lable at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 189–196

Contents lists avai

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ocecoaman

Valuing the Guinea current large marine ecosystem: Estimates ofdirect output impact of relevant marine activities

N.A. Chukwuone a,b,*, C.N. Ukwe c, A. Onugu d, C.A. Ibe e

a Centre for Entrepreneurship and Development Research, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeriab Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu State, Nigeriac Water Management Unit, Energy and Cleaner Production Branch, United Nations Industrial Development Organization, VIC Box 300, A-1400 Vienna, Austriad Bioresources Development and Conservation programme (BDCP), Abuja, Nigeriae Interim Guinea Current Commission, Executive Secretariat, 1 Akosombo Street, Airport Residential Area, Accra, Ghana

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 3 January 2009

* Corresponding author. Centre for EntrepreneurshiUniversity of Nigeria, 40001 Nsukka, Enugu, Nigeria.

E-mail address: nnachukwuone@yahoo.com (N.A.

0964-5691/$ – see front matter � 2008 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2008.12.008

a b s t r a c t

This study is a first step towards valuing the Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem (GCLME), one of thefive world’s most productive marine areas that are rich in fishery resources, petroleum production, andan important global region of marine biological diversity. The area is highly degraded and thus demandsurgent attention to recover and sustain depleted fisheries; restore degraded habitats; and reduce landand ship-based pollutions. Achieving this goal would be a mirage if the actual value of the ecosystem’scontribution to the society is not known. Valuation can help identify the main beneficiaries of conser-vation and the magnitude of benefits they receive, and help design measures to capture some of thesebenefits and contribute to financing of conservation. Hence this study used the direct output approach toestimate the value of relevant marine activities in the area. The result shows that the total value of outputin GCLME when some outputs namely, marine fishery, offshore oil production, NTFP (periwinkle) andmining, are considered as $49,941.4 million. Among these uses, offshore oil production has the highestvalue accounting for 59.79% of the total estimate. These estimates provides sufficient evidence to showthat GCLME provide enormous value and should be managed appropriately to sustain the gains if theeconomic development would be guaranteed especially considering that most countries in the GCLMdepend on natural resources for their survival. Evolving a well defined property rights regime and anefficient governance system for management is recommended.

� 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

1.1. Background

The Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem (GCLME) is one ofthe five world’s most productive marine areas that are rich infishery resources, petroleum production, and an important globalregion of marine biological diversity. It supports the livelihood ofmany communities especially those living around the coast. TheGCLME (Fig. 1) extends from Bissagos Island (Guinea-Bissau) in thenorth to Cape Lopez (Gabon) and Angola in the south and isconsidered to include the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) ofsixteen countries, namely, Angola, Benin, Cameroon, Congo, Cote

p and Development Research,Tel.: þ234 8051242411.Chukwuone).

All rights reserved.

d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Gabon, Ghana, EquatorialGuinea, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Nigeria, Sao Tome & Prin-cipe, Sierra Leone and Togo. Approximately 40% of the region’s 300million people live in coastal areas and are dependent on thelagoons, estuaries, creeks and inshore waters surrounding them [1].

Fishery resources in the Guinea current region include over 300species of finfish, 17 species of cephalopods, 25 species of crusta-ceans, and 3 species of turtles [2,3]. The fishery resources areexploited by both artisanal and industrial fishing fleets, the latter ofwhich is made up of both local and foreign flag vessels. Forexample, in Nigeria, data from Fisheries Department of the FederalMinistry of Agriculture show that the artisanal canoe fleet exploitscoastal waters up to 5 nautical miles from shore while 35 fishingand 203 shrimping vessels were licensed in 2005. Generally, over60% of national fish landings in the sub-region are made by arti-sanal fishers. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO) [4] records show that there was a catch of950,000 tons in 1990 and 900,000 tons in 1999, although there was

Fig. 1. Map of Western Africa showing the countries in the GCLME area (source Ref. [6]).

N.A. Chukwuone et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 189–196190

a decline to 700,000 tons in 1994. The target species off the coast,Ghana and Togo are Sardinelia aurita, Sardinelia maderensis, Scom-ber japonicus and Engraulis encrasicolus. Further south, from Beninto Democratic Republic of the Congo, the target species are Eth-malosa fimbriata, Sardinella maderensis and lisha africana. In Nigeria,the demersal target species exploited by artisanal fishing units are:croakers (Pseudotolithus), threadfins (Galeoides, Pentanemus andPolydactylus), soles (Cynoglossidae), marine catfish (Arius), brack-ishwater catfish (Chrisichthys), snapper (Lutjanus), grunters(Pomadasyidae), groupers (Epinephelus), and the estuarine whiteshrimp (Palaemon) [3].

The mangroves’ areas, which form a great part of the eco-region,are also important areas for the local communities. Thesemangroves, beside the species available in them, act as spawningground for fish species. Some of the mangrove species availableespecially in the Niger Delta area of Nigeria, the largest mangrove inAfrica (9730 km2) and the third largest in the world, includeRhizophora sp, Conocarpus sp, Avicennia sp, Mitragyna inermis,Laguncularia sp. The GCLME is equally a rich source of petroleumresources and an important tourist area. For example, In Nigeria oilis produced from the Niger Delta (over 90 oil fields, about 6200 kmof flow lines and pipelines spread over 30,000 km2 of the delta) [5].

Despite its resources, the GCLME is facing a lot of challengingproblems, namely, population explosion and urbanization, fisheriesdepletion, water pollution, public health and sanitation, habitatdegradation, coastal erosion, loss of biological diversity, and land-use [7] all of which have been exacerbated by human activities [6].For example in Ghana, a marine prawn of the Penauss sp. which isa delicacy for the coastal community in the area is now on theendangered list due to over exploitation. In Nigeria the establish-ment of the oil industries close to the EEZ has caused high migra-tions to the coastal towns like Bonny, Eket and Port Harcourt. Thisresults in a great increase in wastes discharges to water courseswith accompanying negative impacts. Also, in the Niger Delta areaof Nigeria, the construction of jetties, sand and gravel mining,dredging and removal of vegetation has worsened coastal erosion.Pollution is also a major issue. The United Nations Environment

Programme (UNEP) [8] in the final report of the Global Interna-tional Water Assessment (GIWA) and the Transboundary Diag-nostic Analysis for the Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystem(GCLME) project [3] indicate that the main pollution problems aredegraded water quality, the loss of critical habitats for migratoryand non-migratory species, effluents in rivers flowing into the LME,the risk of offshore spills, marine debris and beach pollution, andindustrial and solid waste. Pollution from oil and gas exploration isa major potential danger for coastal fisheries. These problemsimpede the economic development of the countries of the GCLMEespecially as the majority of the countries depend on naturalresources from these areas. For example, over 80% of Nigeria’sannual revenue is from oil from the Niger Delta region.

In order to reverse these ugly trends, efforts are being made bysome countries in the region and development agencies to imple-ment conservation projects in the GCLME. For example, the GEFproject ‘‘combating living resources depletion and coastal areadegradation in the Guinea Current Large Marine Ecosystemthrough ecosystem-based regional actions’’ executed by the UnitedNations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) with theUnited Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and UNEP as thejoint implementing agencies and funding from the Global Envi-ronment Facility (GEF) aims to reverse these trends and to achievelong-term development goals. The objectives of the project are torecover and sustain depleted fisheries; restore degraded habitats;and reduce land and ship-based pollution by establishing a regionalmanagement framework for sustainable use of living and non-living resources in the GCLME. The project has consolidatedregional collaboration through the adoption of the Abuja Declara-tion, by the sixteen countries Ministers in their meeting of 21–22September 2006 in Abuja, Nigeria, for the establishment of anintergovernmental body, the Interim Guinea Current Commission(IGCC).

However, in order to achieve the objectives of recovering andsustaining depleted fisheries; restoring degraded habitats; andreducing land and ship-based pollution, it will be important tounderstand the total value of the ecosystem’s contribution to the

N.A. Chukwuone et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 189–196 191

society. Valuation can help identify the main beneficiaries ofconservation and the magnitude of benefits they receive, and helpdesign measures to capture some of these benefits and contributeto financing of conservation [9]. Economic valuation would help todemonstrate and quantify its economic value in terms of rawmaterials, protection of natural and human systems, and mainte-nance of options for future economic production and growth, aswell as the costs associated with the loss of these benefits throughresource degradation. By providing a means for comparing andmeasuring the various benefits of wetland and marine resources,economic valuation can be a powerful tool to aid and improve wiseuse and management of global/transboundry wetland and marineresources [10].

Although there have been some previous valuation studiesfocusing on marine and coastal resources, for example, [11–15], nosuch study, to our knowledge, has focused on the GCLME. Thus asa first step towards valuing the goods of the GCLME, this studytherefore compiles the estimate of relevant marine sectors of thearea using the Direct Output Impact (DOI) approach. Currently,there is no readily available compilation of DOI for all marineactivities in the GCLME. The rest of the paper is organized asfollows: theoretical foundations of the problems of the GCLME andthe rationale for economic valuation, the description of the relevantmarine sectors, methodological framework, results, discussion andconclusions.

2. Theoretical foundations of the problem of the GCLMEand the rationale for economic valuation

The New Institutional Economies’ (NIE) theories provide theexplanation to the problems of the GCLME, the need for an efficientinstitutional measure for sustainable management and hence, theplace of economic valuation in ensuring wise management of thearea. The analysis of NIE theories starts from the analytical struc-ture of institutions described by Williamson [16] which specifically,distinguishes four levels in which institutions function and evolve.The first level, social embeddedness deals with informalconstraints, namely, norms, mores, traditions, taboos and ethics.The second level is the basic institutional environment which herefers to as ‘‘formal rules of the game’’ – especially property (polity,judiciary, bureaucracy). The third level is governance: ‘‘play of thegame’’ – especially contract (aligning governance structure withtransactions). The forth level is resource allocation and employ-ment (prices and quantities; incentive alignment). It is the day-to-day operation of the economy given the institutions defined atother three levels.

The levels are interconnected with each other with the higherlevels placing some constraints on the lower levels. Also, there maybe feedback effects from the lower to the higher levels. Newinstitutional economics has focused primarily on analyses ofaspects of institutional arrangements that fall in level 2 and level 3of Williamson [16] hierarchy that is property rights and governancestructures. In fact, the manner in which people use environmentalresources depends on the property rights governing theseresources [17].

The various types of property rights’ regimes include openaccess property, common property, private property and stateproperty [18]. In open access property, rights to the resources arenot defined and individuals have no incentive to conserve theresource because they are concerned that their efforts to conservewill be undermined by others’ exploitation. Open access leads to‘‘tragedy of the commons’’, in which individuals acting in their ownself-interest tend to overexploit the resource [19]. In commonproperty regimes, access to use of resources is confined to membersof a defined user group and those who are not part of that user

group is excluded. In private property, individuals have rights toundertake socially acceptable uses and a duty to refrain fromunacceptable uses. For state property, resource rights are held bythe state and individuals have a duty to observe the rules of use asdetermined by the controlling agency.

In the GCLME there is improper definition of property rightshence the primary cause of resource degradation in the area. In fact,an important reason for the massive degradation of naturalresources in developing countries is the lack of well defined andsecure property rights [20]. Even in the GCLME where governmentis responsible for governance as regards some policy issues, theproblem still persist. For example, initially, there was the problem ofeffective coordination among the different government ministriesin the countries to which the management of these resources isassigned to in most of the GCLME countries. In some of the GCLMEcountries, it was evident that the Ministries of Environment and theMinistries of Fisheries compete on issues of control of marineresources especially fisheries. This problem has been resolvedthrough the creation and functioning of National Inter-MinisterialCommittees as part of implementation of the GCLME project. Thusbecause of improper definition of property rights there is poormanagement and the rents from these resources are consumed andnot utilized in forging economic development. World Bank [21]observed that, with few exceptions, consumption, rather thaninvestment, of resource rents is common in resource-rich countries.

Hence there is need for economic valuation of the GCLME inorder to convince policy makers of the need for proper definition ofproperty rights, management and appropriation of rents for theresources. By demonstrating the benefits that ecosystems generate,and the increased benefits (or avoided looses) that conservingthese ecosystems can bring to stakeholders, valuation can helpconvince decision makers to allocate more resources to conserva-tion [9]. In fact economic valuation will enable policy makers toappreciate what is being lost.

The problem of economic valuation of the GCLME is that themarine environment has some futures which tend to constraineconomic valuation. First, a large part of the marine areas areoutside the territorial limits of individual countries and are beingexploited like a common property resource (in terms of fishing),and also used as a (costless) sink for wastes. Thus there isa tendency of tragedy of open access. Also, the resources are multi-purpose in nature, which have both use and non-use values. Forexample, besides fish, the marine area serves for recreation, bio-logical support, performs other ecological functions and serves asan important pool of biodiversity. Also coastal resources, especiallymangroves produce, among other things, wood (which can beprocessed into charcoal), medicinal and aromatic plants and servesas breeding grounds for shrimp and fish, and as bird sanctuaries,among others. In addition, the fact that the species are migratory innature and not confined to national boundaries makes it moredifficult to prepare precise accounts, even for the marine resourceswithin the 200-nautical mile limit of nations. Furthermore, thereare significant limitations in knowledge on how pollution physi-cally affects marine output, biodiversity, and the various services.Besides, measuring stocks of fish and that of other organisms andthe determination of the sustainable level of exploitation is diffi-cult. Notwithstanding these limitation to valuing the GCLME andindeed marine resources, valuation is imperative to successfulmanagement of the GCLME.

3. The relevant marine sectors of the Guinea currentlarge marine ecosystem

The main sectors of the GCLME are fishing, offshore oilproduction, Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFP), mining (Sand and

N.A. Chukwuone et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 189–196192

Salt products), international tourism and timber. The fishingindustry in GCLME is based on resources from the marine and, toa lesser extent, inland sector. The fisheries’ activities in the marinesector range from artisanal to industrial. Pelagic and demersal fishresources are exploited up to 200 nautical miles ExclusiveEconomic Zone (EEZ) in each of the countries. In some of thecountries, Angola for example, marine fisheries are managed anddeveloped in terms of the Fisheries Act of 1992, which covers, interalia, such aspects as planning, licensing, surveillance and enforce-ment. In Nigeria, the Federal Department of Fisheries is responsiblefor the management and policy issues as regards fish resources andfishing in Nigeria. In Ghana, the marine sub-sector is the mostimportant source of local fish production, delivering more than 80%of the total supply [22]. The industry consists of three main sectors,namely small scale (or artisanal on canoe), semi-industrial (orinshore) and industrial sub-sectors and the management of thefisheries resources rest with the Ghana Ministry of Fisheries.

Offshore oil production is another major activity in the GCLME.Offshore oil production, which is one of the major pollution sourcesin the region, is carried out in Congo Democratic, Angola, Gabon,Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea. For example, Nigeria is the largestoil producer in Africa; approximately two-thirds of Nigeria’sproduction capacity is located onshore, while one-third is locatedoffshore. In 2006, Nigeria’s total oil exports reached an estimated2.15 million barrels per day (bbl/d) even though the productioncapacity was over 2.6 million bbl/d. The shortfall of over500,000 bbl/d was due to the unrest and militancy by communitiesprotesting the continued degradation of their coastal and marineenvironment by oil exploration and production activities (includingthrough accidental or intentional oil spills) in the oil producingNiger Delta region

Non-Timber Forest Products (NTFPs) are one of the majorresources obtained from the GCLME. These resources are mainlyobtained from the mangrove areas. NTFP activity is a majoremployer in the mangrove areas especially in the rural areas wherethey serve as source of food, medicine, income, for crafts andentertainment. A reconnaissance survey of the mangrove areasshow that the common products collected are periwinkle,mudskipper and Rhizophora spp. Periwinkle and mudskipper areconsumed while Rhizophora spp is used for crafts, fencing, makingfishing gear etc. Among them, periwinkle is the mostly collectedand used NTFP.

Mining is a major activity in the coastal areas of some of theGCLME countries although this activity sometimes are illegal andbecome source of coastal area degradation. In Benin, beach sand ismined at Fielnon II area and Mariell beach and on several othercoastal sites in Cotonou. In Cameroon, sand and gravel extractionare major economic activities. Sand extraction from the beach isalso a major activity in Nigeria although the annual quantityextracted is not documented.

Timber cutting is one of the major activities in the coastal areas ofthe GCLME especially in the coast of Cameroon, Nigeria and Gabon,although actual quantity cut from the area is not well documented.Fig. 2 shows a timber processing factory near a beach in Nigeria.

Tourism is also a major activity in the coastal areas of somecountries of GCLME. However, exact tourist flows in the coastaltowns are not well documented thus could not be extracted. InBenin, there are 20 hotels ranging from four stars to two stars in thesingle city of Cotonou. In Congo Democratic, the number of touristsper year is averagely 16,949 with 252 hotels of all categories andbed occupancy of 42.72%. In Sao Tome, the Archipelago offersexcellent condition for sports and leisure. In Ghana, five types oftourism have been recognized, namely, cultural and heritagetourism, eco-tourism, beach tourism, conference and businesstourism and urban tourism.

4. Methodology framework

The available methodological approaches for estimation ofdirect output of goods and services of the relevant marine sectorsare the total economic value (TEV) and the Direct Output Impact(DOI) approach.

4.1. Total economic value (TEV) approach

The total economic value (TEV) of a resource includes the usevalue (UV) and the non-use value (NUV). The use value of a resourcealso referred to as total user value is the benefit derived from theactual use or potential benefit of a resource while the non-use valueis existence value (EV) which arises from the satisfaction of merelyknowing that the asset exists, although the valuer has no intentionof using it. The use value is categorised into direct use value (DUV),indirect use value (IUV) and option value (OV). Direct use values areecosystem goods and services that are directly used by man. It canbe consumptive and non-consumptive, for example, catching fishin the marine environment. Direct use value is determined by thecontribution an environmental asset makes to current productionor consumption [23]. Use value can be reduced by pollution orcertain types of development as in the case with GCLME. Indirectuse values are benefits that arise due to the functional services ofthe environment e.g. ecological functions. Option value, on theother hand, is potential benefit. It is essentially an expression ofpreference, a willingness to pay, for the preservation of an envi-ronment against some probability that the individual will make useof it at a later date either by oneself (option value) or by others(bequest value); for example, the value of protecting a reservoirfrom nearby development activities because it might be needed asa future source of drinking water for a municipality. Non-use valuerefers to satisfaction/benefits people derive from something just byknowing that it exists although they do not obtain any directbenefit from it. Examples of the TEV of GCLME are presented inTable 1.

TEV estimation involves the calculation of the net benefits fromeach nation’s marine activities and sums all the benefits across allactivities. These benefits are then summed for all countries toobtain the aggregate value for the entire marine area of the GCLME.Net benefits are the sum of consumer surpluses (what consumersare willing to pay over and above the market price for good orservice) and producer surpluses (what firms, e.g. trawling compa-nies, earn from sale of goods and services over and above their costof production). Normally, net benefits from environmental goodsand services that are not traded in the market are estimated usingrevealed or stated preference valuation methods and then added toTEV. The cost of implementing government policies to help managethe marine environment is subtracted from TEV (as resource rents).The TEV could be obtained for each county of the GCLME and thenaggregated for the entire GCLME. TEV estimation was not applied inthis study because of consumer surplus and producer surplus formost goods and services could not be obtained.

4.2. Direct Output Impact (DOI) approach

DOIs are the product of the physical quantities of goods orservices flowing from marine activities, namely, fish landings, oilproduction, salt/sand extraction etc. and their market prices [24].The DOI for each of the marine activities is normally estimated andadded together to get an estimate of the total output of goods forthe entire marine sector. DOI does not account for the cost of inputsin production, including the degeneration of the environment orthe depreciation of capital or the depletion of natural resourcestocks. The major consideration in DOI is the price of goods that will

Fig. 2. Timber processing near a beach in Nigeria.

N.A. Chukwuone et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 189–196 193

be used for valuation, that is, whether the direct market price orshadow price. The shadow price reflects the actual price in relationto the economy. It is obtained by correcting the market prices basedon the exchange rate premium. However, for traded goods, there isno need for the correction with the exchange rate premium hencethe direct prices in the international market is used.

Before applying the appropriate methodology to the estimation ofthe value of GCLME, it would be important to give a brief descriptionof the applicable conventional valuation techniques that are normallyused in each of the methodological approaches described above.

5. Conventional economic valuation methods

5.1. Market valuation techniques

The market valuation techniques are based on the use of marketprices and costs. In this regard, the direct market prices or shadowprices (a reflection of the actual price in relation to the economy) areused. These methods are best adopted when the environmentalgoods and services are transacted in formal markets. There are threerecognized market valuation techniques, namely, market priceapproach, appraisal method and resource replacement cost (cost-based approach). The market price approach identifies all elementsdamaged and assigns a value to their loss by their market value. Theappraisal method is designed to determine the difference between‘‘with injury’’ and ‘‘without injury’’ appraisal for land and apply thatdifference to the injured resource to measure compensable value.Resource replacement cost is the cost of acquiring comparablenatural resources for conservation. Although these methods areobservable and seem reliable and easy to measure, they are notcapable of accounting for non-use values of natural resource and,therefore, do not reflect the true value of the damaged publicnatural resource. In fact they underestimate the true willingness topay as they do not account for the consumer surplus.

5.2. Non-market valuation techniques

Non-market valuation techniques use indirect measures to placean economic value on a natural resource. The non-market tech-nique falls into two types, namely, revealed preference and stated

Table 1Total economic value of GCLME.

Consumptive use values Non-consumptive use values Indirect u

Captured fish species, non-timberforest products from mangrovelocations, medicinal productsfrom mangroves, salt extractions

Recreation for tourists includingbeach going,novel products,fuel and fiber, water transport(shipping), sand/gravel,other minerals

Detoxificbiodiversrechargeair qualitbiologicaecologica

Source: adapted [10] and modified by the authors for GCLME.

preference techniques. Revealed preference methods identify theunderlying preferences for goods and services based upon themarket and non-market choices’ users reveal in their consumptionpatterns [25]. Stated preference techniques ask the willingness ofindividuals to pay for a particular good in question. Revealedpreference techniques include the following: travel cost method,hedonic price method, factor income, while stated preferencetechniques are contingent valuation method and choice modelling.The travel cost method, hedonic price method and factor incomemethod make use of surrogate markets, that is markets that can beused to infer the value of the good while contingent valuationmethod and choice modelling uses constructed or hypotheticalmarkets. Contingent valuation method (CVM) has the advantage ofmeasuring use and non-use values.

6. Direct Output Impact (DOI) approach estimation of goodsand services of GCLME

The DOI methodology described above was applied in the esti-mation as the consumer surplus and producer surplus for most ofthe goods and services could not be obtained. The main productscovered in this estimate of value of goods and services of GCLME aremarine fisheries, offshore oil production, Non-Timber ForestProducts (NTFP), and mining (Sand and Salt products). Data wereobtained from secondary sources which include, FAO, World Bank(World development indicators, 2004), US Department of theInterior (2005), Oil and Gas Journal Databook (2004), FederalDepartment of Fisheries (in case of Nigeria) and Committee forInland Fisheries in Africa. Data on NTFP were obtained froma reconnaissance visit of some communities in the Niger Deltaregion, the major coastal area of Nigeria. The actual internationalmarket prices were used as virtually all the goods are traded thusthere was no need for correction with the exchange rate premium.

7. Results

7.1. Landing value for marine fisheries of GCLME countries

The value of landings for marine fish for GCLME countries wasestimated using the DOI approach as indicated using average

se values Option values Non-use values

ation, storm protection,ity regulation, ground water(mangrove), nutrient cycling,y and climate, flood and control,l support (sea birds and turtles),l functions

Potential future usesand future valueof information

Biological diversity,cultural heritage,bequest value

Table 3Value of offshore oil production for GCLME countries (2004).

Country Offshore oil production (bbl/d) Value of Production inmillions ($)

Cameroon – –Congo Democratic 16,169 1.13Republic of Congo – –Angola 653,233 45.73Benin – –

N.A. Chukwuone et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 189–196194

market prices for marine fisheries. The average landing for last fiveyears (1999–2003) where data are available was obtained and usedfor estimating value of landing. The landing (in metric tons) wasobtained from FAO statistics. The result is presented in Table 2. Theresult in Table 2 shows that the average overall value of marine fishcapture from GCLME for 1999–2003 is $14,458.0 million. This totalvalue of landing including that due to illegal, unreported andunregulated (IUU) fishing in the area is $17,783.4 million.

Gabon 15,000 1.05Ghana 6000 0.42Guinea – –Guinea-Bissau – –Nigeria 278,360 19.49Equatorial Guinea 200,000 14.00Sao Tome and Principe – –Liberia – –Togo – –Sierra Leone – –

ˆ

7.2. Offshore oil production

The direct output value for offshore oil production for eachcountry involved in offshore oil production and for the entireGCLME is shown in Table 3. The result shows that the total annualvalue of offshore oil production for GCLM based on 2004 data was$29,861.87 million.

Cote d’Ivoire – –Total/day 1,168,762 81.82Total/year 426,598,130 29,861.87

Source: Ref. [32] and calculations using current world market price.

7.3. Value of non-timber forest products’ resources of GCLME

The data for estimation were obtained during the reconnais-sance visit of some communities in the Niger Delta mangroves. TheNiger Delta mangrove has been noted as the largest mangrove inAfrica and the third largest in the world [1,5]. The respondentsindicated their annual returns from periwinkle activity. This, forthese individuals, does not include household consumption of theproduct. Based on the average value obtained from households, thevalue of the major NTFP species for some countries of the GCLMEwith mangrove areas was estimated. The estimation was based onthe assumption that five percent of the populations in the coastalcountries with mangrove areas are involved in the activity. Peri-winkle was the only product considered. The result is shown inTable 4. Considering the assumption that 5% of the costal pop-ulation are involved in periwinkle collection activity, the resultshows that the total value of the product annually for the countrieswith mangrove areas and indeed for the GCLME is $1,941.27million. This is a conservative estimate considering the fact that theindividual dealers who supplied the information did not includetheir household consumption of the product. Besides, somehouseholds collect only for own consumption.

Table 2Value of marine fish landing for GCLME countries (2003).

Country Landings(metric tons)

Value of landings inmillions ($)

Cameroon 56339 681.7Congo Democratic 4569 55.3Republic of Congo 22044.2 266.7Angola 213799 2,586.9Benin 11997 145.12Gabon 32135.8 388.8Ghana 347048.2 4,199.3Guinea 94465.6 1,143.0Guinea-Bissau 3867 70.8Nigeria 270476.6 3,272.8Equatorial Guinea 2,500 30.3Sao Tome and Principe 3403 41.2Liberia 7806.6 94.5Togo 17843.2 215.9Sierra Leone 48200 583.2Cote d’Ivoire 56400 682.4Total 1,221,934.4 14,458.0Illegal Unreported Unregulated (IUU)

Fishing (23% of landing value – MarineResources Assessment Group (2005))

281,044.912 3,325.3

Total landingþ IUU 1,588,514.72 17,783.4

Source: Ref. [4] and calculations with market price data.

7.4. Mining

Data on mining in the coastal area are fragmented and not welldocumented. Products include sand, salt, granite, phosphate andlimestone. In Angola, 60–70 vehicles of 10–12 tons each of sand arefilled daily. This is equivalent to $6720 a day and $2,016,000 (twomillion and sixteen thousand dollars) for a year (300 days). InGuinea, there are seven authorized sites for sand mining withannual extraction of 89,000 tons. This amounts to $8,544,000(eight million, five hundred and forty four thousand dollars)annually.

On salt production, in Angola, about 20 tons of salt is producedper month. This amounts to $12,127.2 annually. In Ghana, eightlarge to medium and 16 small scale salt production companiesoperate; current production is about 200,000 metric tons perannum and average export earnings of US$2,648,533.37 from52,419.17 tons of salt has been realized [26]. Guinea has six quarrieswith annual production of granite of 121,000 tons amounting to$98,362,110. Phosphate and lime minings are carried out in Togo;3.5 million tons are mined giving rise to 40% of export earnings.Coastal mining is equally carried out in about four sites in CongoDemocratic. Based on available data as indicated, the value ofoutput from mining is summarized in Table 5. The result shows thatthe value of output from mining is $354.78 million.

The summary of the value of outputs in the GCLME is shown inTable 6. The result in Table 6 shows that the total value of output inGCLME when some outputs namely, marine fishery, offshore oil

Table 4Value of periwinkle NTFP to some countries of GCLME.

Country Coastal populationin million (2003)

5% of coastalpopulation

Value of Periwinklecollected in million ($)

Benin 728.98 2.49 0.1245 90.76Cameroon 11.88 0.594 433.014Cote d’Ivoire 5 0.25 182.25Equatorial Guinea 0.26 0.013 9.45Gabon 0.87 0.0435 31.71Ghana 7.34 0.367 267.54Nigeria 25.86 1.263 920.70Sao Tome 0.16 0.008 5.83Total 1,941.27

Source: data on population is from GCLME Transboundry Diagnostic Analysis (TDA)document while the values are calculation from field data.

Table 5Summary of returns from different mining activities in some countries of GCLME.

Product from mining Amount in million ($)

Sand 10.56Salt 2.66Granite 98.36Phosphate/lime 243.20Total 354.78

Source: calculations by the authors.

N.A. Chukwuone et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 189–196 195

production, NTFP (periwinkle) and mining, are considered is$49,941.4 million. Offshore oil production accounted for the highestcontributing 59.79%.

8. Discussion

The result summary shows that the direct output value of theGCLME is $49,941.4 million when outputs from marine fishery,offshore oil production, NTFP (periwinkle) and mining for countrieswhere data were available were considered. This figure amounts of19.60% of the total GDP of the nations of GCLME which was$254,748 million in 2006. This figure would have been higher if thevalues of some other direct uses, such as tourism, timber, fuel andfiber, water transport (shipping) and beach going and the non-usevalues were considered in a TEV. Thus due to unavailability of data,the estimated values only partially reflect the value of the GCLME.However, with this step in estimation, there is sufficient evidence toshow that GCLME provide enormous value and should be managedappropriately to sustain the gains. The fact that the value of GCLMcan be sustained to guarantee economic development in thecountries is pertinent considering that most countries in theGCLME depend on natural resources for their survival. For example,Nigeria generates over 80% of its revenue from petroleum.

Therefore, there is need for a well defined property rights andmeasures to improve the governance of the GCLME. For example,a governance measure which has worked in the area of forestry inmost developing countries is Joint Management. Joint management(also called co-management or collaborative management)involves the sharing of power and responsibility for naturalresources management between governments and local people[27,28,29]. It is a participatory resource management approachwhich is a partnership in which government agencies, localcommunities and resource users, non-governmental organizationsand other stakeholders share, as appropriate to each context, theauthority and responsibility for the management of a specificterritory or a set of resources (IUCN [The World ConservationUnion]) [30]. Fisheries co-management is thus a partnershiparrangement in which government, the community of localresource users (fishers), external agents (non-governmental orga-nizations, academic and research institutions), and other fisheriesand coastal resource stakeholders (boat owners, fish traders,money lenders, tourism establishments, etc.) share the responsi-bility and authority for decision making over the management ofa fishery [31]. Further research could be focused on this area to

Table 6Summary of value of some outputs from GCLME.

Item Value ($) in million Percentage contribution

Marine fishery 17,783.4 35.61Offshore oil production 29,861.9 59.79NTFP (one major) 1,941.3 3.89Mining 354.8 0.71Total 49,941.4 100.0

Source: calculations by the authors.

ascertain its workability and framework in the GCLME and on TEVestimation of the GCLME.

9. Conclusion

This study has provided an estimate of the value of direct outimpact of goods in the GCLME. These estimates provide sufficientevidence to show that GCLME provide enormous value and shouldbe managed appropriately to sustain the gains. The fact that thevalue of GCLM should be sustained to guarantee economic devel-opment in the countries is pertinent considering that most coun-tries in the GCLM depend on natural resources for their survival.Thus there is need for a well defined property rights and measuresto ensure effective governance of the GCLME.

Acknowledgement

The authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of theGCLME Socioeconomics Expert Working Group and the collabora-tion of Dr. Porter Hoagland and Dr. Di Jin of the Marine PolicyCentre, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, USA.

References

[1] Ukwe CN, Ibe CA, Sherman K. A sixteen-country mobilization for sustainablefisheries in the Guinea current large marine ecosystem. Ocean and CoastalManagement 2006;49:385–412.

[2] FAO. Ghana Fish Country Profile. Rome: FAO; 2004.[3] GEF/UNIDO/UNDP/UNEP/US-NOAA/NEPAD. The transboundary diagnostic

analysis for the Guinea current large marine ecosystem. Accra: IGCC; 2006.p. 178.

[4] FAO. FISHSTAT Plus. A PC system for extended time series of global catches.Rome: FAO Fisheries Department; 2000.

[5] Ukwe CN, Isebor CE, Alo BI. Improving the quality of coastal waters in the Gulfof Guinea large marine ecosystem through mangrove restoration. In:Proceedings of 12th International Conference of Coastal Zone 2001. Cleveland,Ohio: NOAA/CSC/20120-CD; 2001.

[6] Ukwe CN, Ibe CA, Nwilo PC, Huidobro PA. Contributing to the WSSD targets onoceans and coasts in west and central Africa: the Guinea current large marineecosystem project. International Journal of Oceans and Oceanography2006;1(1):21–44.

[7] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Thinking globally but actinglocally – development of ecosystems-based operational nodes in the Abidjanconvention area. Report of the Seventh Meeting of the Contracting Parties tothe Convention for Cooperation in the Protection and Development of TheMarine and Coastal Environment of the Western African Region Libreville.Gabon; 2005.

[8] UNEP. Challenges to international waters – regional assessments in a globalperspective. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environment Programme; 2006.

[9] World Bank. How much is an ecosystem worth? Assessing the economic valueof conservation. Washington DC: The World Bank; 2004.

[10] Barbier EB, Acreman M, Knowler D. Economic valuation of wetlands: a guidefor policy makers and planers. Cambridge, UK: IUCN Publications; 1997.

[11] Costanza R, Fraber SC, Maxwell J. Valuation and management of wetlandecosystems. Ecological Economics 1989;1:335–61.

[12] Bergstrom JC, Stoll JR, Titre JP, Wright VL. Economic value of wetlands-basedrecreation. Ecological Economics 1990;2:129–47.

[13] Van’t Hof T. The economic benefits of marine parks and protected areas in theCaribbean region. In: Proceedings of the fifth international coral reef Congress.Tahiti; 1985. pp. 551–555.

[14] Mathieu L, Langford IH, Kenyon W. Valuing marine parks in a developingcountry: a case study of the Seychelles. Centre for Social and EconomicResearch on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia (CSERGE);2000. Working Paper GECpp. 27.

[15] Nam DT, Bennet J. An economic evaluation of wetlands in Vietnam’s Mekongdelta: a case study of direct use values in Camau province. Environmentmanagement and development occasional paper No 8; 2005.

[16] Williamson OE. The new institutional economics: taking stock, looking ahead.Journal of Economic Literature 2000;XXXVIII:595–613.

[17] Tietenberg T. Environmental economics and policy. New York: Harper CollinsCollege; 1994.

[18] Turner RK, Van den Bergh JCJM, Soderqvist T, Barendregt A, Van der Straaten J,Maltby E, et al. Ecological-economic analysis of wetlands: scientific integrationfor management and policy. Ecological Economics 2000;35(1):7–23.

[19] Hardin G. The tragedy of the commons. Science 1968;162:1243–8.[20] Pearce DW, Warford JJ. World without end: economics, environment and

sustainable development. New York: Oxford University press; 1993.

N.A. Chukwuone et al. / Ocean & Coastal Management 52 (2009) 189–196196

[21] World Bank. Where is the wealth of nations: measuring capital for the 21stcentury. Washington DC: The World Bank; 2005.

[22] Mensah MA, Quaatey SNK. An overview of the fisheries resources and fisheryresearch in the Gulf of Guinea. In: MacGlade JM, Cury P, Koranteng KA,Hardman-Mountford NJ, editors. The Gulf of Guinea large marine ecosystem:environmental forcing and sustainable development of marine resources.Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2002. p. 227–39.

[23] Munasinghe M. Environmental economics and sustainable development.Washington D.C.: World Bank; 1993.

[24] Hoagland P, Jin D. Accounting for ecosystem activities in large marineecosystem and regional seas. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No 181.UNEP/RSP and NOAA LME Partnership. UNEP; 2006. p. 59.

[25] Grafton Q, Pendleton L, Nelson HA. Dictionary of environmental economics,science, and policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited; 2001. p. 362.

[26] Aryeetey EB-D. Socio-economic aspects of artisanal marine fisheriesmanagement in West Africa. In: MacGlade JM, Cury P, Koranteng KA, Hard-man-Mountford NJ, editors. The Gulf of Guinea large marine ecosystem:

environmental forcing and sustainable development of marine resources.Amsterdam: Elsevier Science; 2002. p. 323–44.

[27] Ukwe CN, Ibe CA, Alo BI, Yumkella KK. Achieving a paradigm shift in envi-ronmental and living resources management in the Gulf of Guinea: the largemarine ecosystem approach. Marine Pollution Bulletin 2003;47:219–25.

[28] Berkes F. Community-based management and co-management as tools forempowerment. In: Singh N, Titi V, editors. Empowerment: towards sustain-able development. Fernwood Publishing Ltd; 1995. p. 138–46.

[29] Korten FF. New alliances for conservation. World Conservation 1996;2:26.[30] IUCN. Resolutions and recommendations: world conservation congress;

Montreal, Canada. Cambridge, UK: IUCN Publication Services Unit; 13–23October 1996.

[31] Pomeroy RS, Katon BM, Harkes I. Conditions affecting the success of fisheriesco-management: lessons from Asia. Marine Policy 2001;25:197–208.

[32] Mane DO. Emergence of the Gulf of Guinea in the global economy: prospectsand challenges. IMF Working Paper Series WP/05/235. IMF WashingtonDC; 2005.