MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS 



The body of literature on the sub- 

 ject of coastal resource management is 

 large. It is not practical in this 

 section to propose detailed management 

 recommendations on each activity. This 

 section is therefore limited to a review 

 of general management considerations 

 that are pertinent to the MDPR region, 

 and a discussion of some suggested ap- 

 proaches for the management issues 

 covered in the preceding section. 



As noted earlier, there are two 

 general approaches to environmental 

 management, one based on direct regula- 

 tion and one based on a system of taxes 

 and subsidies. The direct regulation 

 approach is more popular and perhaps 

 easier to implement when detailed infor- 

 mation about environmental interactions 

 is very limited. The tax and subsidy 

 system is probably more flexible, easier 

 to administer and less adversarial, but 

 it requires detailed quantitative cal- 

 culations of environmental disturbances 

 that can serve as the basis for the 

 taxes or subsidies. The companion 

 technical report (Costanza et al. 1983) 

 provides a data base potentially useful 

 in this regard. The two approaches 

 produce management recommendatons that 

 are on the surface quite different, but 

 which can achieve similar results. The 

 direct regulation approach employs spe- 

 cific recommendations detailing what 

 activities should be allowed or not 

 allowed in a very "black or white" way. 



The tax and subsidy approach does 

 not disallow anything a_ priori but mere- 

 ly requires that the total (social) cost 

 of all activities be paid, and that 

 those affected be compensated. Rather 

 than a set of specific recommendations, 

 it employs a set of prices or costs as- 

 sociated with specific activities as the 

 basis for the taxes. If the environ- 

 mental cost associated with a particular 

 activity like canal dredging is signifi- 

 cant, and if the practitioners are re- 

 quired to pay this cost rather than 

 passing it on to the local public, then 

 they will make every effort to "econo- 

 mize" on environmental destruction. The 



revenues from the tax can then be used 

 to mitigate the remaining damages. 



In principle, the same effect can 

 be achieved by the direct regulation 

 approach, but this management framework 

 is apparently operationally unable to 

 reverse many continuing environmental 

 problems, like wetland loss and habitat 

 degradation. This is partly because 

 individual projects are reviewed for 

 permitting on a case-by-case basis that 

 is insensitive to long term cumulative 

 effects. 



Each permitted oil access canal, 

 dredge and fill activity, discharge 

 permit, etc., may seem small and unim- 

 portant by itself, especially when only 

 immediate, direct effects are con- 

 sidered. The long term cumulative ef- 

 fects of all permitted projects are 

 quite significant, however. For exam- 

 ple, when canals are viewed on a basin 

 level, rather than individually, they 

 form a network that alters the hydro- 

 logic regime of the entire basin. This 

 enhances salt water intrusion, reduces 

 the capacity of wetlands to assimilate 

 nutrients, reduces coastal storm buf- 

 fering capacity, reduces marsh produc- 

 tion, increases wetland loss, and 

 results in decreased fish and wildlife 

 production. Because the economic bene- 

 fits of each individual canal outweigh 

 the local environmental costs, all 

 canals are permitted and the total envi- 

 ronment continues to degrade. 



From a regulatory point of view one 

 might aim instead for "zero net habitat 

 loss." This management philosophy goes 

 beyond simply minimizing the impacts of 

 alteration, and requires that any dis- 

 ruption of a natural coastal habitat be 

 accompanied by appropriate mitigation. 

 Mitigation would involve the restoration 

 of an equivalent area of natural habitat 

 at another location. Any activity with 

 demonstrable impacts in wetlands, such 

 as canal dredging, would be permitted 

 only if the effects were mitigated by 

 creation, restoration, or enhancement of 

 wetland habitat elsewhere. The func- 

 tional characteristics and processes of 

 the habitat, such as natural biological 

 productivity, wildlife value, species 



160 



