I'm traveling to University of Exeter, UK to participate in a meeting regarding a multinational project titled "The Future of Reefs in a Changing Environment".
The working group that I'm involved with is livelihoods and coral reefs. PhD student David Gill (with Prof. Hazel Oxenford and yours truly) will be conducting economic valuation research regarding extractive and non-extractive values of reef fish in the Caribbean.
How might understanding the relative values of extractive uses (fishing) and non-extractive uses (snorkeling and diving) be useful to inform policy?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Those values become the opportunity cost of allowing a "road to ruin." Short of total ruin, couldn't they be used in the efficient-amount-of-pollution model as the MDF?
Ryan H
Like discussed in class, gaining knowledge of the optimal level of pollution (fishing, diving, etc..) and use on the reefs must be given a monetary value to make a stand with policy members. I believe we have spoken in class about how the politicians do not always understand the real risk by just seeing or hearing about it. Researchers can determine how much the local industry will lose from over fishing, or how much tourism profit they will loose. When a monetary value or cost is put onto a resource the politicians and policy makers understand the problem much easier and it usually becomes more important to them.
Putting a value to extractive and non-extractive uses of coral reefs (to follow your example) is important because it makes others realize that the destruction or simple misuse of this resource can cause a net loss to society or the tax payer. Finding this value is effective because it puts a real dollar value on a resource instead of an intrinsic value which can be hard to convey to policy makers. A politician truly doesn't care about how someone might feel about the loss of a resource. The real concern for a politician comes when he/she thinks that they will be losing money, revenue, etc. because then they have to answer to the general public.
When dollar values are attached to extractive and non-extractive uses, policy makers can, in theory, make decisions that maximize the net gains for the affected parties/their constituents. Imagine a policy maker faced with the following decision: "What would be more economically beneficial, (in regard to local businesses, laborers, and the govt. - tax revenue)protect this particular reef for ecotourism or open it to more commercial fishing?" Without the relative values of ecotourism and fishing, the policy maker cannot make a well informed decision. Of course, in practice, "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." Simply put, politics is almost always messy. There are lots of interests at stake. Consequently, policy makers often make economically sub-optimal decisions that result in lost net gains to society.
Adding relative values is considerably complex, but the reasoning is simple. People value things differently (obviously), however, most people value money the same way. While it would be difficult to pass on your personal attachment/values to coral reefs, its much easier to explain your point when your speaking in monetary terms (especially when you're dealing with other people's money!). Money could almost be viewed as a universal connection between people, countries, etc.
Putting values on extractive and non-extractive uses allow the general public and policy makers to understand; in monetary terms, how valuable or in valuable their resource is to the surrounding area. When policy makers, of who are most likely influential people in the area, are given a value they can place on their resource they are more likely to protect and preserve the resource they have. Otherwise with an unknown value the impact of the resource and certain damages it may be subject to could never be evaluated. With knowledge about value policy makers can then determine if the resource is worth saving from pollution by extractive and non-extractive uses or if the risk is worth the use.
In order to inform policy, we must understand the relative values to achieve a rational decision.
In this case, it is important to measure the attractiveness, risks and benefits of the coral reefs and their uses. The relative values of coral reefs are overfishing, pollution, controlling invasive species, providing food, tourism, overuse education, pharmaceuticals and many more.
Obviously, we must be concerned every aspect of extractive uses and non-extractive uses so we can make logical decisions.
Great stuff by everyone so far. Helen gives us a great point to expand upon. Let's keep it going.
Hint:
http://www.msp.noaa.gov/
and
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100220184333.htm
Unfortunately in life most people put a monetary value on many things. These politicians and uneducated people in the area of Economics simply hear the views of other people and do not gain the full knowledge of the issue. The optimal level of pollution could easily be reached if more people were educated about the topics at hand. Economists can put these monetary values on the pollution and unfortunately once dollar signs are in the equation more people open their ears a little wider. Once these values are placed net gains can be reached easier.
It is hard not to agree with the concept that "money talks." Placing a monetary value on things such as coral reefs helps people to understand the gains and losses from certain actions. Unfortunately, without a $ figure put in place, many people may simply think "So, what?" as related to the degradation of coral reefs. Unless it can be shown that damage to the coral reefs will directly effect the islands' economy in a negative way, change seems to be nearly implausible.
". . . ensuring that diverse human uses are supported while healthy marine ecosystems are maintained for all our benefit." This quote is taken form the Science Daily article entitled "Marine Spacial Planning- A more balanced approach to ocean management" posted by Dr. Schuhmann. this expresses the ideal solution. One that allows people to use the marine sources and benefit from them economically while maintaining and sustaining the resource itself. Though it may be quite some time before a definite solution is reached, Marine Spacial Planning ( as discussed in the posted article), seems to be a big step heading in the right direction.
Post a Comment