Cesar2000-Economics of Coral Reefs.pdf

— to approximately 42% live cover), requiring net expenditures
of US$ 27 million. The required interventions
would involve installation of a sediment trap,
waste aeration, installation of a sewage outfall, implementation
of improved household solid waste collection,
and implementation of economic incentives to improve
waste management by the hotel industry. Sensitivity
analysis suggests that this optimisation is fairly robust
to changes in the net economic benefit estimates —
benefits would need to be increase by US$ 275 million
or decreased by US$ 300 million for the target coral reef
quality improvement to change by more than 2%
(Ruitenbeek & Cartier 1999).
2.6 The Human Context of Coral Reef Use
In addition to the application of cost-effectiveness analysis,
resource valuation or CBA, it is key that decisionmakers
comprehensively and systematically consider the
social, cultural and economic context of policy development
and ecological change. Such context or ‘human
framework’ information does not traditionally form part
of such analyses, in which quantitative monetary indicators
or measures are often applied within an ‘automatic
evaluation’ decision-making environment (Anderson
1991), restricting further interpretation of the appropriate
or optimal levels and types of interventions and
policies necessary.
The economic valuation methodologies applied in
these projects were designed to enumerate the total benefits
currently received from the coral reefs, through
both production function contributions and human
utility (as well as potential rent or royalty benefits from
the development of marine bioprospecting ventures).
Such monetary benefits will, in theory, reflect the local
set of values. However, much is lost in reducing the
social, cultural and economic information to a single
value metric. This was demonstrated through the development
and application of a rapid socio-economic assessment
methodology to provide an understanding of
the coral reef user groups of the Montego Bay case study
site (Bunce & Gustavson 1998; Bunce et al. 1999). Such
information will better enable the adaptation of management
strategies to the user groups’ use patterns, management
priorities, and available resources. In essence,
‘human framework’ information assists in identifying an
economically efficient outcome that is also socially and
culturally viable. This information has demonstrated
utility in the development of effective policies and programs
for the Montego Bay Marine Park (Bunce et al.
1999; see also Huber & Jameson 1998b).
2.7 Policy Context and Advice
2.7.1 CASE STUDY — THE CAPTURE OF RENT GENERATED
FROM THE USE OF THE MONTEGO BAY CORAL REEFS
Of great interest to the management authorities of the
Montego Bay Marine Park, as well as to managers of any
coastal marine system, is to capture at least a portion of
rent generated from direct uses to pay for the necessary
management, and potential enhancement, of the resource.
In other words, there are social costs associated
with the conservation and management of the resource
that should be paid by the users.
As a component of the local use valuation study
(Gustavson 1998), current existing government charges,
which may capture a portion of the rent, were explored.
Currently, it is not the policy of the Montego Bay Marine
Park to charge user fees (a recognised, explicit
mechanism for rent capture), although it is in the early
stages of beginning such a program. Other government
charges, which are specifically linked to either tourism
or fisheries related activities, may capture a portion of
either producer or consumer surplus, but are not necessarily
designed explicitly to do so. This includes business
license fees, fisheries license fees, beach fees and tourist
departures taxes.
In principle, license fees are collected to pay for the
government costs of regulating and administering the
business or activity. No information was available on the
actual costs associated with regulating the reef-related
activities, yet it is likely that in all cases these costs are
not recovered based on existing fee schedules. It was
found that the beech fee charges as currently set are
minimal and, although they vary roughly according to
ECOLOGICAL ECONOMIC DECISION SUPPORT MODELLING FOR THE INTEGRATED COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT OF CORAL REEFS
191