in coastal regions and in small islands
ecological assessment of Ulugan Bay, Palawan, Philippines, CSI info 12
application of assessment to planning
|Assessment briefings of staff
While gathering and analysing scientific data on Ulugan Bay’s
environment and natural resources constituted a significant part of the
assessment exercise, equally important was the demonstration of the practical
applications of scientific analyses for integrated coastal management.
Using the data collected during the assessment, participants
discussed criteria to establish the current status of the coastal resources and
environmental conditions in Ulugan Bay. The criteria adopted were based on
specific management objectives and the natural characteristics of the sites (see
Table 3). These criteria provide a good example of the
type of categories that need to be considered in the preparation of an
integrated management plan. However, establishing a set of criteria is very
site- and circumstance-specific. For this reason, the criteria established in
Ulugan Bay might not be directly applicable in a different setting.
As an example, the Ulugan Bay assessment indicated the prime
importance and urgent need for protection of Sabang (due primarily to its
pristine mangroves) and to Bulalakaw and Tagnipa (due to the undisturbed
condition of Bulalakaw’s highly diverse coral communities in the south-eastern
corner of the bay, and the pristine old-growth condition of Tagnipa’s
mangroves). This assessment was achieved through weighting of ecological and
economic criteria, since the local population had identified ecological and
economic concerns as the most immediate issues in Ulugan Bay at the
preassessment hearings. However, in contrast, when pragmatic criteria, rather
than the ecological/economic criteria, were considered paramount, Tagnipa and
Oyster Bay were of prime importance and in most urgent need of protection.
|Table 3. Criteria for
the determination of management options
The variety or richness of ecosystems, habitats, communities and
species. Areas having the greatest variety are rated the
highest. Note that this criterion does not apply to pioneer or
climax communities or to areas subject to disruptive forces,
such as shores exposed to high-energy wave action.
The absence of disturbance or degradation. Degraded systems have
little value to fisheries and tourism and make only marginal
biological contributions. In contrast, if restoration of
degraded habitats is a priority, degraded systems score high
The degree to which a given species depends upon an area, or the
degree to which an ecosystem depends on given ecological
processes occurring in the area. If an area is critical to more
than one species or process, a high rating should be granted.
The degree to which an area represents a habitat type, an
ecological process, a biological community, a physiographic
feature or other natural characteristics.
Whether an area is ‘one of a kind’. Habitats of endangered
species occurring in only one area are an example. To keep
negative tourism impacts to a minimum, tourism may be prohibited
while allowing for limited research and educational activities.
Unique sites should always have high ratings.
The degree to which the area is a functional unit, that is, an
effective self-sustaining ecological unit. The more ecologically
self-contained an area is, the more likely its values can be
effectively protected. Consequently, a higher rating should be
given to such areas.
The degree to which productive processes within the area
contribute benefits to particular species, including humans (eutrophic
An area’s susceptibility to degradation by natural events or
by the activities of people.
The degree to which certain
economically important species depend on the area.
The number of fishers
dependent upon the area and the size of the fisheries yield.
The extent to which changes
in land use patterns threaten the overall value to people.
The degree to which
protection will affect the local economy in the long term.
The existing or potential
value of the area to tourism development that is compatible with
the aims of conservation efforts.
Whether immediate action
should be taken, lest values of the area may be transformed or
Which and how much of various
habitats should be included in a given protected area. Note that
the protected area must be large enough to function as an
ecological unit to receive a high rating.
Present and potential threats
from direct exploitation and development efforts.
Of the potential protection
status on the environment and its inhabitants.