Marine Protected Areas: Economic and Social Implications
James N. Sanchirico, Kathryn A. Cochran, and Peter M. Emerson
May 2002 • Discussion Paper 02–26 RFF
1. What is the purpose of this paper?
To serve as a guide for multiple stakeholders who are interested in understanding the
economic and social value of MPAs.
2. How did the authors go about achieving the goals laid out?
First they provide background on the ecology and institutional setting of MPAs. Then
they lay out a framework for discussing the costs and benefits to extractive users, non
extractive users and management. They conclude with a little Political Economy, a CBA
and addresses issues beyond efficiency like equity and fairness.
3. Did the authors meet the objectives?
I think so – they set up a cost benefit matrix for us to consider in the context of multiple
stakeholders. They address the inherent difficulties in doing so and leave us in a position
to better understand why we might want to use MPAs, where we might want to use them
and how to use them.
SPECIFICS for Discussion
What is the issue? Why is it important?
While the ocean is critical to society’s economic and social well-being, scientific studies
confirm that many of our marine resources are overexploited and face external
environmental threats. In the United States, federal regulators report that 56 of 162 major
fish stocks are overfished.
Too many boats chasing too few fish!!!!
These habitats and the resources they support provide the public with a valuable and
diverse set of goods and services, including seafood, recreational enjoyment, carbon
sequestration, storm protection, and opportunities for pharmaceutical discoveries.
Our coastal resources are also coming under increasing stress, as more people move to
the coast, which ultimately threatens marine biodiversity and productivity.
To help protect and restore fisheries, and to conserve biodiversity and cultural heritage
sites (e.g., sunken ships), many fishery scientists and managers are promoting the use of
marine protected areas (Scientific Consensus 2001, NRC 2000).
What do MPAs do?
MPAs provide direct protection to that fraction of the total fish stock residing within its
boundaries. If these populations are mobile, then as the fish stocks recover, there will be
spillover into other areas.
While the general principles are simple, measuring the magnitude and persistence of
these benefits are not.
Give me some background on the Institutional Setting
Gordon 1954:
both theory and historical record show that the race will continue until fish stocks are
depleted and the number and types of vessels in a fishery exceed its viable capacity.
Because of "rule of capture" incentives, fishermen neither take into account how their
catches today will impact future catch levels nor the costs associated with excess fishing
capacity
current fishery management efforts have, for the most part, overlooked the role of
incentives in shaping behavior and sought rather to focus on effort controls, such as trip
limits, seasonal closures, and gear restrictions. Unfortunately, these regulations treat the
symptoms of the problem and not the fundamental causes.
Why Cost-benefit Analysis?
From society’s perspective, MPAs are a public investment of marine resources
(Sanchirico 2000, Zinn and Buck 2001). The decision to commit resources can be guided
by a benefit-cost framework that measures whether the potential benefits of protection—
adjusted to account for risks—outweigh the potential costs. Like other public
investments, the potential benefits and costs of MPAs are realized both over the short and
long run.
What are the potential costs and benefits to each of the stakeholders and
how might we quantify them?
What are the difficulties?
a precise calculation of the expected net benefits obtained by expressing all benefits and
costs in dollar terms is often not feasible.
Like other public investments, the potential benefits of MPAs will often be realized at
some future date, whereas many of the costs are incurred immediately, implying that
closing off areas results in an inter-temporal tradeoff, perhaps even across generations
Difficulties also stem from the complexity and corresponding degree of imprecision
when trying to predict the impact of a new management tool on biological and economic
systems.
Another difficulty for managers is the task of predicting and quantifying the
nonextractive use values associated with the closure. It is generally understood that these
values are an important consideration in resource allocation decisions. In fact, many
recent calls for MPAs have cited potentially large economic returns from ecotourism
activities and conservation values associated with biodiversity preservation. Given the
current lack of research on the magnitude of these benefits for marine resources,
however, it will be difficult in the near future to fully incorporate them in decision
making processes.
What else should we consider?
Equity and Fairness Concerns
When marine resources owned by all Americans and managed by federal and state
governments are dedicated to a particular use, like a MPA, a public investment has been
made. The desirability of such an investment can be found by weighing potential
benefits and costs as described above, along with equally important moral, ethical, and
cultural values. While the latter values are largely beyond the scope of this chapter, they
often play a major role in shaping resource management decisions.
Conclusions
With many fisheries on the brink of collapse, fishery managers are looking to MPAs as
critical tools in their recovery.
there is strong scientific evidence that MPAs are effective at preserving unique marine
habitats, restoring fish populations that reside within the protected area, and as a way of
ensuring that special treasures are preserved.
in addition to fishery enhancement, MPAs will often provide important
ancillary benefits. For example, protecting coral reefs that store carbon and provide
unique recreation opportunities, such as scuba diving or underwater photography, will
yield benefits independent of fishery enhancement.
In addition, individuals who may never visit the site but benefit from knowing that rare
habitats exist and endangered species are protected might value MPAs.
A robust stakeholder process is likely to lead to better decisions concerning MPAs.
Fishery managers need to engage fishermen, environmentalists, and other concerned
citizens in setting goals for MPAs and in taking responsibility for achieving the goals.