Valuation of Marine Ecosystem Goods and Services and Man s Impact on European Seas

Transcription

1 Valuation of Marine Ecosystem Goods and Services and Man s Impact on European Seas Thomas van Rensburg (Department of Economics, NUIG) SEMRU Workshop, Marine Institute, Oranmore 2/11/09 Co Authors: Prem. Wattage, Helen Glenn, Simon Mardle, Naomi Foley, Anthony Grehan CEMARE/NUIG

2 Overview Protect project on Marine Protected Areas For MPAs a big challenge is to quantify ecological and non-use benefits alongside fishing & other priced outputs from the marine resource within CBAs. CE and the production function approach can be used to quantify these different values and assess the tradeoffs between these different goods and services. Why Value Ecosystem Goods and Services? Standard bioeconomic models have two problems: They don t account for the ecosystem services that support the fishery They don t take account of the ecosystem services related to non-use values We attempt to measure these external effects related to ecosystem service provision using cold water coral as a case study We evaluate two ecosystem services the role of habitat as an input to the fishery; the use/non use values related to cold water coral protection. CEMARE/NUIG

3 Background: Cold Water Corals Found in most oceans in the world Lophelia pertusa predominant reef forming species in Europe Depths from m Temperature range 4-13ºC Long lived and slow growing Threats Bottom trawling Oil & gas exploration Cable & pipe laying Destructive scientific sampling

4 CWC Ecosystem goods and Services

5 Cold Water Corals Provision of goods and services Fish habitat Nursery and spawning grounds Paleoclimate indicator CO 2 sequestration Pharmaceutical compounds Focus: Functional Services Habitat Nursery grounds Refuge

6 Bioeconomic model (Redfish) with and without social costs Revenue, cost ( ) TSC Open access = E OA and H OA Defined property rights = E PROF and Preservation value (external costs) = H SOC TC = WE H PROF H OA H soc R - C = Max (scarcity rent) TR = PH X zero E soc E PROF E OA E MAX Effort (E) CEMARE, University of Portsmouth

7 Cold Water Coral Study Gordon-schaefer harvest function Logistic growth function F ( X ) = rx (1 X / K ) Adjust growth function to allow for influence of Lophelia (L) Essential Habitat F ( X, L) = rx ( K ( L) X )

8 Change in growth function of redfish F(X,L) Slope r(l) X K(L) new K(L) Growth Function: Impact of a decrease in Lophelia on both carrying capacity and intrinsic growth.

9 Redfish Data Lophelia / CWC: Estimated spatial coverage: 2000km 2 Corals grounds depleted by 30-50% between Norwegian Ministry of Fisheries issued regulations for the protection of coral reefs assume no further damage to corals from Range coral decline 30% - 50% Effort: Norwegian Fisheries Directorate ( ) 3 trawl types; factory, fresh fish and vessels under 250 GRT data standardised for relative fishing power (RFP) Harvest: ICES reports area I and II ( ) Price: Norwegian annual auction prices ( ) Real prices 1998 base year

10 Analysis/Results Marginal decline in CWC area (1km 2 ): Loss of between 68 and 110 tonnes of redfish harvest In monetary terms; fall of between $73,222 and $119,107 per annum for each square km of coral lost Percentage loss in revenue between 11% and 29% for fall in CWC of 30% and 50% respectively

11 Total Economic Value TEV of Coral Ecosystem Use value Non-Use value 1. Direct use value 2. Indirect use value 3. Option value 4. Quasi - option value 5. Existence value 6. Bequest value Forest products (timber) Educational, Recreational & cultural uses External support: Essential habitat Resilience, Stability, Nutrient cycling, Carbon store Future uses as per 1 and 2. Expected future uses as per 1, 2, 3 Cultural, heritage, intrinsic worth Future generations CEMARE, University of Portsmouth

12 Measuring non-market values associated with Irish CWC using choice experiments (CE) CE presents respondents with options consisting of multiple attributes with different levels Respondents make their choice from the options (demonstrating their trade-offs & marginal rates of substitution between the attributes) CE measures the relative importance of the individual attributes and the total satisfaction or utility scores for different combinations of attributes CEMARE/NUIG

13 Example: Attributes and accompanying target levels Table 2: Attributes and accompanying management objective levels. Attributes Level I Level II Level III 1. ACTIVITY Status quo Ban trawling Ban all the fishing activity allowed in the MPA (allow all fishing) (but allow other fishing methods) fishing 2. AREA MPA strategy to protect cold water corals 3. COST management & monitoring cost Status quo (currently identified coral reefs) 0 (No additional tax) All known coral reefs 1 (Additional yearly tax) All coral areas (where coral reefs are thought to exists) 10 (Additional yearly tax) CEMARE, University of Portsmouth

14 Example slides of the levels of one of the attributes - Area Figure 1: Status Quo - Continue to protect Irish cold-water coral SACs (red) already protected CEMARE, University of Portsmouth

15 Figure 2: Protect all known coral areas - Location of additional MPAs (blue) for newly discovered undamaged corals. CEMARE/NUIG

16 Figure 3: Protect via additional MPAs (purple) all areas thought to contain corals between 500m-1000m. CEMARE/NUIG

17 Generating options for CE survey Using Previous (attribute & levels) table: full factorial design yields a total of 27 possible combinations of attributes & levels three attributes have three levels; thus there are (3 3 ) =27 possible alternatives ADX Interface for the design of Experiments (SAS 9.1) (an orthogonal main effects design - where all interactions are assumed to be insignificant), this was subsequently reduced to 9 profiles/choice options for use in the study. This tests all the main combinations of attributes CEMARE/NUIG

18 SECTION 1 (Please TICK the box (only one) next to your preferred option) AREA: Status quo ACTIVITY: Status quo COST 1. 0 THIS IS MY PREFERRED OPTION AREA: Known coral reefs ACTIVITY: Status quo COST 1 AREA: All coral areas ACTIVITY: Status quo COST 10 THIS IS MY PREFERRED OPTION THIS IS MY PREFERRED OPTION The options as presented AREA: Status quo ACTIVITY: Ban trawling COST 1 AREA: Known coral reefs ACTIVITY: Ban trawling COST 10 THIS IS MY PREFERRED OPTION THIS IS MY PREFERRED OPTION Can present all or a subset to each respondent. AREA: All coral areas ACTIVITY: Ban trawling COST AREA: Status quo ACTIVITY: Ban all fishing COST 10 AREA: Known coral reefs ACTIVITY: Ban all fishing COST 0 AREA: All coral areas ACTIVITY: Ban all fishing COST 1 THIS IS MY PREFERRED OPTION THIS IS MY PREFERRED OPTION THIS IS MY PREFERRED OPTION THIS IS MY PREFERRED OPTION In survey all were presented to each respondent, who made a single choice

19 Estimation procedure Multinomial Logit Model (MNL) is used Several χ 2 (Chi-square) likelihood ratio tests were run. All tests indicated that the model was significant at the α=0.01 level. Test χ 2 DF Pr > χ 2 Likelihood Ratio < Score < Wald < CEMARE, University of Portsmouth

20 Most preferred options individually.. the ranking of attributes and levels suggests that the top 2 preferences for MPA management are to: ban trawling and protect all coral areas. Next in the order of ranking comes: a tax of 1 no tax, followed by a tax of 10 and the protection of known corals. CEMARE/NUIG

21 Estimation of the degree of importance attached to each attribute from the model (derived from the full set of 27 alternatives) CEMARE/NUIG

22 Conclusions Red fish study - Preliminary results indicate that coral decline is of significantly greater importance than high effort levels in explaining changes in redfish harvest Lophelia appears to play a role in the decline of redfish stocks CE study: The results confirm the importance attached by the Irish public to MPAs in the Irish deep-sea coral areas and demonstrate their preferences Without a second case study, however, it is difficult to say whether there is any uniformity of opinion over MPA management The outputs provide tangible, quantified support for MPA planning and management Choice experiments appear to be a useful tool for the evaluation of MPAs The method is flexible to the needs of particular MPAs and for similar sites in relative proximity there is also the potential (albeit limited given current methodologies) for benefit transfer between sites The quantified outputs can be incorporated into CBA and used in baseline and goal setting, and given funding for survey repetition, monitoring programs for MPAs The quantified outputs can also form inputs into bioeconomic models for targeted MPAs (& as such are useful evaluators) Further work - Hermione (FP7) Consider optimal management for CWC & the impacts of this management on fish stocks and fishers Extend model to age class model Quantification of ecosystem values Management scenarios Non-use values