Peak Oil -- And What Do We Do Now?

Substantial amounts of money are required to manage and protect MPAs and EEZs, and to implement and enforce international agreements on fisheries, shipping, and migratory species. A recent survey of over 80 MPAs found that a global MPA network covering 30 percent of the world;s seas might cost between $7 billiob and $19 billion annually to run. In addition, it is often necessary to provide exonomic alternatives (or even, in some case, monetary compensation) to people whose traditional or future use of marine resources may be limited by new systems for the conservation and sustainable management of those resources. Without sufficient funding to finance effective management, there is a great tisk that many MPAs may become little more than paper parks, and that international agreements for managing marine resources may turn out to be little more than statements of good intentions.

This guide describes over 30 mechanism for financing the conservation of marine biodiversity, both with and outside of MPAs. Its main purpose is to familiarize conservation professionals - i.e., the managers and staff of government conservation agencies, international donors, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) - with a menu of options for financing the conservation of marine and coastal biodiversity. A number of economic incentive mechanisms for marine conservations (as contrasted with revenue-raising mechanisms) are also presented in section 5 (on Real estate and Development Rights) and section 6 (on Fishing Industry Revenues)

List of Financing Mechanisms for Marine Conservation:

Numerous detailed examples of how each mechanism was put into practice and suggestions for follow-up resources to delve into greater depth.

The financing mechanisms described in this guide may be able to generate substantial increases in funding for marine biodiversity conservation. The key to success lies in not relying on any one particular financing mechanism to provide all of the funding needed to support conservation and sustainable natural resource management activities in a particular area, but to rely instead on multiple revenue sources. This is because it is always possible that uncontrollable events or changes in circumstances may cause a particular funding source to dminish or dry up for a period of time.

 

A sustainable financing strategy should be tailored to the specific financial, legal, administrative, social, and political conditions in a particular area. Many of the mechanisms described in this guide require users of marine resources to pay for thier use - whether consumptive or non-consumptive in nature. This challenges traditional ideas that marine resources are free public commodities, and instead requires users of goods and sevices based on marine biodiversity to pay for thise benefits. On the other hand, some benefits of marine biodiversity may legitimately be considered as general public goods that should be paid for by governments or by the international community.

 

The scope and design of each financing mechanism should be based on the marine conservation activities and goals being implemented in each case. Certain tools may be appropriate to achieve one type of conservation goal but less effective in achieveing others. For example, revenues levied from the fishing industry may work well to finance direct resource management of specific marine species, while park entry and user fees may be more appropriate in financing MPAs and larger marine ecosystems. Because of the interrelated nature of the species in a marine ecosystem, the most complete financing program will draw from a variety of sources to affect a range of conservation issues. In the end, the design of the financing program is limited only by the creativity of the implementing authority,

 

Photo Source for Solution Icon