Is it too cheap to visit the ‘priceless’ Great Barrier Reef?

Would you pay more if you thought it would help?
Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

Michael Vardon, Australian National University

The Great Barrier Reef is one of the world’s finest natural wonders. It’s also extraordinarily cheap to visit – perhaps too cheap.

While a visit to the reef can be part of an expensive holiday, the daily fee to enter the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park itself is a measly A$6.50. In contrast, earlier this year I was lucky enough to visit Rwanda’s mountain gorillas and paid a US$750 fee, and the charge has since been doubled to US$1,500.

To me, seeing the reef was better than visiting the gorillas. Personally, I would be happy to pay more to visit the Great Barrier Reef. Does this mean we’re undervaluing our most important natural wonder? And if we do ask visitors to pay a higher price, would it actually help the reef or simply harm tourism numbers?

---

Read more: Money can’t buy me love, but you can put a price on a tree

---

Putting dollar values on the natural world can be a heated topic. Earlier this year Deloitte Access Economics valued the Great Barrier Reef at A$56 billion “as an Australian economic, social and iconic asset”, but was met with the retort that its true value is priceless.

The A$56 billion estimate was based on surveys that measured “consumer surplus and non-use benefits”. This common research technique involves asking people what they would be willing to pay to get a particular benefit. For example, the entrance fee for the reef is A$6.50 but if I am willing to pay A$50 (say), that equates to a consumer surplus of A$43.50. In other words, I am receiving A$43.50 worth of value that I did not have to pay for.

I understand that some people instinctively object to the idea of trying to put monetary values on things like the Great Barrier Reef. But I think valuation helps, on balance, because it offers a way to assimilate environmental information into the economic processes through which most decisions are made. Money makes the world go around, after all.

However this should be done on the proviso that the valuation is systematic and based on sound environmental and economic data.

Accounting for the Great Barrier Reef

The process by which these values are calculated is called “environmental accounting”, and estimates have to meet international standards known as the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting or SEEA in order to be valid. This builds on the System of National Accounts (which among many other things gives us the GDP indicator). In this accounting, as in business accounting, the values recorded are exchange values – that is, what someone paid (or was likely to pay) for a good, service or asset. For assets that aren’t regularly traded, this figure can be based on either previous sales or expected future income.

It does not use willingness-to-pay measures. The Deloitte report also estimated exchange values in line with accounting values, with the Great Barrier Reef contributing A$6.4 billion to the economy through tourism, fishing, recreation, and research and scientific management.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has a huge amount of data on the Great Barrier Reef, covering the physical state of the reef and its surroundings, the economic activity occurring in the region, and more besides.

Unsurprisingly, tourism is the region’s most valuable industry, contributing A$3.8 billion in gross value added in 2015-16 (see Table 1 here). That year the Marine Park had 2.3 million visitors, who together paid just under A$9 million in park entry charges (see Table 4 here).

Ecosystem services are the contributions of the natural world to benefits enjoyed by people. For example, farmers grow crops that are pollinated by insects and use nutrients found in the soil. These things are not explicitly paid for, but by examining economic transactions we can estimate their value.

Surprisingly, the value of ecosystem services used by tourism was A$600 million – just half the value of the ecosystem services used by the agriculture industry.

Value of ecosystem services (in millions of dollars) used by selected industries in the Great Barrier Reef Region in 2014-15.
ABS

The result is partly explained by the way things are valued. Agricultural products are bought and sold in markets, whereas the Great Barrier Reef is a public asset and the fee for visiting it is set by governments, not by a market.

On these numbers, paying A$6.50 to visit one of the great treasures of the world is a bargain indeed. But what does it mean for the reef itself?

Reef under threat

The reef is under pressure from many factors, including climate change, nutrient runoff, tourism impacts, and fishing. Managing the pressure requires resources, and it makes sense to ask those who use it to pay for it.

Increased funding to help manage these pressures would therefore be good. What’s more, governments could conceivably also use natural resources to generate money to fund other public goods and services, such as roads, education, health, defence, and so on.

Before you protest at this idea, ask yourself: why should the Great Barrier Reef not be used to generate revenue for government? Other natural resources are used this way. The federal and Queensland governments are pursuing economic benefits from the coal in the nearby Galilee Basin. If government revenue from the Great Barrier Reef were increased, it might reduce the need for revenue from elsewhere.

So what next?

Environmental accounting offers a clear way to assess such trade-offs, and will hopefully lead to better decisions. To achieve this we will need:

• Regular environmental-economic accounts from trusted institutions like the ABS
• Governments and business to incorporate this new accounting into their strategic planning and management (including, in the case of the Great Barrier Reef, assessing the likely revenue from increased marine park fees)
• The public to use the accounts to hold our government and business leaders to
  account.

The last will no doubt make some uncomfortable, while the second will take some time. The first is already a reality. I hope others take the time to understand and analyse the accounts already available, and that we get as much debate about managing the environment as we do about managing the economy.

Michael Vardon, Visiting Fellow at the Fenner School, Australian National University

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Advertisement

James Hansen: emissions trading won’t work, but my global ‘carbon fee’ will

Michael Hopkin, The Conversation

Former NASA climate scientist James Hansen has called for a global “carbon fee” in which fossil fuels are taxed when they are produced or imported, rather than when they are consumed.

Under his proposal, countries would collect a fee when fossil fuels are mined or imported, and distribute the revenue to their citizens, while charging extra border duties to countries without a similar scheme.

Attending a United Nations climate summit for the first time, Hansen – widely credited as the first scientist to raise mainstream political concerns about climate change – says he has little faith in the climate targets and emissions trading schemes currently on the table in Paris.

---

What would be ideal outcome here in Paris given the scope of what countries can potentially promise?

The ideal outcome would have been if [US President Barack] Obama and the Chinese president [Xi Jinping] said we need a carbon price. But as long as they are letting local ground rules [be set up in other countries] then we’re screwed. They are screwing our children.

You’ve talked about the idea of having a fee that applies to markets worldwide, but that raises the question of how it’s going to get off the ground to begin with.

All it requires is two players: United States, China, European Union – two out of the three. They would say we’re going to have a fee and we’re going to put border duties on products from countries that don’t have it. The other party would join immediately, and so would most countries, because they would rather collect the money themselves.

You suggest that the money collected would be paid to citizens of the country that collects it – how crucial is that to your idea?

It would be up to each country. But if you want the fee to continue to go up, if you want public endorsement, you want public buy-in, you’d better give it to them. Now I can imagine in some countries where there’s not a democracy you would worry that some leaders are going to steal the money, but then that’s a problem we have now in many countries that are being ripped off by their leaders. It would be so transparent – you will know exactly how much money is collected, then where’s it going? I think there’s less chance [of this] if we just have some champion at a high enough level.

It sounds like you don’t have much confidence in the idea of countries setting their own climate goals and ambitions.

Of course it’s useful for that to happen – it’s better than nothing. But it’s not going to solve the problem, it’s not even going to reduce global emissions. You’ll reduce the demand for the fuel, to the extent that it’s successful, but that just makes it cheaper for someone else to burn it. Fossil fuels are cheap – there are parts of the world where you can pull oil off the ground for a couple of dollars a barrel.

So if the Paris talks are heading towards a deal based largely on each country’s individual climate pledges, is that letting the world down?

Yeah. That’s their scheme for coming out of here and looking good to the public. And they’ll be saying “we’re making progress”. To the extent that there are more things like Bill Gates throwing in a few billion dollars for research and development, these are positive things, so you don’t want to say they’ve done nothing. But it’s not going to solve the problem, that’s for sure.

Michael Hopkin, Environment + Energy Editor, The Conversation

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Hunter Region Botanic Gardens

Kevin's Daily Photo, Video, Quote or Link

 

ABOVE: The Southern Wetlands Boardwalk – Hunter Region Botanic Gardens

Late last week I decided I should do something with the final day of my annual leave that I had taken this time round, so I thought I’d pop into the Hunter Region Botanic Gardens near Raymond Terrace in New South Wales, Australia. I had been here before, but that was a long time ago. I wasn’t impressed on that first visit, so after more then a decade had it improved? Well that was the question I was keen to answer.

ABOVE: The Rotunda  BELOW: Succulents Section

There was a $4.00 ‘escape’ fee, which would allow a token to be purchased and then the boom gate would rise once it was placed into the proper slot at the exit. So no entrance fee, just an exit fee. I was willing to pay this for a quick look and…

View original post 235 more words