by dr mike christie (aberystwyth university) and sonja...

1

by

Dr Mike Christie (Aberystwyth University)

and

Sonja Teelucksingh (University of the West Indies)

November 2011

2

Table of Contents

Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ 2

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 2

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... 2

1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3

2 Inception report: Terms of reference ............................................................................................. 4

2.1 Background ............................................................................................................................. 4

2.2 Aims and Objectives of the study ........................................................................................... 5

2.3 Scope ....................................................................................................................................... 5

2.4 Methodological approach ....................................................................................................... 6

2.5 Project deliverables and timeline ........................................................................................... 7

3 Progress report: Development of the survey instrument ............................................................... 8

3.1 Stakeholder consultation ........................................................................................................ 8

3.2 Survey design, piloting and implementation ........................................................................ 10

3.2.1 The survey instrument .................................................................................................. 10

3.2.2 Implementing survey .................................................................................................... 16

3.2.3 Expected outputs from the survey ................................................................................ 17

4 Next steps ...................................................................................................................................... 18

Annex 1. Stakeholder consultation. ................................................................................................. 19

Annex 2. Stakeholder workshop: summary notes ........................................................................... 23

Annex 3. Survey instrument ‘Interview script’ ................................................................................. 32

Annex 4. Example of information pack ............................................................................................ 54

List of Tables

Table 1: Summary of proposed research approach. ............................................................................... 7 Table 2: Gantt chart showing project deliverables and timeline ............................................................ 7 Table 3: Links between policy intervention and the provision of ecosystem services ........................... 9 Table 4: Current levels of ecosystem services in MPA ............................................................................ 9 Table 5: Impacts of land and sea based activities on the benefits from the marine environment ...... 11 Table 6a: Range of benefits from St Vincent South Coast .................................................................... 12 Table 7: Summary of sites protected by different marine protected designations evaluated in the ALL SVG scenarios. ....................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 8: Links between policy intervention and the provision of ecosystem services ......................... 30 Table 9: Current levels of ecosystem services in MPA .......................................................................... 31

List of Figures

Figure 1: Example of a typical choice task ............................................................................................ 14 Figure 2: Proposed content of final report ........................................................................................... 18

3

1 Introduction

To fulfil part of its commitment to the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines (GOSVG) has commissioned Dr Michael Christie (Aberystwyth University, UK) and Dr Sonja Teelucksingh (The University of the West Indies, Trinidad) to undertake ‘A national-level Economic Valuation Study (EVS) of the environmental services provided by the marine habitats in St. Vincent and the Grenadines’. This report comprises the first two deliverables from this study, namely:

Inception report (Section 2). Within this section, we provide an outline of the Terms of Reference to the study, which includes background to the study, the research aims and objectives, the scope of the research, and an outline of the approach to be adopted.

Progress report: Development and piloting of the survey instrument (Section 3). Here we first provide a short summary of the activities undertaken in the development stages of the survey instrument, before providing a detailed description of the survey instrument to be used in the study to evaluate the ecosystem services benefits derived from marine habitats in SVG.

4

2 Inception report: Terms of reference

2.1 Background

The Government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines (GOSVG) is a party to the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity. As such, it has committed to ensuring that 10% of its marine area is effectively managed by 2012 and this expanded to include 20% of the marine habitats by 2020.

In order to achieve this goal, as well as the CBD 2010 target, it has undertaken several initiatives in collaboration with The Nature Conservancy (TNC) including, inter alia, the development of a Draft Sustainable Finance Plan for Protected Areas System, an ecological gap analysis and a capacity plan for protected areas.

The activities undertaken thus far have contributed to building a foundation on which effective management of protected areas (PA) will be able to proceed. The process of mainstreaming Protected Area Management has started with the enactment of the National Parks Act, the establishment of the National Parks Authority and the implementation of the Tourism Development project which will developed a Protected Areas System [Management] Plan for St. Vincent and the Grenadines.

This proposed project targets the CBD PoWPA Activity 3.1.2, not covered by any programme thus far, and has three main objectives:

To conduct a national-level Economic Valuation Study (EVS) of the environmental services provided by the marine habitats in St. Vincent and the Grenadines;

To undertake a Willingness-to-Pay Study (WTPS), to assess the willingness of international tourists to pay to support effective management and conservation of parks and protected areas St. Vincent and the Grenadines;

To integrate the use of economic valuation and natural resource accounting tools into national development planning.

The proposed activities of this component represent a significant step towards further mainstreaming of PA management. This is because economic valuation of ecosystem goods and services helps to reveal the trade-offs that have to be made when considering development options. The GOSVG is constantly challenged to allocate scarce natural resources to achieve economic, environmental and social goals. These include hot-button issues such as employment creation, poverty alleviation, revenue generation and having a balanced budget. Decision-makers constantly operate under short time-frames and they often have to take decisions without adequate or complete information. Whereas proponents of development projects often have at their disposal an array of economic information regarding the costs and benefits of their proposals, natural resource management agencies oftentimes do not have sufficient counter information on the value of intact ecosystems.

The Ministry of Health, Wellness and the Environment (and other natural resource management agencies) needs solid economic data to be able to provide real figures showing the costs of losing critical habitats to development and the value of intact ecosystems; particularly in designated protected areas. This information would help government decision-makers to make more efficient, cost-effective and fair choices and to justify their reasons for taking action or for choosing between different policy options (TEEB, 2009).

Using specific case study sites as examples, this economic valuation study is expected to provide solid economic data on the costs of losing important marine habitats and related ecosystem services (ESS) and the value of intact marine habitats in order to make a strong case for protected area development and management on a broader national level. It should

5

also act as a catalyst for greater integration of economic valuation of ecosystem services into national planning and decision-making processes. Through this study greater awareness of protected area benefits in St. Vincent and the Grenadines should be built. Capacity at the national level to conduct future economic valuation studies will also be improved.

2.2 Aims and Objectives of the study

The overall aim of this study is to undertake ‘A national-level Economic Valuation Study (EVS) of the environmental services provided by the marine habitats in St. Vincent and the Grenadines’. Specific objectives include:

To conduct an Economic Valuation Study of the ecosystem services provided by protected areas in St. Vincent and the Grenadines, comparing the economic costs and benefits of both ecosystem degradation and loss, and protected area management;

To identify the hidden and non-hidden economic benefits provided by protected areas and who appropriates these benefits;

To evaluate the role and potential of sound management of protected areas for conservation of biological diversity and ecosystem services provision, in achieving cost-effective, positive returns in terms of economic growth and poverty alleviation;

To facilitate the process of integrating the survey results with other natural resource accounting tools and into national development planning processes.

2.3 Scope

Given the limited time and funding available for the PoWPA grant, we are limited in the level of sophistication that can be accomplished. Therefore, the scope of this study will be restricted to selected marine protected area sites and will focus on the major ecosystem services provided therein. Selection of the sites and services to be studied was done by the consultant after consultation with key stakeholders and agreed by the Ministry of Health, Wellness and the Environment.

The following threats to island ecosystems were considered when designing the study:

Tourism Development - In response to the downturn in the banana industry, the GoSVG made a strategic decision to fill the void created in the national economy by targeting growth of the tourism sector. Direct incomes from tourism account for a large proportion of the GDP. However, uncontrolled tourism development is a major cause of ecosystem degradation through: (i) destruction of habitats for the development of infrastructure; (ii) degradation of habitats from an increased quantity of waste generated; (iii) damage to habitats as a result of recreational activities; and (iv) transportation facilitating the introduction of invasive alien species.

Over-exploitation and Unsustainable Uses of Biodiversity - Over-fishing, over-hunting, over-grazing and over-harvesting is a major cause of biodiversity loss in island ecosystems. Overfishing, for instance, can cause significant declines in fish populations of coral reefs and can have long-lasting negative effects on all aspects of reef ecology. Queen conchs, spiny lobsters and hawksbill turtles are some of the species under threat from overharvesting.

Pollution and Waste Disposal - pollution from liquid and solid waste, as well as from agrochemicals, is causing degradation of river, subsurface and coastal water quality,

6

compromising island habitats and having adverse effects on recreational and fishing activities.

Deforestation and Land Degradation – the loss of forests to agriculture (legal and illegal) in watershed areas is leading to soil erosion and land degradation, reducing the capacity of the land to provide nutrient cycling and to support biodiversity. Siltation of rivers and coastal areas due to run-off also threaten sensitive riverine and coastal ecosystems.

2.4 Methodological approach

The study will be undertaken as a collaborative effort between the Dr Sonja Teelucksingh (Sir Arthur Lewis Institute for Social and Economic Studies (SALISES), University of the West Indies), Dr Michael Christie (Aberystwyth University) and the Ministry of Health, Wellness and the Environment.

The project will comprise the following five key tasks:

Task 1 - Prepare an inception report including a detailed work plan

A series of site visits and stakeholder workshops will be undertaken to determine the ecosystems and services, attributes and scenarios to be studied and the valuation methods to be utilized. Final site selection will be made based on consideration of the outcome of these workshops, discussions with the Project Steering Committee (PSC) and relevant literature review.

An inception report will be drafted that will include a situation analysis, a description of the scenarios that will be utilized in the valuation, the methodological approach and a draft work plan and timetable.

Task 2- Design the Survey Instrument

Following agreement with the Project Steering Committee, a survey instrument will be designed, pre-tested and piloted prior to administration to ensure suitability. The consultant will provide enumerator training; however the actual survey will be administered using representatives from the Project Steering Committee.

Task 3 – Data collection.

The survey will be administered through a series of workshops. The target sample will include: 100 residents of St Vincent South Coast; 100 tourists to St Vincent South Coast; 100 residents to the Tobago Cays; 100 visitors to the Tobago Cays. Data collection will be undertaken by representatives of the GOSVG.

Task 4 - Analyse the survey data to determine the economic value of ecosystem goods and services at the survey site(s)

Appropriate quantitative and qualitative analyses will be applied to the survey results in order to determine the economic value of key ecosystem goods and services. The costs and benefits of the different ecosystem scenarios will be examined. A quantitative and qualitative analysis will be conducted of how the costs and benefits of these ecosystem management scenarios are distributed throughout the economy - between sectors, regions and stakeholders groups; with special attention the poor and vulnerable. In the analysis all assumptions and uncertainties will be clearly stated and a sensitivity analysis carried out on the results.

Based on the foregoing analyses, clear policy and management conclusions regarding the development of protected areas will be identified.

Task 5 - Prepare report of the economic valuation study.

7

A project final report will be drafted that will include descriptions of the methodological approach, data collection, analysis, results and policy conclusions. The report will include a short descriptive and accessible executive summary as well as detailed technical information to allow the results to be scrutinized. A draft report will be circulated for stakeholder feedback and a final report which incorporates feedback received shall be submitted to the Ministry of Health, Wellness and the Environment one month afterwards.

Responsibilities for completing these tasks is summarised in Table 1, while a Gantt chart outlining when tasks will be complete is reported in Table 2.

Table 1: Summary of proposed research approach.

Task Responsibility Task 1 - Prepare an inception report including a detailed work plan

Identify stakeholders to be involved and the process for engagement

Visit site(s) and prepare an inception report and detailed work plan.

Project Steering Committee Christie and Teelucksingh

Task 2- Design the Survey Instrument

Design survey instrument

Pre-test and pilot survey instrument

Training of enumerators

Christie and Teelucksingh Christie and Teelucksingh Christie and Teelucksingh

Task 3 - Data collection.

Organise, support and supervise the collection of economic data related to the use and non-use values of ecosystem goods and services at the study site(s) by a survey team

Data Entry

Project Steering Committee Christie and Teelucksingh

Task 4 - Analyse the survey data to determine the economic value of ecosystem goods and services at the survey site(s)

Data Analysis

Christie and Teelucksingh

Task 5 - Prepare report of the economic valuation study.

Write up of draft EVS report

Review of draft EVS report

Prepare final EVS report

Christie and Teelucksingh Project Steering Committee Christie and Teelucksingh

2.5 Project deliverables and timeline

The project will have five deliverables, which are directly aligned to the five project tasks. Table 2 provides a summary of project activities and deliverables.

Table 2: Gantt chart showing project deliverables and timeline

Deliverables 2011 2012 Deadline

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

1. Preparation of inception report and work plan

x Jul 2011

2. Survey Instrument Design x x Sep 2011

3. Data Collection x x x Nov 2011

4. Data Analysis x x Dec 2011

5. Preparation of EVS Report x x Feb 2012

8

3 Progress report: Development of the survey instrument

In this section, we provide a summary of the key activities that were undertaken during the development stages of the survey instrument. In Section 3.1 provides a summary of the stakeholder workshops that were undertaken during the development stages, while Section 3.2 outlines the survey instrument to be used in this study.

3.1 Stakeholder consultation

Between the 18-22 July 2011, Dr Christie and Dr Teelucksingh visited SVG in their first fact finding trip. The aim of this trip was to collate information that would be used to develop the survey instrument. The following activities were undertaken during the trip:

Project steering group meetings

Site visits to the two proposed case study sites: St Vincent south coast and Tobago Cays;

Stakeholder workshop to identify the key benefits and threats to marine ecosystems in SVG;

The agenda for the fact finding trip can be found in Annex 1, while a report on the key outcomes from this trip can be found in Annex 2. Below we provide a brief summary of the key findings from the workshops.

The stakeholder workshops were held to collate information that would form the basis for the design of the survey instrument. The workshop discussions aimed to identify: the key ecosystem services benefits derived from coastal ecosystems in SVG; the key threats to coastal ecosystems in SVG; and the impact of these threats on the provision of ecosystem services. Stakeholders participating in the workshops included: policy makers, ecologists, ecosystem managers, fishermen, tourist businesses, community based organisations, local residents and tourists.

Based on these discussions, it was concluded that the study should:

o Focus on the economic valuation of changes to the levels of ecosystem service benefits associated with potential future changes to marine ecosystems (and Marine Protected Areas specifically) in SVG;

o Both choice experiments and contingent valuation methods should be used to value the ecosystem benefits. Given the complexity of the task, it was proposed that a valuation workshop approach should be used to administer these surveys;

o Empirical valuation should be administered at two case study sites: St. Vincent South Coast and the Tobago Cays. However, the data gathered from these two studies, may be used to infer values for a third case study on the Leeward coast of St. Vincent. In addition, the studies will also assess the ecosystem service benefits associated with all marine protected areas within SVG;

o The impacts of five policy interventions which may impact to levels of ecosystem service provision should be investigated: Stop sewage; stop over fishing / unsustainable fishing practices; stop land based pollution; stop sand mining; and introduce no take zones;

o The choice experiment would investigate the value of six ecosystem services should be investigated: Fishing; Coastal protection; Human health; Ecosystem resilience; Beach recreation; and Diving / snorkelling;

o The contingent valuation method would investigate the value associated with all marine protected areas in SVG.

9

To help develop the above information into scenarios for the use in the valuation exercise (and the choice experiment in particular), members of the Project Steering Committee were asked to:

o quantify the link between the various policy interventions and the provision of ecosystem services. The results of this exercise are summarised in Table 3; and

o identify the current and possible future levels of ecosystem services at each of the two case study sites – see Table 4

Table 3: Links between policy intervention and the provision of ecosystem services

Stop Sewage (yachts, houses

and hotels)

Stop Overfishing / bad fishing practices

Stop Land Based Pollution (mainly

agricultural, such as pesticides,

eutrophication and sedimentation

Stop sandmining / extraction of

coral

Introduce ‘No take zones’ that

would ban fishing and anchoring

Eco

syst

em s

erv

ice

imp

acts

Provisioning: Fishing: increases in fish numbers, size and desirable species

++ ++ ++ 0 +

Regulating: Coastal protection Water quality / human health

+

++

+

0

+

++

+++

0

++

0

Habitat: Species diversity, ecosystem resilience and genetic pool – Existence value

+ +++ ++ + +++

Cultural / recreational: Beach recreation Diving / snorkelling recreation

+

++

+

+++

+

++

+++

0

0

++

Notes: ‘+++’ indicates a high level of linkages; ‘++’ a moderate level; ‘+’ a low level; and ‘0’ no linkage

Table 4: Current levels of ecosystem services in MPA

Ecosystem service Worst case scenario

description (1)

South coast Current Improve Decline

Leeward coast Current Improve Decline

Tobago Cays Current Improve Decline

Best case scenario description

(10)

Fishing: increases in fish numbers, size and desirable species

No fish for fishing in and / or around

MPA

2 3 4

3 4 4

4 4 5

A sustainable catch of large, desirable

fish in and / or around MPA

Coastal protection

No coastal protection with very high risk of

flooding

2 3 4

2 3 4

2 4 4

Excellent coastal protection with no threat of flooding

Water quality / human health

High risk of gastro intestinal disorder/

skin rashes / ear infections

1 2 4

2 3 5

2 3 5

No health problems

Species diversity, ecosystem resilience and genetic pool – Existence value

Low species diversity and low

resilience

1 2 4

2 4 4

2 4 5

High species diversity and very

resilient

Beach recreation

Beach largely eroded away

2 4 5

2 4 5

3 5 5

Large stable beaches

Diving / snorkelling recreation

Poor quality dive site

1 2 4

2 4 5

3 5 5

Excellent dive site

Notes: The numbers in the table relate to the three possible future scenarios: Current situation, Improved MPA management, Declined MPA management, where 1 = the worst case scenario and 10 = the best case scenario.

10

3.2 Survey design, piloting and implementation

The information collated during the stakeholder workshops (see Section 3.1 above) was used to develop the choice experiments and contingent valuation survey instruments, which were used to value the ecosystem service benefits associated with marine protected areas in SVG. The agreed remit for the study is outlined in Section 2 above. In this section we provide: an overview of the survey instrument; detail of how the survey is to be implemented; and an outline of the expected outputs from the study.

3.2.1 The survey instrument

The aim of the study is to provide an economic assessment of the changes to ecosystem services associated with various future scenarios for marine protected areas in SVG. Given the complexity of the valuation exercise, it was argued that the valuation study should be administered using valuation workshops. A copy of the ‘Interviewer Script’ and a sample of the ‘information packs’ provided to participants can be found in Annex 3 and 4.

The survey is split into seven sections. Below we provide a brief overview of each section.

Section A: About you

Following a short welcome and introduction to the workshop, participants were asked to provide background information on the SVG islands that they have visited and what activities they have undertaken on these islands (Q 1 – 4).

Section B: Marine Protected Areas in SVG

Respondents were then presented with information on the current and proposed system of marine protection in SVG, including information on the levels of protection provided by different forms of designations and maps of the existing and proposed marine protected areas. Participants were then asked as to whether they were aware of SVG’s marine protected area policies (Q5), and whether they have visited any of the protected sites (Q6). Next, participants were asked to consider a range of ‘ecosystem service’ benefits that might be derived from marine protection and to indicate how important these benefits might be to them (Q7). These ecosystem service benefits were subsequently evaluated in the choice experiment (Section E). Participants were also made aware of a number of activities that may have detrimental impacts on marine ecosystems and asked to indicate the extent to which possible restrictions to these activities might impact them (Q8).

Section C: Discussion - How do the things that we do on land and in the sea affect current and future benefits from the sea?

An important mandate for the valuation workshop was to make participants explicitly aware of potential trade-offs that they personally may have to make in order to attain the ecosystem service benefits. For example, they might have to change the way they fish to ensure the long term resilience of coral reefs. In this section participants were asked to discuss five potentially detrimental activities (from Q8), and then ‘score’ the level of impact that these activities may have on six ecosystem service benefits (from Q7). Table 5 provides a template for these discussions. The rational underlying this activity was to make sure that workshop participants were fully informed before undertaking the valuation exercise in Section E.

11

Table 5: Impacts of land and sea based activities on the benefits from the marine environment

Detrimental activities potentially restricted by new marine protection

1 Stop

Sewage (yachts,

houses and hotels)

2 Stop

Overfishing / bad fishing practices

3 Stop Land Based Pollution (mainly agricultural, such

as pesticides, eutrophication and

sedimentation

4 Stop

sandmining / extraction of

coral

5 Introduce ‘No

take zones’ that would ban

fishing / anchoring

Be

ne

fits

Fishing: Number, size and desirability of fish species in and around the MPA

Coastal protection: Level of risk from coastal flooding

Human health: Risk of gastro-intestinal disorder/ skin rashes / ear infections from poor sea water quality.

Ecosystem resilience: Contribution of genetic diversity to long term resilience of marine ecosystem

Beach recreation: Size and stability of beaches

Diving / snorkelling: Diving experience: condition of coral and abundance of marine life

Section E: Evaluation of the benefits that you might attain from changes to marine protected areas in SVG (Choice experiment)

In this section, participants were required to complete a series of five choice experiment choice tasks that were used to assess the value of the six ecosystem service benefits in one of two case study sites: St. Vincent South Coast or the Tobago Cays. Note that in Section F, they were asked to value the benefits from all marine protected areas in SVG.

To prepare them for this task, participants were first presented with a table that described the possible range of ecosystem service benefits that could be achieved from a worst case scenario (level 1) to the best case scenario (level 5). These two extreme scenarios were based on the worst and best case scenarios across all of SVG’s marine environments. Next, participants were presented with information on how this range of ecosystem service benefits related to the case study sites (St. Vincent South Coast or Tobago Cays) under three possible future scenarios:

Continued decline: Here it was assumed that current system of marine protection would not be implemented. The result of which is that the marine ecosystem continue

12

to be degraded, which in turn would reduce the benefits that people might attain from the sea.

Current condition: Here it was assumed that the current system of marine protection would be retained and effectively implemented. The result of which is that the marine ecosystem would be retained at its current condition, which in turn would sustain the benefits that people currently attain from the sea.

Improved condition: Here it was assumed that the new system of marine protection would be implemented. The result of which is that the marine ecosystem would gradually improve, which in turn would enhance the benefits that people might attain from the sea.

Table 6 a and b respectively provide a summary of the levels of ecosystem service benefits that would be delivered under these three future scenarios for the St. Vincent South Coast and Tobago Cays case study sites. The levels at each site were based on information gathered from local stakeholders / experts during the developmental workshops. This information was then used to form the basis of the levels of the ecosystem service attributes in the choice experiment.

Table 6a: Range of benefits from St Vincent South Coast

Ecosystem service Decline Current Improve


Some small fish only

Moderate fish numbers incl.some large fish. Few desirable fish.

Moderate numbers of large fish including some desirable fish.


Minimal coastal protection with a moderate risk of flooding

Moderate coastal protection with a some risk of flooding

Good coastal protection with minimal threat of flooding

Human health: Risk of gastoral intestinal disorder/ skin rashes / ear infections from poor sea water quality.

High risk to human health

Moderate risk to human health

Virtually no risk to human health


Low genetic diversity with poor resilience

Low genetic diversity with short term resilience

High genetic diversity with medium term resilience


Small, stable beach

Large, stable beach

Large, actively growing, stable beaches


Very poor diving experience: coral badly degraded and limited

marine life

Poor diving experience: coral badly degraded and moderate

marine life

Good diving experience: coral in good condition and good marine

life

13

Table 6b: Range of benefits from Tobago Cays



Moderate numbers of large fish including some

desirable fish.


desirable fish.

A sustainable catch of large, desirable fish


Minimal coastal protection with a

moderate risk of flooding

Good coastal protection with minimal threat of

flooding


flooding



Minimal risk to human health

No health problems




High genetic diversity with long term resilience


Moderate, stable beach




Moderate diving experience: coral in

reasonable condition and moderate marine life

Excellent diving experience: coral in

excellent condition and abundant marine life

Excellent diving experience: coral in

excellent condition and abundant marine life

In terms of the actual choice experiment, participants were informed that the SVG government was planning to revise its marine protection policies and that depending on how it targets resources different combinations of ecosystem service benefits may be attained. Further, participants were told that to attain these benefits funds would have to be raised through increases in taxation (either a local or tourist tax depending on the type of respondent interviewed). Respondents were then presented with an example choice task (which was described in detail), before being presented with a series of five choice tasks.

Figure 1 provides an example of a typical choice task used in this study. In each choice task, participants were presented with a series of three choice options: each of which was described in terms of six ecosystem service attributes (fishing, coastal protection, human health, ecosystem resilience, beach recreation, and diving / snorkelling) and a monetary attribute (annual increases in local or tourism taxation). A consistent ‘Baseline’ scenario was used across all choice tasks. In the baseline scenario, all of the ecosystem service attributes were presented at the ‘continued decline’ scenario level, while the taxation was set at no additional cost to participants (ie EC$ 0). The levels of the ecosystem service attributes could take one of three levels (continued decline, current condition, and improved condition), while the taxation attributes could take one of six levels (EC$ 10, 20, 40, 80, 120, 1or 60). In the

14

choice tasks, the levels of the ecosystem service and taxation attributes used for the Option A and Option B scenarios were determined using a main effects orthogonal, fractional factorial experimental design. This design reduced the number of possible choice combinations from 4344 choice tasks to 25 choice tasks. To reduce the cognitive burden, each participant was presented was only five choice tasks. Participants indicated which ‘bundle’ of choice tasks they were answering in Q9. In Q10 participants then recorded their choices for each of the 5 choice tasks presented, as well as indicated their level of confidence in making their choices.

Option A Option B Baseline

(Continued decline)



Moderate fish numbers including some large fish. Few

desirable fish.




Minimal coastal protection with a moderate risk of

flooding


flooding












Small, stable beach


Very poor diving experience: coral badly degraded and

limited marine life

Good diving experience: coral in good condition and good

marine life


limited marine life

Cost (EC$ per year) EC$ 20 EC$160 0

I prefer: Option A Option B Baseline

How confident do you feel about this choice? (Not confident) 0 – 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (Very confident)

Figure 1: Example of a typical choice task

15

A number of steps were undertaken to ensure that participants were made fully informed and considered choices. Specifically, respondents were reminded of the scope of the marine protection policy, provided with a ‘cheap talk’ statement and asked to fully consider their budget constraints:

Remember the scope of the marine protection policy. In this study, we are only interested in the benefits that might arise from protection of the marine ecosystems within the proposed South Coast [or Tobago Cays] Marine Park. You should therefore assume that the condition of marine ecosystems out with this area would continue along their current trajectories: other sites within SVG currently designated as marine conservation areas and marine reserves will continue to have limited protection, while the remaining area of marine ecosystems will continue to decline at their current rates. Note, you will be asked to value all marine parks in SVG later, so your value for South Coast Marine Park needs to be considered in this wider context.

“Talk is cheap”. The experience from other surveys similar to this is that people have a tendency to respond in one way but in reality would act differently. For example, it is common that people choose an option with a higher cost than what they would actually be willing to pay. We believe this is due to the fact that they do not really consider how big an impact the extra costs would actually have on the family budget. It is easy to be generous in surveys such as this one and choose expensive options that deliver high benefits. However, we do not want you to think in this way when answering our questions as this will affect the validity of our results.

o You need to consider the cost seriously!

o Are the stated benefits worth the costs to you?

o Would you really be able and willing to pay the stated amount in your chosen option?

o What other things would you give up to allow you to spend your money on protecting the South Coast marine ecosystem?

o If both prices in Options A and B are higher than what you think you are willing and able to pay, then you should choose the Baseline option.

Once participants had completed all five choice tasks, they were asked to state in Q11 their motivations for their choices (which was used to identify genuine choices from protest bids), as well as a question to elicit whether they were considering the benefits that they would personally attain from the marine policies or the shared social benefits that all people in SVG might attain (Q12).

Section F: Future options for protecting ALL marine protected areas in SVG (Choice experiment)

In Section F, participants were presented with another series of five choice tasks that asked them to consider the benefits that they would attain from the protection of ALL marine protected areas in SVG. Table 7 provides a summary of the sites that would be protected in these choice tasks. The inclusion of this valuation scenario was important as it allows a test of scope sensitivity; that is, economic theory predicts that participants would have a higher WTP for the all marine protected areas scenario compared to an individual site such as the St Vincent South Coast or Tobago Cays. Participants recorded their choices in Q13, and then stated their reasons for their choices in Qs14 and 15.

16

Table 7: Summary of sites protected by different marine protected designations evaluated in the ALL SVG scenarios.

Designation Proposed Protection

Marine Park:

Tobago Cays St Vincent South Coast Chateaubelair Islet Marine Park Petit Byahaut Marine Park Anchor Reef Marine Park

Marine Reserve: Canouan Isle de Quatre Mustique

Marine Conservation Area Bequia Petit St Vincent Union Island / Palm Island

Section F: One last choice task (Contingent valuation)

In Section F we employed the contingent valuation method (CVM) to evaluate the benefits that would be delivered through full implementation of a marine protection policy in which all six of our ecosystem services would be improved relative to a counter-factual baseline scenario in which there would be a decline in the level of services delivered. In the full implementation scenario, participants were presented with one (out of a possible five) tax amounts (EC$ 40, 80, 120, 160, 250). These tax amounts were presented using a discrete choice WTP elicitation question (Q16), i.e. they were asked ‘Would you be willing to pay EC$X for the benefits shown in the improved scenario’. In the baseline scenario, the tax amount was set at EC$0. One of the motivations for including a contingent valuation question in the survey was to enable a convergent validity test to be undertaken in which the CVM value could be directly compared to those derived from the choice experiment. Following the contingent valuation question, participants were presented with a follow-up question (Q17) that was used to identify genuine responses from protect bids.

Section G: About you

In the final section of the workshop questionnaire, participants were asked to provide information on their socio-economic background including gender, age, employment status, education level, and income (Qs 15 – 27). This information was collected to (i) test the representativeness of the survey sample, and (ii) feed into a theoretical validity test in which WTP is regressed against the predicted determinants of WTP (socio-economic and other attributes of the respondent) to test whether these are consistent with economic theory.

3.2.2 Implementing survey

The valuation workshop was piloted by Dr Christie during a field trip to SVG in September 2011. Generally, the pilot test went well with only some minor edits / clarifications to the survey instrument being identified. One issue from the pilot study related to the recruitment of participants to the workshop. A number of possible solutions were discussed with the project steering group to help improve the success of recruitment.

The September trip also provided an opportunity to train the enumerators to run the workshops. Following training, the enumerators ran a pilot workshop, which was deemed a successful in terms of the enumerators demonstrating a capacity to effectively run the workshop.

17

Following successful piloting of the study, the survey material was handed over the project steering committee who would oversee the implementation of the valuation workshop (Task 3). It is expected that the data would be collected by the project steering committee in October 2011 and the data returned to the project time for analysis in November 2012.

In terms of implementing the study, the valuation exercise would be administered through a series of participatory valuation workshops. The use of these workshops was justified on the basis that the ecosystem services benefits evaluated were considered complex concepts and often unfamiliar to participants and therefore a participatory and deliberative approach that allowed participants to discuss, reflect and learn about the ecosystem service attributes would result in better informed valuations.

The intention is that the workshops would be implemented across two case study sites (St Vincent South Coast and the Tobago Cays), and across two groups of participants (local residents and tourists). Thus, four sub-samples groups of participants would be targeted, with the aim of including 100 people within each sub-sample: thus the overall target sample for this research would be 400 interviewees. However, it is noted that the workshops are to be implemented outside the main tourist season for SVG, and therefore it is expected that it may be difficult to achieve the target sample for tourists.

3.2.3 Expected outputs from the survey

The aim of this study was to undertake ‘A national-level Economic Valuation Study (EVS) of the environmental services provided by the marine habitats in St. Vincent and the Grenadines’. To address this aim, a series of valuation workshops were developed and administered at two case study sites: St. Vincent South Coast and the Tobago Cays. Further, the samples at these two sites were split between local residents and tourists (although there are concerns that the tourist sample may be limited due to the timing of data collection). It is thus expected that we will be able to uncover values for four sub-samples of respondents:

o Local residents from the St. Vincent South Coast;

o Local residents from the Tobago Cays;

o Tourist to the St. Vincent South Coast;

o Tourists to the Tobago Cays.

Value evidence was elicited using both the choice experiment and contingent valuation methods.

The choice experiment aimed to estimate the economic value of six ecosystem services: fishing, coastal protection, human health, ecosystem resilience, beach recreation, and diving / snorkelling. Values for these ecosystem services will be estimated for three future scenarios for marine protected areas in SVG: continued decline, current condition, and improved condition. The choice experiment data will be analysed at the two case study sites (the St. Vincent South Coast and the Tobago Cays), as well as for all marine protected areas in SVG.

The contingent valuation study aimed to assess the value of a fully implemented marine protection policy across SVG in which the six ecosystem services would be improved (relative to the continued decline scenario).

In addition to the above, it is expected that analysis will enable the heterogeneity of values to be uncovered. In other words, analysis will explore how values vary across different socio-economic groups.

18

These value estimates will be presented in a project report. Figure 2 below provides a summary of the expected contents of this report:

Title page

Executive summary

1. Introduction

2. Terms of reference

3. Review of literature

4. Aims and Objectives

5. Methodology

5.1. Development of the survey instrument

5.2. The survey instrument

6. Results

6.1. Value of ecosystem services benefits at St. Vincent South Coast and Tobago Cays (Choice experiment)

6.2. Value of ecosystem services benefits at all marine protected areas in SVG (Choice experiment + contingent valuation)

6.3. Exploration of the heterogeneity of values

7. Discussion

8. Conclusions and recommendations

Figure 2: Proposed content of final report

4 Next steps

This report represents Deliverable 1 (the inception report and workplan) and Deliverable 2 (the pre-tested and piloted survey instrument). Deliverable 3 (data collection) is the responsibility of the Project Steering Committee, and is expected in Nov 2011.

Deliverable 4 is the Draft report. The production of this report is expected to take at least six weeks: two weeks for data entry, two weeks for data analysis, and two weeks for report writing. Thus, assuming that data is delivered to the project team by mid November, it is expected that a draft report would be produced by the end of December 2011. Unfortunately, due to other commitments in January / February 2012, any delays in receiving the data are likely to result in a two month delay in the delivery of the Draft report (i.e. the end of February 2012).

It is expected that the final report (Deliverable 5) would be submitted at the end of February 2012 at the earliest. If the submission of the draft report is delayed until February, then it would be expected that the final report would be submitted four weeks of receiving the Project Steering Committee’s comments on the Draft final report.

19

Annex 1. Stakeholder consultation.

AGENDA FOR STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS, 18-22 JULY 2011

ECONOMIC VALUATION OF THE MARINE PARKS OF ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES MONDAY 18 JULY Site Visits – St Vincent TUESDAY 19 JULY Site Visits – Tobago Cays WEDNESDAY 20 JULY 9.30am-12.30pm: Workshop with Ecologists / Ecosystem Managers and Policy Makers Aim: help identify key threats to ecosystems, identify the impacts of these threats on coastal ecosystems, and then identify how this affects the provision of ecosystem services. Session 1: Introduction 9.30am – 10.15am

Intro to workshop – Sonja (5 mins)

Intro of participants – (5 mins)

Talk on ecosystem assessments – Mike (30 mins)

Overview of case studies - Sonja (5 mins)

Session 2: Identify key threats to coastal ecosystems 10.15am-10.45am

Brainstorm (30 mins) : Participants write 3 threats to coastal ecosystems on post-it notes and place on wall. Then as a group, we will arrange threats into common themes, and then select the 3 most significant threats.

Break 11.45am – 11.00am Session 3: Identify impact of threats on coastal ecosystems 11.00am-11.30am

Group work (20 mins): Split participants into 3 groups based on the 3 threats. Each group then identifies impact of threats for three future scenarios:

o Maintenance of status quo – ie policy retains current habitat condition; o Continued decline – ie current trends in ecosystem degradation would continue; o Improved condition – ie policy is implemented to improve condition of

ecosystem.

Plenary (10 mins): Groups then report back to plenary for further discussion

Session 4: Identify ecosystem service impacts 11.30am-12.30pm

Group work: In the same groups as above, think about how the above scenarios will affect the provision of ecosystem services

o Qualitative assessment: ie assess impact of scenarios on a list of ecosystem services using a qualitative scale: -- - 0 + ++

o Quantitative assessment: for the 3 ESS most affected, quantify the impacts of the scenarios on ESS provision (description of how change will affect ecosystem service)

o Identify who would be affected by the change in ESS provision.

Plenary: Groups then report back to plenary for further discussion

Closing comments.

20

2pm-4pm: Workshop with private sector and tourists

Aim: identify the key benefits from coastal ecosystems, identify how a change in the condition of coastal areas would affect the use/enjoyment of coastal areas, and identify how specific change scenarios would affect these benefits Session 1: Introduction 2pm-2.15pm




Session 2: Identify key livelihood benefits from coastal ecosystems 2.15pm-3pm:

Brainstorm: Participants to identify and write between 3-5 benefits they personally obtain from coastal ecosystems on post-it notes and place on wall. Then as a group, we will arrange benefits into common themes, and then select the 3 most valued benefits (30 mins)

Talk on ecosystem goods and services and benefits, and use-non use values – Mike (15 mins)

Break 3:00 – 3:15 Session 3: Identify the impact of your activities on coastal ecosystems, and how specific policy change scenarios would affect your benefits 3.15pm-3:45pm Group work: participants to split into two groups to look at the impacts of policy changes on benefits:

Group 1: How might policy to improve condition of ecosystem affect benefits to you? (20 mins)

o Qualitative assessment: ie assess impact of scenarios on the list of ES benefits using a qualitative scale: -- - 0 + ++

o Quantitative assessment: for the 3 ES benefits most affected, quantify the impacts of the scenarios on ESS provision (description of how change will affect ecosystem service)

o Identify who would be affected by the change in ESS provision

Group 2: How might the continuation of current trends of ecosystem degradation affect benefits to you? (20 mins)




Plenary: Groups then report back to plenary for further discussion (10 mins)

Session 4: Reducing your impact on coastal ecosystems 3:45pm – 4:00pm

Plenary: Discuss what restrictions participants would be willing to make in order to secure the long term, sustainable management of coastal ecosystems. (15 mins)

Closing comments. 4pm

21

THURSDAY 21 JULY 9.30am-11.30am: Workshop with members of the public, fishermen and Community Based Organisations (CBOs) Aim: identify the key benefits from coastal ecosystems, identify how a change in the condition of coastal areas would affect the use/enjoyment of coastal areas, and identify how specific change scenarios would affect these benefits Session 1: Introduction 9am-9.15am




Session 2: Identify key livelihood benefits from coastal ecosystems 9.15m-10am:

Brainstorm: Participants to identify and write between 3-5 benefits they personally obtain from coastal ecosystems on post-it notes and place on wall. Then as a group, we will arrange benefits into common themes, and then select the 3 most valued benefits (30 mins)

Talk on ecosystem goods and services and benefits, and use-non use values – Mike (15 mins)

Break 10:00 – 10:15 Session 3: Identify the impact of your activities on coastal ecosystems, and how specific policy change scenarios would affect your benefits 10.15am-10:45am Group work: participants to split into two groups to look at the impacts of policy changes on benefits:

Group 1: How might policy to improve condition of ecosystem affect benefits to you? (20 mins)




Group 2: How might the continuation of current trends of ecosystem degradation affect benefits to you? (20 mins)




Plenary: Groups then report back to plenary for further discussion (10 mins)

22

Session 4: Reducing your impact on coastal ecosystems. 10:45 – 11:00

Plenary: Discuss what restrictions participants would be willing to make in order to secure the long term, sustainable management of coastal ecosystems. (15 mins)

Closing comments.

Afternoon

NISP capacity building

Drafting of the instrument

FRIDAY 22 JULY Morning Designing/ Review of rough draft of the instrument 3pm Meeting with Mr Allen of the Survey Company

23

Annex 2. Stakeholder workshop: summary notes

Workshop with Ecologists / Ecosystem Managers and Policy Makers 20 July 2011

Session 1: Question following introduction:

Why we are not doing terrestrial ecosystems (from the Director of Forests). Yasa explained that while all parks were meant to be in the study, the lack of time and money meant that we were focusing on only the marine ecosystems. However Sonja pointed out that in small island ecosystems, the terrestrial and marine were intimately linked, so that a lot of what was happening in the coastal areas may be able to be traced back to land activities, therefore the expertise of the Director of Forests was still very welcome.

Discussion on sand mining. There is a study on sand mining commissioned by USAID for the National Parks Authority, and the threats posed by this for the environment.

Why choice modelling? Mike gave an example of the UK BAP choice card Session 2: Identify key threats to coastal ecosystems Participants split into 3 groups and ask to identify 3 threats to coastal ecosystems. Responses were:

Participant 1 Construction, Man made

pollution into the sea Overfishing illegal sandmining / legal

sandmining

Participant 2 Sandmining Land based pollution,

smothering of reefs, garbage into the coastal area, solid waste and sedimentation

Pollution from ships, oil, sewage, garbage, air pollution

Participant 3 Sandmining sewage from yachts overfishing

Participant 4 Overfishing Ship waste, ballast water Underwater volcano

Participant 5 Sandmining Run off from lands, pesticide use Dumping of biohazardous waste

from the sea

Participant 6 Global warming, affecting coral

reefs, temperature rise affecting health of coral reefs

Pollution Sea level rise affecting coastal

development, vegetation

Participant 7 Run off from soil, soil erosion Industrial run off Pollution from yacht bottoms

Participant 8 Run off Sand mining Sea level rise due to climate

change

Participant 9 Sand mining Pollution from inland

Climate change, global warming, sea water temperature increases resulting in coral bleaching

Participant 10 Sale of petroleum based

products (in Bequia, taking place without regulation)

Disposal of untreated waste water by hotels (most of them go straight into the sea in SVG)

Overfishing Participant 11 Pollution from the grenadines

water fuel run off Repair work to yachts, such as

paint and lead chips

Participant 12 Land based pollution that filters

into the sea Deforestation that leads to

erosion of topsoil, sedimentation and destruction of coral

Oil spills

In summary, key issues identified in this exercise were:

Sandmining

Overfishing

Run off from land based activities (whether deforestation or agriculture or what)

Pollution (from yachts in terms of sewage, oil, paint, from different resorts in terms of sewage, from industrial pollution activities)

Climate change, sea level rise

24

It was argued that we will leave out climate change and sea-level rise because there is little that management of the marine environment can do to stop climate change; whereas we can have policies to affect the other things, such as policies for the MPAs. Session 3: What are the impacts of threats for three future scenarios (Business As Usual (BAU), continued decline, and improved condition). Sandmining Group BAU

There are policies. But sand mining is done by the govt, however not in the two areas of the marine parks. Sandmining was happening in South Coast, it used to be a big problem for erosion of beaches (such as Indian Bay) but not so much any more, it doesn’t happen much now.

Restoration needs to happen in the south coast beaches

The coral reefs need to be brought back to life Decline (worst case scenario) Improved condition (best case scenario)

Enforcement

Overfishing Group BAU

Designated areas in the Grenadines , however they believe the resource is inexhaustible, so the status quo will lead to continued decline

The concern with the TCMP is to maintain reefs and stop overfishing but little is done. If the recommended things are done, there will be a significant increase, but this is not happening.

With Leeward side, there are protected areas, but the inshore reefs have been wiped out

The marine parks don’t have any major concern with overfishing, trying instead to protect the areas as dive sites.

On south coast, the laws have been there for at least 100 years but there are errors since they allowed licences to be granted for fishermen to fish on the reefs, hard for this to be enforced in terms of checking licenses etc.

There is the possibility of significant change, there are remnants of mangroves still on the south coast.

Decline (worst case scenario) Improved condition (best case scenario) Run Off Group Definition:

Natural elements – rain, sun etc

Increased rain in these times

Run off from roofs, buildings

Agricultural run off BAU

These things affect the low lying areas

Natural forest areas, trees are being removed via illegal or natural means (hurricanes), exposing topsoil to weathering, lot of siltation

Illegal farming in upland areas, affecting downstream ecosystems

25

Agricultural farming – there are some practices that are well managed, but some people do it without any proper method, so the soil can be overused, left bare, and erosion will take place. So poor agricultural practices can cause a problems in these areas

Domestic houses – some houses don’t manage the natural rain water, soak-away etc, this will destroy the topsoil, which will run off into the marine environment, damaging the reefs.

Decline (worst case scenario) o There are laws but no implementation. So we need proper management systems or

programmes through proper monitoring exercises Improved condition (best case scenario)

o There are some laws and policies that are in place by stakeholders such as Mins of Health and Agriculture. So we can enforce the laws now.

o Good agricultural practices – conservation methods, where farmers will manage their run off via best practices which can reduce the nutrient rich soil from being eroded, and the soil will retain the water etc

o Method of harvesting of some of the natural elements such as water – collecting rain water, treating rain water etc. Times of hurricanes, there is loss of pipe-borne water.

o Grenadines developing a programme of treating rain water. o Educational programmes – important for people to know how to manage their soil

etc, to sensitise people to some of these issues. o Policies and programmes need to be implemented. o Someone said that there is not NO implementation, but rather that we need more

EFFECTIVE implementation. Pollution Group BAU

No regulations as yet for maintenance plans though plans are there. If this continues, we would see

Dying off of reefs

Threat to human health

Reduction in fish stocks (links to reefs)

Erosion (linked to loss of reefs)

Inundation due to storm surge Decline (worst case scenario) Improved condition (best case scenario)

Legislation and management plans leading to

Increase in health of ecosystems

Increase in health of coral reefs

Increase in fish stocks Session 4: How will scenarios in ‘Session 3’ above affect the provision of ecosystem services and who will benefit? Sandmining Ecosystem Services:

Provisioning: mining of beach, changing coastline, leads to migration of species

Regulating: destruction of natural barriers, possible flooding, erosion, reclaiming of land by the sea

Cultural: destruction of recreational sites, for eg Indian Bay. There used to be a hotel but it had to close down.

26

Supporting: destruction of natural habitats, eg no nesting sites for turtles. Beneficiaries:

Residents of the area whose houses are flooded or destroyed

Hotels

Fishermen

Entire community based on loss of revenues from these services. Overfishing Ecosystem services

In shore fishing on reefs disappeared for 2 reasons (1) reefs disappeared because of silting and (2) juveniles being caught via fish pots

On bigger reefs, similar situation, and larger fishes have moved away Beneficiaries:

If MPA established, one disadvantage is that people who make a living from catching the little fish would no longer be able to do so, but in time, size of fish would improve, reefs would improve, better for tourism, snorkelers, divers.

Food chain would expand.

Hotels would get more desired species (red snapper asked for a lot)

Coral would recover and grow and the reefs would be healthier and more able to protect the coastlines

You need a holistic approach, no one thing would fix the problem. Pollution

o Ecosystem services o Reefs would die o Human health would be affected o Erosion etc o Cultural: recreational, tourism, diving, bathing, yachting, water sports o Hotel services, accommodation o more tourists o No fear of flooding of storm surges o Provisioning: fisheries would increase, benefitting the economy o Health issue: less health risk as people eat more fish o Beneficiaries: o Fishermen o Locals o Tourists o Various establishments

Run-Off Group

If we are able to improve practices and do a better job of implementation of legislation, education strategies, political will etc, then there should be improvements

Farmers would benefit from more productivity on their land as they are retaining more water, important particularly during dry season, also less erosion and retaining more nutrients

Householders – houses not undermined by landslides etc, they will also be collecting water to harvest, this is important during dry season, but during any season they will also reduce costs as they are using less water from the public system, they can then use that savings for other purposes

27

Fishermen - with cleaner water and less sedimentation, there will be positive impacts on coral reefs and coastal vegetation, benefitting fisheries

Recreationists on the beach – clean water, less sedimentation etc.

“Tree-tree” availability (some fish caught by locals in brackish waters), also less pollution in the “tree tree”

These are the main beneficiaries, but there are also multiplier effects

Note that the run off is not all bad, the more of the mountain comes down, it means that the island will grow at the edges, you will increase your flatter areas that can impact development, agriculture, housing, use of machinery on land etc. And what impact might this have on sea level rise and balancing sea level rise. But how to capture the sedimentation so that it doesn’t just flow into the sea? For example via mangroves?

In addition, if there are changing coastlines due to sedimentation, then the nature of the ecosystems will change, to what extent and to what form we really don’t know yet.

FINAL DISCUSSION

Look at different management options, with each management option having a range of benefits?

Or look at different benefits and value those?

Consensus was that we should focus on the management aspect. It is inaction that has killed us.

Bottom of yachts have some really poisonous stuff. Dangers for Tobago Cays. For example in Florida, depending on what is at the bottom of your yacht, you could only spend so many hours in the reef.

28

Workshop with Private Sector and Tourists 20 July 2011

3 participants

Given the lower than expected number of participants, we did not follow the planned agenda, but instead allowed the participants to lead the discussion. Introductory Discussion

Enforcement issues are the biggest issues.

Hopelessness of doing anything about marine protection and reef protection in St. Vincent.

Discussion over clashes among stakeholders.

SVG want tourists but no tourists are coming because they have no way of getting access to come.

How do you tell people who need to feed their families to leave the fish and marine life alone.

Impacts

Yacht pollution: People don’t have proper holding tanks, and the reefs are covered in toilet paper. So it is still being polluted even though it is protected.

Coral Extraction: People taking coral, what little coral there is

Overfishing: Parrotfish in Indian Bay long ago, but now all fished out

Unique biodiversity loss

Return of turtles in greater numbers to the Tobago Cays: a benefit of the marine park management. Before, Bequia people used to go to Tobago Cays to fish the turtles, eventually enforcement came but the poaching is still going on.

Issues of education.

Links from policy to people whose livelihoods are getting affected by marine park establishments.

Valuable lessons to learn from looking at neighbouring islands – eg Dominica working with fishing community to protect their whales, dolphins etc. Dominica is a good comparison for the mainland St Vincent.

Sunset cruise from Buccament Resort now turned into a whale and dolphin watching tour and the tours are jam packed every night.

MPA entrance fees need to be ring fenced. Relevant for choice experiment where we need to say that all the money from the entrance fees are going back to the management of the park, compensating for welfare / livelihood loss, other than just general taxation and funds for the government.

Assume money from the MPA. What should that money be used for to ensure protection and the maintenance of the environment?

Creation of moorings

Educational collateral – educating users such as yachties, educating schoolchildren, provision of training for vocational training courses so that young people can see the benefits of working in these areas – sailing, mooring, dive masters, biology degrees etc

Policing the rules that you put in place

What are the key things that you want to enforce?

Use of moorings

Pollution – major problem in the south coast, coming from a lot of the small hotels, from the main road, from the drains that go straight into the sea

29

Run off in the south coast

Regulations to stop yachts without holding tanks coming in to the Tobago Cays

Use of pesticides

Use of nitrates in the water – on Leeward coast has many of the agricultural pollutants from marijuana production, creating huge algal blooms on the coast which is killing both hard and soft coral

Yachts coming in and dropping their anchors wherever. Introduce a fine and impound boats! But then you need the enforcer.

Introduction of fees to utilise the areas, to the divers, tour operators etc. Worked well in Tobago Cays but met with huge opposition initially.

French yacht people in particular don’t seem to care about protecting the marine environment.

How much could we charge to access the marine park?

The question is more how much you should make everybody pay. It should be heterogeneous?

Divers $5 USD per person one time for St Vincent

Tobago Cays, another charge

Bigger contributions being asked from tour operators could put them out of business

She says they can’t ask per dive or per snorkeler

We do not use the Southern coast, we use more the Leeward side. So, asking for someone to pay on the Southern side, it should be the hoteliers.

How do tourists feel?

Improving reef is not as important as maintaining actual beach front (this from the cruise ship tourism person). These people just want to use the beach and the beachfront. The pollution on the beach is therefore a major problem –from run off, hotel effluents, dogs on the beach, dog excretions on the beach. They have had guests getting sick and cruise ships complaining. One of the hotels had its waste going directly out to the beach in front of everyone.

Sandmining on the south coast is difficult since it is difficult to get a truck down to the beach. It is more prevalent on the north and windward sides of the island.

Buccament Bay brought barge full of white sand to create white beaches. In the meantime, for the last 18 months or so, water quality testers have been brought in from Barbados every week to test the water. So, the hotel wastewater has been treated and is clean – there is more pollution in the rainwater.

However, in the South, there are older properties that use soak aways or send waste directly into the ocean.

Consistent education of the youth is the key, 5-10 year plan.

Climate change: correlated with the seaweeds and logs on the beach?

English lady said it comes from changing currents, the seaweeds are coming from the Sargasso Sea

Seaweeds after composted make great fertiliser – why not tell farmers come and pick it?

Opinion that global warming, ocean acidification, particulates in the water, transboundary pollution are the more important areas.

From an economic perspective, issues for SVG are overfishing, destructive fishing practices – short term. In the medium term, biological invasions (such as lionfish in Bahamas and Belize) could wipe out the local fisheries.

30

Policy makers locally and globally need to do something about all of this.

New airport ? lots of siltation and run off in that area since they blasted the mountain, and reefs decimated.

Meeting with Project Steering Group Listing benefits and listing threats

The different threats impact all the benefits, so we will focus on valuing the benefits

But this doesn’t give the different management options.

What we can do is a matrix that links the Ecosystem Goods and Services (EGS) benefits to the different policy options. So, rows are EGS categories with details, and columns are the major threats linked to policy options. We need stakeholder help to rank them in the ticks and crosses

For impacts to be lessened, alternative livelihoods need to be found. We need neutral welfare impacts.

In discussion of beach recreation, talk of size and colour of the beach, affected by sandmining and loss of coral and loss of parrotfish.

We need to make sure to capture the following groups:

o tourists: divers, yachties, cruise ship tourists, all other tourists on the beach etc

o locals: fishermen, people who use the beach, and everyone else, and other people who are impacted by it, such as people who work in the tourism sector

The tables below provide a summary of the key findings from the exercises undertaken with the Project steering group.

Table 8: Links between policy intervention and the provision of ecosystem services

Stop Sewage (yachts, houses and hotels)

Stop Overfishing / bad fishing practices

Stop Land Based Pollution (mainly agricultural, such as pesticides, eutrophication and sedimentation

Stop sandmining / extraction of coral

Introduce ‘No take zones’ that would ban fishing and anchoring

Eco

syst

em s

erv

ice

imp

acts

Provisioning: Fishing: increases in fish numbers, size and desirable species

++ ++ ++ 0 +

Regulating: Coastal protection Water quality / human health

+

++

+

0

+

++

+++

0

++

0

Habitat: Species diversity, ecosystem resilience and genetic pool – Existence value

+ +++ ++ + +++

Cultural / recreational: Beach recreation Diving / snorkelling recreation

+

++

+

+++

+

++

+++

0

0

++

Notes: ‘+++’ indicates a high level of linkages; ‘++’ a moderate level; ‘+’ a low level; and ‘0’ no linkage

31

Table 9: Current levels of ecosystem services in MPA

Ecosystem service Worst case scenario

description (1)

South coast Current Improve Decline

Leeward coast Current Improve Decline

Tobago Cays Current Improve Decline

Best case scenario description

(10)

Fishing: increases in fish numbers, size and desirable species

No fish for fishing in and / or around

MPA

2 3 4

3 4 4

4 4 5

A sustainable catch of large, desirable

fish in and / or around MPA

Coastal protection

No coastal protection with very high risk of

flooding

2 3 4

2 3 4

2 4 4

Excellent coastal protection with no threat of flooding

Water quality / human health

High risk of gastro intestinal disorder/

skin rashes / ear infections

1 2 4

2 3 5

2 3 5

No health problems

Species diversity, ecosystem resilience and genetic pool – Existence

value

Low species diversity and low

resilience

1 2 4

2 4 4

2 4 5

High species diversity and very

resilient

Beach recreation


2 4 5

2 4 5

3 5 5

Large stable beaches

Diving / snorkelling recreation

Poor quality dive site

1 2 4

2 4 5

3 5 5

Excellent dive site

Notes: The numbers in the table relate to the three possible future scenarios: Current situation, Improved MPA management, Declined MPA management, where 1 = the worst case scenario and 10 = the best case scenario.

32

Annex 3. Survey instrument ‘Interview script’

SVG Valuation Study: Residents.

Notes to interviewers.

In this interviewer script, we use the following colour coding system:

Black: This information and questions are what is included in the respondents’

questionnaire.

Red: This is the script to be read out by the interviewer during the workshops.

GREEN: THESE ARE THE INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE INTERVIEWER TO FOLLOW

33

Good afternoon / evening. Welcome to this workshop.

My name is XXX. We are researchers from Aberystwyth University (UK) and XXX.

The reason that you have been invited here today is to help us with a government-funded research project, in which we will aim to investigate people’s opinions of issues affecting St Vincent and the Grenadine’s natural resources. The findings from this workshop, along with several others to be held at different locations throughout SVG, will be used by government officials to help them make important decisions about policies that may affect you and your use of SVG’s natural resources. It is therefore important that you think carefully about the questions that we ask you and provide honest and frank responses.

Before we begin, however, I would wish to run through some house-keeping issues and then provide you with an overview of how this workshop will run.

First, house-keeping. In the unlikely event of a fire or other emergency, the fire exits are here [point / explain]. Toilets can be found here [explain]. The workshop will last for approximately 1 ¾ hours [so we will be finished by TIME].

In terms of how the workshop will run, you will be asked to consider and discuss your views on a range of issues and how these might affect you. In particular, you will be asked to consider a series of choice tasks that require you to make trade-offs between different policy options that are currently being considered by the government. We will provide you with two documents. The first is the questionnaire that you will record your answers to questions that we pose. The second is an information sheet that we will refer to during the workshop. We ask that you don’t browse through these documents, but wait for instructions as to when to turn over the pages. During the workshop, you will be asked to answer a series of questions, as well as contribute to group discussions. All of this will become much clearer as we proceed.

Please be assured that any information you give today will be used only for this research. All information collected will be securely stored and will be used anonymously. It is important that you answer all questions as truthfully as possible and that your answers reflect YOUR views and opinions. Finally, if you have any questions relating to any of today’s activities, don’t be afraid to ask.

We hope you will find the next hour and a half informative, thought provoking and enjoyable.

Any questions?

Before we get started, could we go round the room and everybody can introduce themselves.

So, let’s get started.

[HAND OUT QUESTIONNAIRE]

Your first task is to fill out the information at the top of the first page of the Questionnaire Answer Sheet. The location is [state location of interview], and date is [DATE]. The information on South Coast / Tobago Cays; and Set A, B, C, D, E can be found on the front cover of the information pack. Once you have filled in this information, you should answer Question 1 – 4.

34

Name: ___________________________________________________

Location: _________________________________________________

Date: ____________________________________________________

Are you a: Local resident of SVG

Tourist to SVG

South Coast Tobago Cays

Set: A B C D E

Section A: About you

1. Where do you live?

St Vincent Grenadines

Other Caribbean island

North America

South America

Europe

Asia

Australasia

2. Which of the SVG islands have you visited over the past year? St Vincent

Bequia

Balliceaux island

Mustique

Canouan

Union island

Mayreau

Tobago Cays

Other

____________________

3. How often do you participate in the following recreational activities?

Never Occasionally Regularly

Hiking

Waterfalls

Wildlife watching

Fishing

Beach activities

Snorkelling

Diving

Yachting / sailing

4. [Locals only]: To what extent are you involved in the following industries?


Farming

Fishing

Tourism

Nature protection

Sand mining

35

[PLEASE WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS]

Section B: Marine Protected Areas in SVG?

[READ OUT TEXT BELOW.

REFER PARTICIPANTS TO THE TABLE AND MAP ON SECTION B OF INFORMATION PACK]

In this workshop, we will be focusing on issues relating to the protection and enhancement of marine ecosystems in SVG. The term ‘marine ecosystem’ is used to describe the various habitats in and around the coast of SVG such as the coral reefs, sea grass beds, rocky coasts and beaches. Currently, the SVG government uses a range of policy measures to designate and protect marine environments. These ‘Protected Areas’ include: Marine Parks, Marine Reserves and Marine Conservation Areas.

Marine Parks: The highest level of protection is associated with Marine Parks. Currently, only the Tobago Cays is designated as a Marine Park. However, there are proposals to designate some of the South Coasts of St Vincent as Marine Protected Parks, as well as 3 site on the leeward coast: Chateaubelair Islet Marine Park, Petit Byahaut Marine Park, Anchor Reef Marine Park

Marine Reserves: The next level of protection is associated with Marine Reserves. Tobago Cays is currently the only site designated as a Marine Reserve. However, it is proposed that sites in Canouan, Isle de Quatre and Mustique are upgraded to Marine Reserves.

Marine Conservation Areas: The lowest levels of protection are provided by Marine Conservation Areas. In SVG, there are currently 6 sites designated as Marine Conservation Areas: Bequia, Petit St Vincent, Union Island / Palm Island, Canouan, Isle de Quatre and Mustique. There are proposals to upgrade the latter 3 sites (Canouan, Isle de Quatre and Mustique) to Marine Reserves.

Table: Current and propose marine protected area designations.

Incre

asin

g levels

of

pro

tection

Designation Current Protection Proposed Protection

Marine Park:

Tobago Cays Tobago Cays

St Vincent South Coast

Chateaubelair Islet Marine Park

Petit Byahaut Marine Park

Anchor Reef Marine Park

Marine Reserve: Tobago Cays Canouan

Isle de Quatre

Mustique

Marine Conservation Area

Bequia

Petit St Vincent

Union Island / Palm Island

Canouan

Isle de Quatre

Mustique

Bequia

Petit St Vincent


36

[NOW ANSWER QUESTIONS 5 AND 6 IN SECTION B OF YOUR ANSWER SHEET]

37

5. Before you came here today, did you know about SVG’s protected area policy relating to the marine environment?

Yes, I have a good understanding of SVG’s marine protected area policy

Yes, I knew that marine areas were protected, but I don’t know specific details

No, I did not realise that marine areas are protected

6. How often have you visited the following marine protected area sites?


Tobago Cays

St Vincent south coast




Bequia Marine

Canouan Marine

Isle de Quatre

Mustique

Petit St. Vincent

Union island / Palm Island


38

[NOW GET THEM TO ANSWER QUESTIONS 7 AND 8. YOU WILL NEED TO DESCRIBE THE CONCEPTS IN EACH

QUESTION TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT WE MEAN]

7. Protecting marine sites is likely to deliver a range benefits to both residents of, and tourists to, SVG. Below is a list of these potential benefits. On a scale 1 – 5, how important are these benefits to YOU?

Not important Very important

Increase number and size of ‘desirable’ fish and shell fish 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Enhanced protection against coastal erosion / flooding 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Reduced health risks from poor sea water quality 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Enhanced diversity and resilience of marine life 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Larger, more stable beaches 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Enhance opportunities for diving and snorkelling 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

8. To ensure that the benefits outlined in Q7 are attained, an increased level of marine

protection would be needed to better manage detrimental activities on land and in the

sea. Below are a list of detrimental activities; some of which you might be involved in.

How might increased protection affect you in terms of your involvement in these

activities?

No impact Large impact

Better management human waste from domestic housing 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Better management of human waste from tourist accommodation 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Better management of human waste from yachts / boats 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Stop unsustainable fishing practices (e.g. spear fishing, use of pots) 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Introduce ‘no take zones’ where fishing would be banned 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Introduce ‘no take zones’ where anchoring would be banned 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Better management of farm pollutants (e.g. fertilisers, pesticides) 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Better management of land to reduce sediment run-off 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5

Stop sand mining 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5


39

Section C: Discussion

How do the things that we do on land and in the sea affect current and future benefits from the sea?

Above, we asked you to think about:

(i) the benefits you might attain from an increased level of marine protection and

(ii) how such designations might restrict what you do on land and in the sea.

Over the next 20 – 30 minutes, we would like you to consider further the links between what you do and the benefits that you attain from the sea.

In the table below, we have listed 5 activities that currently threatening the marine environment around SVG, which could be restricted through changes to the marine protection system. As a group, we would like you to discuss each of these activities in turn and ‘score’ the level of impact that the activity has on the various benefits listed in the table. If you consider the activity to have a minimal impact, score it ‘+’, if a medium impact score it ‘++’, and a high impact score it ‘+++’. If no impact, score it ‘0’.

[COPY A SUMMARISED VERSION OF TABLE 1A (IE BITS IN BOLD) ONTO A FLIP CHART AND REFER

PARTICIPANTS TO TABLE 1 IN SECTION C OF THE ANSWER BOOKLET.

FACILITATOR TO:

FIRST EXPLAIN EACH OF THE ACTIVITES AND BENEFITS.

THEN GUIDE THE PARTICIPANTS THROUGH THE TABLE 1, TAKING EACH ACTIVITY IN

TURN. SCORING SHOULD BE DONE AS A GROUP. FACILITATOR TO RECORD RESULTS

AT THE END, GIVE PARTICIPANTS A COUPLE OF MINUTES TO REVIEW THEIR

RESULTS. ]

40

Table 1a: Impacts of land and sea based activities on the benefits from the marine

environment.


1 Stop

Sewage (yachts,

houses and hotels)

2 Stop




sedimentation

4 Stop


coral

5 Introduce ‘No


fishing / anchoring

Be

ne

fits







41

ONCE THEY HAVE COMPLETED THE EXERCISE, SHOW THEM THE RESULTS FROM

THE EXPERTS REVIEW (TABLE 2 IN THEIR ANSWER BOOKLETS) AND DISCUSS ANY

DIFFERENCES THAT WERE FOUND BETWEEN THE RESULTS]

Table 1b: Impacts of land and sea based activities on the benefits from the marine

environment: Expert results


1 Stop Sewage

(yachts, houses and hotels)

2 Stop


3 Stop Land Based Pollution

(mainly agricultural, such as pesticides, eutrophication

and sedimentation

4 Stop


coral

5 Introduce ‘No

take zones’ that would

ban fishing / anchoring

Be

ne

fits


++ ++ ++ 0 +


+ + + +++ ++

Human health: Risk of gastro- intestinal disorder/ skin rashes / ear infections from poor sea water quality.

++ 0 ++ 0 0


+ +++ ++ + +++


+ + + +++ 0


++ +++ ++ 0 ++

42

SECTION E: EVALUATION OF THE BENEFITS THAT YOU MIGHT ATTAIN FROM CHANGES TO MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN SVG.

We would now like to focus on the benefits that marine ecosystems provide to people. When we developed this study, we asked experts to identify, on a scale 1 – 5, the possible range of benefits that the marine environments might provide people. Table 2 on your Information booklet summarises this information for the 6 types of benefits that have been discussed. The table describes the different levels of benefits from a worst case scenario (1 box ticked) to best case scenario (5 boxes ticked).

Table 2: Range of benefits from marine protected areas

Ecosystem service

Worst case scenario

description

(Level 1)

Level 2

Level 3

Level4

Best case scenario

description

(Level 5)


No fish


Moderate fish numbers

including some large fish. Few desirable fish.

Moderate

numbers of large fish including

some desirable fish.



No coastal

protection with high risk of

flooding


flooding

Moderate coastal protection with a

some risk of flooding

Good coastal protection with

minimal threat of flooding

Excellent coastal protection with

no threat of flooding


High risk to

human health




No health problems


Low genetic

diversity with poor resilience

Low genetic

diversity with short term resilience

Moderate genetic diversity with medium term

resilience

High genetic diversity with medium term

resilience

High genetic diversity with

long term resilience



Small, stable beach


Large, stable beach

Large, actively growing, stable

beaches


Very poor diving experience: coral badly degraded

and limited marine life

Poor diving

experience: coral badly degraded and moderate

marine life

Moderate diving experience: coral

in reasonable condition and

moderate marine life

Good diving

experience: coral in good condition and good marine

life

Excellent diving experience: coral

in excellent condition and

abundant marine life

Cost: Annual tax (EC$ per annum for 5 years)

EC$5 Per annum for 5 years





EC$160 Per annum for

5 years

[REFER PARTICIPANTS TO SECTION E AND TABLE 3 OF THE INFORMATION BOOK.]

43

Now that we have a better understanding of Marine Protected Areas and the benefits they may provide, we would now like you to make some choices about future options for protecting and enhancing SVG’s marine resource. In particular, we would first like to focus on the Proposed Marine Park on the St Vincent South Coast. Later, we will explore the benefits from all marine protected areas in SVG.

Government officials and scientists have identified three broad scenarios for the future of the St Vincent South Coast marine ecosystems:

Continued decline: Here it is assumed that current systems of marine protection are not implemented. The result of which is that the marine ecosystem continues to be degraded, which in turn will reduce the benefits that you might attain from the sea.

Current condition: Here it is assumed that the current system of marine protection is retained and effectively implemented. The result of which is that the marine ecosystem is retained in its current condition, which in turn will sustain the benefits that you currently attain from the sea.

Improved condition: Here it is assumed that the new system of marine protection is implemented. The result of which is that the marine ecosystem will gradually improve, which in turn will enhance the benefits that you might attain from the sea.

Table 3 links the levels of benefits discussed earlier to these three possible future scenarios In the exercise that follows, we will be asking you to make choices between different combinations of benefits that might be achieve in the ST VINCENT SOUTH COAST marine park.





Moderate fish numbers incl.some large fish. Few

desirable fish.

Moderate numbers of large fish including




flooding

Moderate coastal protection with a some

risk of flooding


flooding







Low genetic diversity with short term

resilience


resilience


Small, stable beach

Large, stable beach




marine life

Poor diving experience: coral badly degraded and moderate marine

life

Good diving experience: coral in good condition

and good marine life

44

However, the government’s spending options are not quite this straight forward. Depending on how the government spends its money, it can target the delivery of different types of benefit associated with marine ecosystems; where the types of benefits may relate to the 6 groups of benefits that we have already discussed. So for example, the government might target spending on activities that help to sustain beaches, while at the same time reduce spending on protecting and enhancing fish species. Thus, there is a great amount of flexibility in terms of how much money the government allocates to marine areas, what it spends this money on and how this might benefit people.

So where do YOU fit in?

As already indicated, the government is still undecided about how it will fund marine protected areas in the future. However, the government also has a duty to spend its money in the best interests of the public. It has therefore asked us to help them assess this ‘value for money’ through this research. We will therefore be attempting to find out how much YOU (as representatives of the public / tourists) benefit from marine ecosystems.

How will we do this?

To do this, we will present you with a series of ‘choice tasks’, in which we ask you to indicate your preferred policy option for the future of the marine ecosystems on the St Vincent South Coast. An example of a typical choice task is presented below.


(Continued decline)




desirable fish.





flooding


flooding












Small, stable beach



limited marine life


marine life


limited marine life

Cost (EC$ per year) EC$ 20 EC$160 0

I prefer: Option A Option B Baseline How confident do you feel about this choice? (Not confident) 0 – 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (Very confident)

45

You will notice that the ‘choice task’ is displayed as a table with four columns. The first column indicates the type of benefit that we would like you to consider in each policy option. These benefit categories are those categories that we discussed earlier.

The next three columns related to different policy options for the future of marine ecosystems. These are labelled ‘Option A’, ‘Option B’ and a ‘Baseline. You will be asked to choose your preferred policy from these 3 options.

Baseline option

For all of the choice tasks that you consider, the baseline option (i.e. the fourth column) will remain constant: this allows us to directly compare your choices across different choice tasks. So, for this project, we will assume that this baseline corresponds to a withdrawal of funding for the protection of the St Vincent South Coast marine park, which would mean that the various activities on land and in the sea discussed earlier would continue to threaten marine ecosystems, which in turn would reduce benefits that you might attain from the sea.

Option A and Option B

The middle two columns, ‘Option A’ and ‘Option B’ describe two alternative options for future spending on Marine protection in the St Vincent South Coast areas. In these two options, we assume that the government will target spending to different elements of benefit delivered by marine ecosystems. So in the example provided, Option A has a strong focus on coastal protection, ecosystem resilience and beaches, while Option B targets enhancement of diving / snorkelling experiences.

Paying for marine protection

Any future policies to protect marine ecosystems will need to be funded. Funding might come from increases in resident’s or tourist taxation. In addition to the benefits from the three policy options, you also need to consider how much each of these policy options will cost you. You will find this information in the last row of each choice task. In the example provided, Option A will cost you EC$20 per year, while Option B will cost you EC$160. These costs will vary in each choice task. The baseline option (last column) will not cost you anything since it relates to a withdrawal of funding for marine protection.

When we ask you to decide which policy option you prefer, you will need to consider the benefits that will be delivered by each policy option and weigh this up against the costs to you. If the costs of Option A or B are higher than your household would be willing and able to pay, you must choose the baseline option; even if this means that in that particular choice task you choose an option that does not provide any protection of marine ecosystems. Your support for protection marine ecosystems will be picked up in other choice tasks.

[GET THE PARTICIPANTS TO THINK ABOUT THIS EXAMPLE AND ASK THEM TO DESCRIBE HOW THEY CAME TO

SELECT THEIR PREFERRED OPTION: A, B OF BASELINE]

Do you have any questions / issues about completing this sort of choice task?

46

Ok, in your information pack, you will find a series of five choice tasks. Before considering these choice tasks, could I first ask that you copy the ‘Choice set group’ number from your information pack into Question 9 of your questionnaire answer sheet.

[GET RESPONDENTS TO WRITE CHOICE SET GROUP IN ANSWER SHEET Q9]

Ok, I will now give you around 10 minutes to examine and complete the 5 choice tasks. Before you do, however, there are a few other things that you should remember when making your choices:

[REFER RESPONDENTS TO THE LIST OF THINGS TO REMEMBER WHEN COMPLETING THE CHOICE

TASKS]

Remember the scope of the marine protection policy. In this study, we are only interested in the benefits that might arise from protection of the marine ecosystems within the proposed South Coast Marine Park. You should therefore assume that the condition of marine ecosystems out with this area would continue along their current trajectories: other sites within SVG currently designated as marine conservation areas and marine reserves will continue to have limited protection, while the remaining area of marine ecosystems will continue to decline at their current rates. Note, you will be asked to value all marine parks in SVG later, so your value for South Coast Marine Park needs to be considered in this wider context.







Finally it will be useful to us if you show how confident you feel about the choices that you made. You can record this information in your questionnaire. Also, after you have completed all 5 choice tasks, you should indicate the thought process you went through when making your choices. You should now complete the 5 choice tasks. If you need any help, please ask one of us to assist you.

47

Choice Set A: Answer Sheet

9. Choice task group number (as indicated on your information pack): [_______]

10. For each choice tasks (described in p12 – 16 of your ‘Information Sheet’, please record your preferred policy Option, and your level of confidence in selecting that Option.

Choice Task 1: I prefer: Option A Option B Baseline

How confident do you feel about this choice? (Not confident) 0 – 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 (Very

confident)



confident)



confident)



confident)



11. Which statement best describes how you made your choice of Option? I chose randomly I chose the baseline plan because I don’t feel that I would benefit from marine ecosystems I chose the baseline plan because I don’t want to pay more tax I never chose the baseline plan because I don’t want to see marine ecosystems decline I chose the cheapest Option I chose an Option if it was below a certain cost I chose the plan which appeared to provide the greatest overall benefits relative to the cost I chose the plan that appeared to provide the greatest overall benefits irrespective of costs Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………………………..

12. Which statement best describes how you considered the benefits from the choice tasks I only considered the benefits that I personally would attain from marine protection I considered the benefits that my family and closest friends might attain from marine protection I considered the overall benefits of marine protection to people living and visiting SVG

48

Section F: Future options for protecting ALL marine protected areas in SVG

In the 5 choice tasks that you complete above, you were asked to only consider the benefits that you might attain from marine protection at the St Vincent South Coast. We would now like you to consider 5 more choice tasks, but this time the benefits would come from ALL of the proposed marine protected areas in SVG: as described in the Table and map on pages 2 and 3 of your Information booklet.

Designation Proposed Protection

Marine Park:

Tobago Cays





Marine Reserve: Canouan

Isle de Quatre

Mustique

Marine Conservation Area Bequia

Petit St Vincent


Again, when you make your choices you need to think about the benefits that you attain from marine protection, as well as the costs of the policy. Also, remember that this time we are asking you to consider ALL protected areas in SVG which would include St Vincent South Coast which was the focus of your last set of choice tasks.

49

13. For each choice tasks (described in pages 18 – 22 of your ‘Information Sheet’), please record your preferred policy Option, and your level of confidence in selecting that Option.

Choice Task 6:



Choice Task 7:



Choice Task 8:



Choice Task 9:



Choice Task 10:



14. Which statement best describes how you made your choice of Option?

I chose randomly

I chose the baseline plan because I don’t feel that I would benefit from marine ecosystems

I chose the baseline plan because I don’t want to pay more tax

I never chose the baseline plan because I don’t want to see marine ecosystems decline

I chose the cheapest Option

I chose an Option if it was below a certain cost

I chose the plan which appeared to provide the greatest overall benefits relative to the cost

I chose the plan that appeared to provide the greatest overall benefits irrespective of costs

Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………………………..

15. Which statement best describes how you considered the benefits from the choice tasks

I only considered the benefits that I personally would attain from marine protection

I considered the benefits that my family and closest friends might attain from marine protection

I considered the overall benefits of marine protection to people living and visiting SVG

50

Section F: One last choice task

We have one final choice task for you. In this choice task you will again be asked to consider all marine protected areas in SVG, but this time your choice will be between two extreme scenarios. The first is the baseline as used in the previous set of choice tasks where the benefits would all decline, but this option would not cost you anything. The second scenario is one where we would assume that funds are available to ensure that all aspects of marine protection are achieved and thus you would attain an improvement in the delivery of all benefits. However, this option would have a cost to you. A description of the two scenarios is provided in your Information booklet. In Q16, on page 6 of your answer booklet, you need to record whether or not you would be willing to pay the stated amount to attain the benefits from the Improved scenario. If the cost amount is more than you are willing and able to pay for the benefits, then you must choose the Baseline option.

Baseline (Continued decline)

Improvement (Marine protected area

fully implemented)




desirable fish.



flooding


flooding Human health: Risk of gastro-intestinal disorder/ skin rashes / ear infections from poor sea water quality.







Small, stable beach




limited marine life


marine life Cost (EC$ per year) 0 EC$160

16. Would you be willing and able to pay the amount shown in Choice Task 11 (found in your Information booklet) for the benefits from the Improved scenario?

Yes No

51

17. Which statement best describes how you made your choice of Option?

I chose randomly

I chose the baseline plan because I don’t feel that I would benefit from marine ecosystems

I chose the baseline plan because I don’t want to pay more tax

I never chose the baseline plan because I don’t want to see marine ecosystems decline

I chose the cheapest Option

I chose an Option if it was below a certain cost

I chose the plan which appeared to provide the greatest overall benefits relative to the cost

I chose the plan that appeared to provide the greatest overall benefits irrespective of costs

Other (Please specify)…………………………………………………………………………..

[ONCE THE RESPONDENT HAS COMPLETED THIS SECTION, MOVE THEM ONTO SECTION H]

52

Section G: About you

A few details about you will help us to complete this work.

18. Gender Male Female

19. Please tell us which age group you are in Under 20 50 - 59

20 - 29 60 - 69 30 - 39 Over 70 40 - 49

20. Please tell us your employment status Unemployed Retired

Full time education or training

Employed part-time

Permanent sick or disability

Employed full-time

21. Please tell us what type of work you do. Professional Unskilled

Technical Management Semi-skilled Other

22. What is the highest level of education you have attained? Secondary University degree

College Higher degree Foundation degree/HND Professional qualification

23. Have you ever studied biology or environmentally related subjects in Primary Tertiary

Secondary University

24. Please indicate what your monthly household income (EC$ per month) is Less than $500 $3001 - $4000

$501 - $1000 $4001- $ 5000 $1,001 - $1500 $5001 - $6000 $1501 - $2000 $6001 - $7000 $2001 - $3000 More than $7001

25. Please tell us your marital status Single Divorced/separated

Married/living with partner Widowed

26. Please indicate how many dependents you are responsible for

Adults Children

27. Which of the following types of areas do you live? Urban Rural

Coastal Inland

53

Quality assurance

As part of our quality assurance procedures, my supervisors will contact a small, but random sample of people that have participated in this workshop to check that the workshop was conducted in an appropriate manner. Would you be willing to take part in our quality assurance check? No

Yes

If YES, could you provide us with the following information to allow us to contact you.

Respondent’s name ………………………………. Tel. No. .

I confirm that I participated in the workshop on Marine Ecosystems.

Participant’s signature.................................................................................. Date _ _ / _ _ / _ _

If you have any other comments about the workshop we would be very happy to receive them

Many thanks for your help!

54

Annex 4. Example of information pack

Notes: 10 different information packs were produced for this study: five for the St Vincent South Coast and five for the Tobago Cays. The key differences between the various versions of the information packs are the choice tasks and the discrete choice values for the contingent valuation question.

SVG Marine Ecosystem

Study

Information Booklet


Set A

Please do not write on this

Information booklet

55

Section B: Marine Protected Areas in SVG?

Table: Current and propose marine protected area designations.

Incr

easi

ng

leve

ls o

f p

rote

ctio

n

Designation Current Protection Proposed Protection

Marine Park:

Tobago Cays Tobago Cays St Vincent South Coast


Petit Byahaut Marine Park Anchor Reef Marine Park

Marine Reserve:

Tobago Cays Canouan Isle de Quatre

Mustique

Marine Conservation Zone

Bequia Petit St Vincent

Union Island / Palm Island Canouan

Isle de Quatre Mustique

Bequia Petit St Vincent


56

Map of designated and proposed Protected Areas in SVG

57

Section C: Discussion

How do the things that we do on land and in the sea affect current and future benefits from the sea?

In the table below, we list 5 activities that currently threatening the marine environment around SVG, which could be restricted through changes to the marine protection system around SVG.

As a group, we would like you to discuss each of these activities in turn and ‘score’ the level of impact that the activity has on the various benefits listed in the table.

Scoring system:

Minimal impact = ‘+’

Medium impact = ‘++’

High impact ‘+++’

No impact = ‘0’

Table 1a: Impacts of land and sea based activities on the benefits from the marine

environment.


1 Stop

Sewage (yachts,

houses and hotels)

2 Stop




sedimentation

4 Stop


coral

5 Introduce ‘No

take zones’ that would ban fishing and anchoring

Ben

efit

s







58

Table 1b: Impacts of land and sea based activities on the benefits from the marine

environment: Expert results


1 Stop

Sewage (yachts,

houses and hotels)

2 Stop




sedimentation

4 Stop


coral

5 Introduce ‘No


fishing / anchoring

Ben

efit

s


++ ++ ++ 0 +


+ + + +++ ++


++ 0 ++ 0 0


+ +++ ++ + +++


+ + + +++ 0


++ +++ ++ 0 ++

59

SECTION E:

EVALUATION OF THE BENEFITS THAT YOU MIGHT ATTAIN FROM CHANGES TO MARINE PROTECTED AREAS IN SVG.

Table 2: Range of benefits from marine protected areas

Ecosystem service

Worst case scenario

description

(Level 1)

Level 2

Level 3

Level4

Best case scenario

description

(Level 5)


No fish


Moderate fish numbers

including some large fish. Few desirable fish.

Moderate

numbers of large fish including




No coastal

protection with high risk of

flooding


flooding

Moderate coastal protection with a

some risk of flooding

Good coastal protection with

minimal threat of flooding

Excellent coastal protection with

no threat of flooding


High risk to

human health




No health problems


Low genetic

diversity with poor resilience

Low genetic

diversity with short term resilience

Moderate

genetic diversity with medium

term resilience


resilience

High genetic diversity with

long term resilience



Small, stable beach


Large, stable beach

Large, actively growing, stable

beaches


Very poor diving experience: coral badly degraded

and limited marine life

Poor diving

experience: coral badly degraded and moderate

marine life

Moderate diving experience: coral

in reasonable condition and


Good diving

experience: coral in good condition and good marine

life

Excellent diving experience: coral

in excellent condition and

abundant marine life

60

Section E: Future options for Marine Protection in SVG

We would now like you to make some choices about future options for protecting and enhancing SVG’s marine resource. In particular, we would like to focus on the Proposed Marine Park on the St Vincent South Coast.

Government officials and scientists have identified three broad scenarios for the future of the St Vincent South Coast marine ecosystems:

Continued decline: Here it is assumed that current systems of marine protection are not implemented. The result of which is that the marine ecosystem continues to be degraded, which in turn will reduce the benefits that you might attain from the sea.

Current condition: Here it is assumed that the current system of marine protection is retained and effectively implemented. The result of which is that the marine ecosystem is retained in its current condition, which in turn will sustain the benefits that you currently attain from the sea.

Improved condition: Here it is assumed that the new system of marine protection is implemented. The result of which is that the marine ecosystem will gradually improve, which in turn will enhance the benefits that you might attain from the sea.





Moderate fish numbers including some large fish.

Few desirable fish.


desirable fish.


Minimal coastal protection with a

moderate risk of flooding

Moderate coastal protection with a some

risk of flooding


flooding










Small, stable beach

Large, stable beach




marine life

Poor diving experience: coral badly degraded and


Good diving experience: coral in good condition

and good marine life

61

However, the government’s spending options are not quite this straight forward. Depending on how the government spends its money, it can target delivery of different types of benefit associated with marine ecosystems; where the types of benefits may relate to the 6 groups of benefits that we have already discussed. So for example, the government might target spending on activities that help to sustain beaches, while at the same time reduce spending on protecting and enhancing fish species. Thus, there is a great amount of flexibility in terms of how much money the government allocates to marine areas, what it spends this money on and how this might benefit people.

So where do YOU fit in?

As already indicated, the government is still undecided about how it will fund marine protected areas in the future. However, the government also has a duty to spend its money in the best interests of the public. It has therefore asked us to help them assess this ‘value for money’ through this research. We will therefore be attempting to find out how much YOU (as representatives of the public / tourists) benefit from marine ecosystems.

How will we do this?

To do this, we will present you with a series of ‘choice tasks’, in which we ask you to indicate your preferred policy option for the future of the marine ecosystems on the St Vincent South Coast. An example of a typical choice task is presented below.

62

Example choice task


(Continued decline)




desirable fish.





flooding


flooding












Small, stable beach



limited marine life


marine life


limited marine life

Cost (EC$ per year for 5 years)



EC$0



63

Things to think about when making your choices

Before you complete the choice tasks, there are a few other things that you should remember when making your choices:

Remember the scope of the marine protection policy. In this study, we are only interested in the benefits that might arise from protection of the marine ecosystems within the proposed South Coast Marine Park. You should therefore assume that condition of the marine ecosystems out with this area would continue along their current trajectories: other sites within SVG currently designated as marine conservation zones and marine reserves will continue to have limited protection, while the remaining area of marine ecosystems will continue to decline at their current rates. Note, you will be asked to value all marine parks in SVG later, so your value for St Vincent South Coast Marine Park needs to be considered in this wider context.







Finally it will be useful to us if you show how confident you feel about the choices that you made. You can record this information in your questionnaire. Also, after you have completed all 5 choice tasks, you should indicate the thought process you went through when making your choices. You should now complete the 5 choice tasks. If you need any help, please ask one of us to assist you.

64

Section E


Choice Set A

Choice Tasks 1 – 5

Please record the ‘Choice Set’ number (A) in Q9 of your answer sheet.

Then recorded your choices from the following 5 choice sets in Q10 of your answer sheet.

65

QUESTION 10: CHOICE TASK 1

SET CARD A1

Scenario A B BASELINE



desirable fish.


desirable fish.



Moderate coastal protection with a some risk

of flooding


flooding


flooding











Small, stable beach

Small, stable beach



marine life




marine life

Cost: EC$ per year for 5 years



EC$0



PLEASE RECORD YOUR CHOICE IN YOUR ANSWER BOOKLET, Q10, TASK 1

HINT Remember to choose the option that provides you with the greatest benefits relative to the

cost to you!

66


SET CARD A2




desirable fish.





flooding


of flooding


flooding










Large, stable beach

Large, stable beach

Small, stable beach



marine life


marine life


marine life




EC$0




HINT Remember that you are only considering the benefits that will come from the St Vincent South

Coast Marine Park; the other coastal areas around SVG will not change!

67


SET CARD A3




desirable fish.


Few desirable fish.




flooding


flooding


flooding










Small, stable beach

Large, stable beach

Small, stable beach



marine life

Good diving experience: coral in good condition and

good marine life


marine life




EC$0




HINT If the costs of Option A and Option B are more than you would be willing and able to pay, you

must choice the Baseline option!

68


SET CARD A4




desirable fish.





of flooding


flooding


flooding











Small, stable beach

Small, stable beach







marine life




EC$0




HINT Only 1 more choice task to go after this one

69


SET CARD A5




desirable fish.





flooding


flooding


flooding










Small, stable beach


Small, stable beach



good marine life


marine life


marine life




EC$0




HINT Well done, you have finished this set of choice tasks. Could you now complete Questions 11

and 12.

70

Section F

All marine protected areas in SVG

Choice Set 2A

Choice Tasks 1 – 5

Please record your choices from the following 5 choice sets in Q13 of your answer sheet.

Please remember that in these choice tasks you are to consider the benefits that would arise from ALL marine protected areas in SVG.

71


SET CARD 2B1




desirable fish.





flooding

No coastal protection with high risk of flooding
















good marine life


marine life


marine life Cost: EC$ per year for 5 years



EC$0




HINT Remember, the choice tasks in this section relate to policies that would enhance ALL of the marine protected areas in SVG. Thus, the benefits you need to consider here would include those provided by the St Vincent South Coast Marine Park (which you considered in the last

set of choice tasks: Q10) plus all the other marine protected areas highlighted in the table and map on Section B of this Information Sheet.

72


SET CARD 2B2





Few desirable fish




of flooding


flooding
















marine life


good marine life





EC$0




HINT Remember to choose the option that provides you with the greatest benefits relative to the

cost to you!

73


SET CARD 2B3




Few desirable fish


desirable fish.




flooding
















Excellent diving experience: coral in excellent condition and abundant marine life






EC$0




HINT If the costs of Option A and Option B are more than you would be willing and able to pay, you

must choice the Baseline option!

74


SET CARD 2B4









flooding
















good marine life


good marine life





EC$0




HINT Only 1 more choice task to go after this one

75


SET CARD 2B5





Few desirable fish




flooding

















marine life






EC$0




HINT Well done, you have finished this set of choice tasks. Could you now complete Questions 14

and 15.

76

Section F: ONE FINAL CHOICE TASK

In this final choice task, you are again be asked to consider ALL marine protected areas in SVG, but this time your choice will be between two extreme scenarios.

The baseline (as used in the previous set of choice tasks) where the benefits would all decline, but this option would not cost you anything.

The second scenario is one where we would assume that funds are available to ensure that all aspects of marine protection are achieved and thus you would attain an improvement in the delivery of all benefits. However, this option would have a cost to you.

A description of the two scenarios is provided below. You need to decide whether or not you would be willing and able to pay the stated amount to attain the benefits from the ‘Improvement’ scenario. If the cost amount is more than you are willing and able to pay for the benefits, then you must choose the Baseline option. You should recorded your answer in Q16 on page 6 of your answer booklet,

Baseline

(Continued decline)

Improvement

(Marine protected area fully implemented)




Few desirable fish.



flooding


flooding








Small, stable beach




limited marine life


marine life

Cost (EC$ per year) 0 EC$250

by dr mike christie (aberystwyth university) and sonja...

Documents