Cesar2000-Economics of Coral Reefs.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Supervision and training of labour should always be carried out with the participation of an experienced biologist. The selection of suitable species, source populations and target areas, and the application of appropriate methods requires a thorough understanding of ecological processes, practical field experience and in many cases some systematic experimentation. Even the simplest methods for coral transplantation using unattached staghorn coral (Bowden-Kerby 1999b) requires that participating workers are trained and supervised, at least in the initial phase. 4.4 Other Associated Costs The ‘opportunity cost’ of using a site (i.e. the value of using it for its next best alternative use) should be considered. This value will usually be small since there are few alternative uses for coral reefs. However, exceptions include instances where construction materials and land are scarce, and reefs consequently have a high value for coral mining or for land reclamation, as may be the case for some remote islands. Another commonly overlooked coral restoration cost is the damage caused to the ‘donor’ or ‘source’ populations. Removal and relocation of coral colonies or fragments from healthy sites to degraded areas can effectively redistribute some of the damage to the donor site. Careful consideration is even needed as to the overall balance of effects prior to collecting and transplanting unattached fragments created by storms or bio-erosion. As some corals reproduce mainly through fragmentation (Highsmith 1982), the collection of these propagules may interfere with a critical step in the natural colonisation/rejuvenation process. The negative impacts to the donor site should always be fully considered and must not outweigh the transplantation benefits. In circumstances where intraspecific competition for space occurs between adjacent coral branches, for example in some areas of dense coral cover, selective harvesting of coral branches may not significantly reduce the overall coral growth rate at the donor site. Each individual case therefore needs to be examined in light of appropriate ecological and economic theory. 5. CASE STUDIES A simple comparison of the costs of past attempts at coral restoration reveals the potential magnitude and significant variation of costs involved. This section briefly summarises five such cases. The past decade has seen numerous coral reef restoration schemes undertaken in the United States, many in an attempt to rectify damages occurring to corals following ships running aground. The M/V Elpis, a 150 m cargo freighter, hit a reef in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) in 1989. Under the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) were authorised to recover costs and damages to pay for site restoration. Funds of US$ 1.66 million (1991 prices) were awarded to restore 2,605 m 2 of totally destroyed reef and 468 m 2 of partially destroyed reef. The restoration involved removing debris, stabilising the reef substrate, importing new substrate, transplanting corals and sponges, and monitoring of the results (NOAA 1997). Extrapolating the costs based on 0.3 ha damage gives an overall cost of US$ 5.5 million/ha. This value is calculated merely as a means of indicative comparison and ignores potential economies of scale. When the R/V Columbus Iselin ran aground and destroyed 345 m 2 of reef in FKNMS in 1994 (NOAA 1999), the ship’s owner paid US$ 3.76 million in natural resource damages. The rehabilitation included removal of debris, reinforcement and rebuilding to prevent further disintegration of the cracked reef, and transplantation of reef biota to the impacted site. The objectives were to restore, to the extent practicable, the pre-existing habitat, structure and depth of the site. Some money was also used for compensatory restoration and grounding prevention elsewhere in the Sanctuary. A simple extrapolation gives a cost per hectare of over US$ 100 million. Edwards and others (Edwards et al. 1994; Clark & Edwards 1995; 1999) evaluated different options to rehabilitate sections of reef in the Maldives previously destroyed by coral mining. This was attempted by stabilising the substrate, use of artificial reefs and through coral transplants. Costs (in 1994 prices) ranged from 128 JAMES P. G. SPURGEON & ULF LINDAHL:
US$ 0.4 million/ha for deployment of anchored chain link fencing, to US$ 1 million/ha for concrete (Armourflex) mattresses, and up to US$ 1.6 million/ha for the use of one cubic metre concrete blocks. The objective of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative methods of rehabilitating former coral reefs to help protect the shoreline from erosion and to provide fish habitat. The enhancement of reef functions was to be provided directly through the influence of the installed structures and indirectly by providing substrate for coral recruitment. The costs only relate to construction and installation of artificial structures placed on barren reefs. The estimates exclude pre-construction studies, transplantation and subsequent monitoring or other associated costs. Kaly (1995) compared methods of enhancing coral cover using different coral transplantation techniques on tourist damaged coral reefs on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia. She examined two methods of attachment, one using epoxy cement, the other using nails and cable ties. Increasing the natural density of corals on one hectare of hard substrate by 10% was found to cost roughly US$ 40,000 (1995 prices) for either method. The estimated costs only included labour (diving) and materials used for the re-attachment. The costs did not include time for obtaining the corals or monitoring or damages to the donor sites. Lindahl (1998) studied methods to rehabilitate degraded coral reefs through transplantation of staghorn (Acropora) corals in Tanzania. The methods can potentially be used to restore or enhance coral cover to provide fish habitat and coastal protection, and improve the attractiveness of the site for tourists. The study demonstrated that coral fragments can be successfully collected and relocated in low to moderately exposed shallow areas without scuba-diving and with only minimal attachment. Based on the 1998 research results, it is predicted that an initial 10% coral cover might, over a six year period, attain a cover of 60–80%, even on an unconsolidated substrate. Assuming transplantation of 2.5 kg of corals per m 2 on a site three km from the donor population and five km from the nearest inhabited island, the ECONOMICS OF CORAL REEF RESTORATION costs would be about US$ 7,000/ha. The operation is estimated to take nine people, including a supervising marine biologist, around 5 months to complete. Costs include transportation of labour and corals by boat, but exclude an initial one-time pre-construction cost of US$ 6,000 for surveys, planning and training of the staff. Subsequent monitoring costs need only cost around US$ 200 per year for a basic coral and fish survey, for a six year period. 6. DISCUSSION OF CASE STUDY COSTS It is first worth pointing out a few problems encountered in assessing and comparing the case study costs. Firstly, no detailed costings for coral restoration schemes are generally available in the literature. Secondly, there is no standard approach to accounting for and documenting the costs. Thirdly, the conversion of costs for different sized restoration schemes to a comparable unit area invites significant inaccuracies due to economies of scale and the effect of start up costs. Fourthly, the type of corals involved and the target coral cover may vary significantly between schemes. And finally, the overall success of the schemes over time is not always clear, and the results are not always available. However, what is evident is that potential coral restoration costs can vary enormously, ranging from the equivalent of around US$ 13,000 to US$ >100,000,000 per hectare. Some of the more influential factors affecting restoration costs in the case studies are highlighted in table 1 on next page. See Spurgeon (in press) for a more detailed list of factors affecting coral restoration costs. The most critical factor seems to be the extent of construction works required, whether for substrate preparation or installation of artificial reefs, or both. The general cost of labour is also influential, particularly when time consuming diving is needed to carefully attach transplanted corals. Furthermore, when greater funds are available for restoration initiatives, more costly options are considered and undertaken. This is particularly true when compensation funds are available to finance restoration initiatives. 129
Page 2 and 3:
Collected Essays on the Economics o
Page 4 and 5:
Table of Contents Acknowledgements
Page 6 and 7:
Foreword Corals and coral reefs hav
Page 8 and 9:
● ● ● ● assessing the threa
Page 10 and 11:
fishing is lucrative from the indiv
Page 12 and 13:
Coral Reefs: Their Functions, Threa
Page 14 and 15:
Table 1. Ecosystem functions and co
Page 16 and 17:
Figure 1. Yield of Trochus Shells i
Page 18 and 19:
Figure 2. Total Economic Value and
Page 20 and 21:
Table 3. Total Net Benefits and Los
Page 22 and 23:
Table 5. Valuation Techniques used
Page 24 and 25:
people live from the Park, the high
Page 26 and 27:
duction or logging) would have an e
Page 28 and 29:
Hatcher, B. G., Johannes, R. E., &
Page 30 and 31:
Thorhaug, A., (1992) “Oil Spills
Page 32 and 33:
Authors Threats Mgt. Description Is
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Assessing the Benefits of Improving
Page 40 and 41:
2.2 Coral Reef Quality Change and t
Page 42 and 43:
Five groups were given and the resp
Page 44 and 45:
The total sample mean was similar a
Page 46 and 47:
one of the five categories were nex
Page 48 and 49:
4.4 Protecting Rights and the Desir
Page 50 and 51:
able for tourists versus locals was
Page 52 and 53:
problem that where respondents are
Page 54 and 55:
turists who regularly handle soil e
Page 56 and 57:
expanding tourist industry based on
Page 58 and 59:
ism and fisheries. Logging activiti
Page 60 and 61:
Table 2. Fisheries gross revenue an
Page 62 and 63:
an ‘Environmentally Critical Area
Page 64 and 65:
25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0
Page 66 and 67:
sized animals — even at the most
Page 68 and 69:
greater willingness among environme
Page 70 and 71:
stroyed was 7.5 fish times 0.19 ope
Page 72 and 73:
were affected by cyanide squirts fo
Page 74 and 75:
Russ, G. R., (1991) “Coral reef f
Page 76 and 77: eefs that are not too remote, can n
Page 78 and 79: Table 2. Estimated net income (US$/
Page 80 and 81: Table 4. Results of base case and t
Page 82 and 83: ating the destruction of its coral
Page 84 and 85: creased. Besides these direct effec
Page 86 and 87: 3. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS: SOCIETAL COST
Page 88 and 89: 3.2 Case Study 2: Sri Lanka The soc
Page 90 and 91: A first difference between the two
Page 92 and 93: Coral Bleaching in the Indian Ocean
Page 94 and 95: leaching occurred in the Maldives,
Page 96 and 97: months after the coral bleaching ev
Page 98 and 99: Level of importance 35 30 25 20 15
Page 100 and 101: trols. What is useful from the data
Page 102 and 103: most disappointing: food and bevera
Page 104 and 105: REFERENCES Anderson, R. C., Waheed,
Page 106 and 107: also seem capable of providing many
Page 108 and 109: Table 1. Summary of Findings of Eco
Page 110 and 111: Table 2-A. Summary Table of Bioecon
Page 112 and 113: lation for the spawning stock abund
Page 114 and 115: 3.2.1 DENSITY-DEPENDENT MIGRATION M
Page 116 and 117: 3.2.3 DENSITY-DEPENDENT AND UNI-DIR
Page 118 and 119: 4.2 Habitat Protection A critical a
Page 120 and 121: REFERENCES Alcala, A. C., (1989)
Page 122 and 123: Russ, G. R., & Alcala, A. C., (1996
Page 124 and 125: poses of this review, the mechanism
Page 128 and 129: Table 1. Comparison of restoration
Page 130 and 131: elating to the case studies. Recrea
Page 132 and 133: Value of reef products and services
Page 134 and 135: Fitzharding, R. C., & Bailey-Brock,
Page 136 and 137: 1995). Global annual retail value o
Page 138 and 139: Table 1. Market Prices in Hong Kong
Page 140 and 141: 2.3 Recent Trends The Asian financi
Page 142 and 143: destructive, since corals are often
Page 144 and 145: (input factors are indicated by blu
Page 146 and 147: Table 2. Challenges of grouper cult
Page 148 and 149: stages when natural mortality is hi
Page 150 and 151: STRENGTHEN ENFORCEMENT AND MONITORI
Page 152 and 153: 32 Several efforts along these line
Page 154 and 155: Jones, R., (1997) “Effects of Cya
Page 156 and 157: ▲ An Economic and Ecological Anal
Page 158 and 159: The Park was re-established and rev
Page 160 and 161: associated with dive tourism and th
Page 162 and 163: Apparent stress threshold B A S 1 P
Page 164 and 165: A Comparative Study of Socio-Econom
Page 166 and 167: Table 1. Key Site Characteristics C
Page 168 and 169: Level Target Respondent Information
Page 170 and 171: Table 2. Variables Used in the Econ
Page 172 and 173: Table 3. Tied P-Values for Differen
Page 174 and 175: as, lagoons and coral reefs were pe
Page 176 and 177:
Table 5. Results of the Econometric
Page 178 and 179:
ties may not reveal their true perc
Page 180 and 181:
Salafsky, N., Cordes, B., John Park
Page 182 and 183:
ICZM guides jointly the activities
Page 184 and 185:
such as alternative means of beach
Page 186 and 187:
2.3.2 CONTRIBUTIONS TO UTILITY —
Page 188 and 189:
marginal benefit function, relating
Page 190 and 191:
the type of use, are not linked to
Page 192 and 193:
4. FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR DECISION S
Page 194 and 195:
Huber, R. M., & Jameson, S. C., (19
Page 196 and 197:
Appendix. Economic valuation studie
Page 198 and 199:
Ecosystem and Approach ____________
Page 200 and 201:
Ecosystem and Approach ____________
Page 202 and 203:
Contemporary national development p
Page 204 and 205:
The PBPA contains four prominent ex
Page 206 and 207:
5. INTERACTIONS BETWEEN ECOSYSTEM S
Page 208 and 209:
Table 2. Categories of Ecosystems i
Page 210 and 211:
MEY shows the enormous level of ove
Page 212 and 213:
the ecosystem together. The total (
Page 214 and 215:
▲ tourism, coastal protection and
Page 216 and 217:
has dramatically decreased from abo
Page 218 and 219:
seaweed per year is generating abou
Page 220 and 221:
Table 4. Current (1999) annual net
Page 222 and 223:
The essential activities that can e
Page 224 and 225:
their overall economic benefit to i
Page 226 and 227:
Private Sector Management of Marine
Page 228 and 229:
ety of important conservation and o
Page 230 and 231:
50 40 # incidents 30 20 10 0 J A J
Page 232 and 233:
● Investment security is reduced
Page 234 and 235:
onmental practices, and therefore t
Page 236 and 237:
7.4 NGOs Are Not Always Accountable
Page 238 and 239:
Sterner, T, & Andersson, J., (1998)
Page 240 and 241:
perfect but not completed and origi
Page 242:
Jeff Muller, Economist, World Bank,
show all

Cesar2000-Economics of Coral Reefs.pdf

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?