An economist’s stand on ecosystem modification measures

In the second session of the Uncertainty talks at SICSS, Hamburg, we (mankre, musjav and adrode) were invited to discuss the question “Considering the evolutionary potential in ecosystems and the related uncertainty, how should we decide on 2deg-related ecosystem management measures?” as economists, along with groups of social scientists, marine biologists and politicians.

It was the social scientists who opened the debate by stressing the cultural and aesthetic values of coral reefs. Ongoing societal transformations in mind, they pointed out a shift in values away from pure exploitation towards a will to change and protection. We share their opinion about now being a good time to discuss this issue. In this spirit, we could easily build on the social scientists’ opening statement by pointing out the importance of coral reefs for international and domestic economy. Studies made by the NOAA estimate the economic value of coral reefs at 30 to 375 Billion US$. However, we did not stop at pure lamentation on the bad trend but we even came up with a practical solution: coral farming. As field experiments and studies on tank-grown corals have shown, there is a huge potential lying within this technique. Scientists not only obtained growth rates four to 25 times faster than in nature, but also successfully planted thousands of tank-grown corals on dead reefs. Combined with the potential of genetic modification, which might enhance their resilience, we could not just save existing corals reefs, but also grow new ones as a coastal protection measure. In the face of higher storm rates expected due to global warming, the latter possibility should stress the advantage of this idea. The present marine biologists could not but back our point by stating: “Farming is possible”!

Now it was the politicians’ turn to present their opinion on this topic. In a reasonable manner, they stressed the importance of economic growth and their focus on agricultural subsidies. Although it seemed like they have not become fully aware of the problem of endangered coral reefs, they showed slight support for research on organisms which might adapt to new circumstances, like warmer oceans. After this, it was no surprise that the social scientists wanted the politicians to consider the social implications and demanded the participation of local stakeholders in the process.

A present NGO member suggested the establishment of marine protection areas to reduce the corals’ stress exposure, which was met with approval from the marine biologists. The scientists further warned about off-shore farming (using manure, for example) possibly endangering ecosystems and decreasing the biodiversity. We were able to supplement the two aforementioned points through our proposal of tank-based on-shore farming as a back-up measure. This means we should try to minimize the stress exposure of coral reefs without forgetting about local communal interests, while having the possibility to save reefs by planting farmed corals, if necessary. At this point, we also called for funding from the politicians’ side for further research on this topic.

Responding to the social scientists, the politicians admitted that they have not considered the social implications of their proposed adaptation measures towards climate change and in the same turn asked the social scientists for advice on this point. We (the economists) welcome this approach of interdisciplinary cooperation and see its realization potential in the case of coral farming, since this secures the local stakeholder businesses (e.g. fishery, tourism, etc.), making it significant for the economic growth and the wellbeing, especially of countries heavily affected by dying coral reefs, like Australia. It might also result in more funding for marine biological research, that could lead to a better understanding of the adaptation ability of corals. These resilient types of corals might help us protect ecosystems from total destruction due to climate change. It is clear that this does not negate the necessity of mitigation and, as a speaker of the Aborigine people mentioned correctly, a change in life style. But it might slow down devastating consequences of climate change and buy us time to adapt and change our way of life. However, it should be clear, that this cannot be accomplished by damaging the economy but just via an international binding agreement – as the politicians noted.

In this sense, we can conclude: the discussion showed that there is potential to tackle this important issue of endangered coral reefs via a multidisciplinary approach. Our idea of coral farming as a back-up system of ecosystem management crystallized as a proper candidate for such an approach, since it received approval from all the other groups. Nonetheless, this does not replace adaptation and mitigation measures, which are also essential for the wellbeing of ecosystems, humans and the economy.