Cesar2000-Economics of Coral Reefs.pdf

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 4. Results of base case and the sensitivity analysis for the economic valuation of blast fishing for all Indonesian coral reefs (Net Present Value, 20 years time horizon, 10% discount rate). Benefits & Losses % of reefs % reefs of Net private Quantifiable loss of Net loss of where blast fishing high economic benefits from coral reef services blast fishing takes place value blast fishing to society to society Scenarios Base scenario 50% 25% 2.8 6.7 3.8 Low incidence of blast fishing 25% 25% 1.4 3.3 1.9 High incidence of blast fishing 100% 25% 4.3 13.3 7.7 Low value of coastal area 50% 10% 2.8 5.1 2.3 High value of coastal area 50% 50% 2.8 9.2 6.4 134,000 per km 2 of reef in an area with a high potential for tourism and coastal protection and US$ 800 per km 2 in an area with a low potential. Explosives fishing generated a net loss to society of US$ 306,800 per km 2 of reef in the ‘high value’ scenario and US$ 33,900 per km 2 in the ‘low value’ scenario. The quantifiable costs of blast fishing in the ‘high value’ scenario were quite evenly distributed between the forgone net benefits of fishing, tourism, and coastal protection. In the ‘low value’ scenario, the forgone net benefits of fishing became the main costs of blast fishing. These results were shown to be relatively robust to changes in the parameters, as is shown in the sensitivity analysis for the model, presented in Pet-Soede et al. (1999). Calculations based on the model The costs and benefits of blast fishing presented above for a hypothetical one km 2 form the basis of the more interesting question: what are the total costs of blast fishing for the whole of Indonesian society These costs represent the costs of ‘inaction’ by management and enforcement agencies over the last decades. To answer this question, we need to know how pervasive blast fishing is and has been in Indonesia and where it is taking place, mainly in the ‘low value’ areas or also in the ‘high value’ areas. As very little is known about these questions, we have taken some plausible parameter estimates and a sensitivity analysis around these estimates. Based on our own observations, we assume here that blast fishing is taking place in 50% of the reefs in Indonesia. From GIS-maps of the Reefs at Risk project (Lauretta Burke at World Resources Institute, pers. comm.), we infer that 25% of Indonesia are ‘high value’ areas and 75% are ‘low value’ areas. The total reef area for Indonesia is taken to be 75,000 km 2 (Cesar 1996). For the net losses per km 2 given above, this implies a cost of inaction of a hefty US$ 3.8 billion over the last twenty years, as shown in table 4. This cost is the difference between the net private benefits from blast fishing (US$ 2.8 billion) and the quantifiable losses of coral reef services to society due to blast fishing (US$ 6.7 billion). The cost of inaction is the economically justified maximum amount of money to be spent on awareness training, enforcement measures and subsidised alternative income generation to stop blast fishing. This implies up to at least US$ 400 million annually would have been justified to curb blast fishing in the past. 2 2 With a discount rate of 10%, the present value of US$ 3.8 billion translates into roughly US$ 400 million in annualized terms. 82 LIDA PET-SOEDE, HERMAN S. J. CESAR & JOS S. PET:
Given the uncertainties surrounding the parameters, a sensitivity analysis is presented to show the robustness of these numbers. For the ‘percentage reefs of high economic value’, the parameter value was set to 50% and 10%, instead of 25% in the base case. The ‘incidence of blast fishing’ was put at 25% and 100% compared to the base case of 50%. These figures combined give a range of US$ 1.9 and 7.7 billion for the net loss of blast fishing to society over the last decades. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Blast fishing is destructive to the coral reef ecosystem and can lead to the collapse of coral reef fisheries (Mc- Manus et al. 1997). Heavily damaged reef areas are obviously less attractive for reef-related tourism, and foregone benefits of this type of tourism form a considerable part of the economic losses due to blast fishing. The coastal protection function is also affected by this practice, as coral reefs will gradually erode through physical and biological processes. In areas with a high value of coral reefs for tourism and coastal protection, the net loss to society of blast fishing was estimated at US$ 306,800 per km 2 of coral reef and the economic costs to society were 4 times higher than the net private benefits to blast fishers. Due to the difficulty of translating qualitative natural assets into quantitative monetary values, many non-quantifiable costs of blast fishing have not been taken into account in the economic model. Therefore, the above estimates for economic losses are quite conservative. It can be concluded that blast fishing results in large economic losses to the Indonesian society, especially when taking into account the vast areas of coral reefs that are threatened in this country. Nevertheless, for individual fishers, the financial incentives to start blast fishing are obvious, especially in a situation with pristine coral reefs. The financial analysis at the individual household level also shows clear incentives for scale-enlargement. Both crewmembers and boat owners had the highest net income per month in the large-scale blast fishing operations with US$ 197 and US$ 1,100 respectively. Medium-scale and large-scale operations typically work in pristine areas and therefore blast fishing will continue to spread into the most remote areas unless very firm action is taken to combat this practice. For the individual fisher involved in blast fishing, the net income is all that matters and he does not take his contribution to ecosystem damage into account. Interventions to ban blast fishing must include the development of alternative livelihoods for local fishers. When enforcement programs are effective in pushing the blast fishers out of their practice, other income opportunities need to be available. Indonesia, with its many islands, long coastline and productive marine waters, has always been a fishing nation. It has been concluded, however, that most of Indonesia’s coral reef resources are presently over-exploited (Venema 1997). Yet there is still sufficient scope to shift from coral reef fisheries into pelagic fisheries. Furthermore, Indonesia has a large potential for the development of mariculture. Applied research in the field of coastal resources management is needed to support decision-making processes at all levels of management. Effective management is impossible without a constant flow of information on the resources and exploitation patterns. The traditional aim of intensification in coastal resource exploitation needs to be changed in goals of conservation and sustainable use. The open access nature of the sea can be regarded as one of the major problems that lead to destructive fishing practices. Privatisation of common property is seen as the future in natural resources management (Jentoft & McCay 1995), but this needs the imbedding of definitions of property rights in a legal framework (Pomeroy & Carlos 1997), which is a tedious process. Traditional communal property rights are usually not written down (Ruddle 1993; Zerner 1993), and have eroded during the last decades (Zerner 1993; Kendrick 1993). It is the role of the government to specify, legitimise and enforce the security of property rights to local resources. Exclusive fishing rights can only lead to improved management when actively supported by the government. If the Indonesian government is serious about com- BLASTING AWAY: THE ECONOMICS OF BLAST FISHING ON INDONESIAN CORAL REEFS 83
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 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 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 126 and 127: Supervision and training of labour
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?