Barbados ReefFix Exercise Draft Report

Economic Valuation of Goods and Services Derived from Coral Reefs in the Folkestone Park

and Marine Reserve

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1

PROJECT DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND .................................................................................................... 1 REEFFIX EXERCISE ..................................................................................................................................... 1 BARBADOS EXERCISE – FOLKESTONE MARINE RESERVE ........................................................................... 2

Barbados ReefFix Workshop................................................................................................................. 3 STUDY SITE DESCRIPTION & BACKGROUND ............................................................................................... 3

Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve ................................................................................................... 4 History................................................................................................................................................... 6 Management, Legislation and Enforcement.......................................................................................... 7 Ecosystem Health .................................................................................................................................. 9 Tourism and Recreation ...................................................................................................................... 11 Fisheries .............................................................................................................................................. 13

METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................................................... 15

WORLD RESOURCES INSTITUTE (WRI) VALUATION METHODOLOGIES .................................................... 15 Tourism and Recreation (Non-consumptive Use Value) ..................................................................... 16 Fisheries (Consumptive Use Value) .................................................................................................... 17

VALUE TRANSFER: SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUES ........................................ 19

ECONOMIC VALUATION RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................ 20

WRI TOURISM RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 20 Accommodation Sector........................................................................................................................ 21 MPA Revenue ...................................................................................................................................... 23 Marine Recreation............................................................................................................................... 24 Local Use Valuation............................................................................................................................ 26

WRI FISHERIES RESULTS.......................................................................................................................... 27 Commercial Fisheries Results............................................................................................................. 27 Fish Re-sale, Cleaning and Processing (Post Harvest Value) ............................................................ 28 Local Use Valuation............................................................................................................................ 29

COMBINED VALUES: WRI FISHERIES AND TOURISM RESULTS ................................................................. 29 ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUES: VALUE TRANSFER METHODOLOGY ......................................................... 30

Alternative Coral Reef Values ............................................................................................................. 31 Historical Value .................................................................................................................................. 31

COMPARISON OF THE VALUATION METHODOLOGIES & RESULTS..................................... 32

COMPARISON OF THE THREE METHODOLOGIES ........................................................................................ 32 Results ................................................................................................................................................. 32 Methodologies ..................................................................................................................................... 34

COMPARISON BETWEEN STUDY SITES ...................................................................................................... 35

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE DATA COLLECTION PHASE: IDENTIFICATION OF DATA

GAPS............................................................................................................................................................ 36

WRI TOURISM TOOL ................................................................................................................................ 36 WRI FISHERIES TOOL ............................................................................................................................... 37 ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUES: VALUE TRANSFER METHODOLOGY ......................................................... 38

FURTHER RESEARCH............................................................................................................................ 39

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 39

REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................ 41

APPENDIX I: GIS LAND COVER MAP OF THE FOLKESTONE MARINE RESERVE............... 45

APPENDIX IIA: LIST OF REFERENCES FOR DATA SOURCES (WRI TOURISM AND

RECREATION TOOL).............................................................................................................................. 46

3

APPENDIX IIB: LIST OF REFERENCES FOR DATA SOURCES (WRI FISHERIES TOOL) ..... 49

APPENDIX III: AGENDA FOR BARBADOS REEFFIX WORKSHOP............................................. 52

LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1. SOME OF THE MAJOR LEGISLATION SUPPORTING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE FOLKESTONE PARK

AND MARINE RESERVE .......................................................................................................................... 8

TABLE 2. VALUES USED IN THE WRI TOURISM AND RECREATION TOOL TO GENERATE THE LOW AND HIGH

ESTIMATES ........................................................................................................................................... 17

TABLE 3.VALUES USED IN THE WRI FISHERIES TOOL TO GENERATE THE LOW AND HIGH ESTIMATES ........... 18

TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF REEF-RELATED TOURISM AND RECREATION WITHIN

FPMR .................................................................................................................................................. 20

TABLE 5. TABULAR RESULTS OF SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS REVEALING THE ESTIMATED NET REVENUE BASED ON

25% AND 45% OF GROSS PROFITS SPENT ANNUALLY ON NON-LABOUR OPERATING COSTS VALUES IN

US DOLLARS ........................................................................................................................................ 22

TABLE 6. HYPOTHETICAL INCOME STRUCTURE FROM THE SALE OF SNORKEL AND SCUBA TAGS TO ENTER

THE FOLKESTONE MARINE RESERVE (US DOLLARS). THE ESTIMATED REVENUE CONSIDERS A

MANDATORY FEE FOR DIVERS AND VOLUNTARY FEE FOR SNORKELERS (LOW VALUE: 1 IN 3 PURCHASES PER SNORKELER, HIGH VALUE: 1 IN 2 PURCHASES PER SNORKELER) .................................................... 23

TABLE 7. ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE EARNED FROM SCUBA DIVING ON REEFS WITHIN THE FPMR

(VALUES IN $US).................................................................................................................................. 24

TABLE 8. ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE EARNED FROM SNORKELLING AND BOATING WITHIN THE FPMR

(VALUES IN $US).................................................................................................................................. 26

TABLE 9. SUMMARY OF TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF REEF-RELATED FISHERIES SURROUNDING THE FPMR27

TABLE 10. ECOSYSTEM SERVICE VALUES BY COVER TYPE FOR THE FOLKESTONE PARK AND MARINE

RESERVE (US DOLLARS)...................................................................................................................... 31

TABLE 11. ESTIMATED LOSS IN THE STRUCTURE OF FIVE FRINGING REEFS WITHIN THE FOLKESTONE MARINE

RESERVE (LEWIS 2002) AND ESTIMATES OF THE ASSOCIATED LOSS IN ANNUAL BENEFITS (UNEP-WCMC 2006) ...................................................................................................................................... 32

TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE WRI ECONOMIC VALUATION

METHODOLOGIES (FISHERIES, TOURISM AND RECREATION) ................................................................ 34

TABLE 13. SUMMARY OF THE STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE VALUE TRANSFER METHODOLOGY

(TROY AND WILSON 2006)................................................................................................................... 35

TABLE 14. EXAMPLES OF UNCAPTURED REVENUE FROM THE FOLKESTONE WRI VALUATION ...................... 38

LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1. THE THREE MAJOR CORAL TERRACES OF BARBADOS AND LOCATION OF THE FOLKESTONE PARK

AND MARINE RESERVE (ADAPTED FROM MACHEL 1999)....................................................................... 4

FIGURE 2. MAP OUTLINING DESIGNATED ZONES WITHIN THE FOLKESTONE PARK AND MARINE RESERVE

(NICHOLLS 2008) AND ADDITIONAL FEATURES ...................................................................................... 5

FIGURE 3. RESEARCHERS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF THE WEST INDIES INVESTIGATING THE REEF INSIDE OF THE SCIENTIFIC ZONE OF THE FPMR ..................................................................................................... 6

FIGURE 4. CATTLE EGRETS ROOSTING IN THE TREES SURROUNDING THE HOLETOWN LAGOON ..................... 11

FIGURE 5. SECTION OF A MAP OF DIVE SITES AROUND BARBADOS HIGHLIGHTING THE LOCATIONS OF THE

FISHERMAN'S (10), DOTTINS ( 11) AND SANDY LANE (12) DIVE SITES WITHIN THE FOLKETONE RSERVE

(CZMU 2005)...................................................................................................................................... 12

4

FIGURE 6. GOOGLE EARTHTM MAP SHOWING THE APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF MAJOR FISH LANDING SITES

WITHIN THE FOLKESTONE ENVIRONS.................................................................................................... 14

FIGURE 7. COMPONENTS OF THE TOTAL ECONOMIC VALUE (TEV) THAT ARE DERIVED FROM CORAL REEFS

(WRI 2009).......................................................................................................................................... 15

FIGURE 8. SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS OF ACCOMMODATION REVENUE WITH AN ESTIMATE OF 25% AND 45% OF

GROSS PROFITS SPENT ANNUALLY ON NON-LABOUR OPERATING COSTS. VALUES IN US DOLLARS ....... 22

FIGURE 9. VARIATIONS IN NET REVENUE AND TOTAL COSTS WITH AN ESTIMATE OF 30% AND 50% OF GROSS

REVENUE PAID TO NON- LABOUR OPERATING COSTS. ........................................................................... 28

FIGURE 10. ESTIMATED SECTORAL CONTRIBUTIONS (TO THE LOCAL ECONOMY) FROM THE DIRECT USE OF

CORAL REEFS BASED ON CALCULATIONS FROM THE WRI FISHERIES, TOURISM AND RECREATION

TOOLS .................................................................................................................................................. 30

FIGURE 11. COMPARISON OF THE RESULTS FROM THE WRI FISHERIES, TOURISM AND RECREATION TOOLS (INCOME REMAINING IN COUNTRY) TO THE VALUE TRANSFER METHODOLOGY ................................... 32

FIGURE 12. COMPARISON OF THE REEFFIX RESULTS FROM SEVEN COUNTRIES HIGHLIGHTING THE

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RESULTS OF THE WRI AND VALUE TRANSFER METHODOLOGY ............... 36

1

INTRODUCTION

Project Description & Background

The Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN) is a web based forum that seeks to promote greater use and sharing of existing biodiversity information in order to improve decision-making and education amongst countries of the Western Hemisphere (Department of Sustainable Development 2009). At the Summit of the Americas on Sustainable Development in 1996, (convened by the OAS in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia) IABIN was officially mandated to promote sustainable development and the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in the Americas. This is to be accomplished by improving the management of and access to biological information. IABIN has 5 Thematic Networks, (i) Species-Specimens, (ii) Ecosystems, (iii) Protected Areas, (iv) Pollinators, and (v) Invasive Species, as well as a metadata catalogue. The vision for IABIN is to become a data distribution system for technical and scientific information where providers control and maintain the source data. The main output for IABIN is to strengthen coastal management frameworks and develop a climate change adaptation plan for coral reefs and mangroves. More specifically:

1) Improved ecosystem valuation technical capacity of individual Caribbean countries to collect and manage their protected areas data in a way that meets their specific needs and context;

2) Improved individual country's protected areas data management systems based on output from case study sites;

3) Centralized data management system for the Caribbean region (drawing from protected areas databases where they exist or from other sources of protected areas information) which serves as a regional node for input to the Americas Database on Protected Areas and the World Database on Protected Areas (WDPA);

4) Capacity building activities in Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM).

(Department of Sustainable Development 2009)

ReefFix Exercise

As a component of IABIN, ReefFix falls under the ICZM Capacity Building Program (output 4). This exercise, supported by the government of Chile is an ICZM tool that trains participating countries in ecosystem valuation methodologies and management techniques in order to better enable them to conserve marine ecosystems and the associated watersheds. ReefFix was recently used to assist the IABIN Caribbean Protected Areas Database Initiative (CPADI) through implementation of its activities in Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Bahamas, and Haiti. This exercise aims to:

• Support education and training efforts and model demonstration programmes aimed

at improving the management and conservation of coastal and marine resources;

2

• Educate the public about the ecological goods and services provided by coastal and

marine ecosystems;

• Improve the understanding of the status and trends of coastal and marine resources;

• Support implementation of the International Coral Reef Initiative (ICRI) at the

national and regional levels;

• Strengthen monitoring of coastal and marine resources, while supporting the

Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC) Global Coral Reef Monitoring

Network;

• Support ongoing efforts to develop and implement ICZM plans and marine protected

areas.

(Department of Sustainable Development 2009)

Barbados Exercise – Folkestone Marine Reserve

The area of environmental economics is relatively new to natural resource management in the Caribbean, however its potential application towards sustainable development and conservation are apparent. Recent studies have revealed that reef-related fisheries, dive tourism and shoreline protection contribute between US$3.1 billion and US$4.6 billion in annual net benefits to the Caribbean, with tourism accounting for US$2.1 billion (Conservation International 2008). However, rapid coastal development, pollution and overexploitation have had many negative impacts on the coral reefs with 70% currently being threatened by human activity (Burke et al. 2008). This can be partially attributed to the lack of understanding of the means by which healthy reefs promote the wellbeing of the people of the Caribbean and their local economies (Cooper et al. 2009). Barbados is not been exempted from these issues and this case study attempts to shed light on some of the economic benefits derived from the nearshore reef habitats within the Folkestone Marine Reserve. This exercise was conducted between the months of October 2009 to May 2010, with the assistance of many agencies listed in this report. It is hoped that Reeffix will encourage the increased use of environmental economics in Barbados and that the tools provided will build the necessary capacity for better resource management. In 2000, consultants from the AXYS Environmental Consulting (Barbados) group, along with a number of other agencies, produced a series or reports (baseline studies, business plans, impact assessments, etc.) as part of an extensive feasibility study on Folkestone and two other major attractions on the island. The specific objective of the Folkestone study was to “determine the feasibility of upgrading and enhancing the facilities at Folkestone as a recreational park and marine reserve” (AXYS et al. 2000). As a result, a lot of the background material in this report is based on information collected during that study.

3

Barbados ReefFix Workshop

The results from the Barbados ReefFix exercise were presented to a wide variety of stakeholders at the Pan-American Health Organisation Headquarters on April 21-22nd 2010 (Appendix III). Representatives included non-governmental and research organisations and personnel from the government tourism, fisheries, coastal management and economic departments. These were engaged into discussions on ecosystem services and how resource valuation can be used to improve the conservation and management of marine resources within the country. One of the recurring discussion points during the morning session was user fees and the likely effect of their implementation. In the afternoon participants had an opportunity to give brief presentations on some of the current activities of their organisations which was followed by questions and dialogue. The second day, participants were taken on a guided tour by the Folkestone staff who answered questions relating to the activities that occur within the park and some of the major management issues to be addressed. Main discussion points along the tour included the recently constructed boardwalk, reef health, pollution from coastal properties and coastal erosion. Overall the participants appeared to have appreciated the need for economic valuation techniques to be applied in Barbados. The Coastal Zone Management Unit which is one of the major marine management agencies on the island stated that they are interested in a full economic valuation of coral reef systems of the island and see ReefFix as an significant step in reaching this goal.

Study Site Description & Background

Barbados is the most easterly island in the Caribbean and owes much of its existence to coral reefs. The island is an accretionary prism, which is formed by the accumulation of oceanic sediments ahead of the active Caribbean-Atlantic plate margin (Brathwaite et al. 2008). The activity along this subduction boundary elevated the mound of material into the photic zone of the Atlantic Ocean, creating suitable habitat for the development of a coral reef primarily on the protected (western) side. These processes of reef formation and uplifting continued over time, leading to the development of a 432km2 island composed almost entirely of coral rock (Figure 1).

4

Lower coral reef terrace

Middle coral reef terrace

Upper coral reef terrace

Figure 1. The three major coral terraces of Barbados and location of the Folkestone Park and

Marine Reserve (adapted from Machel 1999)

Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve

The Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve (FPMR) lies on the sheltered West Coast of Barbados in the parish of St. James and spans the settlement of Holetown (Figure 2). It is situated approximately 10 km north of Bridgetown and comprises of two major sections: a terrestrial park (0.019 km2) and a marine reserve (2.1 km2).

Folkestone Marine Reserve

The reserve stretches along 2.2 km of the West Coast and extends outwards between 660-950 m offshore (Cumberbatch 2001). The reserve represents only 11% of this coastline and is the only legislated Marine Protected Area (MPA) in Barbados. It is also heavily used by multiple stakeholders, particularly tourists, and is therefore divided into four major zones to separate potentially conflicting activities (Figure 2). The Water Sports Zones are designed for high speed watercrafts and the Recreational Zone is allocated for swimming and snorkelling activities. Approximately 12% of the reserve is designated for scientific research where no unauthorised craft is allowed to enter unless involved in enforcement and research (Cumberbatch 2001) or special permission is granted. This zone is also heavily used by recreational snorkelers and field researchers from the nearby research station (Figure 3).

Folkestone Park and Marine

Reserve

5

Figure 2. Map outlining designated zones within the Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve (Nicholls

2008) and additional features

Holetown Lagoon

Holetown

Folkestone Park

500 m

N

6

Figure 3. Researchers from the University of the West Indies investigating the reef inside of the

Scientific Zone of the FPMR

Folkestone Terrestrial Park

Situated just north of Holetown, Folkestone Park includes a recreational park area, visitor museum, management offices, beach facilities and an interpretive centre. The area is heavily shaded making it an ideal attraction for locals on weekends and on public holidays. Adjacent to the park and directly inshore from the scientific zone is the Bellairs Research Institute, a field research station of the McGill University. Since the 1950s (AXYS et al. 2000), scientists and students visit the facility each year and conduct numerous research projects primarily focused on coral reefs.

History

The Folkestone and Holetown area are rich with a history that bears national significance. The Jamestown monument in Holetown commemorates the landing site for the first European settlers in 1625 (AXYS et al. 2000). The town was named after King James I of England but was subsequently renamed Holetown as the lagoon in the area (Figure 2) bared resemblance to the “Hole on the River Thames” where sailors could enter with shallow-draught ships. Folkestone inherited its name from Hon. William Bouverie, the second Lord Folkestone who married one of the daughters from the Alleyne family (property owners) in 1751. Folkestone was part of the Porter’s Plantation (owned by the Alleynes) of which the Great House still exists today. Also the building that currently houses the Folkestone staff could have been present as far back as 1825 according to some maps (AXYS et al. 2000). With the growth in tourism throughout the latter half of the 20th century, Barbados became a favoured destination for travellers around the world, especially during the winter season. So common was this influx of winter tourists that they were sometimes referred to as “snowbirds”, species that annually migrate to warmer climates during the winter months. This booming tourism industry has led to a rapid upsurge in infrastructural development on the West Coast and the increased recreational use of the coastline. Unfortunately, this era was also synonymous with increased land based pollution from coastal properties and user conflict as the intensification of recreational

7

activities in the nearshore and construction of large beach front accommodations intruded on the traditional uses of the beaches (AXYS et al. 2000).

Management, Legislation and Enforcement

Calls for the establishment of a marine park in Barbados came as early as the late 1960s from the Barbados National Trust (AXYS et al. 2000). In 1974, a small area surrounding the Vauxhall Reef was recommended for management by a recently established Underwater Park Committee. Two years later, the Ministry of Housing and Lands was given authority by the Marine Areas Preservation and Enhancement Act (1976) to “designate any portion of the marine areas of Barbados as restricted areas” for the protection of marine ecosystems and underwater cultural resources and/or the promotion of public enjoyment (AXYS et al. 2000). The extended area that is now the marine reserve came from recommendations made by a student at the Bellairs Institute which allowed for more comprehensive management of the area. In 1981, the Designation of Restricted Areas Order, 1981 was established with improvements from the Restricted Areas Order, 1980. Zoning of the reserve was facilitated by the establishment of the Marine Areas (Preservation and Enhancement) (Barbados Marine Reserve) Regulations,

1981. The objectives of the marine reserve are to: • maintain coastal and marine ecosystems in their natural state • act as an area where marine species can breed undisturbed • provide educational recreation for residents and tourist • provide a protected area where scientist and students can engage in research.

Nicholls 2008

The management of the FPMR is the responsibility of the National Conservation Commission which falls under the Ministry of Environment, Water Resources and Drainage. Folkestone staff include an appointed Park Manager along with a Park Naturalist, rangers (patrol officers), life guards and other supporting staff. In addition to the 1981 legislation mentioned above that govern the establishment of the MPA, listed below are some of the other legislation that supports the management of Folkestone.

8

Table 1. Some of the major legislation supporting the management of the Folkestone Park and

Marine Reserve

(AXYS et al. 2000, Fisheries Division 2001)

Patrol Officers monitor the 2.2 km stretch of nearshore area using a motorised watercraft and others patrol the land area to monitor for illegal activities on shore. Prohibited activities which are supported by the above legislation include: � Harvesting of coral � Fishing � Use of dynamite on reefs � Disposal of waste into the marine environment � Removal or damage of any material

(Nicholls 2008)

The Patrol Officers are also responsible for the maintenance of infrastructure which includes the repair and replacement of demarcation buoys. These services however are inadequate due to limited available funding (Cumberbatch 2001). The Barbados Coast

Legislation Areas of Concern

The Barbados Water Authority Act, 1980

Protection of nearshore bathing water quality

The National Conservation Commission Act, 1982

Laws relating to public parks, beaches, caves, etc. and the establishment of the National Conservation Commission

Town and Country Planning Act, Ch.240, 1985

Controls development and the disposal of waste

Barbados Port Authority (Water-Sports) Order, 1990

Laws governing watersport activities

Fisheries Act, 1993 (amended 2000)

Relates to the management, conservation and development of the fishing industry as well as prohibited activities; facilitates the creation of new regulations

Fisheries (Management) Regulations, 1998

Outlines prohibited fishing activities and the associated penalties (including coral harvesting)

Marine Pollution Control Act, 1998-40

Stipulates the permissible levels of pollutants that could be discharged into the marine environment

Coastal Zone Management Act, 1998

Preservation and enhancement of coastal resources

Marine Areas (Preservation And Enhancement) (Restricted Areas) Regulations, 1998

Governs the zonation of Folkestone and the permissible activities in each zone

Marine Areas (Preservation And Enhancement) (Designation Of Restricted Areas) Order, 1998

In place of the 1981 order, allows for the establishment of restricted areas

9

Guard and the Royal Barbados Police Force are the main agencies responsible for enforcement. Many of the marine infractions appear to be related to the improper use of zones and illegal fishing. However, due to other national priorities such as drug enforcement the Coast Guard are not always present in the area. The police station located within the marine reserve boundaries usually responds to the more serious offences.

Ecosystem Health

Foreshore

The Marine Reserve hosts a variety of coastal habitats. Historically mangroves dominated a large portion of the coastline within the reserve (Cumberbatch 2001) however only a few of these areas exist today and they are located mainly in the northern section around the Holetown Lagoon (Appendix I). There is a popular hawksbill turtle nesting beach just north of the reserve. Here, the nesting population has been severely affected by encroaching coastal development and shoreline protection structures which reduces the amount of available beach area above the high water mark suitable for nesting (AXYS et al. 2000). Beachfront lighting has also been a problem as it discourages nesting and disorients hatchlings, thereby increasing the likelihood of their predation.

Coral Reefs

There are around seven fringing reefs within the reserve along with patch and bank reefs situated further offshore (Appendix I). Results from studies monitoring fish abundance and species composition reveal that there are significantly more fish within the reserve than in the environs (AXYS et al. 2000). This is especially true for species that are commonly caught in fish traps (Rakitin & Kramer 1996). Despite these findings however, there is no significant evidence proving that a spill over effect of these fish populations into surrounding areas is occurring.

Reef Decline

Long term studies have shown that the Folkestone reefs have been severely compromised by human activities along the shoreline. Between 1982-1992, coral cover decreased by almost 50% on some of the Folkestone fringing reefs which coincided with a 150-200% increase in turf algae, both indicators of nutrient loading (AXYS et al. 2000). Although there have been fluctuations and some recovery over the years, the overall trend is a significant decline in coral species and abundance on the West Coast reefs. Studies have also found sewage-derived nitrogen in the tissue of small fish (Tosic et al. 2007). Listed below are some of the major factors attributed to this decline: Pollution: Although the FPMR has legislation in place to protect the reef against the fishing pressure not enough have been done to reduce the impact of land based sources of pollution. Between 1964 and 1996, the amount of urban areas doubled within the Holetown catchment (Tosic et al. 2007) which coincided with rapid tourism

10

development along the shore. The combination of increased population density, porous limestone rock and lack of wastewater treatment contribute to the continuous flow of subsurface pollution entering the nearshore environment (Lewis 1985, Cumberbatch 2001, Tosic et al. 2007) carrying unwanted nutrients and bacteria into the nearshore. The alteration of natural waterways and an increase in paved surfaces (e.g. roads, car parks) have contributed to a rise in surface run-off during heavy rains and increased output from the 13 drains that terminate within the reserve (AXYS et al. 2000). This surface run-off, carrying nutrients and bacteria, would have been naturally attenuated by mangroves and grasslands in the area. Excess nutrients in seawater allow for the rapid growth of algae which out-compete coral for space and light and upset the natural balance of the reefs. Changes in Species Abundance: Although years of fishing have affected the herbivore population on the West Coast, the devastation of the sea urchin population (93.7% mortality on nearshore reefs in a 3 week period) severely reduced the grazing pressure on reefs and allowed algae to flourish (AXYS et al. 2000). Reef Recreation: The Folkestone area has also been heavily used for recreation for over 30 years with high levels of visitor traffic on the reef resulting in physical damage from flippers and propellers (AXYS et al. 2000). Even though the scientific zone is designated for research, the shallow reefs and demarcated swim area has made it one of the major snorkelling sites in the north of the reserve.

The combination of all these factors have resulted in changes in the community composition on the reef and loss of coral cover, inhibiting the natural ecological services that reefs provide such as sand production and wave attenuation (Lewis 2002, Hunte et al. 1998). This is especially detrimental in an area prone to severe erosion (AXYS et al. 2000).

Wetlands

The Holetown Hole or Lagoon (Appendix I) is part of a natural waterway which is fed by a 9.9 km2 watershed originating in the centre of the island (Tosic et al. 2007). This area functions similarly to a freshwater swamp and although slightly altered, it still represents a remnant of the original habitat that once dominated before human intervention (AXYS et al. 2000). White mangroves are among the most common type of vegetation in the lagoon, where cattle egrets, endangered yellow warbler and other bird species can be found roosting in the evening (Figure 4). Due to residential, agricultural and industrial and other activities in the upper watershed, high sediment and nutrient loads continuously make their way into the “Hole”. Levels of nutrients in the lagoon were reported to be similar to that of wastewater and based on its estimated volume, it could contain about 2.1 kg of nitrates and 72 kg of phosphates (Tosic et al. 2007). Bacterial levels were also reported to be on the order of a magnitude higher than the beaches and reefs in the area (AXYS et al. 2000).

11

The lagoon is normally encased by a sand barrier which prevents the majority of water from entering the sea. However, after heavy rainfall events, the sand barrier is breached and the polluted water enters the sea, rapidly decreasing nearshore water quality. This plume tends migrate northward, carrying large amounts of suspended particles towards the scientific zone which hosts two of Folkestone’s major reefs (Tosic et al. 2007). This negatively impacts the reefs by reducing water clarity sometimes as long as three days. Phosphate levels in this plume are also significantly higher than that of other run-off which is problematic as phosphates may be the limiting factor for rapid algal growth.

Figure 4. Cattle egrets roosting in the trees surrounding the Holetown Lagoon

Tourism and Recreation

With numerous hotels, resorts, guest houses, restaurants and retail facilities, Holetown and Folkestone are a hive of tourist activities. Much of the development in the area is geared towards the high-end market exemplified by villas such as those at Sandy Lane renting for up to US$25,000 per night (BHTA 2009). Many of the business owners in the area have acknowledged that the reserve has been beneficial to their business and have used it for promoting their enterprise (AXYS et al. 2000). Most of the marine recreation in Folkestone is carried out by tourists while locals are fonder of the terrestrial activities (AXYS et al. 2000). Cruise ship passengers account for a large portion of the users of the marine reserve and they usually embark on catamarans near the cruise terminal and travel up the West Coast to various stop points. During the

12

winter months between 10:00am-2:00pm, reserve usage peaks on the days where there are five or more cruise ships in port (AXYS et al. 2000). The foreshore area is used mainly by the long-stay visitors from the hotels. Along with sunbathing, there are several other activities including swimming, water skiing, jet-skiing, glass bottom boat tours, renting of small sail boats, snorkelling and scuba diving (AXYS et al. 2000). The FPMR do not charge usage fees but benefit from this market through the rental of snorkelling equipment and sale of souvenirs to some of the visitors. Shipwrecks and wildlife feeding are the major snorkelling attractions within the reserve and the Dottins, Fishermans and Sandy Lane reefs are the main dive sites (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Section of a map of dive sites around Barbados highlighting the locations of the

Fisherman's (10), Dottins ( 11) and Sandy Lane (12) dive sites within the Folketone Rserve (CZMU

2005)

Based on figures arrived during the AXYS study in 2000 as well as from previous literature, it is estimated that each year there are over 150,000 visitors to the FPMR, almost all of which are tourists. This figure comprised of 88,000 party cruise passengers, 50,000 catamaran passengers and 15,000-20,000 divers. Results from current interviews with stakeholders however indicate that some of these values may be too high. Due to the recent economic crisis, visitor arrivals to the island has declined, with an 8.6% reduction in the number of stay over passengers between 2008-2009 and a US$60 million loss in revenue earnings experienced by some hotels (Caribbean Tourism Organization 2010, BHTA 2010). It is unclear whether or not this trend will continue in 2010.

Conflicts

The AXYS (2000) study also identified some of the major conflicts and issues between stakeholders that use the FPMR. The most worrisome activity within the reserve appears to be jet-skiing, with tensions arising between jet-ski operators and practically all other

13

stakeholder groups. The main reason for this conflict is that tourists who rent the devices are not given a proper briefing on safety and appropriate use. This has resulted in many cases of accidents or “near-misses” with swimmers along the coast. Cruise ship passengers are also a concern to some as they cause crowding on the beach during peak times of year. Harassment of tourists by persons selling merchandise on the beach was another identified problem, however efforts have been put in place and this has reduced dramatically. Conflict was also reported between the Coast Guard and fishers who stated that they were repeatedly harassed and charged for fishing near the MPA as the reserve boundaries were not clearly marked.

Local Use

As was previously mentioned, the terrestrial section of Folkestone is most heavily frequented by locals. Some of the most common activities by locals include picnicing, use of the children’s playground and sports on the hard-courts. These activities peak on Sundays, school vacation and public holidays. Nineteen householders interviewed during the AXYS study reported that 63.1% use the beach at least once a week with 42.1% using it everyday. It is unclear as to whether or not this is representative of the area’s population however, of these respondents only 42.1% can swim. A large portion of Barbadians are unable to swim resulting in an aversion to watersports and other related activities with the majority remaining in the shallows to sea bathe.

Fisheries

The Folkestone area has been a hub for many fishers, particularly those involved in the reef, coastal and offshore pelagic fisheries (AXYS et al. 2000). Involvement in the industry has declined over the years and this has been attributed to the boom in the tourism and related construction sectors. A prime example of this was when the Holetown fish market was demolished to make way for a hotel. When the reserve was established in 1981 as a no-take zone, members of the fishing community were outraged and resented the fact that they were not consulted beforehand. Furthermore, issues have arisen due to the lack of clearly defined boundary markers for the reserve and have resulted in the persecution of fishers operating near the reserve by the Coast Guard (AXYS et al. 2000). The Folkestone area has also been one of the major traditional cast net fishing sites and after a long series of negotiations, fishers were allowed to continue this activity. Figure 6 identifies the locations of major fish landing sites in and around the Folkestone environs. These consist of two official and three unofficial landing sites, one of which is located within the reserve boundary. Reef fish caught around the reserve can be purchased on the shore of the Brooklyn beach which is valued by fishers as their last “base” within the reserve (AXYS et al. 2000). It is not clear whether or not fishers have benefited from the reserve’s potential spill-over effect, and many expressed their disappointment that the reserve was established primarily to benefit the tourism and recreational sectors at their expense (AXYS et al. 2000).

14

The shallow-shelf reef fishery is considered to be depleted and little is known of the total catch and effort and the number of fishers involved, especially in spearfishing (Fisheries Division 2004, Mahon et al. 2007). The management objective for this fishery is to: “Rebuild reef fish populations to levels capable of satisfying the requirements of both the commercial fishery, and recreational or tourism non-harvest uses, in order to obtain the optimum social and economic benefits from the resource” (Fisheries Division 2001). Sea turtles and the West Indian sea urchin (Tripneustes ventricosus) (also known as “sea egg”) are also traditionally harvested however current legislation prohibits the harvesting of turtles (Fisheries Division 2004) and the season is currently closed for sea eggs. Little data are available pertaining to the number of fishers in the area and with the current focus on the offshore fishery, fewer fishers now appear to be targeting the nearshore.

Figure 6. Google Earth

TM map showing the approximate locations of major fish landing sites within

the Folkestone environs

1 km

15

Methodology One of the major objectives of this exercise is to demonstrate the application of various economic valuation techniques in Barbados. ReefFix employs the use of three methodologies, two developed by the World Resources Institute and one using a direct value transfer method.

World Resources Institute (WRI) Valuation Methodologies

Coral reef valuation involves the estimation of the economic benefits that are gained from the presence of reefs and can be derived from examining the use and non-use value (Figure 7). Less tangible benefits such as indirect use from shoreline protection and non-use/existence value are much more difficult to quantify as non-market forces determine their values. The WRI Valuation Tools only account for estimates of revenues that are generated from the direct use of coral reefs, and hence value is based on current market prices. As a result, the methodology will underestimate the overall value of goods and services provided by coral reefs, as it focuses solely on consumptive use from fishing and non-consumptive use associated with tourism and recreation.

Figure 7. Components of the Total Economic Value (TEV) that are derived from coral reefs (WRI

2009)

Data were gathered through information received from a wide variety of sources, namely the FPMR staff, Barbados Hotel and Tourism Association, Fisheries Division and resource users. This comprised of a combination of statistical data, information based on field observations and expert opinion. Additional research was employed to supplement this data so as to fill information gaps where possible. The list of data inputs and sources can be found in Appendix IIa and IIb. Tables 2 and 3 highlight those inputs were more than one value was used to create the low and high range of results. To account for errors in the data and the assumptions made in the study, the sensitivity analysis was employed using a range of + 20% for the more uncertain values (Burke et al. 2008, Cooper et al. 2009). Some of the calculated estimates and extrapolations (e.g. number of annual

16

snorkelers) were rounded off to the nearest hundred to discourage the illusion of precision as many of these values are based on daily or weekly estimates of use or catch.

Tourism and Recreation (Non-consumptive Use Value)

The tourism data were compiled and analysed using the World Resources Institute’s (WRI) Coral Reef Valuation Tool (v2.0): A Tool to Guide the Economic Valuation of Goods and Services from Coral Reefs (Tourism and Recreation Component). This creates an estimation of the direct economic impacts from the reef-based accommodation and recreation (snorkelling, diving, coralline beach use) sectors using existing data. As Barbadian currency was not one of the options in the tool, the US currency was used. Data were available for a total of 15 major accommodations in the area comprising mainly of high end resorts, villas and apartment buildings. There are also numerous small apartments and private homes dispersed throughout the area and these were not included in the analysis due to their small size, abundance and lack of available data. These properties are located further inland, away from the beachfront which is dominated by the type of accommodations examined in this study. As data were limited, assumptions were made in the analysis so that the necessary data requirements for the tool could be met. Some of the major assumptions were:

• Occupancy Rates: Hotels are reluctant to distribute information about occupancy on

their individual properties so rates were given based on the types of accommodation

(luxury, A-class, apartment, etc.). To account for possible errors in this value and

given the lower than average tourist season of 2009, the “low value” calculation used

occupancy rates 20% less than those reported (Table 2).

• All-Inclusive Hotels: No data were available as to how many persons engaging in

recreation in the reserve were from all-inclusive hotels. Some of the activities such as

snorkelling may have been included in the room costs and as the recreational values

were calculated based on persons on the water, some of their expenditure maybe

counted twice.

• Local Use: No data were available for local recreational beach or reef use and

therefore estimates were given based on the experiences and observations of FPMR

staff.

Table 2 shows the data used to derive the range of values in the Tourism and Recreation

Tool. See Appendix IIa for the full list of data inputs.

17

Table 2. Values used in the WRI Tourism and Recreation Tool to generate the low and high

estimates

Data Variable Low Value High Value

Percentage reef usage

59.1% (based on number of visitors who have viewed underwater at some point during their stay [Schuhmann 2010])

85% (higher estimate of number of persons using reef and beach)

Employees per room 1.5 (default value)2.0 (estimates based on values in Tourism Global Inc.[2006])

Occupancy rates(-20% of reported averages due to recent economic recession)

Reported averages (BHTA 2009)

Average hourly hotel

wage

US$8.30 (estimate based on earnings bands in Q3 2008 [Barbados Statistical Service n.d.] & GDP per capita [CIA World Factbook 2009])

($9) Based on GDP per capita ($18,500)/ 52wks/ 40hrs (GDP per capita value -CIA World Factbook 2009)

No. of divers 6,800 (Schuhmann 2010)7,000 (FPMR observational data & dive shop interviews)

Average price per dive US$50 (prices from select shops)US$52.50 (local average [Schuhmann 2010])

No. of snorkelers139,300 (low estimate based on 100,000 catamaran passengers)

176,600 (FPMR observational data)

Average price per trip US$25 (operator interviews) US$60 (operator interviews)

Percent of locals using

coralline beaches for

pleasure

2% 5%

Percent of locals using

reefs for pleasure

(outside organised

trips)

0.1% 1%

Accommodation

Diving

Snorkeling and Boating

Local Use

Fisheries (Consumptive Use Value)

Similarly, fisheries data were compiled and analysed using the other WRI’s Coral Reef Valuation Tool (v2.1): A Tool to Guide the Economic Valuation of Goods and Services from Coral Reefs (Fisheries Component). This section focuses on the contributions to the economy derived from reef-associated fishing as well as other added value (e.g. local fishing for enjoyment and consumption). There is no major fishing allowed within the reserve but this component was included based on the assumption that the Folkestone reefs will be providing supporting services to the surrounding areas.

18

The fisheries data were derived from a number of sources (see Appendix IIb). There were data available from the Barbados Fisheries Division from the two official landings sites that lie to the north and south of the reserve (Figure 6). Information on reef fish catches were compiled based on rough estimates from a study on the economic value of the trap fishery currently being conducted by the Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies. The remainder of the data were garnered from informal interviews with fishers in the area. Some of the major assumptions were made regarding the data include:

• Commercial Fisheries: Given the variety of data sources used to arrive at these

values, a + 20% variation in catch was used. It must be noted that the official landings

data include offshore pelagics targeted by “day-boats” which venture a few miles

offshore for species such as flying-fish, dolphinfish, marlin and tuna.

• Commercial Fisheries (prices): With variations in percentage of sales going to each

type of customer at differing sale prices, it was difficult to determine which values to

use for the analysis. To overcome this problem, an average price of each species was

determined by dividing the total landed value by the landed weight for each species

(as reported in Mahon et al. 2007).

• Local Fishing: No data were available for local fishing activity (occasional sale,

consumption or enjoyment) and therefore estimates were used based on observations

and expert opinion.

Table 3 shows the data used to derive the range of values in the Fisheries Tool. See

Appendix IIb for the full list of data inputs.

Table 3.Values used in the WRI Fisheries Tool to generate the low and high estimates

Data Variable Low Value High Value

Weight landed-20% estimated 2007-2009 values (Barbados Fisheries Division 2010)

+20% estimated 2007-2009 values (Barbados Fisheries Division 2010)

Average weight catch per

trip for those engaging in

local fishing for sale and

consumption

-20% estimated values of 10-15kg+20% estimated values of 10-15kg

Average hourly wage

US$8.30 (estimate based on earnings bands in Q3 2008 [Barbados Statistical Service n.d.] & GDP per capita [CIA World Factbook 2009])

($9) Based on GDP per capita ($18,500)/ 52wks/ 40hrs (GDP per capita value -CIA World Factbook 2009)

Commercial Fishing

Local Fishing

19

Value Transfer: Spatial Distribution of Ecosystem Service Values

The third methodology utilises a “benefits transfer” technique that uses calculated values from “heavily-studied” reefs in other areas and applying them to the similar sites (Department of Sustainable Development 2009). For the purposes of this study, land cover will be classified into a unique typology developed by Troy, Austin and Matthew A. Wilson in “Practical challenges and opportunities in linking GIS and value transfer” (Ecological Economics 60 (2006)435-449). Categories of land cover types include coral reef environs, mangroves, beaches, freshwater herbaceous swamp grasslands and coastal forests (Table 10). This method, unlike the WRI Valuation Tool, includes indirect use values such as shoreline protection. For this study, the desired land cover types were identified and outlined using Google EarthTM satellite data (2006) and exported into ArcMap 9.2 to calculate surface areas. Additional marine data were derived from basic dive maps outlining the general area of the deeper reefs not visible by satellite. It must be noted that these values are also estimates as the accuracy of the surface areas were dependant on the quality and resolution of the available maps.

20

Economic Valuation Results and Discussion

WRI Tourism Results

Table 4 outlines the summary of the results from the WRI Tourism and Recreation Valuation Tool using the estimated low and high values (Appendix IIa & Table 2).

Table 4. Summary of total economic impact of reef-related tourism and recreation within FPMR

Tourism and RecreationUS Dollars

(Low Estimate)

US Dollars

(High Estimate)

1. Accomodation

Percent of accomodation revenue that is reef-related 59% 85%

Reef-associated Gross Revenue $40,145,516 $89,803,161

Reef-associated Net Revenue (Gross minus costs) $17,993,176 $42,115,939

Net revenue remaining in the country (net revenue - leakages) $6,657,475 $15,582,897

Transfers to the economy (taxes, via wages and service charges) $19,141,427 $40,951,985

Total Value $25,798,902 $56,534,883

2. Diving

Gross Revenue $765,000 $827,000

Net Revenue (Gross minus costs) $191,250 $206,750

Transfers to the economy (taxes, via wages and service charges) $401,625 $434,175

Total Value $592,875 $640,925

3. Snorkeling and Boating

Gross Revenue $3,482,500 $10,596,000

Net Revenue (Gross minus costs) $870,625 $2,649,000

Transfers to the economy (taxes, via wages and service charges) $1,915,375 $5,827,800

Total Value $2,786,000 $8,476,800

4. Marine Parks (Reserve Entrance Fees)

Gross Revenue - -

Net Revenue (Gross minus costs) $0 $0

5. Other Direct Expenditures (Folkestone Visitor Musuem, snorkel

rentals, souvenir shop) $33,131 $33,131

TOTAL DIRECT ECONOMIC IMPACTS $29,210,908 $65,685,739

6. Total Indirect (secondary) Impacts (from multipliers) - -

TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT IMPACTS $29,210,908 $65,685,739

7. Uncaptured Value

Local Use of Coralline Beaches $112,050 $303,750

Local Use from reef recreation $5,603 $60,750

Diving Consumer Surplus - -

Snorkeling Consumer Surplus - -

TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF REEF-RELATED TOURISM

AND RECREATION$29,328,561 $66,050,239

21

The resulting values of US$29,328,561-US$66,050,239 correspond to the estimated revenue derived from the direct tourism and recreational use of the reserve based on current market prices.

Accommodation Sector

Of the 15 properties used in this study, there were nine luxury resorts with room rates averaging US$245-US$2,300 and others with rates for associated villas ranging from US$1,500 to the astronomical figure of US$25,000 per night (BHTA 2009). Other accommodations in the area include one condominium which had the lowest room rate of US$80-US$125, and apartment buildings with nightly room rates between US$125-US$180. The estimated annual revenue remaining in the country from reef-related accommodation is US$25,798,902- US$56,534,883.

Costs

The actual number of employees per room and average hotel wages were not known and an inaccurate value would affect the estimated transfers to the local economy. The WRI tool recommends 1.5 employees per room as default value if no data are available. According to a recent study conducted for the Caribbean Hotel Association, larger properties have more employees per room with 1.3 employees for 3 star and 2.8 employees for 5 star accommodations (Tourism Global Inc. 2006). As a result two employees per room was used as the higher value. This resulted in an increase of approximately US$12,500 in revenue for wages and if the higher hourly wage estimate is used (Table 2) then an additional US$5,500 in annual income would be transferred into the general economy. Another uncertain value was the non-labour operating costs (as a percent of gross revenue) and so the default value was used. However, based on data collected in a previous study from five hotels and eight hoteliers, the profit margin of smaller hotels is around 27% and 14% for larger properties (Tourism Global Inc. 2006). They stated that profits are reduced due to:

• high electricity costs, as well as water and sewerage costs

• high import bills due to the lack of available food and beverage on the island and an unpredictable supply of building materials

• high construction costs (estimated at US$100,000 [3 star] to US$150,000 [5 star] per room)

(PA Consulting Group 2006)

Worker absenteeism rates also affected their returns with estimated costings of over US$500,000 for the period of January-August 2005.

Given that the estimated labour costs constitute approximately 25% of the gross profits, the sensitivity analysis was used to examine the change in net revenue if operating expenses were as high as 45% based on upper range revenue values (Figure 8 and Table 5). This resulted in a 43% reduction in net revenue (Table 5) and the total accommodation value decreasing by approximately US$5 million. It must be noted however, even if the higher estimate is closer to the actual cost, portions of the revenue

22

would not be completely lost from the local economy as it includes cost of utilities, some of which are provided by local companies.

Economic Valuation of Coral Reefs from Tourist

Accomodation: Current and Projected Revenues

and Transfers

$10,816,364

$6,203,651

$28,425,496

$28,425,496

$0

$5,000,000

$10,000,000

$15,000,000

$20,000,000

$25,000,000

$30,000,000

$35,000,000

$40,000,000

$45,000,000

Current Average Projected Average

$US

Transfers

Within the

Economy

Net Revenue

Remaining in

Country

Figure 8. Sensitivity analysis of accommodation revenue with an estimate of 25% and 45% of gross

profits spent annually on non-labour operating costs. Values in US dollars

Table 5. Tabular results of sensitivity analysis revealing the estimated net revenue based on 25% and

45% of gross profits spent annually on non-labour operating costs Values in US dollars

CURRENT AND PROJECTED REVENUES

Net Revenue Remaining in

Country$10,816,364 $6,203,651 -43%

Transfers Within the

Economy$28,425,496 $28,425,496 0%

TOTAL REEF-RELATED

ACCOMMODATION VALUE$39,241,860 $34,629,147 -12%

Taxes

At the current tax rate of 7.5% (BHTA 2009), the government could be receiving an estimated US$3,010,914-US$4,675,047 in revenue from the accommodation sector each year (Table 4). This represents a substantial income source for the government from a small number of properties.

25% 45%

25% 45%

23

MPA Revenue

The FPMR currently does not have a fee structure in place for the marine reserve and only collect fees at the visitor’s museum within the (terrestrial) park (FPMR 2010). Although these fees are not directly associated with the use of the marine reserve, the annual income of approximately US$1,675 has been added under “other values” as the museum highlights the coral reef ecosystem and maritime history of the island.

Hypothetical Fee Structure

In 2000, Sedley Associates Inc., AXYS Environmental Consulting (Barbados) Inc. and Scantlebury and Associates Ltd. developed a business plan for the Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve which included a proposed fee structure for the use of the reserve (Sedley Associates Inc. et al. 2000). Based on these proposed fees and the current estimates of recreational use, the reserve could be generating over US$950,000 in annual revenue (Table 6) for the MPA. This value however, is still an underestimation of the potential income as it only considers diving and snorkelling activities. Other revenue from sources such as mooring fees and commercial licenses as outlined in the proposed fee structure of the business plan were not accounted for in this hypothetical structure (Sedley Associates Inc. et al. 2000). The estimation also operates under a scenario where the scuba diving tags are mandatory and the snorkel tags are voluntary (Sedley Associates Inc. et al. 2000). This was done because at the time of the study, taxes paid by visitors were perceived to be high and there was only one MPA in the region charging a user fee for snorkelling (US Virgin Islands). They estimated that under a voluntary system, approximately 1 in every 3 snorkelers would purchase a tag (Sedley Associates Inc. et al. 2000). Table 6. Hypothetical income structure from the sale of snorkel and SCUBA tags to enter the

Folkestone Marine Reserve (US Dollars). The estimated revenue considers a mandatory fee for

divers and voluntary fee for snorkelers (Low value: 1 in 3 purchases per snorkeler, High value: 1 in 2

purchases per snorkeler)

Low Value High Value* Low Value High Value Low Value High Value

Snorkel Tags $3 $5 139,300 176,600 $116,083 $883,000

SCUBA Tags $5 $10 6,800 7,000 $34,000 $70,000

$150,083 $953,000

Estimated Value Added Tax (15%) $22,513 $142,950

Estimated Fee Estimated Annual Visitors Approximate Annual Revenue

* Recommended fees from Sedley Associates Inc. et al. 2000 report

The values in Table 6 apply the 1 in 3 estimate to the low value and 1 in 2 to the high value. The addition of Value Added Tax (VAT) could result in an additional US$22,513-US$142,950 in revenue based on the range of values outlined in the table. Caution should be applied as the introduction of fees could have a negative feedback where users go to other sites to avoid additional costs, unless the reserve and its infrastructure are well maintained (FPMR 2010). This is discussed further in the section titled “Future Research”.

24

Marine Recreation

Tourists make up the majority of all the recreational users of the marine reserve. This provides a significant source of revenue for the livelihoods of watersports and dive operators in the area. Although activities such as water-skiing and jet-ski rentals are very popular, only diving and snorkelling revenue are included in the analysis.

Diving

There are two dive shops located within the boundaries of the reserve, however dive sites in the area are also frequented by other nearby operators, especially those situated in the north of the island. Based on the values given from interviews with the dive shops, tourist exit surveys (Schuhmann 2010) as well as the observational data from FPMR staff, the approximate number of divers using the Folkestone reefs is between 6800-7000 divers per year. These visitors are estimated to spend between US$765,000 and US$827,000 annually (Table 7). Table 7. Estimated annual revenue earned from scuba diving on reefs within the FPMR (values in

$US)

DivingUS Dollars

(Low Estimate)

US Dollars

(High Estimate)

Number of Dives Taken:

At All-Inclusive Resorts - -At Other Resorts 13600 14000

a. Gross Dive Revenue

TOTAL $765,000 $827,000

b. Dive Costs

Total Wages $286,875 $310,125Non-Labor Operating Costs $286,875 $310,125

NET REVENUE $191,250 $206,750

Transfers within the Economy

Transfers to employees:

Total Wages $286,875 $310,125Service Charges $0 $0

Transfers to the Government:

Taxes $114,750 $124,050

TOTAL DIVING ECONOMIC IMPACT (net revenues plus transfers ) $592,875 $640,925 The majority of divers that use the reserve purchase 2 tank dives (2 dives per trip) and utilise the two diveshops mentioned above. Given their proximity to the reserve and limited data from other operations, the number of SCUBA certifications (Appendix IIa) is an estimation of those who use the 2 dive shops within the reserve. All other values are estimates on all dive operators using the area. The revenue that is attributed to all-inclusive hotels could not be determined as no information was obtainable.

25

Operating Costs and Service Charges

The dive shops provided estimates of their labour and non-labour operating costs as a percent of gross income, given that actual figures were not readily available. The resulting values were very close to defaults in the WRI Tool (difference of only +2.5%), combining to equal 75% of the gross income. The dive operators stated that they do not include a service charge in the cost of a dive however, on the other hand, they could be receiving some additional income from tips. The remaining net income was estimated at US$191,250-US$206,750 per year with the government receiving an estimated US$114,750-US$124,050 in taxes each year.

Snorkelling

Snorkelling is by far more popular and likely to generate more than eight times as much income as diving (Table 4). With the continuous flow of cruise ship passengers sailing the West Coast on catamarans and occasionally on other crafts, some community members say that West Coast snorkelling could be the second largest tourist attraction in Barbados behind Harrison’s Cave. These passengers are only able to enjoy one snorkel trip due to their short stay on the island and are usually provided with snorkel gear, a meal and drinks on the cruise. Overall the cost per trip varies with operator and vessel type however most of the values given were between US$25-US$60 per passenger. Demand plays an important role in determining the price of a snorkel trip on smaller crafts such as glass bottom boats. Potential clients are sometimes able to bargain for a competitive price especially when business is slow on a given day. Using this range of prices, as well as a range in the estimated number of passengers, the resulting net revenue is estimated to be between US $870,625 and US $2,649,000 per year (Table 8).

26

Table 8. Estimated annual revenue earned from snorkelling and boating within the FPMR (values in

$US)

Snorkeling and BoatingUS Dollars

(Low Estimate)

US Dollars

(High Estimate)

a. Gross Revenue

TOTAL $3,482,500 $10,596,000

b.Costs

Total Wages $1,393,000 $4,238,400

Non-Labor Operating Costs $1,218,875 $3,708,600

NET REVENUE $870,625 $2,649,000

Transfers within the Economy

Transfers to employees:

Total Wages $1,393,000 $4,238,400

Service Charges $0 $0

Transfers to the Government:

Taxes $522,375 $1,589,400

$2,786,000 $8,476,800TOTAL SNORKELING AND BOATING ECONOMIC IMPACT (net

revenues plus transfers )

Operating Costs

As the vessels varied from small boats to large 70 ft catamarans, operating costs vary greatly. However, using the default values in the WRI tool (75%), the calculated estimate of transfers to the local economy based on these costs ranged from US$2,611,875-US$7,947,000 annually with approximately US$522,375-US$1,589,400 in estimated tax revenue generated each year. Some of these operators do not include a service charge but may receive additional income from tips. No data were available as to the number of passengers that were from all-inclusive resorts however it is clear that the majority of these snorkelers are from cruise ships.

Local Use Valuation

Recreational activity amongst locals is mainly confined to the park and the foreshore. It was difficult to estimate the number of locals using the beach as this number varies greatly with the time of day and the day itself (e.g. public holidays). Locals visit the beaches within the reserve for morning exercises and the occasional recreation. Activity increases on Sundays and during school holidays with very few locals venturing out to sea to snorkel and dive. Based on observations and estimates from the FPMR staff, between 60-150 locals visit the beach regularly which contributes a value of approximately US$112,050-US$303,750 for beach use and US$5,603-US$60,750 for reef recreation (Table 4). These figures are based on the average hourly wage of the population and the hours spent using the beach and reef. This represents approximately 0.5% of the total economic impact from recreation and tourism.

27

WRI Fisheries Results

Commercial Fisheries Results

With the offshore pelagic landings included, the estimated economic impact from commercial fishing ranges from US$485,835-US$691,313 (Table 9). It would be difficult to prove that the revenue accrued from the sale of these fish (dolphinfish, flyingfish, marlin, kingfish, tuna, ocean triggerfish, sharks) could be attributed to the Folkestone reserve. One potential argument is that some of these species, or their prey, may spend a portion of their life cycle on the reef however this would be difficult to isolate. However, when the main offshore fish species are excluded, the resulting revenue based on reef fish and inshore pelagics is estimated at US$388,700-US$545,622, about 20% less. Table 9. Summary of total economic impact of reef-related fisheries surrounding the FPMR

FisheriesUS Dollars

(Low

Estimate)

US Dollars

(High

Estimate)

1. Commercial Fisheries (from estimated landings data)

Gross Revenue $104,112 $156,168

Net Revenue $67,673 $101,509

Transfers to the economy (Wages) $26,028 $39,042

Total Commercial Fishing Value $93,701 $140,552

2. Fish Processing and Cleaning

Gross Revenue from Processing $0 $0

Net Revenue from Processing Sale $0 $0

Transfers to the economy (Wages) $0 $0

Total Revenue from Cleaning Fish $8,135 $12,202Total Fish Processing and Cleaning Value $8,135 $12,202

3. Local Fishing

Value of Local Fish Sale $28,152 $42,228

Value of Local Fish Consumption $48,797 $73,195

Value of Local Fish Enjoyment $74,880 $74,880

Total Local (non-commercial) Fishing Value $151,829 $190,303

Total Direct Economic Impacts (including local use) $253,665 $343,057

4. Indirect (Secondary) Economic Impacts

Indirect Effects Harvesting Multiplier $0 $0

Indirect Effects Processing Multiplier $0 $0

Indirect Effects Overall Fisheries Multiplier $232,170 $348,256

TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT OF FISHERIES $485,835 $691,313

28

The most profitable species was inshore pelagics (jacks), which was estimated to generate over US$40,000 in gross revenue for the fishers each year. This value however was based on official data from two sites and estimates of daily catch from an interview with a seine boat fisher that frequents the Paynes Bay area just south of the reserve.

Fisher Operating Costs

One factor that will affect the accuracy of the calculation is the value given for non-labour operating costs such as fuel and gear. Fishers often complain that fuel is one of the most significant operating cost and that price increases can severely threaten their livelihood and the profitability of fishing. Interviews in St. Vincent and the Grenadines (Gill 2006) revealed that fishers believed that fuel may account for as much as 50% of costs whereas the default value used in the tool for is only 10%. Given the recent increase in fuel prices, the sensitivity analysis was used to estimate net revenue and total costs with non-labour operating costs of 30% and 50% of gross revenue (Figure 9). These values will result in a loss of US$50,000 and US$88,000 respectively, in net revenue throughout the industry.

Economic Valuation of Coral Reefs from

Commercial Fisheries: Current and Projected Costs

and Revenues

$138,631

$226,851

$113,425

$75,617

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

Current Projected

$US

Net

Revenues

Total Costs

Figure 9. Variations in net revenue and total costs with an estimate of 30% and 50% of gross revenue

paid to non- labour operating costs.

Fish Re-sale, Cleaning and Processing (Post Harvest Value)

The majority of all the offshore pelagic fish are cleaned at the official landing sites just outside the boundary of the reserve (Figure 6). Reef fish and inshore pelagics are often sold unprocessed to the customers. The average price for cleaning is approximately BDS$1 or US$0.50 (Mahon et al. 2007). The projected annual income from cleaning

30% 50%

29

was between US$8,135 and US$12,202. From observations it does not seem as if the fish landed at these locations receive any further processing. Vendors pay US$0.38 per day for the use of the fish market facilities however other operating costs are not known and therefore the default values in the tool were used (25% labour and 10% for non-labour operating costs). Vendors are likely to make additional income through the purchase, cleaning and re-sale of various fish, especially in the flying-fish and dolphinfish season and prices vary by customer. As no data were available specifically for the customer preference of the vendors within the study area, it would have been difficult to isolate and derive values for these revenue streams. Information from a recent study examining the post harvest value that is added to fish as it progresses through the economy revealed that a fish can accrue up to 7.4 times its landed value by the time it reaches the final customer (Mahon et al. 2007). This study examined the prices of fish from the time it is landed to when it is sold and re-sold to the customers by vendors, processors, fish-frys, restaurants, etc. Based on the information provided in the report on the groups of species in question, a multiplier of 3.23 was applied to the landed price to estimate the value added to the fish as it advances through the market. With this multiplier, an additional US$232,170 to US$348,256 in revenue is estimated to be derived from fishing (Table 9).

Local Use Valuation

Expert opinion and estimates were used to determine the percentage of locals involved in fishing for sale, consumption and enjoyment. This section required the use of default values for the following components as no data were readily available:

• Average annual days in activity (fishing for sale)

• Average catch per trip (fishing for consumption)

• Average time spent fishing (fishing for enjoyment)

It was estimated that approximately 3% of the locals from the Folkestone area fish for sale, consumption and enjoyment, therefore 1% was assigned to each category (~ 30 persons). Weight of catch per trip was based on a “normal” catch from a fish trap (15 kg) which was less than default value assigned in the tool (20 kg). The average annually days spent fishing for sale, consumption and enjoyment were based on the default values and fishing once and twice per week (52, 104 days per year) respectively (Appendix IIb). Based on a + 20% variation in catch, the estimated economic impact of local fishing is between US$151,829 - US$190,303 per year (Table 9).

Combined Values: WRI Fisheries and Tourism Results

When the WRI results are combined, the total estimated annual economic impact of the Folkestone reefs to fisheries, tourism and recreation grosses at US$45,040,046-US$102,330,722 with US$29,814,395-US$66,741,552 remaining in the local economy. The accommodation sector appears to be the main beneficiary of the reef-associated income with US$26-39 million in annual revenue or 87% of the total (Figure 10). This was followed by snorkelling which contributed ~9% of the total value. As there is no

30

fishing allowed in the reserve, it isn’t surprising that the fishing industry does not benefit significantly. Estimated contributions to the fishing industry only accounted for approximately 1.6% of this value and local use (combined non-commercial fishing and recreation) constitutes a mere 0.8-0.9% to the total.

Diving

2.0%

Other (FPMR

rentals,

souvenirs,etc)

0.1%

Fishinng

1.6%Snorkeling and

Boating

9%

Accommodation

86.9%

Figure 10. Estimated sectoral contributions (to the local economy) from the direct use of coral reefs

based on calculations from the WRI Fisheries, Tourism and Recreation Tools

Ecosystem Service Values: Value Transfer Methodology

During the study period, no detailed maps were available for the coastal habitats in the FPMR however some low resolution maps outlining the deeper reefs (not visible by satellite imagery) were on hand and overlaid onto the Google EarthTM imagery data from 2006. Based on the provided per unit values of each habitat type, the Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve contributes over US$3.5 million to the Barbadian economy each year (Table 10). Not all land cover types had a range of conversion values ($/ha/yr) and thus no range was calculated in this section.

31

Table 10. Ecosystem Service Values by cover type for the Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve (US

Dollars)

Ecosystem Type $/ha/yr

Total

Hectares

Total Contribution

(US Dollars)

Beach Near Dwelling $117,000 2.5 $295,980

Freshwater Herbaceous

Swamp $72,787 0.2 $17,115

Coral Reef Environ $100,000 32.3 $3,226,522

Mangrove $37,500 0.3 $11,396

TOTAL FPMR ECOSYSTEM

SERVICE VALUE $3,551,014

According to these results, coral reefs are the major contributor to the economic value of the FPMR (US$3.2 million), accounting for 91% of the overall value. The next most valuable habitat was beaches, which represented about 8% of the total value. Sparse mangroves are located around the reserve, the majority of which can be found around the Holetown Lagoon. These however are estimated to only contribute around US$11,400 annually. The Freshwater Herbaceous Swamp refers to the Holetown Lagoon, which attenuates the nutrient filled run off before it enters the nearshore environment. This could be contributing around US$17,100 each year for this and other ecological services.

Alternative Coral Reef Values

Numerous studies have been carried out to assess the partial or total economic value of coral reefs in the Caribbean (Chong et al. 2003) all with very disparate results. However, UNEP-WCMC (2006) presented a modest global estimate of between US$100,000 and US$600,000 in annual benefits per hectare of reef. Based on these values, the total ecosystem service value of the FPMR could exceed US$19.7 million per year.

Historical Value

An understanding of how human activities have impacted on coastal ecosystems in the past highlights the need for improved management to prevent their further degradation. Lewis (2002) attempted to determine the percent of reef area lost from select West Coast reefs over a 40 year period using aerial photography. Despite the possible errors that arise from using this technique, the study affirmed visible decline on almost all the reefs. The table below uses the percent loss values from five of the reefs located in the reserve and shows an estimated resulting loss of US$88,000-US$528,000 in annual revenue based on the value per hectare identified by UNEP-WCMC (2006).

32

Table 11. Estimated loss in the structure of five fringing reefs within the Folkestone Marine Reserve

(Lewis 2002) and estimates of the associated loss in annual benefits (UNEP-WCMC 2006)

ReefArea Loss (ha)

(1950-1991)*

Percent Loss (ha)

(1950-1991)*

Estimate Loss in

Value (low**)

Estimate Loss in

Value (high**)

Sandy Lane 3 0.5 9.6% $50,000 $300,000

Sunset Crest 1 0.14 5.9% $14,000 $84,000

Sunset Crest 2 (+0.01) (+0.9%) (+$1,000) (+$6,000)

Bellairs 1 0.22 5.9% $22,000 $132,000

Bellairs 2 0.03 1.9% $3,000 $18,000

Total 0.88 22.4% $88,000 $528,000* values may not be entirely accurate as they lie below the 10% confidence limit used in study** low -US$100,000/high -US$600,000 per hectare of reef

Comparison of the Valuation Methodologies & Results

Comparison of the Three Methodologies

Results

The combined WRI Fisheries and Tourism results estimate that the coral reefs (and associated ecosystems) within Folkestone Marine Reserve contribute at least US$29-66 million in annual revenue (remaining in the country) as opposed to the US$3.5 million derived from the Value Transfer methodology (Figure 11). Both values are an underestimation of the total economic value of the reef however it is quite clear that the Value Transfer results are by far the most exiguous.

$0

$10,000,000

$20,000,000

$30,000,000

$40,000,000

$50,000,000

$60,000,000

WRI Coral Reef Valuation

Total

Value Transfer Methodology

Evaluation Methodology

US Dollars

ValueTransfer

Fisheries

Tourism

Figure 11. Comparison of the results from the WRI Fisheries, Tourism and Recreation Tools (income

remaining in country) to the Value Transfer methodology

Although the WRI tools focus only on direct use and market values, the estimated annual contribution is over 12 times higher than that of the Value Transfer methodology which

33

should include both direct and indirect use values (e.g. shoreline protection). Also, potential overestimations such as those identified in the WRI Fisheries Tool (e.g. offshore pelagic values, low operating costs) do not significantly diminish the gap between the two values. There are a few possible theories to account for the large disparity in the results: High Room Rates: Although only 15 properties were included in the analysis, the premium room rates result in high returns for the hoteliers and the local economy. These likely exceed those of accommodations in many other tropical areas of the world. Size of Reserve and Shoreline Development: Reefs account for approximately 15% of the seafloor within Folkestone however given the small size of the reserve (2.1 km2), it only includes 0.32 km2 of reef. The shoreline is also heavy developed and much of its natural coastal habitat that provide valuable ecosystem services (e.g. mangroves and pollution absorption) have been removed. Coral Reef Value: The value provided in the Value Transfer methodology (Table 10) was based on studies conducted in other locations around the world however the application of these values to the current site have resulted in a value that is inadequate. Direct value transfer methods have been in demand especially in areas where other techniques are avoided due to the cost, time and expertise needed (Brander et al. 2006). However significant errors can arise primarily due to the lack of homogeneity between study sites. In relation to Barbados, the coveted beachfront land along Barbados’ West Coast (also referred to as the Platinum Coast) and its environs is home to many super-wealthy foreigners and residential properties that fall within the range of US$2-10 million (Global Property Guide 2009) and even higher values for the resorts and hotels in the area. Many of these multi-million dollar properties lie less than 25 m from the high water mark and rely heavily on the reefs for wave attenuation and sand production. Based on the property values in the area, the avoided damages value, that is, the cost or property damage avoided by the presence of the Folkestone reefs would likely be in the tens or hundreds of million dollars (WRI 2009). Within the past 3-4 years, there has been considerable beach erosion in the area, necessitating the immediate construction of groynes and other emergency works. This has been attributed to variations in sand movement and the overall degradation of the reefs in the nearshore (Baird & Associates 2008). The estimated cost of the engineering work to stabilise the sand within two beach cells, one inside and one outside of the Folkestone boundary is close to US$7 million (Baird & Associates 2008). This only reflects a fraction of the replacement cost value of the reefs, that is, the cost of man-made infrastructure or products to replace services provided by nature (WRI 2009). The Government of Barbados is also in the process of completing their Holetown Beach Improvement Project to enhance lateral beach access and stabilise beach width along areas of Holetown (CZMU 2010). This project, which also lies within the Folkestone boundaries, has a construction budget of US$3 million. Based on the costs of these remediation works, the replacement cost value of Folkestone reefs and associated

34

beaches is significantly higher than the US$3.5 million calculated in the third methodology. Possible Economic Variances by Reef Type: All three of the major reef types around Barbados can be found within the Folkestone Marine Reserve (fringing, patch and bank reefs). Given the variations in depths, topography and species composition of each type of reef, it could be expected that the value of the nearshore fringing reefs (which make up the majority of reef area in the reserve) varies from the value of the deeper reefs. These reefs offer more shoreline protection and could be valued more than an “average” reef at this site.

Methodologies

The differences in data requirements, analysis and presentation of results all contribute to the many differences in the strengths and weaknesses of each tool (Tables 12&13). Table 12. Summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the WRI Economic Valuation methodologies

(Fisheries, Tourism and Recreation)

Strengths Weaknesses

Facilities dynamic data: allows updating and expansion

Diverse data requirements increase reliance on expert opinion

Detailed and allows for categorisation of results

Requires full cooperation of relevant agencies and is dependent on the quality of their data

When new data is added, outputs of results & corrections are generated instantaneously

Errors are magnified with some calculations

Sensitivity analysis to account for potential errors in the data

Can encourage overconfidence in results if warnings about data quality are ignored

Accounts for often overlooked value of local use

Currently no valuation of economic impact of cruise ships and shoreline protection

Some level of adaptability: can be applied to sites where data availability is basic or exhaustive

Results are not visual and not as easy to communicate as the Value Transfer method

More data improves applicability of results (site-specific)

Potential for future development: inclusion of other values such as shoreline protection

35

Table 13. Summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the Value Transfer methodology (Troy and

Wilson 2006)

Strengths Weaknesses

Availability of data source (Google Earth TM)

Dependent on quality of aerial/satellite data (if absent requires intensive ground-truthing)

Rapid results

Results are static

Results are visual (maps) and can be easily communicated

Requires knowledge of mapping software (not ubiquitous)

No extensive data collection required from multiple agencies

Economic values not developed in the Caribbean.

Resulting dataset has wide applications for spatial analysis and management (e.g. changes in forested area and associated value over time)

Some values (e.g. coral reefs) vary greatly by site and use of recommended values can be misleading.

The WRI tools require variable amounts of revenue and use data which can be continuously modified and updated with a sensitivity analysis in cases of uncertainty. One short coming of the WRI methodology is that significant effort is needed by the data collector to liaise with and acquire data from several agencies. Data acquisition from multiple departments can be an onerous task and many times the quality of data is variable. The Value Transfer methodology however may not require any external data sources as most of the data should be available via the internet. This method however usually involves using static data which would not account for natural and anthropogenic changes to ecological features such as beach transformation or recent deforestation. Another weakness to the methodology is the fact that values attributed to each land cover type were not developed in the Caribbean and its applicability to the region has not been thoroughly tested. This value can be very site-specific, as was evident in this case study where the value of the reef was dependant on the altered natural and built environment on the shoreline. The Value Transfer methodology also may require knowledge of mapping software (e.g. ArcMap, Coral Point) which may be lacking in the organisations that are seeking to carry out the valuation.

Comparison Between Study Sites

A comparision of the values derived from the other ReefFix exercises in the region highlight the variations in results between study sites (Figure 12). It also underscores the differences in the two methodologies. These sites varied in the size of study area, local population, number of fishers and tourists, type and size of recreational operations and accommodations. The Grenada South Coast valuation which has the highest overall result examined an area of 8400ha or 4000 times the size of the Folkestone reserve. On the other hand, even though the Tobago Cays marine park is only 140ha, the amount of live reef in the area accounts for over US$100 million under the value transfer methodology.

36

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Tobago Cays

SVG

Montego Bay

Jamaica

Dominican

Republic

Moriah

Harbour Cay

Bahamas

Grenada

South Coast

Folkestone,

Barbados

Soufriere St.

Lucia

Case Study Site

US$ Million

WRI Coral Reef Valuation Total

Value Transfer Methodology

Figure 12. Comparison of the ReefFix results from seven countries highlighting the differences

between the results of the WRI and Value Transfer methodology

Lessons Learned From the Data Collection Phase:

Identification of Data Gaps Listed below are some of the significant data gaps identified in this study and some lessons that can be applied to other similar exercises:

WRI Tourism Tool

Occupancy and Room Rates: Property owners are often very sensitive about publicising their occupancy rates. However an inaccurate estimate could seriously impact the resulting values, especially for larger properties with very high room rates. As a result, care must be taken when applying estimates and should be confirmed with experts in the industry, using the sensitivity analysis where applicable. Leakages: For the purposes of this study, leakages refer to the percent of rooms that are not owned by locals. This is based on the assumption that these property owners transfer their profits outside of the country/economy of interest back to their home territories. Economic leakages in the tourism sector however commonly refer to the import bills accrued by players in the industry. The only value sourced up to the time of this report

37

was from a 2002 report which indicated that Barbados’ leakage rate could be close to 66% (Karagiannis & Witter 2004). In some hotels, a large portion of consumable (toiletries) and non-consumable materials (furnishings) used by guests are imported. Although this maybe captured in the leakage estimate used in the tool, it is difficult to determine how this second definition of leakages would affect the result without real data.

Marine Recreation: On any given weekday during the tourist season, the waters in the southern zone of the reserve are packed with speed boats, catamarans and other motorised craft (FPMR 2010). Based on data from the various sources, there could be over 140,000 snorkelling and diving visitors to the reserve each year. However the calculated revenue in the WRI Tourism and Recreation Tool is still an underestimation as it does not account for popular activities such as water-skiing and jet-ski rentals (Table 14). A few operators in the area stated that the average price for these activities lie between US$35-US$60 per hour and with well over 40 users per day, this could be contributing close to US$0.5 million dollars a year. Where possible, research should be done so as to include these revenues into the results even though this can prove to be quite difficult (AXYS et al. 2000). Conversely, another significant issue to note is the proportion of the catamaran snorkelling revenue that can be rightly attributed to the reserve. Persons are required to pay US$25-US$60 for the cruise however this includes snorkelling at other stops along the coast such as a turtle feeding site in Paynes Bay. Other methods may have to be employed to attempt to isolate the proportion of this revenue that is generated as a result of the Folkestone reefs only.

Cruise Tourism: Despite the fact that the WRI tool did not have a cruise tourism component, a large portion of the revenue generated from this sector is captured in the snorkelling value. Tourism Multipliers & Other Revenue: The benefits of the tourism dollar extend to many sectors in Barbados. In 2007, tourist expenditures were above US$950 million with an average daily expenditure of US$127.48 for each tourist (CTO n.d.). It is expected that long stay visitors spend more than cruise passengers and as no data is available regarding the number of each of these two groups using the reserve, it would be difficult to determine the broader economic impact of these visitors. Another unexplored revenue stream is the visiting researchers to the Bellairs Institute who contribute to the local economy through their living expenses and purchasing materials for research (Table 14).

WRI Fisheries Tool

Limited Landings Data: Official data were only available for two landing sites surrounding the reserve. Other data were garnered through interviews which often result in an overestimation when average daily catch is extrapolated into annual values (Gill 2006).

38

Although significant, no landings data were available for conch and lobster, which are known to be harvested in the area. No data were available for bait fishing as well. One very significant fishery which is poorly understood is spearfishing. Landings data were also unavailable for this fishery as spearfishers usually cover large expanses of the coast on each trip and fish are landed at any beach of their choice. Based on observations, this fishery could be significantly impacting the shallow-shelf fish stocks and could have landings comparable to the trap fishery. Informal recreational (game) fishing also could be active in the area where tourists pay to fish on small artisanal vessels. Given the numerous data gaps often associated with the under-reported multi-species, multi-gear fisheries of the Caribbean, it is recommended that the sensitivity analysis be applied to the landings data. Data analysts should also take note of what species groups are included as some may not want to include offshore pelagics when valuing coral reefs.

Market Distribution: Fishers have various options of potential customers upon landing fish. Depending on the type of purchaser, the cost of the fish can vary significantly. Vendors and processors usually buy fish at the lowest value per unit weight and consumers, restaurants and hotels pay higher rates (Mahon et al. 2007). It must be noted however that the customer preference of fishers will vary by landing site and that fishers may be generating more income that estimated if for example they sell the majority of their catch directly to consumers and not to vendors. This further exemplifies the need for the sensitivity analysis in the Fisheries Tool. Table 14. Examples of uncaptured revenue from the Folkestone WRI Valuation

Category Examples

Scientific Research living expenses, materials, wages and salaries (staff)

Other Watersports waterskiing, jet-ski rentals

Other Tourist Expenditure other expenditure within the park (e.g. vending)

Fishery lobster, conch, spearfishing, bait fishing

Recreational Fishing Paid fishing trips (game fishing or otherwise)

Tourism and Recreation

Fishing

Ecosystem Service Values: Value Transfer Methodology

Coral Reef Value: Given the wide variety of values attributed to annual net benefits from reefs in the Caribbean (Chong et al. 2003) researchers should choose a value which may be more relevant to their site. However more high quality valuation studies need to be conducted in the Caribbean to develop more representative values (Brander et al.2007).

39

Satellite Imagery: Using satellite imagery to identify land cover types is advantageous as the data has been made ubiquitous through services such as Google Earth TM. It must be noted however that some difficulty will occur when attempting to isolate various features due to the quality of the image (e.g. low resolution, high cloud cover) and the transient nature of some land cover types (e.g. beach width). One should also be aware of the age of the images in use and report accordingly.

Further Research The reefs within the Folkestone reserve are providing invaluable services to the tourism industry within the St. James area as well as other benefits that are transferred throughout the local economy. With more data available, a more accurate estimate of the economic impact and value could be derived. Listed below are some potential areas of research:

• Fill necessary data gaps to reduce the number of assumptions used in the analysis

(e.g. local recreational use and fishing)

• Assessment of bait fishing, spearfishing, conch and lobster catch and effort

• More accurate values for snorkelling and diving usage

• Quantification and inclusion of other major revenue generating activities, namely

waterskiing and jet-ski rentals

• Willingness to pay study on user fees for the Folkestone reserve

• Assessment of the shoreline protection value of fringing reefs on the West Coast,

involving an analysis of coastal property values

• Total Economic Valuation of Barbados’ coastal areas

Some of Barbados’ major infrastructure (power plant, government offices), major towns (Holetown, Speightstown) and tourism plant lie on the coasts protected by nearshore fringing reefs. These reefs are also suffering from rapid degradation due to anthropogenic activities (Hunte et al.1998, Tosic et al. 2007). Investigations into the economic benefits of these reefs could motivate increased interest in the preservation of this important resource and sustainable development along the coasts. This will require detailed social, oceanographic and ecological studies (AXYS et al. 2000) that necessitate much time, cost and expertise. With regards to the implementation of a user fee, Sedley Associates Inc. et al. (2000) outlined a potential fee structure in a business plan for the reserve. In that document they also recommended that the proper infrastructure be installed so that persons could “see what they are paying for” (Sedley Associates Inc. et al. 2000). One other preliminary step should be to consult with the resource users to determine how this could impact on their operations. If a fee is too high then they may seek to frequent other areas.

Conclusion The Folkestone reefs are estimated to be contributing over US$30 million in annual revenue or roughly 0.6% of the national GDP through their direct use. This value is an

40

underestimation due to missing data and unaccounted non-use values. With such revenue being derived from this small stretch of coastline, a value for the total economic contribution from all of Barbados’ reefs would be astronomical. Folkestone is a heavily used area and provides income for many stakeholders however the current degradation of coastal habitats is threatening not only their livelihoods but the local economy. Interventions are even more urgent now as the threat of climate change presents new challenges for management. For resource managers, it is hoped that this exercise will spur an interest in the application of valuation methodologies in the future management of the island’s coasts. The methodologies such as those identified in this study communicate the benefits of marine ecosystems to policy makers that relate more readily to economic figures than to conservation theory and data. Managers can use these cost-effective techniques to analyse and create economic output that can be presented both numerically and graphically, building a bridge between scientific research and policy making. However users should always be aware of its limitations and proceed cautiously recognising the lack of precision that is often encountered in the field of environmental economics. Using ranges of values is recommended for the methods used in this study. For the application of ReefFix to Barbados, the results of this project should be supplemented with detailed primary valuation studies (e.g. Schuhmann 2010), especially those that can estimate the shoreline protection and non-use value of the resource.

41

References AXYS Environmental Consulting (Barbados) Inc., Environmental Planning Group, Gillespie and Steel Associates and Bellairs Research Institute. 2000. Feasibility Studies of Harrison’s Cave and Associated Sites, Carlisle Bay, and Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve: Baseline Report. Folkestone Marine Management Area. Prepared for the Ministry Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, Environmental Special Projects Unit. March 2000. 164pp. Baird & Associates. 2008. Barbados West Coast Beach and Reef Restoration Project: Design Update- Executive Summary. Produced for the West Coast Beach and Reef Restoration Project Inc. by Baird & Associates. 1 July 2008. Barbados Hotel and Tourism Association (BHTA). 2009. Personal Communication. Barbados Hotel and Tourism Association, St. Michael, Barbados. December 2009. Barbados Hotel and Tourism Association (BHTA). 2010. National Consultation 2010 – BHTA Working in Partnership. Presented by Mrs. Sue Springer, Executive Vice-President of the Barbados Hotel and Tourism Association, St. Michael, Barbados. 1st March 2010. Barbados Statistical Service. n.d. Statistical Bulletin: Continuous Household Labour Force Survey: July to September 2009. <http://www.barstats.gov.bb/files/ documents/LFS_Bulletin_3Q2009.pdf>. Accessed April 2010. Barbados Statistical Service. 2010. Redatam. <http://www.barstats.gov.bb/census/ redatam-1/>. Accessed April 2010. Brander, L.M., Van Beukering, P. and H.S.J. Cesar. 2007. The Recreational Value of Coral Reefs: a Meta-Analysis. Ecological Economics 63(1): 209-218. Brathwaite, A., Oxenford, H. and R. Roach. 2008. Barbados: A Coral Paradise. Miller Publishing Co. Ltd., Barbados. Burke, L., Greenhalgh, S., Prager, D. and E. Cooper. 2008. Coastal Capital: The Economic Contribution of Coral Reefs in Tobago and St. Lucia. WRI Working Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington DC. 66pp. Available online at http://www.wri.org/publications. Caribbean Tourism Organization. n.d. 2007 Country Statistics. <http://www.onecaribbean.org/statistics/2007stats/default.aspx>. Caribbean Tourism Organization, Bridgetown, Barbados. Accessed on 26 January 2010.

42

Caribbean Tourism Organization. 2010. 2009 Latest Statistics. Caribbean Tourism Organization, Bridgetown, Barbados. <http://www.onecaribbean.org/statistics/>. Accessed February 26 2010. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 2009. CIA World Factbook: Barbados. <https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bb.html>. Central Intelligence Agency, Langley, Washington, USA. Accessed on 28 December 2009. Chong, C.K., Ahmed, M. and H. Balasubramanian. 2003. Economic Valuation of Coral Reefs at the Caribbean: Literature Review and Estimation Using Meta-Analysis. Paper presented at the Second International Tropical Marine Ecosystems Management Symposium, Manilla, Philippines. 24-27 March, 2003. Coastal Zone Management Unit (CZMU) 2005. Dive Sites of Barbados. Coastal Zone Management Unit, St. Michael, Barbados. Coastal Zone Management Unit (CZMU) 2010. Holetown Beach Improvement Project. <http://www.coastal.gov.bb/ pageselect.cfm?page=75>. Coastal Zone Management Unit, St. Michael, Barbados. Accessed on 14 April 2010. Conservation International. 2008. Economic Values of Coral Reefs, Mangroves, and Seagrasses: A Global Compilation. Center for Applied Biodiversity Science, Conservation International, Arlington, VA, USA. Cooper, E., Burke, L., and N. Bood. 2009. Coastal Capital: Belize. The Economic Contribution of Belize’s Coral Reefs and Mangroves. WRI Working Paper. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA. 53pp. Available online at http://www.wri.org/publications. Cumberbatch, J. 2001. Case Study of the Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve, Barbados. Caribbean Natural Resources Institute (CANARI) Technical Report No. 281. 11pp. Department of Sustainable Development. 2009. ReefFix: An ICZM Coral Reef Restoration, Watershed Management and Capacity Building Demonstration Project for the Caribbean. <http://www.oas.org/dsd/IABIN/Component1/ReefFix/ReefFix.htm>. Organization of American States & Inter-American Biodiversity Information Network (IABIN). Washington DC, USA. Accessed on 28 December 2009. Fisheries Division. 2001. Barbados Fisheries Management Plan 2001-2003. Barbados Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Barbados. 72 pp. Fisheries Division. 2004. Barbados Fisheries Management Plan 2004-2006. Barbados Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Barbados. 67 pp. Fisheries Division. 2010. 2007-2009 data for Weston and Paynes Bay Landings Sites. Barbados Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Barbados.

43

Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve. 2010. Personal Communication. Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve, St. James, Barbados. January-March 2010. Food and Agriculture Organisation. 2003. Fishery and Aquaculture Country Profiles: Barbados. <http://www.fao.org/fishery/countrysector/FI-CP_BB/en>. Accessed 28 December 2009. Gill, D. 2006. Socioeconomic Profile of Fisheries in the Grenadines. MSc Research Paper. Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies (CERMES), University of the West Indies, Cave Hill Campus, Barbados. 80 pp. Global Property Guide 2009. Prices a Little Weak in Barbados, Yields Poor <http://www.globalpropertyguide.com/Caribbean/Barbados/Rental-Yields>. Accessed on 15th April 2010. Hunte, W., Vermeer, L.A., and R. Goodridge. 1998. Temporal Changes in Coral Reef Communities on the West and South Coasts of Barbados: 1987-1997. Technical Report for the Coastal Zone Management Unit of the Government of Barbados and the Inter-American Development Bank.142pp. Karagiannis, N. and M. Witter. 2004. The Caribbean Economies in an Era of Free Trade. Ashgate Publishing Ltd. Lewis, J. B. 1985. Groundwater Discharge onto Coral Reefs, Barbados (West Indies). In Proceedings of the Fifth International Coral Reef Congress, eds. C. Gabrie and M. Harmelin. Tahiti. Lewis, J. 2002. Evidence from Aerial Photography of Structural Loss of Coral Reefs at Barbados, West Indies. Coral Reefs. 21: 49-56. Machel, H.G. 1999. Geology of Barbados - A Brief Account of the Island's Origin and its Major Geological Features. Barbados Mus. Hist. Soc., Bridgetown, Barbados. 44 pp. Mahon, R., Parker, C., Sinckler, T., Willoughby, S. and J. Johnson. 2007. The Value of Barbados’ Fisheries: A Preliminary Assessment. Fisheries Division, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, Barbados. Fisheries Management Plan Public Information Document No.2: 24pp. McConney, P. 2001. Multi-Objective Management of Inshore Fisheries in Barbados: a Biodiversity Perspective. Coastal and Marine Management Program, Caribbean Conservation Association, St. Michael, Barbados. 37pp. Nicholls, J. 2008. Folkestone Marine Reserve & Marine Museum. Researched and presented by John Nicholls, Manager, Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve, St. James, Barbados. March 5th 2008.

44

PA Consulting Group. 2006. Taxation and Operating Costs for the Caribbean Hotel Sector, Prepared for the Caribbean Hotel Association, Barbados. November 2006. Rakitin, A. and D.L. Kramer. 1996. Effect of a Marine Reserve on the Distribution of Coral Reef Fishes in Barbados. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 131: 97–113. Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. 2008. World Population Prospects: The 2008 Revision. <http://esa.un.org/unpp>. Accessed on December 28, 2009. Schuhmann, P.W. 2010. The Economic Value of Coastal Resources in Barbados: Vacation Tourists’ Perceptions, Expenditures and Willingness to Pay. Project report on the Economic Value of Coastal and Marine Resources in Barbados, Ministry of Tourism, Barbados. 35pp. Sedley Associates Inc., AXYS Environmental Consulting (Barbados) Inc. and Scantlebury and Associates Ltd. 2000. Feasibility studies of Harrison’s Cave and Associated Site, Carlisle Bay Marine Park and Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve. Business Plan for the Proposed Carlisle Bay Marine Recreational Park and Folkestone Marine Management Area. July 2000. 101pp. Tosic, M., Bonnell, R.B. and P. Dutilleul. 2007. Environmental impacts of runoff on the Bellairs fringing reef, Barbados. Dept. of Bioresource Engineering, Dept. of Plant Science, McGill University. Thesis submitted to McGill University in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Science. Tourism Global Inc. 2006. The Caribbean Accommodation Sector as a Consumer of Locally Produced Goods and Services and Contributor to Government Revenues. Prepared by Tourism Global Inc. on behalf of the Caribbean Hotel and Tourism Association, Coral Gables, Florida. Troy, A. and M.A. Wilson. 2006. Mapping Ecosystem Services: Practical Challenges and Opportunities in Linking GIS and Value Transfer. Ecological Economics 60 (2006): 435-449. United Nations Environment Programme-World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC). 2006. In the Front Line: Shoreline Protection and Other Ecosystem Services from Mangroves and Coral Reefs. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. 33 pp. World Resources Institute. 2009. Value of Coral Reefs & Mangroves in the Caribbean Economic Valuation Methodology V3.0. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, USA. January 2009. .

45

Appendix I: GIS Land Cover M

ap of the Folkestone M

arine Reserve

46

Appendix IIa: List of Referen

ces for Data Sources (WRI Tourism

and Recreation Tool)

Coral Reef Valuation Tool: Tourism

1. Accommodation Component

• Average hourly hotel wage

US$8.30-U

S$9.00

US$8.30 (estimate based on earnings

bands in Q3 2008 [Barbados Statistical

Service n.d.] &

GDP per capita [C

IA

World Factbook 2009])

($9) Based on GDP per capita

($18,500)/ 52wks/ 40hrs (GDP per

capita value -C

IA W

orld Factbook

2009)

• Hours worked per week per employee

40 hours

Defaults from tool

• Employees per room

1.5-2

Defaults from tool

Tourism

Global Inc. 2006

• Non-labour operating costs as a percentage of gross

accommodation revenue

25%-45%

Defaults from tool

PA Consulting Group 2006

• Tax rate

7.5%

BHTA 2009

• Service charge

10%

BHTA 2009

• Leakage estimate (%

of rooms foreign-owned)

63%

BHTA 2009

• Average room rate for accommodation sector as a whole

US$968

BHTA 2009

• Average occupancy rate for accommodation sector as a whole

(-20% for low value, no change

for high)

BHTA 2009

Low estim

ate due to lower arrivals for

2009

• Average number of rooms for accommodation sector as a

whole

90 rooms per property

BHTA 2009

• Number of accommodations in study area

15 properties

BHTA 2009

• Avg number of nights stay

9.8 nights

CTO 2007 Country Statistics

• Percent of visitors using reef

59%-85%

Schuhmann 2010 (participated in

underwater viewing)

High value is estim

ate of reef and

beach use

• Average Number of 'Stay Over' V

isitors

39,500 visitors

Total rooms X %

occupied X avg. # of

occupants X 365 days / average length

of stay

2. Diving Component

• Total annual visitors to study site

6,800-7,000

13.12% of 9.99% (Schuhmann 2010)

of annual arrivals (C

TO 2010)

Dive shop interviews/FPMR 2010

• Average number of dives per diver

2 dives

Schuhmann 2010

Dive shop interviews

• Average price of dive

US$50.00-U

S$52.50

Schuhmann 2010

Dive shop interviews

Data

Data Source

Data Source

47

• Number of dive certifications

200 certifications

Dive shop interviews (values from one

shop X 2)

• Price per dive certification

US$425

Dive shop interviews

• Proportion of dives taken at all-inclusive resorts

N/A

No data supplied

• Average price per dive of equipment rental

same as average price

Dive shop interviews

• Proportion of all dives with equipment rental

85%

Schuhmann 2010

• Percent of gross revenue for labour costs in diving

37.5%

Dive shop interviews

• Percent of gross revenue for other costs in diving

37.5%

Dive shop interviews

• Tax rate in diving

15%

Dive shop interviews

• Service charge in diving

0%

Dive shop interviews

3. Snorkel and Boating Component

• Total annual visitors to study site

139,300-176,600

Watersport &

catam

aran operators

FPMR 2010

• Average number of snorkel trips per snorkeler

1 trip

Catam

aran operator/s

• Average price of snorkel trip

US$25-U

S$60

Watersport &

catam

aran operators

FPMR 2010

• Proportion of snorkel trips taken at all-inclusive resorts

N/A

No data supplied

• Average price per snorkel trip of equipment rental

same as average price

Watersport &

catam

aran operators

FPMR 2010

• Proportion of all snorkel trips with equipment rental

~100%

Catam

aran operator/s

• Percent of gross revenue for labour costs in snorkeling

40%

Defaults from tool

• Percent of gross revenue for other costs in snorkeling

35%

Defaults from tool

4. Marine Park Component

• Fees collected (visitor, m

arine vessel, or other)

US$1675

Marine Museum visitors. No entrance

fee for Marine Reserve.

• Any taxes collected if applicable

0FPMR 2010

• Collection costs if applicable

N/A

48

5. Local Use Valuation

• Population of study area

3,000 persons

~1200 in Holetown (extrapolated from

the 2000 Census [B

arbados Statistical

Service. 2010]). Approxim

ating the

additional 2 small communities to the

north and south giving a total of ~3000

• Average hourly wage

US$8.30

US$8.30 (estimate based on earnings

bands in Q3 2008 [Barbados Statistical

Service n.d.] &

GDP per capita [C

IA

World Factbook 2009])

• Percentage of local population visiting coralline beaches for

pleasure or engaging in reef recreation outside of organized trips

2-5%/0.1-1%

FPMR 2010 / Estim

ate from

observation

• Average number of visits per person per year (to coralline

beaches and for reef recreation)

300 visits

FPMR 2010 / Estim

ate from

observation

• Average duration of visit (to coralline beaches and to reefs for

recreation)

45 m

inFPMR 2010 / Estim

ate from

observation

6. Additional Inform

ation

• FPMR Souvenir Shop Revenue

US$15,000

FPMR 2010

• Snorkel Rental Revenue

US$27,500

FPMR 2010

• Visitor Museum Revenue

US$1,675

FPMR 2010

• Non-labour operating costs

25%

Estim

ate from other default values

• Exchange Rate

1:1

US Dollars

• GDP

US $2.639 billion

Central Intelligence Agency W

orld

Factbook 2009

• GDP/capita

US$18,500

Central Intelligence Agency W

orld

Factbook 2009

• Population Growth Rate

0.24%

Population Division of the Departm

ent

of Economic and Social Affairs 2008

• Annual GDP from Fisheries Sector

0.5%

FAO Country Profile 2003

49

Coral Reef Valuation Tool: Fisheries

Data

Data Source

Data Source

1. Fish landings approach

a. Year data collected

2007-2009

Fisheries Division 2010

Fisher interviews

b. Species/species group

aggregated data

Fisheries Division 2010

Fisher interviews

c. Sales price for each species/species group per unit weight at each

landing site (kg/pound/m

etric ton)

aggregated data

Mahon et al. 2007

Fisher interviews

d. Weight (kg/pound/m

etric ton) of each species of fish caught at each

landing site

aggregated data (w

ith +/-20%

variation)

Fisheries Division 2010

Fisher interviews

2. Individual fisherm

en

a. Year data collected

Fisher interviews (aggregated with

official data)

b. Number of full-tim

e and part-time fishermen

Fisher interviews

c. Employment status of surveyed fishermen (full or part time)

Fisher interviews

d. Species caught

Fisher interviews (aggregated with

official data)

e. Average weight (kg/pound) catch/w

eek by species

Fisher interviews (aggregated with

official data)

f. Number of weeks of year fishermen fish

Fisher interviews (aggregated with

official data)

g. Sales price of each species/species group per unit weight

(kg/pound/m

etric ton)

Mahon et al. 2007

3. Reef extent

a. Area of reef

32.3 ha

Google Earth Satellite M

ap, Coastal

Zone Managem

ent Unit Dive Site Map

b. Average annual reef productivity (fish catch per unit area of reef) –

default values available in tool

c. Average price of fish caught on reef

US$3.91

Mahon et al. 2007 &

based on landings

at study site

Appendix IIb: List of Referen

ces for Data Sources (WRI Fisheries Tool)

50

B. Fish Processing Valuation

• Year data collected

N/A

No data of fish processing

• Purchaser

• Species/species group processed

• Weight of purchased fish

• Purchase price for each species by unit weight

• Sale price for each species by unit weight

C. Fish Cleaning

1. Using W

eight Calculations Approach

a. Percent of fish catch (kg/pound/m

etric ton) cleaned

31.7%

Mahon et al. 2007

b. Average value added per weight unit (kg/pound/m

etric ton) of fish

cleaned

US$0.50

Mahon et al. 2007

2. Using Cleaners by Landing Site Approach

a. Number of cleaners at each landing site selected

N/A

Method not used

b. Average number of days worked by cleaners at each landing site per

year

c. Average number of hours per day worked by cleaners at each

landing site

d. Average revenue per hour received from fish cleaning at each

landing site

D. Local Fishing

• Population of defined site

3,000 persons

~1200 in Holetown (extrapolated from

the 2000 Census [Barbados Statistical

Service. 2010]). Approxim

ating the

additional 2 small communities to the

north and south giving a total of ~3000

• Percent of population fishing for sale, for consumption, for

enjoyment

1% each

Estim

ate

51

• Average weight catch per trip for those engaging in local fishing for

sale and consumption

15kg/ 10kg (with 20%

variation)

Estim

ate

• Sale price/value of average unit weight of catch for those engaging in

local fishing for sale/consumption

US$3.91

Sam

e as commercial (Mahon et al.

2007)

• Average hourly wage for the population

US$8.30

US$8.30 (estimate based on earnings

bands in Q3 2008 [Barbados Statistical

Service n.d.] &

GDP per capita [C

IA

World Factbook 2009])

• Average time spent fishing per day for those in the population

engaging in local fishing for enjoyment

3 hours

Defaults from tool

• Average annual days people at the site engage in local fishing for

sale,consumption, or enjoyment

20/52/104 days

Default value and estim

ate based on

fishing for consumption once a week

and recreational fishing twice a week

E. Multipliers & Additional Data

• Multiplier estim

ate for overall fisheries sector

3.23

Mahon et al. 2007

• Exchange Rate

1:1

US Dollars

• GDP

US $2.639 billion

Central Intelligence Agency W

orld

Factbook 2009

• GDP/capita

US$18,500

Central Intelligence Agency W

orld

Factbook 2009

• Population Growth Rate

0.24%

Population Division of the Departm

ent

of Economic and Social Affairs 2008

• Annual GDP from Fisheries sector

0.5%

FAO Country Profile 2003

52

Appendix III: Agenda for Barbados ReefFix Workshop

FOLKESTONE PARK AND MARINE RESERVE

OAS IABIN ReefFix Workshop Agenda

April 21st-22

nd 2010

Day 1

Venue: Pan-American Health Organisation, Abergeldie, Dayrells Road, Christ

Church

8:30 am Opening Remarks: IABIN Focal Point -- Mr. Lionel Weekes, Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Environment, Water Resources and Drainage and Mr. Francis McBarnette, OAS Representative

9:00 The History of the Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve: Mr. John Nicholls, Folkestone Park Manager

9:30 IABIN and the Thematic Networks -- IABIN’s Marine Classification

Standard - The ETN Marine Ecosystem Standard Format

MPAGlobal: the Development of the Caribbean Protected Areas

Database Initiative – CPADI - MPAGlobal Database

Payments for Ecological Services in the Americas Hemisphere

Ecosystem Valuation Methodologies

Results of the Jamaica, Dominican Republic, Grenada, and St Vincent

Workshops: Mr. Richard Huber, Department of Sustainable Development, OAS

10:30 Break

10:45 Presentation of the Results of the 3 Valuation Methodologies for

Folkestone Marine Reserve (and Environs): Mr. David Gill, Marine Database Specialist

Facilitated Discussion on Cost Recovery in Marine Parks: Hotel Bed

Tax vs Entrée Fee: Mr. Richard Huber, Department of Sustainable Development, OAS.

12:30 pm Lunch

1:30-4:30 Review of Marine Projects in Barbados: 5-10 minute PowerPoint Presentations on Some of the Major Marine Activities within Each Organization:

1. Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources and Drainage 2. Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve 3. National Conservation Commission 4. Fisheries Division 5. Coastal Zone Management Unit 6. Centre for Resource Management and Environmental Studies 7. Bellairs Research Institute 8. Ministry of Tourism/Barbados Tourism Authority

53

9. Barbados Hotel and Tourism Association 10. Barbados Marine Trust

Day 2

Venue: Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve

9:00–12:00 Field Trip: Tour Folkestone Park and Marine Reserve

Demonstrating tourism and other impacts, coastal zone management, reef health