Integrated environmental management of the oceans

Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 215–226

ANALYSIS

Integrated environmental management of the oceans

Paula Antunes *, Rui SantosEcoman Centre, Department of En6ironmental Sciences and Engineering, Faculty of Sciences and Technology,

New Uni6ersity of Lisbon, Quinta da Torre, 2825 Monte da Caparica, Portugal

Abstract

The application of integrated environmental management (IEM) as an analytical framework and general method-ology to support ocean governance is suggested in this paper. IEM is described as an adaptive process, which has toconsider interactively problem assessment, policy priorities, the formulation of policies and their implementation inadequate measures, taking into account the multiple perspectives of the stakeholders involved. Relevant issues relatedto the accomplishment of IEM tasks for marine environments are discussed and some directions for further researchare identified. © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Oceans governance; Integrated oceans management

www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon

1. Introduction

Ocean environmental management has becomean important issue because of continued oceanpollution and resource extraction, in spite of somenotable successes in reducing them. The environ-mental management of the oceans is an urgenttask since they are an increasingly important re-source for the sustenance of life on Earth, and yethave been regarded as an unlimited dumpingground for waste produced by human activities.The world’s oceans are vast (both in surface andin volume) and extremely sensitive. Radical

changes in the oceans’ chemical, thermal andphysical balance can cause great damage, not onlyto the biological, chemical and physical activities,but also to the Earth’s atmosphere and inner crustwhich are also affected by the oceans (Frankel,1995).

The concept of integrated environmental man-agement (IEM) emerged as an alternative to thetraditional sectoral approach to environmentalproblems that prevailed during the 1970s, whichhas resulted in inefficient procedures and con-tributed to the creation of new environmentalproblems, mainly due to difficulties in policy co-ordination. IEM aims at conciliating socioeco-nomic development objectives with thepreservation of environmental quality and ecolog-ical functions through the adoption of policy in-

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +351-1-295-4464; fax: +351-1-294-8554.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (P. Antunes),[email protected] (R. Santos)

0921-8009/99/$ - see front matter © 1999 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0921 -8009 (99 )00080 -4

P. Antunes, R. Santos / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 215–226216

Fig. 1. Integrated environmental management.

tionary potential of the biosphere.IEM can be applied to different levels of analy-

sis, including problems that occur on a local,regional (watershed), continental and global scale.Small-scale problems are usually easier to tacklesince the distance (in time and space) between thecauses of the problems and the effects are rela-tively small, and the number of actors involved isusually low. On the other hand, the distancebetween cause and effect for problems on abroader scale (continental and global) is fre-quently larger, and therefore they are moredifficult to perceive and to solve (Maas, 1991). Inaddition, problems on a broader scale have ahigher number of actors involved, and their solu-tion often implies negotiations between interestedparties and the adoption of cooperative solutions.

IEM has considered mainly land-based environ-mental problems at the national and European

struments and measures (Antunes et al., 1996).IEM thus intends to balance socioeconomic, tech-nological and ecological forces in resource alloca-tion processes in order to achieve sustainabledevelopment and preserve the maximum evolu-

Fig. 2. Steps in the IEM process.

P. Antunes, R. Santos / Ecological Economics 31 (1999) 215–226 217

Fig. 3. DPSIR framework for integrated environmental assessment.

levels. Several authors have also suggested theapplication of IEM to coastal zones, introducingthe concept of integrated coastal zone manage-ment (ICZM) (Turner and Adger, 1996). ICZM isa continuous planning process in which interestedparties, stakeholders and regulators reach generalagreement on the best mix of conservation, sus-tainable resource use and economic developmentfor coastal areas (Fisheries and Oceans Canada,1998).

We suggest that the adoption of IEM principlesand methodology, taking into account the scalesof analysis at which oceans problems occur, canprovide relevant guidance for the development ofsustainable oceans governance, providing a robustand analytically sound framework formanagement.

2. Integrated environmental management process

IEM is a complex process which involves thestudy of the complete environmental cycle associ-ated with each environmental problem. This cycleincludes resource extraction (e.g. fishing) and gen-eration of emissions (e.g. toxins release) by socioe-

conomic activities, the evaluation of their effectson natural resources and environmental quality,and the impacts on ecosystem functions and hu-man welfare. These, in turn, can limit the develop-ment of human activities and create the need forpolicy response (Fig. 1).

IEM is, therefore, an adaptive process whichhas to consider interactively problem assessment,policy priorities, and the formulation and imple-mentation of policies through adequate instru-ments and measures, taking into account themultiple perspectives of the stakeholders involved(Santos et al., 1991). Integrated environmentalmanagement implies the accomplishment of sev-eral tasks, namely:1. Problem identification and assessment;2. Modeling and formulation of scenarios of pos-

sible environmental change;3. Identification of priority issues and establish-

ment of targets for environmental policy;4. Search and evaluation of policy alternatives,

including environmental management instru-ments and measures which best meetobjectives;

5. Implementation and evaluation of policyperformance.


Table 1Integrated environmental assessment of oceansa

Problem PressureDriving forces State Impact

Fish catches Stock depletionOver fishing Decrease in capture perPopulation growthFood needs Ecosystem changes unit of effort

Ecological effects

Urban and indus-Contamination from Water qualityEmissions from land- Health effects in marinetrial developmentland-based activities speciesbased activities indicators

Resource extractionAgriculture, aqua- Eutrophication Human healthculture Sediments toxicity Damage to wetlands andResources needs other coastal ecosystemsBiological indicators

Tourism and recreationlosses

Urban and indus-Dumping at sea Waste dumping Water quality Health effects in marinespeciestrial development Resource extraction Sediments toxicityHuman healthBiological indicatorsPort activities

Oil spills (accidental and Need for trans- Health effects in marineRelease of toxins Water qualityspeciesindicatorsportationoperational)

Resources needs Damage to coastal areasPort activities

Urban and indus-Destruction of coastal Occupation of areas Biodiversity lossesWater qualityindicatorstrial development Emissionsecosystems Changes in biological pro-

ductivityChanges in waterPort activitiesNeed for tourism/ Increased vulnerability

Dredgingmotion

recreation Ecological productivityOvercrowding

Health of key coastalResource needsFishing industry lossesDestructive fishing tech-

Disturbance in sedimentCoastal erosion

ecosystems (wetlands,mangroves, and coral

niques

flow and siltationreefs)

Beach and bottomCoastal dynamics Occupation of areasUrban and indus- Land, property and in-erosion frastructures lossestrial development

Flooding of low-lying ar-Dredging

Disturbance inNeed for tourism/ Channelisationsediment flow andrecreation easCoast protection workssiltation Increased vulnerability

CO2; CFCs and other; Average temperature Changes in biologicalPopulation growthClimate changeUrban and indus- GHG emissions Sea level rise productivitytrial development Increased populations atNeed for trans-

Saltwater intrusion inrisk

portation Land, property and in-freshwater

frastructures lossesResource needsStorminessCoastal erosion rates

Flooding of low-lying ar-eas

a This table describes some underlying causes of marine environmental problems, but does not consider marine resource relatedmarket failures which shape the ‘intensity’ of the pressures on the environment, such as ill-defined property rights, as well as factorsrelated to the behavior of the actors.


Table 2Measures and instruments for sustainable oceans governance

Problem Command andMeasures Economic instruments Information/voluntarycontrol

Total allowable catchReduce fishing effortOver fishing Share-based fisheries Eco-label for fishTechnology to reduce by- products(TAC) Incentives for fleet

Increased awarenesscatch reductionMesh regulationsClosed areasMarine protected areas Incentives toregulations aquacultureDays at sea (DAS) Tax catches/fishing

Aquaculture

effort

Information aboutEffluent treatment Emissions standards Emissions andContamination fromproduct taxes/chargesland-based activities quality (e.g. blue flag)Waste treatment/disposal Prohibitions for waste

Eco-labelTransferableNon-point source pollution dumpingcontrol Technological Discharge permits Environmental Audits

standardsImproved production Subventions Voluntary agreements/processes Liability systemsRegulations for covenants

agricultural practicesImproved resource efficiencyReduce agricultural inputs

Waste treatment facilities Prohibitions Environmental Environmental auditsDumping at seaassurance bondingsystemsLiability systems

Clean-up

Reduce risk of accident Safety requirementsOil spills (accidental and Environmental Provision of informationfor the safe navigationassurance bondingfor tankers (e.g.operational)

double hull tankers) of shipssystemsDefinition of

Clean-up

Liability systemsnavigation routesIncreased limit of

Restoration

responsibility of shipowners

Waste oil treatment facilities

TransferableMarine and coastal parks- Limited access toDestruction of coastal Eco-label for tourismresourcesecosystems resortsdevelopment rightsCoastal zones

Public provisionVisit/diving feesRestorationTaxes de sejour formanagement plansProtection

Zoning touristsReduce occupation/use

Zoning Resource extractionCoast protection worksCoastal erosionRestoration Limited access to taxes

resourcesLand use planning incoastal areas

Climate change GHG emissions reduction Emission standards Carbon tax Eco-label for energyEnergy efficiency Technological Tradable emission efficient productsRenewable energy standards reduction targetsRetreat Incentives to energy

saving equipmentProtection


Fig. 2 illustrates the IEM process indicating alsothe major tools that can be used in the several stages.In the following sections we willbriefly discuss foreach of these steps major issues related to theapplication of IEM for oceans.

IEM is essentially adaptive, involving a contin-uous learning process that cannot be separated intoresearch, design and implementation stages (Wal-ters, 1986). A stage of equilibrium involving fullknowledge and optimal allocation of coastal andmarine resources will probably never be reached. Inthis context, the stages mentioned above are notperformed in a linear one-time sequence; insteadthey are all performed simultaneously in a contin-uous process of identification–design–implementa-tion–evaluation and revision.

The involvement of stakeholders at stages and theestablishment of adequate governance institutionsare essential for the success of the IEM approach.These issues will be discussed in Section 8.

3. Problem identification/assessment

The first stage in IEM is the identification/assess-ment of current and future environmental problems.This stage is generally referred to as integratedassessment, and it can be defined as, ‘‘the interdis-ciplinary process of identification, analysis andappraisal of all relevant natural and human pro-cesses and their interactions, which determine boththe current and future state of environmental qualityand resources at appropriate spatial and temporalscales. It facilitates the framing, implementation andevaluation of policies promoting sustainable devel-opment’’ (Quinn et al., 1995).

We consider that the driving forces–pressure–state–impact–response (DPSIR) framework,adopted in several integrated assessments (RIVM,1995, 1997), can be successfully applied to oceansmanagement.

Driving forces, i.e. underlying causes of environ-mental problems, refer to the needs of individualsand institutions which lead to activities that exertpressures on the environment (e.g. emissions towater, resource use). For example, the human needfor food is a driving force that motivates fishing thatimplies the harvest of fish resources. The ‘intensity’

of the pressure depends on the nature and extensionof the driving forces and also on other factors whichshape human interactions with ecological systems,such as ill-defined property rights and other marketfailures, as well as the behavior of the actorsinvolved.

These pressures modify the state of the environ-ment (e.g. changes in water quality, fish popula-tions), and these modifications may have an impacton ecosystems and on human well-being. Undesir-able impacts lead to a response from society thatresults in the formulation of an environmentalpolicy. The policy responses lead to changes in theDPSI chain. Depending on the results achieved,further responses are formulated (RIVM, 1995).Fig. 3 shows the general model of the DPSIRframework.

This framework is an extension of the Pressure–State–Response model previously adopted byOECD, UNEP and LOICZ.1 This framework isuseful because it leads both scientists and policymakers to think in terms of causality chains. Thedrawback is that the suggested linear relationshipsmight obscure the more complex relationships inecosystems and the interactions among sub-systems(e.g. socioeconomic and ecological) (UNEP/RIVM,1994).

The identification and assessment of problemsrelated to oceans sustainable management requirestherefore the definition of a set of indicators aimedat the different parts of this framework. Amongother things, these indicators should be (OECD,1998):1. Policy relevant and useful,2. Responsive to changes in the marine environ-

ment to allow monitoring signs of ecosystemschange,

3. Able to show trends over time and to establishcomparisons among regions,

4. Simple and easy to interpret,5. Related to the different stakeholders

perspectives,6. Easily available at a reasonable cost/benefit

ratio.Table 1 proposes a possible set of indicators for

some of the current problems associated with

1 Land-ocean interactions in the coastal zone (IGBP coreproject).


oceans, applying the DPSIR framework. The Re-sponse stage will be analysed in Section 6, whichaddresses the instruments and measures for oceanmanagement.

A more in-depth analysis of Table 1 shows thedifficulties that arise in the application of theDPSIR framework to complex environmentalproblems, such as the case of marine resources.These difficulties can be due to several factors suchas:1. Several causes contributing to a single effect;2. Multiple effects resulting from a single

pressure;3. Interrelations among ecosystem components;4. Indirect, synergistic or cumulative effects.

However, this framework provides a basis foridentification of information needs and for prob-lem assessment.

Many of the identified oceans’ problems arerelevant at several scales. For instance, destructionof coastal ecosystems has obvious effects at thelocal and regional levels but can also have animpact at a higher level when it affects globalfishery resources.

The development of monitoring systems capableof providing information on marine ecosystems,and their response to pressures generated by hu-man activities, is essential to improve ocean gover-nance. Therefore, the definition of a set ofindicators aimed at monitoring the different stagesof the DPSIR chain is urgently needed, in spite ofthe referred to difficulties.

4. Scenarios of future evolution

The second stage in IEM is to predict theexpected evolution of marine and coastal systemsunder different socioeconomic scenarios, and thefeedback effects of these environmental changesinto human activities. In the case of oceans man-agement this requires the development of inte-grated ecological–economic models, which takeinto account, on the ecological side, different phys-ical, chemical and biological processes, and multi-ple species and their interactions, and on thesocioeconomic side the various stakeholders in-volved and their points of view.

Major problems associated with the develop-ment of integrated ecological–economic modelsfor ocean management are related to:1. The need to include different time frames in the

model to account both for short-term effects,such as population fluctuations and response,and for long-term cumulative effects, such aschronic effects on the health of marine speciesdue to toxic releases;

2. In addition, different levels of analysis have tobe considered due to the relevance of local,regional and global processes for oceans sys-tems, and to the great distance between causeand effect which is frequently observed (e.g.migratory species, oceans transport);

3. Modeling of oceans transport movements hasto be combined with ecological models consid-ering major materials and energy flows forlower and higher trophic levels, and coupledwith socioeconomic models;

4. The socioeconomic model must account for thedifferent stakeholders’ perspectives;

5. Difficulty in conciliating the time frame of theeconomic and ecological models—what is gen-erally considered as a long-term economicmodel is a very short time frame to capturesome ecological responses.

In summary, the major problems associated withthis stage of ocean IEM relate to the fact that theinteractive processes that control coupled physi-cal–biological–chemical science of the oceans arenot yet completely understood, although someknowledge already exists concerning the structuresthat constitute the physical circulation, motion andtransport mechanisms in the oceans. In addition,the fundamental biological and chemical dynamicsof the euphotic zone of the upper ocean are alsoalready known. However, interdisciplinary re-search is needed to develop linked physical–bio-logical–chemical models (Robinson, 1995), and tointegrate the socioeconomic dimension.

5. Priorities and goal setting

The definition of priorities for action and theestablishment of policy goals is a fundamental stepof IEM. Although these tasks are common to all


management processes, they are often performedwithout the definition of a specific methodology.We consider that the adoption of an explicitprocedure, in which the criteria are clearly iden-tified and accepted by the main actors involved,improves decision-making and enhances the ac-ceptance of policy measures.

Policy priorities criteria should translate thebasic principles of oceans governance, namely sus-tainability (including the ecological, economic andsocial dimensions) and precautionarity.

We propose a set of criteria for prioritisingpolicy targets. Some of them are related to thefundamental principles of IEM, and others ad-dress different issues which can also influence thepriority of a problem.� Reversibility—problems that may lead to irre-

versible damage for ecosystems should receivehigh priority. The concept of critical load,which is defined as the maximum pollutantdeposition (or utilisation of a resource) whichdoes not entail irreversible ecosystem damage(Downing et al., 1993), can be useful to thedefinition of goals for oceans management, re-lated with this criterion.

� Diversity (biological and cultural)—problemswhich may imply loss of diversity should alsoreceive high priority. Diversity should be con-sidered here in a broad sense, including bothbiological and cultural diversity.

� Ecosystem functions affected—problems thatmay pose a threat to key ecosystem functions(e.g. nursery, resources cycling) should also beconsidered as a policy priority.

� Economic value of the damage—economicvalue of the damage associated with theproblem.

� Scale—scale of the problem—in general,larger scale problems should receive higher pri-ority than small scale ones.

� Equity considerations—namely spatial, tempo-ral and across populations and uses of re-sources affected.

� Human health and quality of life—problemsthreatening the health or basic needs of humanpopulations should also receive high priority.

� Public opinion, judgement—public pressurecan influence decision makers regarding the

problems which are considered important bythe populations.

This set of criteria does not intend to be com-prehensive. On the other hand, some of the crite-ria presented may not be independent from eachother (for instance, the evaluation of the eco-nomic value of the damage may already take intoaccount effects on human health). Therefore, ineach case, the criteria to be used should be se-lected considering the points of view of all inter-ested parties, and taking into account the natureof the issues involved and the availability ofinformation.

In some cases, information regarding a singlecriterion is sufficient to establish the priority of aproblem. For example, a problem that causesirreversible damage to a specific ecosystem may beconsidered of high priority just for that fact.Other situations may occur in which to establishthe priority of a problem, a combination of sev-eral criteria has to be considered.

In summary, the establishment of priorities re-quires the definition of a multi-criteria procedureinvolving the selection of relevant criteria, thedefinition of a metric allowing the evaluation ofthe problems in relation to those criteria and theestablishment of an aggregation rule to establishthe ordination of the problems priority.

The major objective of this exercise is to makeclear the importance of the several problems iden-tified in stage 1, assessed in economic, ecologicaland social terms, and to show the trade-offsamong them, in order to help decision makers insetting priorities.

6. Measures and instruments for oceansmanagement

Environmental policy is implemented through aset of measures and instruments addressing exist-ing priority problems and aimed at the preserva-tion of ecological systems. By measures we meanconcrete actions which are implemented to ad-dress environmental problems. These measurescan be directed to different stages of the DPSIchain and, therefore, we can consider thefollowing:


1. Measures directed at the driving forces aimed,for instance, at reducing or replacing the con-sumption of less environmentally friendlyproducts (e.g. reduction in consumption of athreatened fish species, aquaculture).

2. Measures aimed at reducing the pressures onenvironmental systems through end-of-pipetechnologies or by the adoption of improvedproduction processes and more efficient re-source use.

3. Measures addressing the state of the environ-ment aimed directly at ecological systems. Formarine environments this applies to coastalecosystem restoration or the introduction ofjuveniles to enhance recovery of a threatenedfish stock.

4. Measures aimed at mitigating or attenuatingenvironmental impacts. For instance, theCoastal Zone Management Subgroup of Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC, CZMS, 1994) considers retreat (theabandonment of land and structures in vulner-able areas and resettlement of population),and protection (of vulnerable areas, especiallypopulation centers, economic activities andnatural resources) as possible measures in re-sponse to global change. Both of these mea-sures are aimed at mitigating the impacts.

For each relevant environmental problem a setof measures has to be identified considering thepoints of the DPSI chain where intervention ismore adequate and effective (e.g. environmental-effectiveness, cost-effectiveness).

Policy instruments are used to promote theadoption of measures by the agents in the prob-lem chain. These instruments can establish whattypes of measures should be adopted (e.g. techno-logical regulations). They can also establish thetargets leaving the choice of how to achieve themto socioeconomic agents (e.g. emission standards)or they can simply send a signal (incentive/disin-centive) to the agents (e.g. emission taxes, volun-tary information). Usually environmental policyinstruments are classified into command and con-trol (CAC), economic and voluntary/informationbased.

Table 2 shows a preliminary list of environmen-tal policy instruments which can be applied to

promote the adoption of measures targeted at themajor oceans problems identified in stage 1.

Instruments targeted to the assignment of prop-erty rights, such as fishing-right systems (Young,1999) and transferable development rights(Panayotou, 1995) can play a very important rolefor oceans management since ill-defined propertyrights (or their absence) are associated with manyof the problems identified in Table 1. In addition,the application of liability systems and environ-mental assurance bonding systems (Cornwell andCostanza, 1994) can contribute to the implemen-tation of a precautionary approach to oceanmanagement.

Several criteria have to be considered to definepolicy action through the choice of the best set ofmeasures/instruments to be used for each prob-lem. These can be grouped into performance andfeasibility criteria, namely:1. Performance criteria

1.1. Economic efficiency—maximise the netbenefit;

1.2. Cost-effectiveness—maximise the benefitin a chosen indicator for a given expendi-ture or minimise the cost to attain a givenobjective;

1.3. Environmental effectiveness—extent towhich environmental objectives are met;

1.4. Equity—refers to the allocation of gainsand losses across the different agents, andin time and space. It is related to theperceived fairness of the policy.

1.5. Response time—in some cases it is im-portant to minimise the time needed toachieve the desired policy targets.

1.6. Indirect effects—some measures/instru-ments aimed at an environmental prob-lem can reduce (or increase) another oneor create a new problem.

2. Implementation criteria2.1. Institutional setting, legal authority—

there must be an institutional setting andlegal framework to allow for the estab-lishment of a governance regime.

2.2. Enforceability—related to the ability toenforce and monitor compliance.

2.3. Public and stakeholders acceptance—themeasures/instruments must be acceptableto the public and actors in the process.


2.4. Technical and economical feasibility.2.5. Opportunity for action.

While the criteria presented in Section 5 high-light the issues which should be considered toprioritise policy targets, these criteria are intendedto help decision makers evaluate the tradeoffs ofthe various policy options.

The flexibility, compatibility with other sec-toral/regional policies and adjustment capacity touncertainty factors (e.g. macroeconomic conjunc-ture) should also be evaluated as implementationaspects.

One of the major difficulties in ocean gover-nance is the lack of information/understandingabout marine resources and processes and thethreats they face. The design and implementationof marine resources monitoring systems and pro-tocols is therefore a prioritary action to imple-ment IEM and thus improve decision makingprocesses. This information is also fundamental toraise awareness and judgement in the public aboutoceans, in order to press for action. In this con-text, research is also needed on how best toconvey knowledge to the public, using empiricaldata from existing instruments (e.g. blue flags)and devising new information-based policyinstruments.

Voluntary information instruments have beensuccessfully implemented for land-based prob-lems, and these can play an important role in theoceans management (e.g. the certification of fishproducts—such as is already in place for forestand timber certification).

7. Implementation and evaluation of policyperformance

The next stage in the IEM process should bethe implementation of the strategy defined in pre-vious stages, through the application of the se-lected environmental policy instruments andmeasures, to achieve the goals and objectivesdefined.

The institutional setting is a key element in thedesign of a strategy to allow for the establishmentof an oceans governance regime, particularly re-garding such aspects as monitoring and enforce-

ment, and co-operation between local, regionaland global institutions. Consensus buildingamong the parties involved is also very importantto ensure the success of any policy, and to imple-ment instruments which key stakeholders are notalways willing to accept.

This implementation stage must also includethe development of adequate mechanisms to mon-itor the performance of the adopted policy. Thiscan be achieved through the development of a setof performance indicators for which informationwill be continuously gathered.

These performance indicators must includemeasures to evaluate progress in the solution ofthe problems identified in the assessment phase(and selected as a priority in the goals and priori-ties setting stage). In other words, these indicatorsshould measure the efficacy of the adopted policy.These indicators can be essentially the same asthose mentioned in Section 3.

However, other indicators have to be includedaimed at the evaluation of management perfor-mance. These indicators are mainly targeted at themeasures and instruments implemented (the re-sponse component of the DPSIR chain) andshould assess policy implementation.

8. Stakeholder involvement and institutions formanagement

The development of new systems of oceansgovernance must be defined in ways that fosterthe participation and involvement of stakeholders(IWCO, 1998). The aim of ocean governanceshould be to create a climate of co-operationrather than confrontation among the interestedparties. Significant global gains can be achievedthrough collaboration, and all stakeholders maybe better off mainly in the long run.

IEM of the oceans is a process involving com-prehensive assessment, setting of priorities andobjectives, and the design and implementation ofmanagement strategies for coastal and marinesystems and resources. IEM thus requires theintegration of ecological, social, and economicperspectives as well as conflicting interests. Thiscan be achieved balancing protection and conser-


vation with multiple-use objectives. There aremany stakeholders involved who often haveconflicting objectives and overlapping responsi-bilities.

The application of IEM for ocean governancecan contribute to overcoming some of thesedifficulties by providing a structured frameworkto accommodate the stakeholders’ views. How-ever, to achieve this IEM has to include theimplementation of a process to facilitate fullstakeholder involvement at all stages of decisionmaking, referred to in the previous sections. Forexample, the adoption of mediated modelingtechniques (van den Belt et al., 1999), wherestakeholders participate in the formulation of ascoping model, can be useful to identify majorproblems and issues, to develop scenarios ofevolution and to test alternative strategies foraction within the IEM process.

IEM can also support the identification of theappropriate levels for governance. Currently,ocean governance is characterised by a set ofsectoral institutions at each level (local, regional,national and international) in such a way thatthe information and responsibilities for manage-ment remain fragmented among different entitieswith conflicting objectives and priorities for ac-tion. There are ocean problems that currentlyinvolve several institutions with overlapping re-sponsibilities (e.g. coastal areas). On the otherhand, there are issues that are not tackled dueto existing gaps in responsibility and jurisdiction(e.g. international waters).

The development of all IEM stages will fosterunderstanding about current oceans problems,and the ecosystem functions and processes af-fected, thus enabling the identification of themost suited scale for action. According to theLisbon ‘scale-matching principle’ (Costanza etal., 1998), these scales will be the ones that havethe most relevant information, can respondquickly and efficiently and are able to integrateacross boundaries. The design and structure ofoceans governance institutions can thereforebenefit from the adoption of an integrated ap-proach to management.

9. Conclusions

IEM is suggested as a robust and analyticallysound framework for the development of sustain-able ocean governance, taking into account all thescales at which ocean problems occur. IEM is anadaptive process, which has to consider interac-tively problem assessment, policy priorities, theformulation of policies and their implementationin adequate measures, taking into account themultiple perspectives of the stakeholders involved.

Major issues which have to be dealt with inorder to promote IEM of the oceans relate to (1)the definition of a set of indicators aimed atmonitoring and assessing the different stages ofthe oceans problem chains; (2) the development ofintegrated ecological–economic models, consider-ing multiple processes and multiple species on theecological side, and multiple stakeholders andpoints of view on the socioeconomic side; and (3)the establishment of a set of criteria for prioritis-ing policy targets.

For each priority environmental problem, anenvironmental management strategy needs to beformulated identifying the most adequate set ofmeasures to apply, taking into account the stageswhere intervention is more effective. The manage-ment strategy also includes the design of policyinstruments to promote the implementation ofmeasures by the agents in the problem chain andthe establishment of adequate governanceinstitutions.

Acknowledgements

This work was partially supported by JNICT/DGA research project 38/93. Ecoman Centre issupported by the Luso American Foundationfor Development. We thank the anonymous re-viewers of the paper for helpful suggestions.

References

Antunes, P., Santos, R., Salgueiro, A., 1996. Gestao Ambien-tal Integrada. Seminario Informacao Estatistica Regional.Instituto Nacional de Estatistica, Tomar.


Cornwell, L., Costanza, R., 1994. An experimental analysis ofthe effectiveness of an environmental assurance bondingsystem on player behavior in a simulated firm. EcologicalEconomics 11 (3), 213–226.

Costanza, R., Andrade, F., Antunes, P., van den Belt, M.,Boersma, D., Boesch, D., Catarino, F., Hanna, S., Limburg,K., Low, B., Molitor, M., Pereira, J., Rayner, S., Santos, R.,Wilson, J., Young, M., 1998. Principles for sustainablemanagement of the oceans. Science 281, 198–199.

Downing, R.J., Hettelingh, J.P., de Smet, P.A.M. (Eds.), 1993.Calculation and Mapping of Critical Loads in Europe:Status Report 1993, CCE, RIVM Rep. 259101003. RIVM,Bilthoven.

Fisheries and Oceans Canada, 1998. A Guide to IntegratedCoastal Zone Management in Canada. Fisheries and OceansCanada, Ottawa.

Frankel, E., 1995. Ocean Environmental Management. Pren-tice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

IPCC, CZMS, 1994. Preparing to Meet the Coastal Challengesof the 21st Century. In: World Coast Conference, 1993,Conference Report. IPCC, Geneva.

IWCO, 1998. The Ocean Our Future. The Report of theIndependent World Commission on the Oceans. CambridgeUniversity Press, Cambridge.

Maas, R., 1991. Environmental Forecasting. A Tool for Preven-tive Environmental Management. Raportnr. 251701003.RIVM, Bilthoven.

OECD, 1998. Towards Sustainable Development. Environmen-tal Indicators. Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment, Paris.

Panayotou, T., 1995. Conservation of biodiversity and eco-nomic development: the concept of transferable develop-ment rights. In: Perrings, C.A., Maler, K.G., Folke, C.,

Holling, C.S., Jansson, B.O. (Eds.), Biodiversity Conserva-tion. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Quinn, M.K., Mills, P., Philips, A., 1995. Recommendations fora General Strategy for Integrated Assessment of LimitedAreas of Regions Based on a Peripheral Region Case Study.Report prepared for the European Environment Agency.

RIVM, 1995. A General Strategy for Integrated EnvironmentalAssessment at the European Environment Agency. RIVM,Bilthoven.

RIVM, 1997. Economic Assessment of Priorities for a EuropeanEnvironmental Policy Plan, first interim report. RIVM,Bilthoven.

Robinson, A.R., 1995. Predicting and Monitoring of the Phys-ical–Biological–Chemical Ocean. GLOBEC Special Contri-butions No. 1.

Santos, R., Antunes, P., Santana, F., Camara, A., 1991. Conflictand cooperation in the adaptive environmental managementprocess. In: Second Annual Meeting of the EuropeanAssociation of Environmental and Resource Economists,Stockholm, Sweden.

Turner, R.K., Adger, W.N., 1996. Coastal Zone ResourcesAssessment Guidelines. LOICZ/R&S/964, LOICZ, Texel.

UNEP/RIVM, 1994. An Overview of Environmental Indica-tors: State of the Art and Perspectives. UNEP/EATR.94-01;RIVM/402001001, Environmental Assessment SubPro-gramme. UNEP, Nairobi.

van den Belt, M., Videira, N., Antunes, P., Santos, R., Gamito,S., 1999. Mediated Modelling for Stakeholder Participationin Ria Formosa. Project Report, WP 3–99. ECOMANCentre, Lisbon.

Walters, C., 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Re-sources. IIASA. Macmillan, New York.

Young, M., 1999. The design of fishing right systems: the NewSouth Wales experience. Ecol. Econ. 31 (2), 305–316.

.

Documents

Integrated environmental management of the oceans