South Africa, Spain, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland, United States of America and Uruguay are Members of CCAMLR. In addition,
Bulgaria, Canada, Cook Islands, Finland, Greece, Mauritius, Netherlands, Peru and Vanuata are
State Parties to the Convention although not Members of CCAMLR
4.2.2.3 Arctic Council Governance12
Purpose and area of application
The Arctic Council is a regional forum for sustainable development, mandated to address the
environmental, social and economic aspects in the Arctic. It was established to (a) provide a
means for promoting cooperation, coordination and interaction among the Arctic States, with the
involvement of the Arctic indigenous communities and other Arctic inhabitants on common
Arctic issues, in particular issues on sustainable development and environmental protection of
the Arctic; (2) oversee and coordinate the programmes established (Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Program; Conservation of the Arctic Flora and Fauna; Protection of the Arctic
Marine Environment; and Emergency Preparedness and Response); (3) adopt terms of reference
for and oversee and coordinate a sustainable development program; and, (4) disseminate
information, encourage education and promote interest in Arctic-related issues13.
Measures
A key element of the Arctic Council's agenda is environmental monitoring and assessment by
Arctic governments and indigenous peoples. The approach of the Council is to encourage
12 The Arctic Council was established on the 19 of September, 1996 in Ottawa. Data consulted at http://www.arctic-
council.org/ on the 13 of December 2006.
13 Information consulted from "Declaration on the establishment of the Arctic Council"
26
continuous dialogue among scientists, policy planners, Arctic residents and political level
decision-makers. Responsibility for the implementation of regional policies lies with the States
and their sub-regional administrations.
The areas of focus of the council are: (1) sustainable development to improve human conditions
in the Arctic and to building capacity to help the inhabitants; (2) Arctic monitoring and
assessment to identify pollution risks and their impact on Arctic ecosystems and in assessing the
effectiveness of international agreements on pollution control; (3) protection of the Arctic
Marine Environment through policy and non-emergency pollution prevention and control
measures from land and sea-based activities; (4) conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna through
monitoring of biodiversity at the circumpolar level utilizing traditional knowledge, to detect the
impacts of global change on biodiversity and to enable the Arctic communities to effectively
respond and adapt to changes; and (5) emergency, prevention, preparedness and response to
exchange information on best practices for preventing spills, preparing to respond to spills
should they occur, and practical response measures for use in the event of a spill.
Cooperation among Member States
Cooperation within the Arctic Council establishes a common knowledge base, spreads
information on best practices and lessons learned and has an important role in the development
of policy recommendations for national, regional and local leaders.
Institutional arrangements
The Arctic Council is an intergovernmental forum established by the Arctic States (countries
with an outreach above the Arctic Circle). It is a forum for co-operation between national
governments and indigenous peoples.
Ministerial meetings are held on a biennial basis. Each Arctic State designates a focal point on
matters related to the Arctic Council.
The Council works through a Chairman and a Secretariat, who rotate among member States.
Operation of the Council is administered by the Committee of Senior Arctic Officials, composed
of representatives of foreign ministries of the members states and representatives of indigenous
peoples as Permanent Participants' of the Arctic Council.
The scientific work of the Arctic Council is carried out in five expert working groups.
The Arctic Council cooperates with international organizations, such as the United Nations
Environment Programme.
Rules of procedure
The decision-making of the Council is heavily based on the scientific work and influenced by the
traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples. Decisions are taken by consensus of its Members.
Financial mechanisms
The Declaration for establishment of the Arctic Council does not specify a financial mechanism,
however it is determined that the Arctic Council should regularly review the priorities and
financing of its programmes and associated structures.
Reporting requirements
27
The Declaration for establishment of the Arctic Council does not specify the reporting
requirements from its Members States. Given that the Council represents and inter-governmental
forum, the monitoring and advice, is provided through its different working groups.
Assessment of success
Establishment of working groups within the Arctic Council which specifically address different
issues represents a measure of success.
Potential constraints for application
Unclear mechanisms for monitoring and reporting by Member States can pose a constraint.
Relation to the governance framework
The Arctic Council represents a linkage between national governments and indigenous peoples
for cooperation, coordination and interaction. Interventions are targeted at all stages of the policy
cycle.
Member States
Members States of the Arctic Council include: Canada, Denmark (including Greenland and the
Faeroe Islands), Finland, Iceland, Norway, the Russian Federation, Sweden and the United
States. In addition the Arctic Council has representation from indigenous people through the
following organizations: Aleut International Association, Arctic Athabaskan Council, Gwich'in
Council International, Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples
of the North and Saami Council. These organizations are Permanent Participants of the Arctic
Council.
4.2.2.4 Secretariat of the Pacific Community (formerly known as South Pacific Commission)14
Purpose and area of application
It covers all those territories in the Pacific Ocean which are administered by the participating
Governments15 and which lie wholly or in part south of the Equator and east from and including
Papua New Guinea. Its objective is to encourage and strengthen international cooperation in
promoting the economic and social welfare of the peoples of the South Pacific region.
Measures
The focus of the Secretariat includes land, marine and social resources. In regards to marine
resources it includes the coastal, oceanic fisheries and maritime programmes. The fisheries
programmes aim to: (1) assist Pacific Island fishing communities to participate and benefit from
regional and national fisheries development, and management activities; (2) provide technical
advice, assistance and training on developing small to medium scale commercial tuna fisheries;
14 The South Pacific Commission was adopted in Canberra, Australia on the 6 of February 1947 and it entered into
force on the 29 July 1948. Data consulted at http://www.oceanlaw.net/texts/summaries/spc.htm, December 14, 2006
15 The Agreement for establishment of the South Pacific Commission refers as the participating Governments:
Australia, the French Republic, New Zealand and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and
the United States of America. Data consulted at http://www.spc.int/mrd/asides/canberra.htm, December 14, 2006.
28
and, (3) provide and disseminate information to assist in the development and management of
fisheries. The maritime programme works with the maritime sector of member countries and
territories to: (1) review and update maritime legislation; and, (2) facilitate training to ensure that
all seafarers meet STCW95 qualifications and standards, which in turn promotes safer ships,
cleaner seas, and helps to secure employment.
Cooperation among Member States
As regards fisheries, the Secretariat operates a number of projects covering all coastal living
marine resources as well as tunas and billfishes. With regards to high seas fishing the Secretariat
operates projects for the collection and analysis of catch statistics and other related data and
scientific research on tuna and billfish.
Institutional arrangements
The Commission (i.e. Secretariat) is a consultative and advisory body to the participating
Governments in matters affecting the economic and social development of the territories and the
welfare and advancement of their peoples. Each participating Government appoints two
Commissioners, designating one as Senior Commissioner. Each Commissioner presides over
sessions of the Commission for one calendar year in rotation. It holds one regular session each
year, while other sessions are hold if two-thirds of all the Senior Commissioners decide are
necessary. Quorum is constituted by two-thirds of all Senior Commissioners. The South Pacific
Conference is a body auxiliary to the Commission with advisory powers, composed by
representatives of the local inhabitants, and of official and non-official institutions directly
concerned with the territories within the scope of the Commission. Sessions of the Conference
are held each year immediately before the regular session of the Commission. A Research
Council, presided by a Chairman, was established. It serves as a standing advisory body auxiliary
to the Commission. Members of the Research Council are appointed by the Commission and are
persons distinguished in the fields of research within the competence of the Commission. In
addition, a full-time official is appointed by the Commission to direct research and supervise the
execution of the programme of the Research Council, including the facilitation of cooperative
research. The Commission established a Secretariat to serve the Commission and its auxiliary
and subsidiary bodies. The Secretary-General (i.e. chief administrative officer of the
Commission) and Deputy Secretary-General hold office for five years and are eligible for
reappointment.
Rules of procedure
Procedural matters are decided by majority of votes. Decisions on budgetary or financial matters
which involve a financial contribution by the participating governments require the concurring
votes of all the Senior Commissioners. Decisions on all other matters are taken by two-thirds of
all the votes. Provisions of the Agreement for establishment of the Commission can be amended
by consent of all the participating governments. Participating governments may withdraw from
the Agreement giving one year's notice to the Commission and after five years from the coming
into force of the Agreement.
Financial mechanisms
The Commission adopts an annual budget for the administrative expenses of the Commission
and its auxiliary and subsidiary bodies. In addition, the Secretariat in consultation with
29
Territorial Administrations and participating Governments, prepares an annual Work Programme
and Budget and budget forecast, which are examined at the session of the Conference. To meet
the expenses of the Commission, a fund to which each participating Government contributes was
established. Contributions by Territorial Administrations and Governments to specific projects
are granted on voluntary basis.
Reporting requirements
The Commission publishes an annual report of its activities, including those of its auxiliary and
subsidiary bodies, and reports to the participating Governments. In regards to research, the full-
time official is responsible of collecting and disseminating information concerning research.
Assessment of success
Institutional arrangements set in place, which have clearly defined objectives and functions may
contribute significantly to the objectives of the Commission. As regards marine biodiversity,
specific projects are set in place. Although these projects focus on fisheries, the fact that efforts
are being undertaken for the collection and analysis of catch statistics and scientific research,
may prove essential for the conservation of these species.
Potential constraints for application
A potential constraint for application may relate to the wide scope of the Commission, as it
focuses on land, marine and social resources. It is considered that having such a wide scope
could pose a challenge for deciding on priority areas and on which of those to focus financial
resources. As regards financing, contributions by Territorial Administrations and Governments
to specific projects are granted on voluntary basis and thus may hinder their development.
Relation to the governance framework
Interventions are targeted at the data and information; synthesis and provision of advice; and,
implementation stages of the policy cycle. In addition, several linkages are present through the
institutional arrangements established.
Member States
American Samoa, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji Islands, French Polynesia,
Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands,
Palau, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu,
Vanuatu, Wallis and Futuna, Australia, France, New Zealand and the United States of America.
4.2.3 Efforts within the Wider Caribbean
4.2.3.1 Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider
Caribbean Region16
Purpose and area of application
16 Also known as the Cartagena Convention it was adopted in Cartagena de Indias on 24 March 1983 and entered
into force on 11 October 1983
30
The Convention applies to the marine environment of the Gulf of Mexico, the Caribbean Sea and
the areas of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent thereto, south of 30° north latitude and within 200
nautical miles of the Atlantic coasts of the states17. Its purpose is the protection of the marine
environment of the Convention area, through bilateral and multilateral agreements including
regional and subregional agreements.
Measures
The Convention focuses on various aspects of marine pollution (i.e. from ships, caused by
dumping, from land-based activities and airborne) and specially protected areas. Thus
Contracting Parties must, individually or jointly, take measures for the prevention, reduction and
control of pollution. In addition, Contracting Parties are required to take appropriate measures to
protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems, as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened or
endangered species. For this purpose, Contracting Parties are to establish protected areas and
exchange information concerning the administration and management of such areas.
Cooperation among Member States
Contracting Parties are required to co-operate in the formulation and adoption of Protocols or
other arrangements to facilitate effective implementation of the Convention and harmonize their
policies. The Convention determines mechanisms for co-operation in cases of emergency
through development and promotion of contingency plans. In addition, Contracting Parties must
undertake environmental impact assessments for planning major development projects, including
procedures to disseminate information and consult with other Parties which may be affected.
Contracting Parties are requested to cooperate in scientific research, monitoring, and the
exchange of data and other scientific information, through competent international and regional
organizations.
Institutional arrangements
The United Nations Environment Programme serves secretariat functions including, the
preparation of meeting, transmission of information (i.e. agreements, measures adopted), co-
ordination to implement cooperative activities and co-ordination with other international bodies.
In addition, each Contracting Party designates an appropriate authority to serve as channel of
communication.
Contracting Parties meet once-every two years to review implementation of the Convention.
Extraordinary meetings can be convened upon request of the United Nations Environment
Programme or the Contracting Parties.
Rules of procedure
Further protocols, amendments to existing protocols or the Convention are adopted at
conferences of plenipotentiaries. Amendments to the Convention, protocols and annexes are
adopted by a three-fourths majority vote of the Contracting Parties to the Convention represented
at the conference of the plenipotentiaries. If a Contracting Party is unable to accept an
17 States include 20 countries and island territories. In total, twenty-eight countries of the Wider Caribbean Region
are eligible to become Parties to the Cartagena Convention and its Protocols (Turner, J. 2002. Environmental
Treaties. U.S. Department of State)
31
amendment to annexes of the Convention or Protocols it has to notify the Depositary (Republic
of Colombia), who in turn notifies all other Contracting Parties.
Financial mechanisms
Contracting Parties unanimously adopt financial rules, to determine their financial participation.
Reporting requirements
Contracting Parties must inform the United Nations Environment Programme on the measures
adopted. The Convention does not specify the periodic interval or form to transmit the
information, although it is stipulated that these will be determined at the meetings of Contracting
Parties.
Assessment of success
The Convention calls for the adoption of Protocols for effective implementation, at present three
Protocols have been adopted (Protocol Concerning Cooperation in Combating Oil Spills in the
Wider Caribbean Region; Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife in the
Wider Caribbean Region and Protocol Concerning Pollution from Land-Based Sources and
Activities) and thus represent a measure of success of the Cartagena Convention.
Potential constraints for application
The Convention highlights the need for Contracting Parties to harmonize their policies, however
given the wide disparity of the countries involved (i.e. from the largest to the smallest, the richest
to the poorest and the most developed to the least developed), harmonization of policies may
pose considerable constraints.
Relation to the governance framework
Interventions are targeted at all stages of the policy cycle, as the Convention calls for the
adoption of Protocols to facilitate effective implementation. In addition, a linkage among
Contracting Parties is established through appointment of focal points who serve a channel for
communication with the United Nations Environment Programme for the purposes of the
Convention.
Member States18
Antigua and Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic,
France, Grenada, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Netherlands19, Nicaragua, Panama, St. Kitts and
Nevis, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom20,
United Status of America and Venezuela.
18 Data consulted at http://www.cept.unep.org/law/cartstatus.html, December 6, 2006.
19 On behalf of the Netherlands Antilles Federation
20 On behalf of Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos Island and British Virgin Islands
32
4.2.3.2 Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife to the Convention for the
Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean
Region21
Purpose and area of application
The SPAW Protocol applies within the Wider Caribbean Region which includes the area
determined in the Cartagena Convention, plus supplementary areas such as watersheds of the
Contracting Parties. The objectives are to protect, preserve and manage in a sustainable way: 1)
areas that require protection to safeguard their special value; 2) threatened or endangered species
of flora and fauna; and, 3) species, with the objective of preventing them from becoming
endangered or threatened.
Measures
Contracting Parties are required to take necessary measures according to their laws and
regulations. Thus, Contracting Parties are required to (1) establish protected areas, where they
exercise sovereignty, or sovereign rights or jurisdiction; (2) buffer zones to strengthen the
protection of a protected area; (3) protection measures for protected areas (i.e., regulation or
prohibition of activities which cause pollution, extractive activities of endangered or threatened
species and introduction of non-indigenous species, among others); and, (4) implement planning,
management and enforcement measures for protected areas (i.e. development of management
plans, environmental education, scientific research, financing, involvement of local communities,
capacity building and appropriate infrastructure). The SPAW Protocol includes national
measures for the protection of wild flora and fauna, through (1) listing of protected species; (2)
regulation and prohibition of activities which have and adverse effect on protected species or
their habitats and ecosystems; and, (3) management and recovery plans for protected species.
Cooperation among Member States
Co-operation programmes are to support the listing of protected areas, assist with the selection,
establishment, management and conservation of protected areas, as well as the creation of a
network of protected areas. In addition, Contracting Parties must adopt co-operative measures to
ensure the protection and recovery of endangered and threatened species of wild flora and fauna
listed in Annexes I, II and III of the Protocol, including the implementation of regional recovery
programmes.
The SPAW Protocol calls for coordination in research and monitoring programmes and
standardization of procedures for collecting, reporting, achieving and analyzing scientific and
technical information.
Institutional arrangements
As established in the Cartagena Convention, the United Nations Environment Programme serves
secretariat functions including: (1) convening and servicing the meetings of the Parties; (2)
21 Also known as the SPAW Protocol, it was adopted at Kingston on 18 January 1990 and came into force on 18
June 2005 (http://www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention/plonearticlemultipage.2005-11-
30.0771186485/plonearticle.2005-11-30.0270558997, December 6, 2006).
33
assisting in raising funds; (3) assisting in co-operation with international, intergovernmental and
non-governmental organizations; and, (4) preparing common formats to be used by the Parties.
Each Contracting Party designates a Focal Point as liaison with the Secretariat on the technical
aspects of implementation of the Protocol. In addition, a Scientific and Technical Advisory
Committee, formed by scientific experts appointed by each Contracting Party, has the
responsibility to advice the Parties on scientific and technical matters related to the protocol.
Meetings of the Parties are governed by the rules of procedure outlined in the Convention. The
function of the meetings include: (1) to keep under review and direct the implementation of the
Protocol; (2) to approve the expenditure of funds; (3) to oversee and provide policy guidance to
the Secretariat; (4) to consider the efficacy of measures adopted, among others.
Rules of procedure
The SPAW Protocol determines specific procedures to amend Annexes I, II and III of the
Protocol. To this end, any Contracting Party may nominate an endangered or threatened species
for inclusion or deletion presenting supporting documentation to the Scientific and Technical
Committee. In turn, the Scientific and Technical Committee presents its views to the meeting of
the Parties. Species are listed in the annexes by consensus or by a three-quarters majority vote of
Parties present and voting. In addition, Parties can present reservations to such listings.
Financial mechanisms
In addition to the funds provided by each Contracting Party, as established in the Cartagena
Convention, the United Nations Environment Programme can seek additional funds.
Reporting requirements
Parties have to report periodically to the United Nations Environment Programme on the status
of protected areas, buffer zones and protected species in areas of their jurisdiction. This includes
changes in delimitation or legal status and management measures undertaken.
Assessment of success
A measure of success of the SPAW Protocol relates to the programmes set in place for joint
action in the protection of habitats and protected species.
Potential constraints for application
One of the objectives of the SPAW Protocol is the protection, preservation and management of
threatened or endangered species. Given the fact that the Protocol allows the Parties to present
reservations to listings of protected species in Annexes I, II and III, it is considered that such
reservations may present a hindrance for the aforementioned objective.
Relation to the governance framework
Interventions are targeted at all stages of the policy cycle. In addition, several linkages are
established through the institutional arrangements. First, through focal points in the Contracting
Parties that provides input on implementation of the Protocol. Second, through the United
Nations Environment Programme that serves secretariat functions and subsidiary bodies. Third,
through meetings of the Parties that reviews implementation of the Protocol.
Member States
34
Member States who have ratified and/or acceded the SPAW Protocol include Barbados,
Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, France, Netherlands, Panama, Saint Lucia, St. Vincent
and the Grenadines, Trinidad and Tobago, United States of America and Venezuela. States who
have signed but not ratified the Protocol include Antigua and Barbuda, Guatemala, Jamaica,
Mexico and the United Kingdom22.
4.2.3.3 Resolution on Promoting an integrated management approach to the Caribbean Sea area
in the context of sustainable development
Purpose and area of application
The General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a resolution on the 22 of December 2004
for "Promoting an integrated management approach to the Caribbean Sea area in the context of
sustainable development." The resolution, highlights that promotion of an integrated
management approach be in accordance of Agenda 21, the Programme of Action for the
Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States, the Johannesburg Declaration on
Sustainable Development, the Johannesburg Plan of Implementation as well as in conformity
with relevant international law, including the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
Measures
The resolution requires States to (1) prioritize action on marine pollution from land-based
sources, in an integrated and inclusive manner, and advance implementation of programmes and
Protocols23; (2) become contracting parties to relevant international agreements to enhance
maritime safety and promote the protection of the marine environment of the Caribbean Sea from
pollution, damage and degradation from ships and ship-generated waste; (3) develop national,
regional and international programmes for halting the loss of marine biodiversity in the
Caribbean Sea, in particular fragile ecosystems, such as coral reefs; and, (4) improve their
emergency response capabilities and the containment of environmental damage in the event of
natural disasters or accidents relating to maritime navigation.
Cooperation among States
The resolution encourages the Caribbean countries to continue to develop regional cooperation in
the management of their ocean affairs to address issues of land-based pollution, pollution from
ships, physical impacts on coral reefs and the diversity and dynamic interaction of, and
competition among, socio-economic activities for the use of the coastal areas and the marine
environment and their resources.
Further cooperation is warranted from the United Nations system and the international
community to assist the Caribbean countries in (1) their efforts to ensure the protection of the
Caribbean Sea, in particular from pollution; (2) becoming parties to the relevant Conventions and
22 Data consulted at http://www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention/plonearticlemultipage.2005-11-
30.9771186485/plonearticle.2005-11-30.0270558997 on December 6 2006.
23 Global Programme of Action for the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities, Montreal
Declaration on the Protection of the Marine Environment from Land-based Activities, Protocol Concerning
Pollution from Land-based Sources and Activities to the Convention for the Protection and Development of the
Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region.
35
Protocols and implementing them; and, (3) the implementation of their long-term programmes of
disaster prevention, preparedness, mitigation, management, relief and recovery through the
integration of relief, rehabilitation and reconstruction into a comprehensive approach to
sustainable development.
Financial mechanisms
No specific financial mechanism is highlighted within the resolution; however it calls upon the
international community, the United Nations system and the multilateral financial institutions,
and invites the Global Environmental Facility, to support actively national and regional activities
for the purposes of the resolution.
4.2.3.4 United Nations Regional Seas Programme Action Plan for the Caribbean Environment
Programme24
Purpose and area of application
The region covered by the Action Plan is the Wider Caribbean. It comprises the insular and
coastal States and Territories of the Caribbean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, including Bahamas,
Guyana, Suriname and the French Department of Guiana, as well as the waters of the Atlantic
Ocean adjacent to these States and Territories. The objectives of the Action Plan are to assist the
Governments of the region in minimizing environmental problems in the Wider Caribbean
through assessment of the state of the environment and development activities in environmental
management.
Measures
The levels of action determined in the Action Plan include the development of long-term
comprehensive strategies for environmentally sound development and specific, action-oriented
cooperative projects. Major activities of the environmental programme include survey of national
capabilities and means to respond to environmental problems, analysis of development trends in
the region to determine areas of environmental stress, development and strengthening of the
capability of the nations to prepare environmental impact analysis of development projects,
promotion of increased technical and financial support for sound environmental management
practices, development of regional and subregional networks of coastal, marine and terrestrial
protected areas and development of cooperative activities for the protection of endangered and
threatened species. In addition, the Action Plan addresses pollution; impact on coastal areas;
fisheries; watersheds; natural disasters; energy; human settlements; tourism; and, environmental
health. In order to address the aforementioned issues, the Action Plan, determines the need to (1)
undertake assessments both of the state of the environment and capabilities of the countries to
address such issues; and, (2) management, through the development of guidelines, best practices,
projects and capabilities within the countries (giving high priority to strengthening institutional
and human resources). In addition, the Action Plan stresses the importance of coordinating
24 The Action Plan for the Caribbean Environment Programme was adopted by representatives of Governments from
22 States in Montego Bay, Jamaica, 6 -8 April 1981.
36
national, subregional and regional plans and enabling active participation from the population
through environmental education.
Cooperation among Member States
The Action Plan establishes a framework for activities requiring regional co-operation in order to
strengthen the capacity of the States and Territories of the Wider Caribbean. Possible types of
regional and subregional action included are international consultations, cooperative research
and joint actions by national institutions.
Institutional arrangements
The overall authority to review progress and direct the course of the Action Plan is the
ministerial/plenipotentiary level meetings of Governments participating. The United Nations
Environment Programme functions as coordinator to implement the Action Plan. Under authority
of UNEP a Regional Coordinating Unit (located in the Wider Caribbean) has a technical function
(coordination of the work) and to organize government expert and intergovernmental meetings.
Both UNEP and the Regional Coordinating Unit answer to the governments of the countries
involved. In addition, a Monitoring Committee comprised of experts nominated by the
Governments on the region was established to monitor the progress of priority projects and
ensure their implementation. A national focal point was established in each of the participating
countries to coordinate the input of their national institutions into the Action Plan and maintain
links with the Regional Coordinating Unit. Within the countries, the principal executants of
specific activities within the Action Plan are those national institutions designated by their
Governments. In addition, the Action Plan envisages the participation of subregional and
regional institutions and establishment of networks of cooperating institutions, to assume the role
of coordinator of a specific activity.
Rules of procedure
As established earlier the overall authority to review progress of the Action Plan is the
ministerial/plenipotentiary level meetings of the Governments participating.
Financial mechanisms
The United Nations Environment Programme entrusted resources for the elaboration and
initiation of the Action Plan. Financial support for the activities may come from voluntary
contributions from the States and Territories participating in the Action Plan, States supporting
the Action Plan but who have no participation in it, the United Nations System and from
regional, subregional and international organizations which are not part of the United Nations
System. The mechanisms envisaged by the Action Plan for cash contributions are a Caribbean
Regional Trust Fund and contributions for specific projects. The Caribbean Trust Fund was
established to cover part of the common costs of the implementation of the Action Plan.
Reporting requirements
The Regional Coordinating Unit is the focus for the collection, analysis and dissemination of
information on results obtained through the Action Plan. No specific guideline as to the
governments responsibilities on reporting and monitoring are provided in the Action Plan.
37
Assessment of success
The establishment of the Caribbean Trust Fund to cover common costs for implementation
represents a measure of initial success, as it represents the commitment of the United Nations
System to initiate the Action Plan.
Potential constraints for application
The initial financial support for the implementation of the Action Plan came from the United
Nations system. It is clearly stated in the Action Plan that these contributions would diminish as
the Governments involved assumed full financial responsibility as the Action Plan is envisaged
as financially self-supporting through a Trust Fund. A possible constraint for implementation
could come from inadequate flow of financial resources, once the United Nations system stops
contributing.
Relation to the governance framework
Interventions are targeted at all stages of the policy cycle. In addition, several linkages are
established through the institutional arrangements for implementation of the Action Plan.
4.2.3.5 Mesoamerican Barrier Reef25
Purpose and area of application
The Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System (MBRS) extends from the southern half of the Yucatan
Peninsula to the Bay Islands of Honduras and includes the second largest barrier reef in the
world. The Project for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef
System is the first phase of a 15-year conceptualized program. The objective of the project is to
enhance the protection of the unique and vulnerable marine ecosystems comprising the MBRS,
and to assist the countries of Mexico, Belize, Guatemala and Honduras to strengthen and
coordinate regional policies, regulations, and institutional arrangements for the conservation and
sustainable use of the region.
Measures
The Project is comprised of four components (all linked by central project themes and
strategies). The first component addresses planning, management, monitoring and institutional
strengthening of Marine Protected Areas. The second component addresses regional
environmental monitoring and information system through the creation and implementation of a
distributed WEB based environmental information system and the establishment of a synoptic
monitoring programme for the MBRS. The third component is aimed at promoting sustainable
fisheries management and sustainable coastal and marine tourism. Finally, the fourth component
25 The Governments of Mexico, Belice, Guatemala and Honduras convened in Tulum, Mexico in June 1997 to sign
the Tulum Declaration which calls on the four littoral states of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System and its
partners in the region to join in developing an Action Plan for its Conservation and Sustainable Use. The time frame
was shifted from an initial 5 year Project to a proposed 15 year Programme. The current Project represents the first
phase of a 3-phase Programme whose design is ongoing and depends on the results of the initial 5 year effort
(MBRS Project, 2001). Data consulted at http://www.mbrs.org.bz/english/projdesc.htm, December 15, 2006.
38
addresses public awareness and environmental education through a campaign as well as formal
and informal education.
Cooperation among Member States
Cooperation among the four countries that border the MBRS is mandatory as the project seeks to
conserve the MBRS by providing support to strengthen existing and create new mechanisms to
safeguard its integrity and continued productivity. These include: (1) facilitating the
harmonization of relevant policies and regulations related to sustainable management of
shared/transboundary resources, including reaching agreement on the establishment of
environmental standards for monitoring coastal water quality and other indicators of coral reef
ecosystem health; best practice and regional environmental certification programmes for
sustainable tourism development, and harmonizing regulations governing harvesting and
conservation of shared fish stocks; (2) strengthening the system of Marine Protected Areas
within the MBRS to maintain vital ecological processes and increase representativeness in the
existing system; and, (3) building capacity through training, environmental education and
improved information systems to enhance public and private participation in the conservation of
the MBRS and the benefits from its sustainable use. In addition, the project seeks to reduce
fragmentation at the national and regional levels in the governance of the MBRS by improving
regional information systems for decision-making and harmonizing policy frameworks across the
four countries in line with principles of environmental and social sustainability. Such policy
cohesion lays the groundwork for regional cooperation in the adoption of agreed protocols for
conservation and sustainable use. Furthermore, the Project encourages cooperation between
governmental authorities and the private sector in developing methods for sustainable use of
biological resources, by building partnerships at the local, national and transnational levels
through support of diverse stakeholders (i.e. NGOs, professional associations and cooperatives).
Institutional arrangements
The project is implemented by the World Bank and is executed by the four countries through the
Central American Commission on Environment and Development (CCAD) of the System for
Central American Integration. The MBRS project is executed by the Project Coordinating Unit
(PCU) on behalf of CCAD, with headquarters in Belize City, Belize.
At the policy level, the project is coordinated by the MBRS Regional Steering Committee (RSC),
made up of the Executive Secretary of CCAD or his delegate, and the National Coordinator for
the MBRS Project in each country. The RSC liaises with other potential partners within and
outside the region to attract additional co-financing for the project over the long term. It reviews
and approves annual work plans and resolves coordination issues between countries. The Project
Coordinating Unit is responsible for direct implementation of the project, with technical support
provided by Regional Technical Working Groups made up of appropriately selected
representatives from the National Barrier Reef Committees and supporting local institutions. The
participating countries are responsible for implementation of existing laws and regulations
related to the use of the MBRS resources. The PCU is supported by the Technical Advisory
Committee, composed of internationally recognized experts in the technical areas of project
assistance.
Rules of procedure
39
Institutional reforms supported by the Project include the creation of a mechanism for regional
dialogue and coordination in the management and monitoring of the MBRS as a shared,
transboundary public good; the establishment and maintenance of multi-stakeholder coral reef
committees, which reflect the diversity in culture and gender in each country to promote
integrated sectoral planning and management of the barrier reef; and a formal process of
consultation and ownership in the design and implementation of a long-term programme to
conserve the MBRS.
Financial mechanisms
The MBRS Project is funded by the Global Environment Facility and the Governments of
Mexico, Belize, Guatemala and Honduras. Co-financing initially came from additional
organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund, the Government of Canada, the Oak Foundation
and the University of Miami. Allocation of co-financing by the aforementioned institutions to
individual subcomponents of the project is determined through annual programming.
Administrative support to the PCU is provided by the United Nations Development Programme
in the form of international procurement, management and disbursement of project funds.
Reporting requirements
Countries are required to report, including national surveys on sector work in environmental and
social policies. National agencies in charge of annual reports are SEMARNAT (Mexico),
CZMA-I (Belize), CONAMA/Secretariat on the Environment (Guatemala) and SERNA
(Honduras). In addition, Regional Monitoring and Environmental Information System reports,
the MBRS Atlas, and targeted research reports are required. Each component of the project sets
provisions for reporting and monitoring (e.g. establishment of Marine Protected Areas Data
Baselines and Monitoring Programmes; establishment of a regional environmental information
system to organize and manage data to support improved decision-making; establishment of a
regional monitoring program for the collection of synoptic data; monitoring of spawning
aggregation sites; development and dissemination of information materials for environmental
education and public awareness).
Assessment of success
On July 2006 the participating countries represented by the Presidents of Mexico, Guatemala and
Honduras and the Primer Minister of Belize signed an agreement for the Renewal of
Commitment to the MBRS. This represents the continued support of the countries involved in
national and regional efforts for the conservation and sustainable use of the MBRS. Thus,
represents a measure of success as support has been committed at the highest national levels
within the long-term vision of the programme.
Potential constraints for application
A key element of the project is the harmonization of policies among participating countries.
Undoubtedly the institutional changes required within the countries and among the countries for
the previous objective can only be achieved in a long term basis and with direct support from the
participating governments. A possible constraint to achieve this can be linked to changes in the
political and administrative cycles of the governments involved. As such, the project could be
jeopardized if the support to the project is diminished by one of the governments involved given
changes of their political and administrative priorities.
40
Relation to the governance framework
Interventions are targeted at all stages of the policy cycle. In addition, several linkages are
established through the institutional arrangements. It is considered that national input must come
from the highest level of decision making in order to harmonize policies or undertake
cooperative actions.
Member States
Mexico, Belize, Guatemala and Honduras.
5
LME level monitoring and reporting
A system for monitoring and reporting at the LME level for the Caribbean and adjacent regions
has been identified as one of the major outputs of the CLME Project. This system is separate and
distinct form the one that will be used to monitor project implementation. It is intended that it be
ongoing after the end of the CLME Project. Therefore, during the project, close attention must be
paid to the sustainability and efficiency of whatever system is developed.
LME level monitoring and reporting must be developed within the context of appropriate level
policy cycles, otherwise the outputs will have no client for uptake. The GEF approach
recommends that the system be based on three types of indicators (Duda 2002):
· Process indicators, which show whether policy cycles are operational at all relevant levels,
and if the necessary linkages among them are functional;
· Stress reduction indicators, which show whether implementation of decisions is resulting in
changes of variables that are impacting ecosystems,
· Environmental state indicators which show whether ecosystems are responding to changes in
stress.
The nature of the information to be inputted to policy cycles will vary depending on level. For
higher level cycles, more general, summarized and policy oriented reporting will be required
than for lower level and/or specialized cycles. These systems of indicators must be developed
from the bottom up, as the accuracy and reliability of the aggregated information being provided
to higher levels will only be as good as the information that is being provided from lower level
cycles. For there to be effective monitoring and evaluation at each, there must be clear
designation of responsibility for the various stages of the relevant policy cycle. If lower level
cycles are to provide policy relevant information to cycles above, vertical linkages must be fully
functional.
In most cases there are established systems for monitoring at national levels; although these
undoubtedly will need enhancement and support. It is the LME level monitoring and reporting
that will need special attention if an effective system is to be established. The first step will be to
identify the appropriate policy cycles for this effort. Starting with the decision making entity, it
has been suggested that the Association of Caribbean States and its newly formed Caribbean Sea
Commission could with appropriate support provide the basis for an LME level cycle as depicted
in Figure 5.
Through this high level governing body, an agreement to have timely and responsive information
could provide the demand-driven imperative for the establishment of a region-wide LME-level
monitoring and reporting program. Additionally, the development of a strategy to ensure the
41
collection and interpretation of the
A wide variety
ACS Caribbean Sea
ANALYSIS
needed information could be given
of technical
Commission reviews
entities with
AND
advice provided in
expertise in
ADVICE
response to specific
priority. This strategy should recognize
relevant areas,
requests to appropriate
e.g. WECAFC,
DATA AND
agencies
the importance of partnering with
CRFM,
INFORM
OSPESCA in
-ATION
existing monitoring, indicator, and
fisheries,
UNEP in reef
DECISION
and
reporting programs to build on and
MAKING
biodiversity,
CANARI in civil
enhance current capacities in the region.
society
participation.
REVIEW
It should also recognize the need to
AND
ACS Council
EVALUATION
constantly reassess the target audience's
IMPLEMENT
-ATION
Caribbean
information needs, preferred formats for
Sea
Commission
receiving information, and uses of the
and technical
Primarily national and local
agencies
agencies
products so that the program will prove
relevant to decision-makers in the Wider
Figure 5. A possible LME level review and evaluation
Caribbean.
system involving the ACS
Recognizing that a complete and sustainable program to track ecological integrity and
sustainability of marine resources in the Wider Caribbean will require years to build, it is
recommended that a plan for gradual development should be examined that focuses initially on
indicator reporting for critical issues deemed most important for the sustainable management of
transboundary LMRs. In the case of the Wider Caribbean, these issues are most likely to include
coastal development, contaminants and pathogens, fisheries, eutrophication, marine habitat, and
climate change.
Developing a regional monitoring and reporting program entails 1) harmonizing and building on
existing efforts, 2) creating regional indicators, 3) developing an appropriate data and
information management infrastructure, 4) producing reports on the status of the Wider
Caribbean on a timely basis, 5) building and sustaining partnerships, 6) conducting effective
communication and outreach and 7) securing multi-partner sustained funding. A regional
monitoring and reporting program requires sustained long-term commitments of partners and
resources which can only be achieved if there is a demand for the information products in the
policy cycles of decision makers at multiple levels.
6 Conclusions
and
recommendations
6.1
LME governance framework
The proposed LME governance framework comprises complete policy cycles at multiple
jurisdictional levels that are networked through both vertical and lateral linkages. The framework
accommodates the diversity of policy cycles arrangements and linkage types that are likely to be
required for comprehensive governance and is sufficiently flexible to incorporate the diversity of
EBM approaches that currently exist.
The goal of interventions would be to establish and enhance cycles and linkages that are context
specific and appropriate to purpose, capacity and complexity. This long-term goal can be
approached incrementally by targeted interventions that focus on specific subcomponents of the
framework.
The majority of countries of the Caribbean LME are either small island developing states (SIDs)
or developing countries with an overwhelming lack of capacity at the national level.
Nonetheless, countries are generally dependent on their limited natural resource endowments,
42
especially coastal and marine resources, for their economic well-being. As such, hierarchical
authority may not be needed and is unlikely to be feasible in the Caribbean. A great deal may be
accomplished by a mechanism that focuses on networking and linkages among lower level
policy cycles. The inherent inclusiveness of the governance framework provides for such
decentralization of authority and encourages co-management arrangements.
The full implementation of the LME governance framework in the Wider Caribbean can be
expected to take several decades and to be a highly dynamic process requiring regular review
and adaptation. It will require that existing organizations be willing to rationalize their current
mandates and roles in the context of the framework, often expanding to take on the new
responsibilities that will be essential for transboundary governance in the Wider Caribbean. For
example intergovernmental organizations will need to incorporate processes for review of and
decision-making on Caribbean Sea issues. This will at least require additional time in current
processes and will incur additional costs to ensure fully functional policy cycles are developed
and appropriately linked horizontally and vertically.
Communications and networking will be key elements of implementing the framework.
Electronic means now make this easier than ever, but care must be taken to ensure that access to
technology and capacity to use it does not introduce disabling inequities especially at national
and lower levels.
Differences in size and capacity among the countries of the region present particular challenges
in many areas. To engage effectively, smaller countries often require subregional organizations
to provide technical support and collective representation. This can lead to issues of sovereignty
that must be considered in strengthening policy cycles at subregional levels. At the technical
level data and expertise are highly aggregated in a few of the largest countries. The capacity to
access and use the data and to interact with the expertise are likely to be key challenges in
building an equitable framework.
The cultural diversity in the region that enriches it also presents challenges. The development of
shared principles and values, appreciation of the diversity of approaches that may be culture-
based and the ability to communicate across language barriers are challenges that face all aspects
of regional development and that will be present in Caribbean Sea LME governance.
The socio-economic dependence of the countries in the Wider Caribbean, particularly SIDS, on
the living and non-living resources provided by the Caribbean LME presents a considerable
challenge for the implementation of the framework. Sectoral decision-making at the
governmental level that seek to enhance economic gain in one sector can oftentimes conflict with
the achievement of economic and social goals set in other sectors. At the same time, many key
stakeholders from the private sector, including resource users, and civil society whose actions
can support or undermine governmental level policy decisions, are not fully engaged in the
policy cycle process. The reasons for this may include lack of capacity, lack of institutional
structures by some of these stakeholders, for example fisherfolk organizations, lack of resources
to participate and existing governance mechanisms that ignore the contributions these
stakeholders can make to the policy process.
6.2 Non-extractable
resources and biodiversity
Several governance structures, directly or indirectly address marine biodiversity. As detailed in
the present report, some of the instruments or governance structures have broad purposes
offering hierarchical frameworks. For instance, UNCLOS addresses the full spectrum of ocean
43
uses and therefore only offers certain provisions for marine biodiversity. Addressing broad
purposes is important to deal with marine biodiversity in an integrated manner. Trying to
accommodate broad objectives however, could neglect certain areas while giving priority to
others. Nonetheless, clearly defined mechanisms can offer the required balance to address
broader objectives. As an example, the Arctic Council is mandated to address environmental,
social and economic aspects in the Arctic. Although the Arctic Council's agenda is broad it has
established a particular programme for the Conservation of the Arctic Flora and Fauna.
As noted, certain instruments focus on more detailed objectives and a geographic area. The
Cartagena Convention for instance provides a clearer framework for marine biodiversity
governance in the Wider Caribbean as it is accompanied by the SPAW Protocol. The SPAW
Protocol deals specifically with the protection of habitats and species and requires cooperation
on a regional basis. However, the aforementioned instruments present potential constraints when
trying to harmonize policies in the Caribbean where countries have significant differences in
economic and social terms. While harmonization of policies is fundamental, it can only be
achieved on a long term basis. Therefore, in the short term it may be more important to establish
a reliable monitoring and evaluation mechanism among Contracting Parties. Monitoring and
evaluation is essential to determine the extent of implementation, required changes, new policies
and interventions. In time, it could be the means for identifying the required steps for
harmonization of policies on a regional basis. After all, governance structures must be dynamic
regimes which accommodate to present circumstances without ignoring the objectives initially
established.
Monitoring and reporting efforts are apparent, as States which have ratified the Conventions or
entered into specific agreements (e.g. Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System, South Pacific
Commission), are required to monitor and report. In certain instances however, no feedback
mechanisms are provided for the information collected through monitoring and reporting. Thus,
questions that may be interesting to answer are: Is the information provided by the States feeding
back into different stages of the policy cycle? Is monitoring, reporting and evaluation resulting in
the provision of new policies? If this link is not closed, the provision of information may only be
perceived as a cumbersome administrative requirement, especially when States have ratified
several Conventions or entered several agreements (all requiring monitoring and reporting). It is
considered therefore, that clear rules of procedure (i.e. including those for monitoring, reporting
and evaluation) are necessary as they may provide an incentive for participating countries to
contribute with useful information.
In parallel, institutional arrangements with clearly defined objectives and functions are
considered a prerequisite. CBD, for instance has a hierarchical body in the form of the
Conference of the Parties, a Secretariat and subsidiary bodies. As noted, the Conference of the
Parties keeps under review the implementation of the Convention and also adopts further
protocols, essential for the purposes of the Convention. In addition, those governance structures
which define a focal liaison at a high level of decision making (e.g. CCAMLR) may prove more
useful to maintain issues (i.e. including marine biodiversity) at the forefront and encourage the
required political will to advance.
An important point to highlight is the need to establish clear linkages among different
instruments and governance structures. For instance, the SPAW Protocol and the Mesoamerican
Barrier Reef System Project have certain common objectives (e.g. management of marine
protected areas). In addition, they both call for regional cooperation and harmonization of
44
policies. Although the former is applicable to the entire Wider Caribbean and the latter only
applies to the MBRS within the Wider Caribbean, it may be that at certain point they overlap at
the operational level. Thus, linkages among the institutional arrangements related to each
initiative (UNEP and CCAD) are necessary to maintain overlap at a minimum or coordinate
appropriately to achieve those objectives which are common to both. At the same time adequate
coordination, through Memoranda of Understanding or Agreement, may result in utilizing scarce
financial resources in a more efficient manner.
Undoubtedly the responsibilities of States for the conservation, protection and sustainable use of
marine biodiversity are clear and therefore must actively participate and allocate funds for
specific programmes, projects and actions. Nonetheless, within the governance structures
analyzed it is clear that those which have established a particular financial mechanism with clear
rules of procedure (e.g. CCAMLR) may have a higher rate of success in the long term.
7 References
ACP-EU. 1997. ACP-EU Fisheries Research Initiative. Proceedings of the Third Dialogue
Meeting Caribbean, Pacific and the European Union. Belize, Belize City, 5-10 December
1996. ACP-EU Fisheries Research report No. 3.
Benedict, S. 2004. International Marine Environmental Law: a Case Study in the Wider
Caribbean Region. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review.
Berkes F, Mahon R, McConney P, Pollnac R, Pomeroy R. Managing small-scale fisheries:
Alternative directions and methods. Ottawa, Canada, IDRC 2001; 309 pp.
Chakalall, B., Mahon, R., and McConney, P. 1998. Current issues in fisheries governance in the
Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Marine Policy, 22: 29-44.
Christie, D. (2006). Implementing an ecosystem approach to ocean management: an assessment
of current regional governance models. Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, 116:
117-142.
Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider
Caribbean Region. 1983.
Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992.
Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources
Czempiel E. O. Governance and democratization. In Rosenau JM, EO. Czempiel (Eds.),
Governance without government: order and change in world politics. Cambridge,
Cambridge University Press 1992;
Declaration on the establishment of the Arctic Council.
Dixon, J.A. (1998) "Economic Values of Coral Reefs: What are the issues?" in Coral Reefs:
Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Management, Hatziolos, M.E., Hooten, A.J. and
Fodor, M. Editors. The World Bank, Washington DC.
Duda, A. 2002. Monitoring and evaluation indicators for GEF International Waters Project. The
Global Environmnetal Facility, Monitoring and Evaluation Working Paper 10: 11p.
Duda A., M, Sherman K. A new imperative for improving management of large marine
ecosystems. Ocean and Coastal Management 2002; 45: 797833.
45
Fanning, L., R. Mahon, P. McConney, J. Angulo, F. Burrows, B. Chakalall, D. Gil, M.
Haughton, S. Heileman, S. Martinez, L. Ostine, Adrian Oviedo, S. Parsons, T. Phillips, C.
Santizo, B. Simmons, C. Toro. 2007. A large marine ecosystem governance framework.
Marine Policy (accepted)
FAO 1995a. Code of conduct for responsible fisheries. FAO, Rome, Italy.
FAO. 1995b. Agreement to promote compliance with international conservation and
management measures by fishing vessels on the High Seas. FAO, Rome, Italy
FAO 1998. Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission Report of the Seventh Session of the
Working Party on Marine Fishery Resources, Belize City, Belize 2-5 December 1997. FAO
Fisheries Report No. 576.
FAO 1999. Report of the ninth session of the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission and
of the sixth session of the Committee for the Development and Management of Fisheries in
the Lesser Antilles. FAO Fisheries Report No. 612.
FAO. 2001a. Status and trends of fishery and aquaculture in the WECAFC region. Western Central
Atlantic Fishery Commission Tenth Session/Lesser Antilles Fisheries Committee Seventh Session,
Bridgetown, Barbados, 24-27 October 2001
FAO. 2001b. Report of the tenth session of the Western Central Atlantic Fishery Commission
and of the seventh session of the Committee for the Development and Management of
Fisheries in the Lesser Antilles. FAO Fisheries Report No. ??
Garibaldi L., Limongelli L. 2003. Trends in oceanic captures and clustering of large marine
ecosystems: two studies based on the FAO capture database. Fisheries Technical Paper 435,
Rome, Italy
GESAMP. The state of the marine environment. Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of
Marine Pollution. Regional Seas Reports and Studies. Nairobi, UNEP 2001;
Haughton M., Mahon R., McConney P., Kong G. A, Mills A. Establishment of the Caribbean
Regional Fisheries Mechanism. Marine Policy 2004; 28: 351359.
Jackson J, Kirby M, Berger W, Bjorndal K, Botsford L Bourque B, Bradbury R, Cooke R,
Erlandson J, Estes J, Hughes T, Kidwell S, Lande CB, Lenihan H, Pandolfi J, Peterson C,
Steneck R, Tegner M, Warner R. Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal
ecosystems. Science 2001; 293:629-638.
Kooiman J., Bavinck M., Jentoft S., Pullin R. [eds]. 2005. Fish for life: Interactive governance
for fisheries. Amsterdam, University of Amsterdam Press;
Ledoux, L. and Turner, R.K. (2002) "Valuing Ocean and Coastal Resources: A Review of
Practical Examples and Issues for Further Action", Ocean and Coastal Management, 45, 583-
616.
Le Prestre, P. (2002). The Convention on Biological Diversity: Negotiating the Turn to Effective
Implementation. In: Konrad von Moltke and Kirton, J. (eds). Governing Global Biodiversity:
The Evolution and Implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Ashgate
Publishing Limited.
Mahon, R 1996. Fisheries and research for tunas and tuna-like species in the Western Central
Atlantic. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 357.
46
Mahon, R ed 1987. Report and proceedings of the expert consultation on shared fishery
resources of the Lesser Antilles region. FAO Fisheries Report No. 383.
Mahon, R. 2002. Living aquatic resource management. pp. 143-218. In: I. Goodbody and E.
Thomas-Hope [ed.]. Natural Resource Management for Sustainable Development in the
Caribbean. Canoe Press, UWI, Kingston, Jamaica.
Miles E.L. The concept of ocean governance: evolution toward the 21st century and the principle
of sustainable ocean use. Coastal Management 1999; 27: 1-30.
Miller, M. (1996). "Protecting the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region: The
Challenge of Institution-Building." Green Globe Yearbook.
Muller-Karger, F. E. 1993. River discharge variability including satellite-observed plume-
dispersal. Pages 162-192 In: G. A. Maul [ed]. Climatic change in the Intra American Sea.
Edward-Arnold, New York.
Myers, R. A. and B. Worm. 2003. Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities.
Nature 423: 280-283.
Olsen S. B., Sutinen J. G., Juda L., Hennessey T. M., Grigalunas T.A. 2006. A handbook on
governance and socioeconomics of large marine ecosystems. Coastal Resources Center,
University of Rhode Island, 95 p.
Ostrom, E. Governing the commons: the evolution of institutions for collective action.
Cambridge, Cambridge University Press 1990;
Pauly, D, Christensen V, Guénette S, Pitcher TP, Sumaila UR, Walters C, Watson R, Zeller D.
Towards sustainability in world fisheries. Nature 2002; 418, 689-695.
Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Wildlife to the Convention for the Protection
and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean.
Sherman K, Duda AM. An ecosystem approach to global assessment and management of coastal
waters. Marine Ecology Progress Series 1999; 190: 271-287.
Sherman K, Sissenwine M, Christensen V, Duda A, Hempel G, Ibe C, Levin S, Lluch-Belda D,
Matishov G, McGlade J, O'Toole M, Seitzinger S, Serra R, Skjoldall H-R, Tang Q, Thulin J,
Vandeweerd V, Zwanenburg K. A global movement toward an ecosystem approach to
management of marine resources. Marine Ecology Progress Series 2005; 300: 275279.
Singh-Renton, S., R. Mahon and P. McConney. 2003. Small Caribbean (CARICOM) states get
involved in management of shared large pelagic species. Marine Policy 27 (1): 39-46.
Stoker G. Governance as theory: five propositions. In UNESCO (Ed.), Governance. Oxford:
Blackwell Publishers 1998; 17-26.
Turner, J. (2002). Environmental Treaties. U.S. Department of State
United Nations 1983. The Law of the Sea. Official text of the United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea with annexes and tables. United Nations, New York.
United Nations 1995. Agreement for the implementation of the provisions of the United Nations
Convention of the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 relating to the conservation and
management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. UN Conference on
Straddling Fish stocks and Highly Migratory Species, Sixth session, New York,
A/Conf.164/37.
47
United Nations Division for Sustainable Development. 1994. Report of the Global Conference
on the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States. Bridgetown, Barbados,
25 April-6 May 1994. United Nations General Assembly A/CONF.167/9
United Nations Environment Program. 1983. Action Plan for the Caribbean Environment
Programme. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 26.
United Nations General Assembly. 2005. Resolution on Promoting an integrated management
approach to the Caribbean Sea area in the context of sustainable development. A/RES/59/230
USCOP. An ocean blueprint for the 21st century. Final report to the President and Congress. US
Commission on Ocean Policy..Washington, D.C. 2004 (available at
www.oceancommission.gov, accessed November 27, 2006.)
Wang H. An evaluation of the modular approach to the assessment and management of large
marine ecosystems. 2004; Ocean Development and International Law 35: 267-286
World Bank. 2001. Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Mesoamerican Barrier Reef System
(MBRS) Central American Commission on Environment and Development. Project
Appraisal Document. Project ID: GE-P053349.
Web pages consulted
http://www.arctic-council.org/
http://www.biodiv.org/world/parties.asp
http://www.cep.unep.org/cartagena-convention/
http://www.cep.unep.org/law/cartstatus.html
http://www.oceanlaw.net/texts/summaries/spc.htm
http://www.mbrs.org.bz/english/projdesc.htm
http://www.spc.int/mrd/asides/canberra.htm
http://www.un.org/Depts/les/reference_files/chronological_lists-of_ratifications.htm
http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/Programmes/Action_Plans/Action_Plan_Guide/default.asp
48
APPENDIX 1
Economic Perspective of Value, Costs and Benefits
Peter W. Schuhmann, Ph.D.
Department of Economics and Finance
University of North Carolina, Wilmington
Economists define the value of a particular good or service as what it is worth to people as determined by
what people are willing and able to pay for that good or service. In this regard, value is often confused
with cost. Cost, or what people have to actually pay for a good or service, is considered expenditure and
may differ greatly from the value of the good or service. For example, a reef renourishment project may
involve $1 million in physical and engineering costs, but may generate considerably more (or less) than
that in actual economic value.
It is important to recognize that economic value extends beyond the marketplace to "nonmarket" goods
and services such as clean water, biodiversity, and healthy reefs. That people are willing to give up time
or other resources (including money) for the opportunity to consume these goods and services lends
evidence to this notion. Further, the economic value of these goods need not be associated with direct use.
That is, value can be comprised of both use values and "nonuse values". The values associated with
catching fish for consumption is an example of use values associated with the sea, while the value that
people derive from knowing that a species or ecosystem exits for future possible use, or for future
generations, are examples of non-use value. Table 1 below outlines the various components of value and
provides general examples of values that may pertain to marine resources in the CLME. At the bottom of
Table 1 is perhaps one of the most important identities for understanding and estimating the value of
natural and environmental resources, i.e., that total value is the sum of use values plus nonuse values.
Table 1: Examples of values
Use Values
Market or
Example
non-market
value
Extractive Use Values
Both
Catching fish for sale or personal consumption.
Non-extractive Use Values
Both
Snorkeling, scuba diving.
Indirect Use Values
Non-market
Erosion protection, pollution assimilation, habitat.
Non-Use Values
Existence value
Non-market
Value placed on the existence of an ecosystem or
species for its cultural or ecological significance.
Option value
Non-market
Value placed on preserving an ecosystem or species
for potential future research, education, or recreation.
Bequest value
Non-market
Value placed on preserving an ecosystem or species
so that it is available for future generations.
Use Values + Non-Use Values = Total Economic Value
49
Benefit-Cost Analysis and Economic Valuation
Economic valuation simply means estimating what something is worth to people. We can gather what the
worth of a good or service is by observing what the most people are willing to give up (i.e., trade) to
attain it. Economic valuation facilitates this comparison by expressing all impacts in monetary units.
There are many situations where measuring and understanding the value of particular natural resources
can be useful. In general, anytime there is a potential for tradeoff between market values and non-market
values, economic valuation can serve as a means of facilitating this comparison. This is based on the fact
that alternative uses of natural resources create a range of impacts, which are usually not in comparable
units (changes in fish stocks, loss of tourists, water or air quality changes, or reef degradation). Valuation
allows one to compare these often disparate factors and impacts with a common and easily understood
metric - money - and hence provides a lucid and systematic accounting framework by which to
enumerate the full array of benefits and costs of each alternative for policy analysis.
Continuing this line of thought, a commonly employed litmus test in judging whether a development
project, conservation project or policy change should be undertaken is the benefit-cost test, i.e., are the
benefits are at least as great as the costs. Sometimes referred to as break-even analysis, this test is simply
one way in which economic valuation may be implemented.
The economic valuation approach and benefit-cost analysis can be useful in a variety of scenarios directly
applicable to the transboundary resources and habitats associated with the CLME. Beyond the obvious
merits of understanding the economic tradeoffs of potential policy actions, economic valuation serves to
add transparency to the decision making process so that stakeholders gain an understanding of how scarce
resources, including both financial and natural capital, are being appropriated. A short list of general
valuation examples is provided in Table 2.
Table 2: Valuation scenarios and examples
Scenario Example
Complete a benefit-cost analysis of a
Determine the net economic benefit of increasing the
conservation project
use reef balls or mooring buoys to protect reef habitat.
Analyze the potential economic impacts of a Determining the economic and environmental
proposed policy or regulation change
implications of a proposed fishery regulation.
Analyze alternative fishing regulations in terms of the
Help to efficiently manage natural resources resulting net benefits to stakeholders and sustainability
of use.
Measure monetary damages from natural
Determine the economic loss realized as beach width
resource degradation
or reef quality diminishes.
Determine Total Economic Value (TEV) of
Determine the contribution of coral reefs to economies
a particular resource
of the region.
In summary, the results of economic valuation research can be used to better inform resource managers,
policy makers and stakeholders on the efficiency, distribution, and economic consequences of alternative
resource management decisions, including that of the no-decision option. Through properly designed
50
valuation studies, the economic consequences of potential policy changes can be examined ex ante, and
can therefore inform policy formation. Hence, directed economic valuation studies coupled with
education of stakeholders regarding the economic value and efficient, sustainable use of resources are a
natural component of the "data and information" and "analysis and advice" stages of the CLME policy
cycle. Regularly updating and revising such efforts based on new or changing information would also
seem to be a necessary component of the cycle.
References
Dixon, J.A. (1998) "Economic Values of Coral Reefs: What are the issues?" in Coral Reefs: Challenges and
Opportunities for Sustainable Management, Hatziolos, M.E., Hooten, A.J. and Fodor, M. Editors. The World Bank,
Washington DC.
Ledoux, L. and Turner, R.K. (2002) "Valuing Ocean and Coastal Resources: A Review of Practical Examples and
Issues for Further Action", Ocean and Coastal Management, 45, 583-616.
51