ANÁLISIS DESCRIPTIVO

Coral reef ecosystems produce a suite of direct and indirect benefits to society (table 2.3).

These are well quantified for direct use values, less so for non-use values and to a very limited extent for ecosystem services (Balasubramanian et al., 2003; Hargreaves-Allen, 2004). These goods and services depend on the existence of healthy ecosystems and are not all provided by heavily degraded reefs. Most MPAs have ecosystem conservation as at least one of their primary aims, so the designation of an MPA should contribute to the provision of these benefits, locally and more widely.

Table 2.3. Economic Values Attributed to Coral Reefs. Adapted from Molberg & Folke (1999).

Use Value

Direct Use

Extractive: fisheries, mariculture, aquarium trade, curio/jewellery, pharmaceutical products, industrial, constructional, agricultural products, genetic material, mineral oil and gas.

Non extractive: tourism, recreation, research, education (pollution and climate record), aesthetic, artistic, religious and spiritual values.

Indirect Use

Biological support to species & other ecosystems

Physical protection to other coastal ecosystems, coastline, navigation Global life support (ecosystem processes and functions): biodiversity (resilience), build up of land, genetic library, export of organic production, nitrogen fixation, carbon control, waste assimilation.

Social services: employment opportunities, food security Coral sand generation

National coastal zone extensions

Option Value

Species, habitats, biodiversity, pharmaceutical goods.

Non-Use Values

Bequest Value

Species, habitats, way of life and livelihoods connected to traditional uses.

Existenc e Value

Threatened habitats, endangered species, charismatic species, and aesthetic reefscapes.

MPAs which contain coral reefs also produce distinct marginal benefits and costs which occur due to the process of active management, which have been characterized mainly qualitatively in the literature. These are summarized in table 2.4. Economic analyses of MPAs should in theory focus on the marginal impacts of management of economic values, but they rarely do,

Chapter 2.

30

as calculating marginal values is much more difficult than total values, partly due to ecological non-linearities, to limited understanding of bio-physical linkages and the requirement for many assumptions leaves estimates vulnerable to criticism (Pendleton, 1995). One exception involved modelling trends in all the major values under two scenarios: with and without management to estimate that management of the Taka Bone Rate MPA in Indonesia adds an additional US$3.5- 5.0 million in value (Cesar, 2002).

Table 2.4. Costs and Benefits Associated with Marine Protected Areas.

Based on Molberg and Folke (1999), Sanchirico (2000), Gutman (2002), Sanchirico and Wilen (2002), Carter (2003) and Lutchman (2005). Scales are local (L), National (N) or International (I).

Type of Cost Examples for MPAs Relevant

scale Direct costs

Investment and operation management costs

Design, set up and operational expenditures e.g. running, enforcement, monitoring, staffing and equipment,

Fishing related: Crowding and reduction in fishable waters from displaced effort, reduced catches, higher capital and search costs, increase in safety risks, increased congestion, ecological effects of changes in species removal.

Tourism related: higher price local goods, crime, loss of cultural identity, lack of accessibility to traditional recreation grounds, damage from divers, pollution from tourist related development

User conflicts, MPA associated fines and penalties.

L

Forgone income from resource extraction (e.g. oil, gas mineral), forgone fishing income, unrealised development (industrial / tourism)

L,N

Type of Benefit Examples for MPAs Relevant

scale Consumptive – on site Enhanced ecosystem productivity. Broadly improve the

health of the ecosystem within the boundaries, restoration of healthy trophic levels. Increases in fishery stock abundance, age/size composition, spawning stock biomass, yield per recruit. Increased food security. Revenues from entrance fees

L, N

Consumptive – off site Net revenue from harvest spill over ( increase aggregate catch levels in the fishery). Reduction in harvest variance

Greater benefits for any permitted uses. Enhance market value (alter catch composition and size). Economic multiplier values from employment, income and processing etc.

L,N

Non-Consumptive - on site

Opportunities for increased non-consumptive use values due to improved environmental quality and species diversity Ancillary, including education, diving, photography, tourism In situ conservation marine biodiversity. Option and quasi-option values. Research opportunities. Ecological services e.g. regulation of water supply, storm prevention. Donor investment

L, N

Non-Consumptive - off site

Ecotourism-related employment and revenues, tourism infrastructure, income and employment from alterative income initiatives.

Support of existence and bequest values. Dispersed ecosystem services e.g. climate & nutrient control, carbon regulation.

L, N, I

Institutional Savings in enforcement costs over other management models.

Hedge against potential management failures, ecological disasters and uncertain stock. Scientific knowledge and educational opportunities.

L, N, I

Chapter 2.

31 2.3.2 Social Costs and Benefits of MPAs.

Social and economic benefits from successful MPAs are likely to be linked to income and employment benefits from improved natural resource extraction and sustainable tourism, as well as indirect ecological services to local populations and the maintenance of non-use values, such as continuation of traditional ways of life (Dixon, 1993; Sanchirico et al., 2002). MPA funding can also extend to community projects, such as alternative livelihood schemes for fishers, and micro-credit schemes for new businesses and education programs. MPAs are also expected in theory to reduce conflict, by dealing directly with the lack of defined property rights that exist in marine environments (Kelleher, 1999) although conflicts can remain in multi-use MPAs (Davis & Tisdell, 1995) or even increase in practice (Fabiny, 2008).

MPAs whose regulations restrict or ban extractive activates will also generate opportunity costs which can be substantial, including lost earnings for those who extracted seafood or other materials from these habitats (Balmford et al., 2002). Opportunity costs associated with the use of international and government funds for MPAs, rather than fisheries management or poverty alleviation programs, could also be large, although this is challenging to quantify.

Closing areas to fishers can also incur significant indirect costs for fishers, such as increasing congestion on the remaining open grounds or increasing the variable and search costs associated with new fishing locations (Sanchirico et al., 2002). Thus most of the non-direct costs incurred by MPAs are likely to fall on extractive users.

Chapter 2.

32