Upload
hathu
View
222
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
THE ECONOMICS OF LAND DEGRADATION
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t
The rewards of investing in sustainable land management
Economics of Land Degradation Initiative:A global strategy for sustainable land management
www.eld-initiative.org
Research consortium:
United Nations University Institute of Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH)
International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)
Center for Development Research (ZEF)
The Global Mechanism of the UNCCD
Stockholm Environment Institute
University of Wyoming
Coordinated and edited by: Richard J. Thomas, Emmanuelle Quillérou, Naomi Stewart (all UNU-INWEH)
Report main contributors: Lucie Andeltova (ELD Secretariat); Edward Barbier (University of Wyoming); Louise Baker and
KugBo Shim (both United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification); Stacey Noel (Stockholm Environment Institute);
Simone Quatrini (The Global Mechanism of the UNCCD); Mark Schauer (ELD Secretariat)
This report was published with the support of the partner organizations of the ELD Initiative and
the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of the
German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).
Photography: Sylvia von dem Busche (cover); Muhmet Durikov (pg. 56); André Fabian (pg. 37);
Albert Gonzalez Farran (pg. 14); GIZ/Michael Tsegaye (pg. 7); Richard Thomas (pgs. 18, 44, 67);
Carl Purcell (pg. 50); Emmanuelle Quillérou (pgs. 13, 25, 27); Mark Schauer (pg. 35); Ilka Starrost (pg. 47);
Christoph Wiedemann (pg. 62); Alexander Weichert (pg. 52); Jens Wunderlich (pg. 41)
Visual concept: MediaCompany, Bonn Office
Layout: kippconcept GmbH, Bonn
For further information and feedback please contact:
ELD Secretariat
Mark Schauer
c/o Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
Godesberger Allee 119
53175 Bonn, Germany
Suggested citation:
ELD Initiative (2013). The rewards of investing in sustainable land management. Interim Report for the Economics of Land Degradation Initiative: A global strategy for sustainable land management. Available from: www.eld-initiative.org/
The rewards of investing in sustainable land management
September 2013
Economics of Land Degradation Initiative:A global strategy for sustainable land management
www.eld-initiative.org
4
Acknowledgements:
The ELD Initiative is very grateful to its Political and Scientific partners for their highly valuable support. The
following experts provided further valuable contributions during discussions held for the first two ELD Scientific
meetings: Walter J. Ammann (Global Risk Forum GRF Switzerland); Maurits Van den Berg (Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency PBL); Katharina Biely (University of Vienna Austria); Joachim von Braun (Center
for Development Research (ZEF) Germany); Claire Brown (UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre); Michael
Cherlet (JRC, European Commission); Robert Costanza (Australian National University Australia, formerly Portland
State University USA); Steve Danyo (World Bank); Estelle Dominati (AgResearch New Zealand); Olaf Erenstein
(International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) Ethiopia); Stefan Van der Esch (PBS Netherlands);
Salvatore di Falco (London School of Economics); Johannes Förster (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research,
UFZ Germany); Evan Fraser (University of Guelph); Markus Giger (WOCAT, ICDE, University of Bern); Julian Jäger
(ELD Secretariat); Justin Jonson (Threshold Environmental and Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) Australia);
Anne Juepner (UNDP); Sahibzada Irfanullah Khan (Sustainable Land Management Project (SLMP), Planning and
Development Department, Pakistan); Josh Ross Muleso Kharika (Department of Environmental Affairs, Republic of
South Africa); Pushpam Kumar (UNEP); Alejandro León Stewart (University of Chile); Alisher Mirzabaev (Center
for Development Research (ZEF) Germany); César Morales (Comisión Económica para América Latina y el Caribe
CEPAL Chile); Antonia Corinthia (Cory) Naz (Resources, Environment and Economics Center for Studies REECS The
Philippines); Ephraim Nkonya (IFPRI); Sarah Maryanne Anyoso Odera (ELD Secretariat); Noel Oettlé (Environmental
Monitoring Group South Africa); Alberto J. Palombo (Inter-American Water Resources Network (IWRN) Brasil); Soo
Jin Park (Seoul National University Korea); Philippe Saner (ETH/UZH Switzerland); Jessica Smith (UNEP World
Conservation Monitoring Centre); John Soussan (Independent consultant, formerly Stockholm Environment
Institute); Anneke Trux (GIZ); Patrick Wegerdt (European Commission). We would finally like to thank participants
to the UNCCD Second Scientific Conference 9-12 April 2013, Bonn, Germany for constructive discussions.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
5
K e y t e r m S
Land: The Earth’s surface and natural resources found there
Land degradation: Defined by the United Nations as a reduction or loss of the biologic or economic productivity and complexity of rain-fed cropland, irrigated cropland or range, pasture, forest, and woodland. In this report, it corresponds to the reduction in the economic value of ecosystem services and goods derived from land as a result of anthropogenic activities or natural biophysical evolution.
Ecosystem services: Benefits humans obtain from ecosystems1, and usually interpreted as the contri-bution of nature to a variety of “goods and services”. This term encompasses the following three categories normally used in economics2: (i) “goods” (e.g. products obtained from ecosystems, such as resource harvests, water, genetic material, etc.), (ii) “services” (e.g. recreational/tourism benefits or certain ecological regu-latory and habitat functions, such as water purification, climate regulation, ero-sion control, habitat provision, etc.), and (iii) cultural benefits (e.g. spiritual and religious beliefs, heritage values, etc.). Within the Millennium Ecosystem Assess-ment 1, ecosystem services are classified as provisioning, regulation, cultural, and supporting.
Sustainable The adoption of land use systems that enhance the ecological support functions land management: of land with appropriate management practices, and thus enable land users to
derive economic and social benefits from the land while maintaining those of future generations. This is usually done by integrating socio-economic principles with environmental concerns so as to: maintain or enhance production, reduce the level of production risk, protect the natural resource potential, prevent soil and water degradation, be economically viable, and be socially acceptable.
Natural capital: Inputs used for economic production that are derived from natural resources. This form of capital is complementary to other forms such as monetary and phys-ical or human-made capital (e.g. buildings, machinery).
Total Economic Value The full economic value allocated by society as a whole. This includes use value (TEV): (direct and indirect, option value) and non-use value.
Costs of action: Costs of appropriate actions to prevent and/or reverse land degradation. It includes the costs of implementing interventions such as conservation tillage, or soil and water conservation structures. They are often better known than the benefits from action.
Costs of inaction: The forgone benefits under “business-as-usual”, when no change is taken towards adopting more sustainable management. It is usually associated with estimates of loss in production and productivity, and represents the maximum benefits potentially derived by taking action, which may or may not materialise fully after action is taken. Economic valuation techniques can be used to estimate them before action is taken. The costs of inaction are often not as accurate as the costs of action, and tend to be greater than the actual benefits derived by taking action.
Benefits from action: The actual benefits that are derived from taking action. They can be measured accurately after action is taken if they are exchanged on a market. If not, benefits from action can be estimated using economic valuation. They may correspond fully or partially to the potential benefits from action, are estimated before an action has been taken, and are often lower than the costs of inaction.
Cost-benefit analysis: A comparison of all of the costs and benefits associated with action compared to “business-as-usual”.
6
Executive summary
In the face of global land degradation and its impacts on humanity and the environment, the Economics of Land Degradation (ELD) Initiative is dedicated to raising global awareness of the full economic potential of land and land services includ-ing market and non-market values (e.g. carbon sequestration, recreational values, nutrient cycling, etc.) and the costs of land degradation. The ELD Ini-tiative is focused on creating efficient and practical tools and methodologies to fully assess lands value and thus encourage sustainable land management.
Valuing land and related ecosystem services is an urgent and necessary action in order to focus attention on land degradation as a serious global problem. Land’s economic value is chroni-cally undervalued and commonly determined by immediate agricultural or forestry market values. This focus on short-term gain motivates the highest extraction rates possible from land, leading to unsustainable land management and degradation (the reduction or loss in biological or economic pro-ductivity). Between 10 – 20 % of drylands are degraded and 24 % of globally usable land on Earth is degraded at an estimated economic loss of USD 40 billion per year. This particularly affects the rural poor – those who depend directly upon the land for sustenance and income, and number over 1.2 bil-lion.
There are clear economic and environmental actions that can prevent and/or reverse land degradation. Further, the adoption of sustaina-ble land management could deliver up to USD 1.4 trillion in increased crop production. Given the combined global trends of increasing population and decreasing land availability and quality, there is great incentive to increase productivity on par-cels of land already in use and promote sustainable land management.
The costs of taking action to prevent and/or reverse land degradation are usually less than the benefits that can be obtained for investing in and applying sustainable land management practices. The case studies reveal that even with an incomplete assessment of the total value of ecosys-tem services investments in land prove to be benefi-cial to society and the environment.
Several existing options and pathways for action to address land degradation are available for successful change. These options range from adapting to biophysical conditions, to changing livelihood strategies. Examples include: reforesta-tion, afforestation, the adoption of more sustaina-ble agricultural practices, and the establishment of alternative livelihoods such as eco-tourism. Eco-nomic instruments to reverse land degradation trends include: payments for ecosystem services, subsidies, taxes, voluntary payments for environ-mental conservation, and access to micro-finance and credit. In addition, facilitating change requires adaptations to legal, social, and policy-focused con-texts that favour sustainable land management.
The ELD Initiative will inform the private sector of the opportunities available for investment and will help close the gap between better land stewardship and business practices. The compa-nies likely to be the most interested in efforts to pre-vent and/or reverse land degradation will be those that have more direct contact with land and thus be the most sensitive to land degradation. They will be found in resource-dependent sectors, such as the food and beverage, leisure and travel, and basic resource sectors.
The ELD Initiative will provide total economic valuation methods that will aid decision-mak-ing in land investments and land use planning, especially under the various conditions of any country affected by land degradation. Three main outcomes of the ELD Initiative include: (i) a vigorous case study analysis of existing literature and research to analyse the global research status of ELD, separated into three working groups of: Data and Methodology, Scenarios, and Options and Path-ways to action, (ii) the funding of further research that addresses identified gaps in knowledge, tech-nology, policy, and community motivation, and (iii) the development of a series of reports summarizing final conclusions and guidelines, individually tar-geted at policy makers, scientific communities, the private sector and local administrators and practi-tioners. Outputs of the initiative will inform the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertifica-tion (UNCCD) and its proposal for a new Sustainable Development Goal for post-Rio+20 of zero net land
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
7
degradation (defined as the achievement of a state of land degradation neutrality).
African, Asian, and Central and South American countries need to build their capacity in assess-ing the value of land. Current case studies indicate that much of the work done on economic valuation in these areas has been done by the international scientific community without adequate involve-ment or capacity building within the studied coun-tries. The ELD Initiative will incorporate capacity building activities into its projects to ensure that qualified personnel are available and present in affected countries.
The ELD Initiative is uniquely posited to address economic issues surrounding degraded lands, as a collaborative, international collection of researchers and citizens committed to deliver-ing comprehensible, transboundary, scientific,
political, and technological guidelines rooted in peer-reviewed research and designed for on-the-ground, customizable applications. This interim report is a reflection of work that has been performed, synthesized, and analysed, hitherto, building on earlier studies and ELD contributions to the conclusions and recommendations of the UNCCD Second Scientific Conference.
8
Acronyms and abbreviations
BMZ Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (Bundesministerium für wirtschaftliche Zusammenarbeit und Entwicklung)
ELD Economics of Land Degradation
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH
IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
PES Payment for Ecosystem Service
REDD United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation
REDD+ United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (plus conservation)
SLM Sustainable Land Management
TEEB The Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity
TEV Total Economic Value
UNCCD United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UNU-INWEH United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health
WTP Willingness to pay
ZEF Center for Development Research, University of Bonn, Germany
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
9
Table of contents
Key terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Executive summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Acronyms and abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table of contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Chapter 1 Why are the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management important? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Adopting sustainable land management: Securing environmental services, increasing food security, and alleviating poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Speaking the language of public and private decision-makers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
What needs to be considered in order to achieve sustainable land management? . . . . 15
Determining current and future land use practices and rationale: An example of behaviour patterns beyond farmers’ land-use decision-making . . . . . . 16
Choosing a way forward: Agricultural and alternative livelihoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Goals of the ELD Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Chapter 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements; using and expanding upon existing approaches and frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
How do we know sustainable land management is economically worth adopting? . . . . . 20
Why value nature (and not price it)? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
The Ecosystem services framework: Ecosystem services classified, valued independently, then aggregated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
The Total Economic Value framework and valuation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Valuing the costs of inaction or the benefits from action: What are the differences and implications? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Framework for decision-making: A comparison of the economic benefits of action (or costs of inaction) against the costs of action, and decision-making criteria . . . . . . . . 35
Six steps to estimate the economic benefits and costs of action, and one to take action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Other economic approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Shadow interest rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Multi-Criteria analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Macro-economic approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
10
Condition for improved decision-making . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Sampling method for extrapolation of existing case studies and global comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Method to assess the relevance of existing case studies and commissioning new case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Chapter 3 Existing case studies on the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management: The known and unknown (preliminary results) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Heightened interest in land value after the food crises security, in relation to addressing food security issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A need for capacity building in Africa, Asia, Central and South America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
A need to progress beyond use value and the agricultural sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Application of the ELD Initiative framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Options and pathways for action: Scaling up and out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Scenarios: Looking forward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
What are the opportunities for the private sector? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Going beyond knowledge gaps: Case studies commissioned by the ELD Initiative and links with parallel initiatives and projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Selected case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Preliminary analyses of case studies: A summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Appendix Appendix 1 – Economic valuation methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Appendix 2 – Required data for drivers of land degradation and their availability (global level analysis) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Appendix 3 – Case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
List of figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
List of tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
List of boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
List of selected case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
11
Introduction
The ELD Initiative is a global endeavour focused on land degradation and sustainable land man-agement in an economic context. The ELD Initia-tive aims to provide a methodology for total eco-nomic valuation that is both locally applicable and globally relevant, and based on peer-reviewed research and viable economic strategies. Land deg-radation is a serious global concern, particularly in light of increasing populations and a slowing down of crop yield increases. Rectifying this issue will necessitate a trans-disciplinary, multi-faceted approach that integrates sound economic valua-tions, and can be applied practically to inform deci-sion-makers.
The first chapter of this report analyses the current state of affairs; a review of degradation and decreas-ing crop yields demonstrate this issue is on the rise, and is a serious global concern when compounded with increasing population. The complexity of land-use decision-making is comprehensively explored. The second chapter looks at the ELD methodology, including a justification and breakdown of the Total Economic Value approach, and how it can be applied. The final chapter is a preliminary synthesis and analysis of the 186 case studies compiled thus far. It points to a preponderance of research per-formed in developing nations by researchers from developed nations that is focused on agricultural valuations, with studies increasing over the past 5 years. These conclusions demonstrate a lack of capacity within developing nations despite increas-ing interest as a result of the recent food price spikes, and a focus on market valuations. The ELD seeks to rectify these issues with a practical, supportive approach to full economic valuation.
c H A p t e r
01
12
Why are the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management important?
Land and the benefits that can be derived from it have been taken for granted and undervalued by civilizations both past and present, despite warn-ings of the need for careful land stewardship found
throughout ancient writings3, 4. Today, the pressure on land has reached such a critical point that serious doubts have been raised on the capacity of land to meet the demands of a human population rapidly increasing to 9 billion5. Demands for land include tradi-tional demands for food and water
flow regulation, and newer demands for biofuel production, climate regulation (including carbon sequestration and storage), spiritual, aesthetic, and recreational activities. Furthermore, during the last 20 – 30 years, land has been degrading globally6. This is mainly the result of land mismanagement, drought related-famines, and misperceptions of plentiful food production, large food stocks in Europe, open land frontiers, relatively cheap subsi-dized food, low land prices, and abundant energy and water resources.
Land degradation threatens fertile land throughout the world. The consequences are alarming: food insecurity, pests, reduced availability of clean water, increased vulnerability of affected areas and their populations to climate change, biodiversity loss, presence of invasive species, and much more. It is estimated that 1 to 1.5 billion people in all parts of the world are already directly negatively affected by land degradation7.
Adopting sustainable land management: Securing environmental services, increasing food security, and alleviating poverty
The realization that land has actually been neglected is belatedly beginning to gain traction, especially following the recent food crises. Between 10 – 20 % of drylands are degraded and 24 % of glob-
the nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.
Franklin D. Roosevelt [1937]
ally usable land on Earth is degraded at an esti-mated economic loss of USD 40 billion per year 7, 8. This includes a startling loss of grain worth USD 1.2 billion yearly. By 2050, at least a 70 – 100 % increase in food production from existing land resources may be needed in order to be able to feed current and future generations 9, 10. If agricultural land pro-ductivity remains at its current levels, an estimated 6 million hectares (ha) of land (roughly equivalent to the size of Norway) would need to be converted to agricultural production every year until at least 2030 to satisfy this growing demand. Thus, aware-ness of the seriousness and extent of land degrada-tion is gradually reversing the traditional disregard for its impacts on both economic and social develop-ment in affected countries. The combination of land prices that have been increasing since 2007/2008 and the proliferating rush of foreign investors seek-ing to buy or lease land is a signal that the world is waking up to threats from land degradation and closing frontiers 11. Despite this interest, levels of investment in land remain far below those needed to meet the rising demands for food and land-related services. Agricultural investments to the order of USD 30 billion per year are needed to feed our growing global population10, 12.
Answering the economic questions of land degra-dation and providing integrated frameworks for informed action are particularly important in the context of increasing land scarcity. Globally, the human population has reached a stage where culti-vated areas can no longer be expanded except in limited areas of South America and Sub-Saharan Africa, and even then the geographical extent of exploitable land may be over-estimated 13.
Furthermore, land degradation most directly impacts one of the most vulnerable human popula-tions – the rural poor. More than 1.2 billion people live on fragile lands in developing nations, where they are clustered in fragile environments, remote areas, and/or on marginal lands, and depend directly upon the most degraded land for their sus-tenance and income14, 15. Poverty and land degrada-
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
13
Total economic valuation and the establishment of national and international markets for ecosystem services (Turner et al. 2012 17, as reported in The Guardian’s Global Development18)
c A S e S t U D y 1
If the world’s poor were paid for the services that they indirectly provide to the rest of the planet by preserving some of the world’s key biodiversity hotspots, they could reap up to USD 500 billion, as shown by a study entitled Global Biodiversity Con-servation and the Alleviation of Poverty17. 17 of the world’s most important areas for biodiversity were accordingly analysed in this study led by a team from Conservation International, and co-authored by scientists at NatureServe, the United States National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Uni-versity of Wisconsin-Madison.
The researchers found that the monetary ben-efits derived from safeguarding these habitats (such as providing valuable services from food, medicines, clean water, or absorbing carbon diox-ide from the air) are more than triple the costs of conserving them. Some of the ecosystem service benefits were directly used by the local people themselves (e.g. using forests as sources of food, medicine, and shelter) while the rest of the ben-efits exist on regional or global scales.
Many conservation and ecosystem service benefits are invisible; e. g., maintaining the vege-tative cover of wooded lands can help prevent mudslides during heavy rainfall and also provides valuable watersheds that keep rivers healthy, pro-vide clean drinking water, and absorb carbon diox-ide from the air. These benefits are economic losses that are only obvious once it is too late.
There were some fledgling schemes reviewed that could help raise funding for sustainable land management – e. g., the United Nations-backed system called REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation), which uses carbon trading to generate cash and pre-serve trees – but they are all currently rather small in scale.
In regards to the value of nature and the impacts of environmental valuation for the rural poor, Will Turner, vice-president of Conservation International and lead author of the study, said: “Developed and developing economies cannot continue to ask the world’s poor to shoulder the burden of protecting these globally important ecosystem services for the rest of the world’s benefit, without compensation in return. This is exactly what we mean when we talk about valuing
natural capital. Nature may not send us a bill, but its essential services and flows, both direct and indirect, have concrete economic value.”
In this study, the “action” is the provision of compen-sation to local providers of environmental services (the poor), who directly depend on and benefit from good management of natural capital, while also delivering benefits at a regional and global scale. Total Economic Value can help assess the needs and opportunities for such compensation mechanisms, and the tools to scale them up and out. This is also one way to help the poor leave the poverty-environ-ment trap they may be stuck in.
C H A P T E R 0 1 Why are the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management important?
14
tion have a mixed relationship, as examined in Bar-bier14 and described by von Braun and Gerber16 and Barbier15, and can either increase the impact of or be one of the drivers of land degradation.
Under certain conditions, the rural poor can find themselves perpetuating patterns of land degrada-tion, because they have no alternative ways to ensure their survival in such hostile environments. These “asset-less” poor are most likely to suffer from extreme land degradation, resulting in a “poverty-environment trap” 14. Better land management must provide immediate beneficial impacts to household livelihoods in order to alleviate poverty, especially for the rural poor. Provided that they are
rewarded for their maintenance of/contribution to the services that land can provide which are benefi-cial at the global level (such as carbon storage) or regional level (such as water purification) (see Case Study 1), fostering the adoption of sustainable land management by the poor could enable the greatest and most efficient rewards in achieving food secu-rity and global land restoration.
However, if the poverty-environment trap does not close up on them, the poor naturally act as caretak-ers of the land they depend upon, as they are the first to most directly benefit from good land man-agement. Through this, they effectively limit land degradation. In this case, scaling up practices
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
15
adopted by the poor and establishing an enabling environment could bring the greatest and most effi-cient rewards in achieving food security and global land restoration.
As part of discussions focused on the post Rio+20 sustainable development goals, the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD) has proposed a target of zero net land degradation. In order to attract the necessary investments to pre-vent and/or reverse land degradation, this goal will require a focus on the economic value of land and the economics of land degradation. The provision of monetary figures reflecting these assessments and potential returns on investment are extremely valuable tools when presenting sustainable land management options to investors. For example, closing yield-potential gaps and reaching 95 % of potential maximum crop yields (assuming the adoption of sustainable land management) could create an additional 2.3 billion tonnes of crop pro-duction per year 19, equivalent to a potential gain of USD 1.4 trillion. Furthermore, when the numerous values of alternative and complementary land uses are added in, it is quite clear that there are huge investment opportunities for those committed to achieving improved land management that will not result in environmental degradation.
Speaking the language of public and private decision-makers
The scientific rationale for adopting sustainable land management is now well established in the academic literature20 and often recognised by prac-titioners. In spite of this, there is a noticeable lack of adoption of such practices. There is a range of rea-sons for this gap, including a lack of financial resources required to switch to sustainable land management21, as well as technical, political, legal, cultural, social, environmental, and economic con-texts that render these practices unsustainable in the long run. Technological interventions to pre-vent or reverse land degradation are available and well documented20, 22, 23, 24, but are rarely analysed in terms of cost and benefits. They also lack identifi-cation of the contextual conditions required for suc-cess. As a result, there is a need to identify where the adoption of sustainable land management is eco-nomically justified, and to remove any barriers to implementation.
Governments and policy/decision-makers are faced with a multitude of demands on limited resources, and require common metrics to compare options. These metrics usually work on monetary terms, so it is important that land is given its full value, meas-ured from the point of view of society as a whole. When valued in this manner, appropriate policies and finances can be directed towards land steward-ship, sustainable land management, and risk man-agement.
What needs to be considered in order to achieve sustainable land management?
The known discrepancies in land management practices between knowledge and action further exposes a need for concise data and harmonized methods. These methods will provide answers to questions about the social and economic costs of land degradation, and the benefits of greater invest-ments in land based productivity. These answers will then foster long-term win-win scenarios over just short-term gains.
An initial assessment of the economics of land deg-radation showed that in many cases the cost of action against land degradation is lower than the cost of prevailing actions25. More scientific knowl-edge is necessary, especially regarding the valua-tion of non-use ecosystem services and off-site effects of sustainable land management. To that end, several case studies have been or are being piloted in different world regions in order to assess the costs and benefits of sustainable land manage-ment as well as to contribute to further methodo-logical developments26. The technical, political, legal, cultural, social, and environmental contexts should also be analysed and suitably adapted to enable successful economic situations for improved land management. This will enable governments, decision-makers, and the public and private sectors to make informed, defendable choices based on a sound economic approach beyond market values, thus establishing a favourable environment to pro-mote the adoption of sustainable land management.
Market prices for land are generally based on the direct productive potential (i. e., the market value/actual retail price of timber, crops, etc.), but it is rec-ognised that these prices often do not accurately reflect the full value of land. This is especially the case when land values do not comprehensively
C H A P T E R 0 1 Why are the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management important?
16
include the four types of ecosystems services that land provides (Box 1). These services include not only products used for food, fibres, and shelter, but also the regulation of water quality and quantity, and biodiversity maintenance. When these additional values are factored in, the worth of land easily increases several-fold27. The need to fully value land has become more urgent in response to the afore-mentioned increases in foreign land investments. Sometimes called “land grabbing” by its opponents, as much as 80 million ha globally may already be leased or otherwise negotiated with foreign inves-tors28. Access to water resources is also often key in these land deals, but rarely accounted for explicitly despite its importance29. Under these types of con-ditions, better economic land valuations can pro-vide a basis for fairer financial compensation for countries and their citizens, particularly if the latter are displaced from or dispossessed of land that they have traditionally used (see Case Study 3 and Case Study 4 for illustrations).
Determining current and future land use practices and rationale: An example of behaviour patterns beyond farmers’ land-use decision-making
Studies on why available sustainable land manage-ment technologies are not being adopted have given way to questions about how land users actu-ally make land management decisions. This area of research evolved as a result of the failure of past efforts to promote technological interventions and strategies that consider the decision-making pro-cess. Part of the issue is that perceptions of degrada-tion vary with and between different land users, scientists, and research/extension agencies. The complexity of decision-making for land use is illus-trated in Table 1.
Table 1 shows a hypothetical example of three pos-sible actions that could limit land degradation on hillsides. As shown by weighting the variables, bench terraces may seem like the most effective technique technically, but are in reality are often beyond farmer’s capabilities as they may not have the financial or labour assets to construct them. Bench terracing also requires additional labour beyond that which is normally available at a house-
t A b l e 1
Options for action
Criterion for decision-making
Bench terrace
Grass strips or trash lines
Intercropping
Technical performance + + + + + +
Fits with existing practices
– + + +
Cost related to importance of problem
– + + +
Cost related to famers’ capabilities
– – +
Short-term benefits – – +
Fits with farmers‘ understanding
– + + + +
Fits with existing land tenure system
+ + + + + +
Fits with local institutional framework
+ + + +
Hypothetical evaluation of three options for soil and water conservation practices that address land degradation on hillsides (adapted from Biot et al. 1995 30)
b o x 1
Ecosystem services (adapted from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 1)
Provisioning goods provided such as food, water, fibre, timber, fuel, minerals, build-ing materials and shelter, and bio-diversity and genetic resources
Supporting primary production, soil formation, and nutrient cycling
Regulating benefits from regulation of pro-cesses such as climatic events, water flows, pollution, soil erosion, and nutrient cycling
Cultural non-material benefits such as spir-itual or aesthetic, and education, as well as more material benefits linked to recreation (tourism) and hunting
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
17
Sustainable landmanagement
and livelihoods
Generate incomefrom alternative
livelihoods
Implement alternative livelihoods
through diversificationand market access
Identify viablealternative livelihoods
Further improve landand water productivity
Increased land andwater productivity
Invest in land and waterproductivity
Invest in enabling policy environment
and humanresource development
f i g U r e 1
Pathways to sustainable land management, considering agricultural (green) and alternative livelihoods (orange) (adapted from Adeel & Safriel 2008 35, sourced from Thomas 2008 34 pg. 599)
hold level, thus requiring either substantial social capital for collaborative work or access to monetary capital to hire the necessary labour. This need for additional labour and associated costs may out-weigh financial benefits derived from the increased technical performance, and could act as an eco-nomic barrier to adoption.
Often land users either do not have a clear idea of the economic costs/benefits within their decision-making time frame, or the total costs and benefits may be over- or under-estimated. In a context like that shown in Table 1, an alternative option like inter-cropping may be preferred, as it meets more of the decision-making criteria and is therefore per-ceived by the decision-makers (farmers) as more desirable and feasible. As analyses of potential options demonstrate, failure to understand the eco-nomic, political, legal, cultural, social, and environ-mental factors as well as their interactions, can result in continued land degradation even when technology is available to prevent it. Table 1 is a sim-plified example of just one gap that can be bridged by focusing on a more detailed assessment of the costs and benefits, and taking into account the deci-sion-making process and potential barriers to adop-tion.
Choosing a way forward: Agricultural and alternative livelihoods
The achievement of sustainable land management requires not only economic considerations based on primary production from land but an in-depth understanding of how people obtain their liveli-hoods and how they can build up their assets in order to invest in sustainable land management. This is especially important in areas with high incidences of degradation, such as drylands.
For many and perhaps the majority of people living on degraded land, over 50 % of their income is not directly derived from the productivity of the land through agriculture or forestry, but rather through alternative livelihood strategies that have minimal dependence (or pressure) on land resources31, 32, 33. Examples of alternative livelihoods include: aqua-culture, apiculture, artisanal craft production, eco-tourism, renewable energy generation (solar and wind), high value horticultural production (under plastic-covered housing), and adding value to exist-ing plant and animal products through process-
ing34. Integrating these current alternative liveli-hoods into sustainable land management plans is thus integral to a comprehensive strategy.
Pathways to sustainable land management and human well-being are depicted in Figure 1. The left side of Figure 1 (green) represents a traditional agri-cultural/pastoral livelihood where investments are facilitated by enabling policies, regulations, access to agricultural markets and research/extension ser-vices, and include inputs such as agrochemicals, water, and seeds. This pathway is often comple-mented by alternative livelihood options that are independent from agricultural production (e.g. eco-tourism), and is depicted on the right side of Fig-ure 1 (orange). These alternative livelihoods could
C H A P T E R 0 1 Why are the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management important?
18
reduce pressures exerted on currently exploited land, thereby promoting more sustainable land management and alleviating poverty. Both path-ways require private investments that are sup-ported by public sector investments and training in skills, knowledge, and capacities to manage liveli-hood strategies.
The choice of a livelihood pathway can be informed by economic cost-benefit analyses. These analyses can make use of valuation techniques to estimate the benefits derived directly or indirectly from land management, including situations when benefits are not formally traded through monetary exchanges. This type of analysis can help guide investment decisions, (i.e., in determining the flow of financial assets generated through alternative livelihoods into land and water productivity versus other options). Additionally, to achieve public sector investments and public support for private sector investments, there remains a need to integrate: (i) land degradation issues into mainstream govern-
ment policies, and (ii) economic analysis into policy implementation and design. This integration will require raising awareness of the monetary costs and benefits of sustainable land management. It is important to note that any strategy trying to increase the allocation of funds to sustainable land management must be appropriate to an individual country’s national environmental, political, eco-nomic, and institutional frameworks and condi-tions36.
In the decision-making process for the manage-ment of land and land based services, numerous elements must be considered. These elements exist on scales ranging between the household, commu-nity, regional, national, and international, and include:
❚❚ The perception of the symptoms of degradation and impacts on crop yields and water quality to determine how easily (costly) land degradation could be addressed
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
19
❚❚ A diagnosis of degradation causes and drivers to determine the kind of action required for the reduction of land degradation
❚❚ A prioritization of needs and corresponding actions
❚❚ The identification of solutions (i.e., alternative agricultural and non-agricultural livelihood options for action)
❚❚ An assessment of the technical feasibility of the solutions
❚❚ An economic analysis of costs, benefits, and risks
❚❚ An assessment of access to monetary capital
❚❚ An analysis of policy incentives and disincen-tives, price distortions, and political context
❚❚ An assessment of the legal context (i.e., formal (land tenure) or informal property rights)
❚❚ An assessment of the need for collaboration and extent of access to social capital (social network)
❚❚ An analysis of the cultural context, including gender aspects (who owns land, makes deci-sions, and conducts work)
❚❚ An analysis of expected environmental impacts and potential environmental trade-offs
Given the heterogeneity in the assets and capabili-ties of land users, there is an urgent need to go beyond classical or linear programming models that only focus on increasing agricultural produc-tivity37. Also, in addition to considering the full value of land-based ecosystem services, there is a need to examine and adapt the decision-making process for effective action against land degrada-tion and the loss of livelihoods it induces. The ELD Initiative aims to facilitate this process with glob-ally available, adaptable, and functional guidelines.
Goals of the ELD Initiative
Based on this understanding of the economic issues of land degradation, the aim of the ELD Initiative is to transform the global understanding of land value, and create awareness of the economic arguments for considering both market and non-market values in sustainable land management. This will be achieved by undertaking cost-benefit analyses of land degradation/sustainable land management
while systematizing scientific studies on the eco-nomics of land degradation, in an effort to move towards a harmonization of approaches and meth-ods. Additionally, the initiative will provide coun-tries with a robust, cost-effective toolbox of methods that are usable under the varying conditions of all countries affected by land degradation.
The ELD Initiative will produce another three sepa-rate reports in addition to this interim report: one aimed at the scientific community, one aimed at political decision-makers and one aimed at private decision-makers. These reports will rely on the dis-cussions and work of the three inter-related work-ing groups of the initiative: (i) Data and Methodology, (ii) Scenarios (economic valuation of options), and (iii)) Options and Pathways for Action. Existing and new case studies will provide a scientific basis in establishing the cost-effective toolbox of methods. Further details of the working groups and the ini-tiative can be found at www.eld-initiative.org.
Chapter 2 provides an outline of the approach to estimate the economic benefits and costs of action and assess whether action is economically justified.
C H A P T E R
02
20
The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements; using and expanding upon existing approaches and frameworks
The ELD Initiative draws from existing frameworks and approaches of environmental economics, adapting and expanding them to include features specific to land management. The questions these frameworks and approaches attempt to address include:
❚❚ From an economic perspective, how can we decide whether it is worth taking action to foster sustainable land management or not?
❚❚ Why and how should the economic value of land and land-services be estimated, especially when they do not have a market price?
❚❚ What kind of problems exist in relation to land management, what kind of economic analysis can be used to decide how to address them, and what possible actions can be taken once informed by an economic analysis?
❚❚ How is complexity reduced to estimate the eco-nomic value of land and land-services more eas-ily using the ecosystem services framework?
❚❚ In addition to the ecosystem services frame-work, how is complexity reduced using the Total Economic Value framework? What steps can be taken to pragmatically identify a relevant valu-ation method based on available data and resources, local capacity and objective of the study?
❚❚ Is there a difference between the costs of inac-tion or the benefits of action, and which of those should we compare against the costs of action? What kind of economic solutions can be adopted for given problems?
❚❚ How is the best economic option chosen for action? What criteria can be used to identify which option should be chosen?
❚❚ What other economic approaches could be used for decision-making as alternatives to cost-ben-efit analysis?
❚❚ What are the necessary conditions for economi-cally desirable actions to be successful?
❚❚ How can we answer all the previous questions by adopting a sequential approach? Can we identify simple steps to implement informed action?
❚❚ How can we identify representative case studies to scale results up and obtain a global estimate of land degradation?
❚❚ How do we know which case studies to select to inform the analysis of a given problem, and if there are none, how do we choose case studies to be commissioned?
This chapter briefly details the frameworks and approaches that have been established to answer these questions, and discusses how they are con-nected. It builds on the previous work commis-sioned by Germany’s Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development to the Center for Development Research (ZEF) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 38, and consid-ers the conclusions of the second scientific confer-ence of the UNCCD 39. These frameworks and approaches are all rooted into an economic per-spective and allow stakeholders to consider alterna-tive options for action. These options for action are based on alternative livelihood options, which include agriculture as well as other economic sec-tors of land-based activities (e. g., eco- or wildlife-based tourism, arts/crafts, medicines, mining, etc.). Other perspectives (technical, political, legal, cul-tural, social, and environmental) can be taken to inform action. Because of the nature of the ELD Ini-tiative, this report focuses on an economic perspec-tive only, with conditions for success derived from complementary perspectives.
How do we know sustainable land management is economically worth adopting?
Land is a viable asset in and of itself, and the ELD Ini-tiative focuses on the costs and benefits derived from sustainable land use and sustainable land-
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
21
based economic activities. The overarching goal is to provide an economic rationale for promoting good land stewardship and related policies, to com-plement the existing well-recognised scientific rationale.
Cost-benefit analysis is a tool derived from account-ing that compares the costs of undertaking an action or a project (in this case, of adopting sustain-able land management practices) against the ben-efits derived from it. The costs of adoption of sus-tainable land management practices (“action”) are fairly well known 22, but the full economic benefits of action are often missing or only partially known. This information gap exists either because changes to the land have not yet occurred and thus cannot be measured in practice, or only a fraction of the economic benefits are being translated into market prices and the true value of these economic benefits are therefore imperfectly measured by market prices. Economic valuation methods can be used to estimate the true value of economic benefits of action and address some of this information gap.
In this context, a cost-benefit analysis will compare the economic benefits of adopting sustainable land management practices (for agricultural or alterna-tive land-based economic livelihoods) against the associated costs. The costs and the benefits of adopt-ing these practices or land-based livelihoods depend upon the level of action taken and change achieved, which in turn depends on the causes of land degradation and the processes driving it. Once both the costs and benefits derived from action have been estimated, the net economic benefit from action, equal to the economic benefits minus the costs of action, can be estimated.
One of the major advantages of a cost-benefit analy-sis is that it quantifies everything monetarily, either through market prices or economic values. This homogenous unit of measurement allows for direct comparisons between costs and benefits across dif-ferent scenarios. Quantifying costs and benefits in monetary units can also help provide an idea of the scale of desired implementation (i. e., from a village market to international trade).
Cost-benefit analysis can help identify the most eco-nomically efficient practice for a given scientific, political, legal, cultural, or social context. Long-term change requires that the chosen practice iden-tified as having the greatest net economic benefit is
not associated with economic as well as non-eco-nomic barriers (technical, political, legal, cultural, social, or environmental) in order to ensure this practice is actually implemented. When such barri-ers to adoption exist, then ensuring the actual adoption and successful implementation of the cho-sen action framework requires the removal of these other barriers. Cost-benefit analysis can be helpful in identifying how to best enable action through the setting up of economic incentives or policy instru-ments. This analysis simulates and scales the impact that the introduction of such instruments will have, simulates the removal of existing incentives that have adverse economic and environmental impact on land management, and identifies potential social consequences of change in land-based eco-nomic activities. Removing barriers to adoption requires a good understanding of landholders’ atti-tudes, behaviours and incentives towards the adop-tion of sustainable land management if sustainable land management is to be effectively promoted and adopted.
Why value nature (and not price it)?
Economists make a clear distinction between mar-ket price (also called financial price) and value. The economic value of a good or service reflects the pref-erences that society as a whole has for (and therefore allocates to) this good or service. A price is deter-mined by the market as the result of interaction between demand and supply. However, markets and market prices do not always exist although the goods or services themselves exist. For example, simply because one cannot buy a litre of clean air on the market does not mean that clean air does not have a value to soci-ety. Additionally, markets that do exist may be imperfect and have prices that do not reflect eco-nomic values perfectly. When this is the case, econ-omists refer to market failures. These failures lead to a sub-optimal use of scarce resources. Action can be taken to correct such failures for instance through the setting up of economic instruments, and cost-benefit analysis used to inform the setting up of such instruments.
By adopting the perspective of society as a whole, sound economic analysis can help decision-makers:
nowadays people know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Oscar Wilde, The Picture of Dorian Gray [1890]
C H A P T E R 0 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements
22
❚❚ Assess the true costs and benefits of projects, investments, and policies by quantifying the economic impact of changes in provision of environmental goods and services
❚❚ Provide a rationale to choose between alterna-tive options for economic improvements
❚❚ Support environmental policy by providing information on how to correct market failures
❚❚ Raise awareness of potential investment oppor-tunities and their returns on investment to the private sector
❚❚ Reduce social tensions (e.g. development vs. conservation) by informing the setting up an equitable redistribution process from those who economically profit from action (“winners”) to those who lose out (“losers”), and informing the establishment of new markets
❚❚ Identify conditions for success and non-eco-nomic barriers, to correct for policy and institu-tional failures
Table 2 provides examples of common problems relative to land management faced by decision-makers, how economics can assist in the decision-making process, and what possible actions can be informed by adopting an economic perspective. This assumes that there are no technical, political, legal, cultural, social, and environmental barriers to the adoption of economic action.
Type of problem Decide between options (e.g. development vs. conservation)
Redistribute from winners to losers
Set up new markets
Examples Case Study 2 Case Study 3 and Case Study 4
Case Study 5
What is economic valuation used for?
Make an informed choice/ decision-making between options
Assess the level of compen-sation to be implemented within the economy
Assess the potential for livelihood diversification as a form of risk management and resilience building
Tools Perform a cost-benefit analysis, with estimated, non-marketed (unpriced), but existing economic benefits
Perform a cost-benefit analysis, explicitly identify-ing the economic link be-tween winners and losers
Create and establish the new market
Action(assuming a favourable technical, political, legal, cultural, social, and envi-ronmental context)
Choose the option with the greatest value to society as a whole
Set up an economic instru-ment (standard, subsidy, tax, tradable permit): determine the scale of the economic instrument, who it will pay for it and who will receive it (i.e., the re-distribution from winners to losers), and who and how the instrument will be administered
Transform values into prices for existing non marketed or new economic activities (e.g. payments for ecosystem services such as REDD for carbon storage, eco-tourism for biodiversity, eco-certified products, etc.)
t A b l e 2
Problems related to land management, economic analyses, and possible actions
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
23
Deciding between alternative land options when trade-offs must be made: Vietnam (DO 2007 40)
c A S e S t U D y 2
The problem and trade-offs involved:
This case study was carried out on Tram Chim National Park in Vietnam. The park is enclosed by a dyke that was built in 1985, and was intended to retain water during the dry season in an effort to restore wetlands damaged during the Vietnam War. In 1996, local authorities raised the height of the dyke to prevent any fires, which has had two consequences: first, that the water level in the park is now consistently higher than the ecologically optimal level, leading to degradation in the wetland ecosystem, and second, that the higher dykes now protect many farms from flooding, allowing farm-ers to grow more rice and thus earn a higher income.
This study investigated the impact of proposals by the Park Management Board to reduce the height of dykes in Vietnam’s Mekong River Delta. Changes in the park dyke will change water levels in farms in adjacent areas, and hence have impacts on farmers. It is estimated that a reduc-tion in water level in the park by one meter can lead to an increase of 0.2 – 0.3 m of water in adja-cent farms. This will have considerable impacts on farmers’ farm dykes, cropping, and livelihood due to prolonged flood durations. The changes in wetland management will involve improved veg-etation control, increased hydrological and bio-logical monitoring, and stronger enforcement against illegal encroachments.
Method for valuation of economic impact:
In this study, the cost of the dyke conversion is the local farmers’ reduced income from rice produc-tion, and was estimated using the production func-tion approach and market values. The benefits derived from the improvements in environmental quality (wetland biodiversity) that the proposals should produce were estimated using an environ-mental choice modelling technique (non-market values).
Two scenarios were considered: one with a reduction in the height of park dykes and one with a reduction in the height of farm dykes. The park dykes surrounding the wetland protected areas were built by local authorities to maintain a high water level in the dry season for fire fighting and prevention. Farm dykes surround villages and paddy fields were constructed by local farmers with support from local governments to protect
agricultural land, villages, and other infrastruc-ture from annual flooding.
Results:
The study finds that far from being a ‘trade-off’ between conservation and rural development, pro-posed changes could produce both an improve-ment in the Delta’s ecology and a net benefit to society.
Scenario 1 (park dykes): It was found that the con-version of park dykes in Tram Chim would reduce rice yields by 0.03 tonnes/ha/year or 1,500 tonnes/ha/year for local farmers in an adjacent area of 50,000 ha around the park. This income loss of about USD 91,875 per year, together with compen-sation paid by the government for “farmer chang-ing livelihood” costs (costs of adapting to new con-ditions/jobs after the dyke conversion) and engi-neering costs, brings the total costs of the proposed five-year programme to USD 3.4 million. On the other hand, respondents were willing to pay for increased biodiversity values of Tram Chim that would result from the changes proposed in the dyke and wetland management. The aggregated non-market values ranged from USD 3.94 – 5 mil-lion, suggesting that park dyke conversion can gen-erate a net social benefit.
Scenario 2 (farm dykes): It was found that the con-version to lower farm dykes would reduce rice yields by 0.24 tonnes per ha per year, or VND 0.98 million per household per year. It would also reduce the income from livestock rearing. The esti-mated cost of the dyke conversion would be VND 15.4 million per household per year, and VND 614 billion or USD 38.4 million for the whole MRD. On the other hand, the biodiversity values of all wet-lands in the MRD were estimated between USD 41.7 – 53 million. Therefore, the net social benefits would range from USD 3.3 – 14.6 million.
Possible options for action:
The proposed plans represent a win-win for both nature and people. Since society as a whole bene-fits, there is a rationale for making money available to individual farmers to compensate them for any income losses. The maximum level of compensa-tion to be provided should be equal to the net social benefits.
C H A P T E R 0 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements
24
A “south-south” (developing country – developing country) demonstration of concern over land deals: Ethiopia (sourced from The Guardian 2012 41)
c A S e S t U D y 3
This example is centred on Ethiopia’s leasing of 600,000 ha (1.5 million acres) of prime farmland to Indian companies. Further deals involving approx-imately 200 million ha of land are believed to have been negotiated in the past few years, mostly to the advantage of speculators and often to the detri-ment of local communities. This has led to environ-mental destruction, and the imprisonment, intimi-dation, repression, detentions, rapes, and beatings of journalists and political objectors, according to a new report by the United States-based Oakland Institute.
Nyikaw Ochalla, director of the London-based Anywaa Survival Organisation, said, “People are being turned into day labourers doing backbreak-ing work while living in extreme poverty. The gov-ernment’s plans … depend on tactics of displace-ment, increased food insecurity, destitution and destruction of the environment.” Ochalla, who stated that he was in daily direct contact with communities affected by “land grabbing” across Ethiopia, said the relocations would only add to hunger and conflict, “Communities that have sur-vived by fishing and moving to higher ground to grow maize are being relocated and say they are now becoming dependent on government for food aid. They are saying they will never leave and that the government will have to kill them. I call on the Indian authorities and the public to stop this pil-lage.”
Karuturi Global, the Indian farm conglomerate and one of the world’s largest rose growers, has leased 350,000 ha in the Gambella province for under USD 1.10 ha/year, to grow palm oil, cereals, maize, and biofuel crops. They declined to com-ment on these claims, and spokesman for the company stated, “This has nothing to do with us.”
In response to the controversy, the Ethiopian government defended its policies publicly. “Ethio-pia needs to develop to fight poverty, increase food supplies, and improve livelihoods, and is doing so in a sustainable way,” said a spokeswoman for the government in London. She pointed out that 45 % of Ethiopia’s 1.14 million km2 of land is arable, but only 15 % is in use. In contrast, Asish Kohtari, author of a new book on the growing reach of Indian business, noted that the phenomenon of Indian companies “grabbing” land in Africa is an
extension of what has happened in the last 30 years in India itself. “In recent years the country has seen a massive transfer of land and natural resources from the rural poor to the wealthy. Around 60 million people have been displaced in India by large scale industrial developments. Around 40 % of the people affected have been indigenous peoples,” he said. The land develop-ments have included dams, mines, tourist devel-opments, ports, steel plants, and massive irriga-tion schemes. Thus far, this complexity is not yet resolved in either nation.
In this case, the winners are both the Ethiopian gov-ernment and Indian investor, and the losers are the Ethiopian farmers. The problem is a lack of a redis-tribution mechanism in place so that farmers can also benefit from the deal. One potential action that could provide a win-win situation would be for either the government or investor to provide compensation to farmers. A total economic valuation of land could help this strategy by:
❚ determining how much compensation is needed for farmers to be at least as well off after the deal as before, and
❚ determining what fraction of the investor’s prof-its should go back to the government and/or farmers, thereby reducing social unrest.
This assumes that farmers are those holding the property rights over the land they use and that these property rights can be financially recognised. Land property rights can help determine whether com-pensation to farmers should be paid by government or the investors: whether the government or investor provide the financial compensation to farmer depends on the modalities defined the land deal agreement, and more specifically how responsibili-ties have been legally allocated between the two in the agreement.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
25
Conflict arising from undervaluing land: Sierra Leone (sourced from The Guardian 2012 42)
c A S e S t U D y 4
In Sierra Leone, farmers receive USD 5/ha/year for leasing land to a foreign plantation investor under a 50 year contract. However, this payment has been perceived as “unacceptable” to many, as it does not fully compensate farmers for the loss of valuable trees and plants destroyed in the clearing of the land, or more specifically, for the loss of services previously provided by these trees and plants. This perceived unfairness led to social unrest and wide-spread demonstrations in 2012, turning what could have been a win-win situation into a lose-lose one. Such contestation from the local populace can deter foreign investors and limit further opportuni-ties for development.
In this case, the winner from the deal is the foreign investor, and the losers are the Sierra Leone farm-ers. The problem is that the redistribution mecha-nism in place is so small that farmers feel that they have lost out from the deal. Consequently, both farm-ers and the foreign investor lose out from the deal: farmers because of the reduction in their livelihoods and livelihood options, and the investor because of the costs and negative image associated with social unrest. One action could be to revise the level of com-pensation provided by the investor to the farmers, A total economic valuation of their land and services derived from it could help assess a “fair” level of compensation for the farmers (which should be higher than their current USD 5/ha/year), and thereby reduce social unrest.
C H A P T E R 0 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements
26
Pioneering a system of payments for ecosystem services for carbon storage and watershed services: Costa Rica 43, 44, 45
c A S e S t U D y 5
The problem:
In the late 1900s in Costa Rica, forest on privately owned land was rapidly being converted to agricul-tural land and pastures. This conversion was done without consideration of the value derived from these forests by others, both in Costa Rica and abroad. In response, Costa Rica adopted a law in 1996 that formally recognised the value of environ-mental services provided by these forests in terms of carbon fixation, hydrological services, biodiver-sity protection, and the provision of scenic beauty. The country has aimed to provide payments to for-est owners for each of these values, but has so far only been successful for carbon fixation, hydro-logical services, and some biodiversity protection.
What is the level of payment?
Levels of payments have generally been set based on previous payment level provided to forest own-ers in a different form, and/or after consultation of stakeholders and negotiation. Environmental valu-ation studies were not used to determine the level of payments, even when available (e.g. the willing-ness to pay for water quality in Honduras). Payment levels typically tend to be fixed and at a lower level than the costs of provision (opportunity costs). For-est owners around Heredia (Central Valley of Costa Rica) are paid USD 51/ha/year for forest conserva-tion, USD 124/ha for reforestation their first year, USD 100/ha for their second year of restoration, and USD 67/ha for the third to fifth years.
Who pays?
In the case of carbon and other greenhouse gases fixation, polluters (mostly fossil fuel users) foot for the bill – the “polluter-pays” principle. This is in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol on emission reductions which has now become mandatory. On the contrary, beneficiaries can choose to pay for hydrological services on a voluntary basis – the “beneficiary-pays” principle. The Global Environ-ment Facility, which represents global users, granted a budget to fund agro-forestry contracts for biodiversity conservation and carbon seques-tration benefits, but the local tourism industry has not yet committed any funds to conserve the ben-
efits of natural ecosystems. Users may or may not be aware of the available payment for ecosystem services in place.
How is the budget levied?
Most of the budget is levied through a mandatory, dedicated tax on fuel sales, with one third of the tax (5 % of fuel sales in 1999) earmarked to forestry. A much smaller part of the budget comes from nego-tiated voluntary payments by water users such as bottlers, municipal water supply systems, irriga-tion water users, and hotels. This voluntary contri-bution changed in 2005 to a mandatory conserva-tion fee earmarked for watershed protection as part of a water tariff.
Who benefits?
Costa Rican forest owners benefit directly from the scheme because they receive a financial compen-sation for forest maintenance. Evidence however suggests that the level of compensation is too low compared to the opportunity costs of conservation. Polluters benefit because they can keep operating on the global market while looking for less pollut-ing technologies or inputs. Users benefit because of the improved environmental quality. They also have a way of expressing their voice through pro-viding for these payments, which was not previ-ously an option.
Ultimately, Costa Rica directly benefits as a country: new institutions have been set up to administer these payments with either with the government or NGOs acting as intermediaries, with the associated creation of employment opportunities and increased economic activities. Costa Rica has also received payments from other countries for this system of payments for ecosys-tem services (e.g. from the Norwegian govern-ment, private companies, Global Environmental Facility).
Who administers the programme?
The Costa Rican government and its administra-tions facilitate the budget collection and imple-mentation of payments. Local-level intermediaries have been created in order to reduce the trans-
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
27
action costs associated with payment implementa-tion, and take advantage of economies of scale. These local level intermediaries have helped forest owners fill in the paperwork and liaised between forest owners and the government (e.g. FUNDE-COR, a Costa Rican non-governmental organiza-tion).
What are the conditions for success?
The ecosystem service values to society are recog-nised by the Costa Rican legal system. The govern-ment has been proactive in establishing such pay-ments on a decentralised basis, letting intermedi-aries establish themselves, obtaining commitments from both stakeholders and providers, and ensur-
ing environmental objectives are met. These com-mitments are crucial to ensure long term sustain-ability of the payments for ecosystem services system.
Being pioneers in payments for ecosystem services meant that Costa Rican stakeholders and institutions have had to be flexible enough over time to evolve and take lessons learnt and changing circumstances into account.
C H A P T E R 0 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements
28
f i g U r e 2
The provision of ecosystem services from natural capital: Linkages between ecosystem services and human well-being (adapted from Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Figure A, pg. vi 1)
Basic material for good life
3 Adequate livelihood3 Sufficient nutritious food3 Shelter3 Access to goods
Freedomof choiceand action
Being ableto do whatan individualvalues beingand doing
Health
3 Strength3 Feeling well3 Access to clean air & water
Good social relations
3 Social cohesion3 Mutual respect3 Ability to help others
Provisioning
3 Food3 Fresh water3 Fuel and fibre3 …
Regulating
3 Climate regulation3 Flood regulation3 Disease prevention3 Water purification3 …
Supporting
3 Nutrient cycle3 Soil formation3 Primary production3 …
Cultural
3 Aesthetic3 Spiritual3 Educational3 Recreational
Security
3 Personal safety3 Secure resource access3 Security from disasters
OP
TIO
N V
AL
UE
Ecosystem Services
The Ecosystem services framework: Ecosystem services classified, valued independently, then aggregated
Estimating the true economic value of land is not easy or straightforward, as land provides society with so many different services. The method sug-gested here is to deconstruct these services into independent categories that can be valued sepa-rately without duplicating the value of a single ser-vice across categories. The total economic value of the land is then the sum of the values of the identi-fied individual services.
Decision-makers can use the Ecosystem services framework developed in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 1 to identify a complete list of services provided by land that have an economic value to society as a whole. There are four general types of services: provisioning (food, water, fibre, timber, fuel, minerals, building materials and shelter, and biodiversity and genetic resources), regulating (ben-efits from regulation of processes such as climatic events, water flows, pollution, soil erosion, and nutrient cycling), cultural (mostly experienced through tourism or religious practices) and support-ing (primary production, soil formation, and nutri-
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
29
ent cycling). These ecosystem services collectively provide the basis of human well-being and eco-nomic welfare. In such a context, and seen from an economic perspective, land degradation is the loss or reduction in services provided by land to society as a whole. This definition also includes the reduc-tion of land on which these services are based, even if the services themselves are maintained through time (e. g., a forest with a river running through can be reduced in size as a result of external develop-ment pressure, even though the river itself is still providing its services). The reduction in this natural capital threatens the long-run sustainability of cur-rent pathways of exploitation (this is sometimes referred to by economists as the strong sustainability concept).
Figure 2 shows the relationship between ecosystem services and well-being, and the flow from ecosys-tem services to human sustenance and well-being and ultimately to freedom in choice and action. There exist several variations of Figure 2, with more
or less details 25, 46, 47, but the main concept and structure behind all of them is essentially the same.
Box 2 details some examples of what valuations of these ecosystem services could be used for, in terms of both the type and scale of economic incentives that can be set up.
The Total Economic Value framework and valuation methods
Increasing competition for land demonstrates that an assessment of the total economic value of land is urgently required, so that land is not undervalued or undersold. This will allow concerned parties to make the most of all of their potential economic opportunities. However, the following challenges of this type of assessment must be considered: (i) total economic valuation is currently perceived as too complicated, too costly to estimate, and/or its results are not considered appropriately in the deci-sion-making process, (ii) to the knowledge of the authors, there is no unique method to measure total economic values, (iii) there is not yet a complete set of methods that are simple to implement and lead to robust estimates of the total economic value of land, and (iv) there are no studies to date that esti-mate the full economic value of a piece of land based on the range of provided services. Valuations have thus always been only partially complete, making comparisons between sites difficult, if not impossi-ble, as different aspects of land and ecosystem ser-vices can be measured in very different ways.
Nonetheless, valuation methods can capture vari-ous components of the total economic value for a given service. The fundamental idea is to decon-struct the total economic value into components that can then be summed up together again, while avoiding overlap between these components and preventing duplicate counts. This framework has already been used in ZEF and IFPRI’s initially com-missioned work on the Economics of Land Degrada-tion25 and their current ELD project26, as well as in complementary initiatives like the Economics of Ecosystem and Biodiversity48 and the UK National Ecosystem Assessment27. What remains a necessity is a systematic, empirical estimation of total eco-nomic value in relation to land management, in order to get a sounder economic assessment of cur-rent land management practices and alternative options.
b o x 2
Examples of improved land management derived from economic valuations of ecosystem services
Provisioning services
❚❚ The estimation of the costs of soil erosion and the assessment of whether investment in soil erosion is economically viable, using produc-tivity loss, replacement costs, and participa-tory contingent valuation methods.
Regulating services
❚❚ The estimation of non-agricultural and non-timber values can be used to inform the amounts of carbon payments.
❚❚ The estimation of pollution costs can be used to inform the establishment of payments for pollution clean up.
Cultural services
❚❚ The estimation of recreational values can be used to estimate the potential benefits from establishing or developing the tourism indus-try.
❚❚ The estimation of aesthetic and spiritual values can be used to inform the protection of high value cultural and spiritual assets.
C H A P T E R 0 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements
30
The total economic value can be deconstructed into use value and non-use value (Figure 3). Use value is the economic value associated with using the land for economically profitable activities. It can be broken down further into direct use value and indi-rect use value. Direct use values encompass mostly provisioning services such as food or timber, and indirect use values are those entities not consumed directly but which indirectly support directly con-sumed goods such as food and timber (e.g. the val-ues of regulating services – nutrient cycling, water flow regulation, soil erosion prevention, etc.). Non-use value is the economic value of land that is not associated with consumption. This non-use value can be broken down further into existence value,
bequest value and stewardship value. Existence value is the economic value allocated to land or what it supports, simply because it exists. Bequest value is the value of land that is passed on to future genera-tions. Stewardship value is the value of land that is kept in good conditions for both direct economic production and the maintenance of surrounding ecosystems. Option value is based on how much individuals or societies are willing to pay for the option of keeping the asset or future direct and indirect uses, including: drought, flood, and pro-tection from other natural disasters. This is essen-tially the economic value allocated to strategies that have been adopted to manage potential threats to profits or livelihoods. It is sometimes con-
f i g U r e 3
Total economic value with types of ecosystem services and examples (adapted from Nkonya et al. 2011, pg. 70, and Soussan and Noel 2010 38, 49)
Food, fibres andtimper production
(provisioning);Carbon storage
(regulating);Tourism,
recreationalhunting
(cultural)
DirectUse Value
IndirectUse Value
Option Value
ExistenceValue
BequestValue
Use Value Non-use Value
StewardshipValue
Pollination(provisioning);
Watershedprotection, flood
attenuation;pollution
assimilation(regulating and
cultural);Nutrient cycling,
micro-climate(supporting)
Premium from useof biodiversityresources by
pharmaceuticalindustry inthe future
(provisioning);Area that
becomes ofrecreational value
(cultural);Area used for
waste recycling(regulating)
Biodiversityhotspot,symbolicspecies,
e.g. blue whale,tiger, panda,
mountaingorillas
(cultural)
Land passed ontoour children
(cultural)
Landmaintained ingood workingconditions forboth humans
and theirsurroundingecosystems
Total Economic Valueof land and land-based services
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
31
t A b l e 3
Examples of calculation of the total economic value for alternative land-based activities
Land
-bas
ed e
cono
mic
act
ivit
ies
agri
cult
ure
(n
on-p
asto
ral)
past
ure
min
ing
carb
on
stor
age
tour
ism
relig
ious
pr
acti
ces
agri
cult
ure
(non
-pas
tora
l)
and
tour
ism
Use value
Dir
ect u
seva
lue
of a
gric
ultu
ral
prod
uctio
nva
lue
of m
eat
prod
uctio
npr
ofit f
rom
m
inin
gpa
ymen
ts
rece
ived
fr
om R
EDD
+ m
echa
nism
valu
e of
tour
ist
fees
, e.g
. for
en
try
into
a
natio
nal p
ark
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
valu
e of
agr
icul
tura
l pr
oduc
tion
and
tour
ist
fees
, e.g
. for
ent
ry in
to a
na
tiona
l par
k
Indi
rect
us
eca
rbon
seq
uest
ratio
n pa
ymen
ts, i
ncom
e fr
om
on-f
arm
gue
st h
ouse
s
carb
on s
e-qu
estr
atio
n,
recr
eatio
n
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
valu
e of
hot
el
and
rest
aura
nt
indu
stry
aro
und
the
natio
nal
park
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
valu
e of
car
bon
sequ
es-
trat
ion
paym
ents
and
val
ue
of h
otel
and
res
taur
ant
indu
stry
aro
und
the
natio
-na
l par
k
Opt
ion
valu
e of
kee
ping
fore
st
stan
ds fo
r fu
ture
tim
ber
sale
s
past
ure
set
asid
e to
be
used
on
ly in
ext
rem
e ci
rcum
stan
ces
su
ch a
s a
drou
ght
futu
re p
rofit
by
leav
ing
som
e m
inin
g re
sour
ces
into
the
grou
nd
valu
e of
ag
ricu
ltur
al
prod
uctio
n un
der
an
alte
rnat
ive
land
use
valu
e of
po-
tent
ial p
rofit
to
be m
ade
from
to
uris
m if
land
w
ere
deve
lope
d fo
r th
is p
urpo
se
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
valu
e of
kee
ping
fore
st
stan
ds fo
r fu
ture
tim
ber
sa
les
and
valu
e of
pot
en-
tial p
rofit
to b
e m
ade
from
to
uris
m if
land
wer
e de
ve-
lope
d fo
r th
is p
urpo
se
Non-use value
Exis
tenc
eno
t usu
ally
mea
sure
d in
ec
onom
ic te
rms
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
min
ing
rese
rves
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
valu
e of
em
ble-
mat
ic s
peci
es,
e.g.
tige
rs, b
lue
wha
le, p
anda
s,
mou
ntai
n go
rilla
s
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
valu
e of
em
blem
atic
sp
ecie
s, e
.g. t
iger
s, b
lue
wha
le, p
anda
s, m
ount
ain
gori
llas
Beq
uest
valu
e of
inhe
rite
d la
nd
or it
s pr
oduc
tion
valu
eva
lue
of
inhe
rite
d la
nd
or p
rodu
ctiv
e va
lue
of th
e he
rd s
ize
that
th
e in
heri
ted
land
can
car
ry
valu
e of
in
heri
ted
min
es
valu
e of
fu
ture
pa
ymen
ts
inhe
rite
d w
ith th
e la
nd
valu
e of
tou-
rism
inco
me
inhe
rite
d fr
om
pare
nts
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
valu
e of
inhe
rite
d la
nd,
e.g.
agr
icul
tura
l and
to
uris
m in
com
e fr
om
inhe
rite
d la
nd
Stew
ard-
ship
not u
sual
ly m
easu
red
in e
cono
mic
term
s, b
ut
can
be e
mbe
dded
into
ag
ricu
ltura
l sys
tem
s, e
.g.
Him
as in
Wes
tern
Asi
a
or th
e m
ulti-
func
tiona
lity
of a
gric
ultu
re in
Eur
ope
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
not u
sual
ly
mea
sure
d in
eco
nom
ic
term
s
not u
sual
ly m
easu
red
in
eco
nom
ic te
rms
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic V
alue
sum
of a
ll
the
abov
esu
m o
f all
th
e ab
ove
sum
of a
ll
the
abov
esu
m o
f all
th
e ab
ove
sum
of a
ll
the
abov
esu
m o
f all
th
e ab
ove
sum
of a
ll
the
abov
e
C H A P T E R 0 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements
32
sidered a use value, but can also be considered a non-use value, as it does not correspond to current use, but rather to future consumption.
The framework provided in Figure 3 is a simple method to ensure that no part of the economic value is left out when estimating the total economic value, thereby ensuring an accurate portrayal of the economic information. In turn, this will allow for fully informed decision-making. Table 3 gives exam-ples of these values for a range of different land-based economic activities.
As shown in Table 4, the existing literature on land degradation and sustainable land management quantifies:
❚❚ Provisioning services: mostly by direct use and option values
❚❚ Regulating services: by direct and indirect use values, and option value
❚❚ Cultural services: by direct and indirect use val-ues, and existence value
It is worthwhile to note that not all components of the total economic value have been estimated for all types of ecosystem services. This is because such economic valuations can be costly to undertake, and there is generally an incentive to obtain the
most relevant information first. Relevance will depend on the cultural, social, and environmental contexts, as well as the objective(s) of the economic valuation and assessment.
Several methods of valuation can be used to capture the economic value of an environmental good. These are described briefly in Appendix 1 with an assess-ment of their advantages, limitations, and potential use. These valuation methods have been used for valuation of the environment, mainly since the 1980s. Some are still being refined to improve the accuracy of estimated environmental values, but can provide relatively good estimates of value when the context of the study is taken into account appropriately.
Market price, replacement costs, dose-response meth-ods, damage cost avoided, mitigation costs, and oppor-tunity costs can be referred to as non-demand based methods as they do not involve the estimation of a demand curve for services.
The hedonic price method, travel cost method, contin-gent valuation, and choice experiment all rely on esti-mating a demand for a good or service, and are therefore all demand based methods. The hedonic price method and the travel cost method are called revealed preference methods as they estimate a use value from surrogate markets; the use value is “revealed” from these other markets. Contingent
Provisioning services
Regulating services
Cultural services
Supporting services
Use value
Direct use ◊ ◊ ◊
Indirect use ◊ ◊ ◊
Option ◊ ◊ ◊
Non-use value
Existence ◊
Bequest
Steward ship
t A b l e 4
Economic value types that are typically estimated for each ecosystem service (from Quillérou and Thomas 2012 50)
Supporting services are represented in italics as they are not valued on their own, but rather through other eco system services. This is to avoid the issue of double-counting.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
33
valuation and choice experiment rely on people stating their willingness to pay for a service (linked to the total economic value allocated to this ser-vice), and are therefore stated preference methods.
Figure 4 builds up from Figure 3 and shows the differ-ent valuation methods (detailed in Appendix 1) that can be used for each sub-component of the total economic value, as there is not just one way to esti-mate economic values.
In addition to the objective of the study, the choice of method depends on the data, resources, and local capacity available to undertake such economic valuations52. Each method has its advantages and
f i g U r e 4
The Total Economic Value concept and existing valuation methods (adapted from Bertram & Rehdanz 2013, pg. 28 51)
Non demand basedmethods
Revealed preferencemethods
(demand-based)
Benefit transfer
Hedonic pricemedthod
Market price, replacementcosts, dose-response
methods, damage costavoided, mitigation costs,
opportunity costs
Travel costmedthod
Contingentvaluation
Choiceexperiment
Stated preferencemethods
(demand-based)
DirectUse Value
IndirectUse Value
Option Value
ExistenceValue
BequestValue
Use Value Non-use Value
StewardshipValue
Total Economic Valueof land and land-based services
limitations, both in terms of method and data, and is used in relation to a specific problem (Generic limitations to the applications of methods in devel-oping countries are highlighted in Box 7). The choice of method to be applied can be very pragmatic, and the following steps can be used to determine which method to select and apply from those detailed in Appendix 1 52:
(1) deciding the type of environmental problem to be analysed;
(2) reviewing which valuation method is appropri-ate for the environmental problem to be ana-lysed;
C H A P T E R 0 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements
34
(3) considering what information is required for the identified environmental problem and chosen valuation method;
(4) assessing what information is readily available, how long it would take to access it and at what monetary cost.
Valuing the costs of inaction or the benefits from action: What are the differences and implications?
Most people confuse the costs of inaction with the benefits of action, which sometimes correspond and sometimes do not. For example, Figure 5 demon-strates a piece of agricultural land operating at only 40 % of its productive capacity (e.g. with crop yields reaching 40 % of the crop yield potential for the region). Failure to protect the land from degradation is considered inaction and corresponds to the differ-ence between the piece of land producing only 40 % of its potential yield, and a piece of land operating at 100 % productive capacity (Arrow 1). If the piece of land is effectively restored from 40 % to 100 % of its productive capacity (Action 1), then the benefits from that action (Arrow 2) are equal to the costs of inaction (Arrow 1). However, if action restores land to only 70 % of its productive capacity (Action 2), then
the benefit from action is the difference between those derived for land at 70 % productive capacity and land at 40 % productive capacity (Arrow 3). In this case, the benefits from action (Arrow 3) are less than the costs of inaction (Arrow 1).
The costs of inaction have been considered by previ-ous and on-going studies such as the Stern Review on Climate Change 53, The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 48, the UK National Ecosystem Assessment 27, and the Economics of Land Degrada-tion research project led by the Center for Develop-ment Research (ZEF) and International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 26. However, since the costs of inaction are greater or equal to the benefits from action, using the costs of inaction as the pri-mary focus may lead to overestimations of the actual benefits from action (Case Study 6). This will in turn lead to disappointment and frustration, especially for private investors, as they won’t see the expected benefits materialise. This could limit fur-ther action and investment and thereby be counter-productive. Theoretically, this approach also gives a better estimate of actual economic benefits and associated money flows that occur after action, and allows for consideration of partial land restoration.
Based on the merits of discussions that have evolved amongst environmental economists, the ELD Initia-
f i g U r e 5
Continuum of land states between fully functioning and fully degraded, and the relationship between the costs of degradation and potential benefits from restoration (adapted from Quillérou & Thomas 2012 50)
Arrow 1 (orange) corresponds to the costs of land degradation; Arrow 2 (dark green) corresponds to the potential benefits of land restoration; Arrow 3 (light green) corresponds to the effective benefits from land restoration.
Fully functioning (restored) land(100% crop yields/timber/biodiversity/ …)
Fully degraded land, no economic activity(0% crop yields/timber/biodiversity/ …)
Land under consideration
Action 1
2
3
1 Action 2
100%
70%
40%
0%
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
35
tive tends to give more weight to the benefits from action rather than the cost of inaction. This approach is also supported by the Offering Sustain-able Land Use Options (OSLO) consortium.
Framework for decision-making: A comparison of the economic benefits of action (or costs of inaction) against the costs of action, and decision-making criteria
Previous studies estimate the costs of land degrada-tion at USD 40 billion per year 10, 54. This is a high cost to pay for land degradation and begs the question of whether or not the potential benefits of reversing land degradation are worth acting upon. Will the adoption of sustainable land management or alter-native land-based economic activities lead to greater benefits than costs? A cost-benefit analysis is a powerful tool that helps to answer this question.
In this context, a cost-benefit analysis will compare the benefits of adopting sustainable land manage-ment or alternative land-based economic activities against the associated costs of taking such action (Figure 6). This deviates slightly from the methodol-ogy of comparing the costs of action to the costs of inaction developed by ZEF and IFPRI 25. The reason-
Expected benefits prior to action did not fully translate into economic benefits after action
(sourced from Kosey et al. 2007 44)
c A S e S t U D y 6
Three technical studies, including an economic valuation, were conducted in Honduras to inform the provision of a payment scheme for water-related environmental services. Regardless of the quality of these studies and the reliability of their results, the fee charged to fund the payment scheme was only 3.6 % of the water users’ estimated willingness to pay. This means that not only was the valuation study not used to inform policy, and therefore ren-dered useless for policy design but also that the necessary budget that should be leveraged for such services is not enough and will lead to under-provi-sion of water-related environmental services com-pared to what water users would prefer. This means that the expected economic benefits prior to action
(estimated based on the valuation study results) could not fully translate into economic benefits after action. The fee charged to water users was instead decided through the voting of representatives from the different urban water sectors. The level of fee to be charged was in this case decided based on polit-ical considerations over economic ones.
C H A P T E R 0 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements
36
ing for the deviation stems from the aforemen-tioned fact that the costs of inaction will most likely overestimate the actual economic benefits that arise with action such as land restoration.
The costs and the benefits of adopting sustainable land management and alternative land-based eco-nomic activities depend upon the level of action taken and change achieved, which in turn depends upon the causes of land degradation and the pro-cesses driving it. Once both the costs and benefits derived from action have been estimated using the
f i g U r e 6
Economic benefits and costs from action from preventing land degradation (adapted from Nkonya et al. 2011, pg. 4 38)
Proximatecauses
Underlyingcauses
Processes
Proximatecauses
Underlyingcauses
Processes
Levels of land
Outcomes
Institutionalarrangements
Benefits from action Costs of action
All effects of levels of land improvement on:❙ The provision of ecosystem ❙ services❙ Human well-being/society❙ Economy
(Discounted) benefits from action:❙ On-/off-site benefits❙ Direct/indirect benefits❙ Current/future benefits
Action or inaction
(Discounted) costs of action:❙ On-/off-site costs❙ Direct/indirect costs❙ Current/future costs
Outcomes
All effects of levels of land improvement on:❙ The provision of ecosystem ❙ services❙ Human well-being/society❙ Economy
Actors
Action againstland degradation:❙ Sustainable land ❙ management❙ Institutional and❙ policy settings
Actors
Action againstland degradation:❙ Sustainable land ❙ management❙ Institutional and❙ policy settings
Levels of land
methods detailed in the previous sections, one can then estimate a net economic benefit from action that will be equal to the benefits minus the costs. It is important however, to consider both the eco-nomic costs and benefits from action in sound deci-sion-making (Case Study 7).
It is also important to note that there is often not just one option, but several possible alternatives for action. For instance, investments could be made to improve productivity or alternative livelihoods (such as arts/crafts and eco-tourism), or simply
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
37
Increased cost-effectiveness when both benefits and costs are considered (Naidoo and Iwamura 2007 55)
c A S e S t U D y 7
It is important to consider both the economic costs and benefits from action in sound decision-mak-ing. Naidoo and Iwamura (2007) calculated and mapped the annual gross economic rents of the world’s cropping and grazing lands (i.e., the profits predominantly derived from food production). They identified areas where conservation would be most cost-effective, taking both biophysical ben-efits and economic costs into account, and com-pared them to existing conservation hot spots. They showed that only considering the benefits from conservation without considering the costs
forgone (i.e., the lost profit from agricultural pro-duction) leads to suboptimal allocation of resources for conservation. Conversely, taking only the costs forgone but not the economic ben-efits of conservation into account would not be economically optimal either.
Moving one step beyond this study would involve the translation of the biophysical benefits in monetary terms, comparing them to the costs of conservation, and including economic activities other than those linked to the agricultural sector (e.g. tourism).
carrying on with business as usual (“changing nothing”). From an economically logical perspec-tive, the option that leads to the greatest economic benefit should be the top choice. Box 3 details an
example of decision-making to identify an action to be implemented based on the level of economic gains to be made.
C H A P T E R 0 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements
38
b o x 3
Calculation of the Total Economic Value
This box details an example of economic decisions based on land values for illustrative purposes. A comparison is drawn between two pieces of land which provide similar ecosystem services; one has many existing economic activities (Land A, e.g. at a city’s periphery), and another only has a few existing economic activities (Land B, e.g. in rural areas). The information is summarized in Table 5. There are sev-eral decisions that can be derived from this com-parative analysis:
1) Choose one option that has the greatest benefit between both pieces of land: invest in alternative livelihoods on Land B – the land with little existing economic activity, where one will get the greatest net economic benefit from action.
2) Choose one option that has the greatest benefit for both pieces of land: invest in productivity on the Land A – the land with many existing economic activities, and also in alternative livelihoods on Land B – the land with little existing economic activity.
3) Choose two options that have some benefits for both pieces of land: potentially invest in both land productivity in Land A and alternative livelihoods in Land B. The proportion of investment allocated between the two will depend upon overlap/trade-offs and the economies of scale and scope between the two options considered. Whether action needs to be prioritised between Land A and B also depends on the available budget that will trigger action on both pieces of land.
4) Choose at least one option and adapt the broader environment: the legal, political, social, and eco-nomic context can be adapted to allow for and/or foster action. Outreach and education activities can also complement this.
Option for action Economic cost of action
Economic benefit from action
Net economic benefit from action
Land A – Piece of land with many existing economic activities
Change nothing (inaction) USD 40 USD 30 – USD 10
Invest into productivity USD 100 USD 120 + USD 20
Invest into alternative livelihoods USD 130 USD 140 + USD 10
Land B – Piece of land with few existing economic activities
Change nothing (inaction) USD 60 USD 30 – USD 30
Invest into productivity USD 20 USD 25 + USD 5
Invest into alternative livelihoods USD 50 USD 100 + USD 50
t A b l e 5
Economic options for investments into land-based activities and results
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
39
f i g U r e 7
A decision-making framework with net economic benefit as choice criterion (i.e. economic benefits minus costs) (Source: report authors)
Starting point:
3 options for action:
Estimate totaleconomic value ofeconomic costsand benefits:
Improved productivityChange nothing
(business as usual)
A given piece of land, for a given legal,political and economic context
Choose option with greatest net economic benefit for action (or inaction)and adapt legal, political and economic context
to enable adoption of chosen option
Alternative livelihoods(economic activities)
Net economicbenefit from
improved productivity
Net economicbenefit from
business as usual
Net economicbenefit from
alternative livelihoods
Following upon this, Figure 7 provides a summary of the economic decision-making pathways to action. The costs and benefits associated with the three options for action (change nothing, invest into pro-ductivity, and invest into alternative livelihoods) are estimated to derive the net economic benefit from the action associated with each option (for the “change nothing” option, this is the economic ben-efit of inaction) and identify the option with the greatest net economic benefit. It is sometimes nec-essary to adapt legal, political, and economic con-texts in order to enable the adoption of the most economically desirable option, and also to remove existing barriers to adoption. The same approach can be repeated as many times as necessary for the same (improved) piece of land until the economic gains are exhausted. The main advantage of this approach is that is allows for a consideration of the agricultural sector. Agriculture is a key sector in addressing our food security issues as we need to produce more food, and ensure global food security and access. However, part of managing land more sustainably is reducing human pressures on land currently exploited for agriculture. One option
could be to foster the uptake of alternative liveli-hood options by poor farmers in such areas, so that land can become more sustainably managed and poor farmers can maintain or expand their income levels. This approach would allow us to go beyond the agricultural sector and consider other eco-nomic sectors that are linked to alternative liveli-hoods (e.g. tourism, conservation). Alternative live-lihood options like this should be an integral part of strategies addressing land degradation and sus-tainable land management. There are quite a few options and pathways for action (Box 4) and the choices to be implemented for effective land man-agement depends on specific context, with given technical, political, legal, cultural, social, and envi-ronmental conditions.
C H A P T E R 0 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements
40
b o x 4
Options and pathways for action
There are a range of possible practical options and pathways where sustainable land management is tied in with increased economic viability for the greatest net social and economic profit. The follow-ing options are commonly found in the existing literature.
❚ Adoption of alternative land managementThese can refer to the adoption of more sustainable agricultural practices to improve agricultural yields and livestock production, afforestation/reforestation to control water flows, etc. Alternative land manage-ment detailed in the literature is advocated as provid-ing greater economic benefits than associated costs. These profits often materialise though increased rev-enues as a result of increased production, certifica-tion schemes (e.g. FairTrade Foundation®), increased land market prices (e.g. land rents 11), reduction of droughts, flood occurrences, etc. Increased benefits usually accrue directly to stakeholders and generally require access to the right information for the imple-mentation of change.
❚ Establishment of alternative livelihoodsA typical example would be the establishment of eco-tourism activities that contribute directly to conser-vation efforts and practices 56, 57, 58, 59, or fair trade production of arts and crafts. Stakeholders usually reap benefits directly, but this requires access to information and resources in order to develop the facilities, skills, and capacity required to establish market routes to potential customers and undertake advertisement campaigns to promote these alterna-tive livelihood activities.
❚ Establishment of payment for ecosystem service schemes
Land managers are rewarded for conserving ecosys-tem services for those who use them 45, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64. The stakeholders usually reap the benefits directly, but this requires access to information, and national or international redistribution mechanisms to ensure payments. This can include payments to store carbon or to preserve biodiversity. The United Nations Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) is an effort to offer incentives to developing countries to reduce emissions from for-ested lands and invest in low-carbon paths to sus-tainable development through the creation of a finan-cial value for the carbon stored in forests. Another
programme, REDD+, goes even beyond deforestation and forest degradation to include the role of conser-vation, sustainable management of forests, and the enhancement of forest carbon stocks. Additionally, private companies (e.g., Vittel Water®, Hydroplants) or NGOs (World Wildlife Fund in Kenya) might pay land users for ecosystem services.
❚ Establishment of new markets for ecosystem services: carbon store and sequestration
Within most markets, most ecosystem services have no or little value assigned to them. A specialised pay-ment for ecosystem services works within the mar-ket scheme to create the potential to assign mone-tary values to services previously not or under-val-ued 65. This goes beyond payments for ecosystem services by letting the price for carbon be determined through a market. This can directly benefit stake-holders, but depends on the fluctuations in the mar-ket price and could lead to a switch in land manage-ment strategies by stakeholders. It also requires monitoring of the market operation, and some finan-cial speculation. Examples of new market establish-ment include the carbon market in Europe and China.
❚ Provision of subsidy schemesThese involve government action and can target a range of stakeholders such as farmers or small land holders. They can be provided on a one-off basis to lower establishment or switching costs (e.g. the UNDP/GEF Small Grants Programme 66), or linked to land use or type of production in order to lower costs of operation (e.g. United States and European Union agricultural policies). It requires both stakeholder access to information and the targeting of stakehold-ers by donors. The maintenance of a subsidy scheme in the long term usually requires strong lobbying from interest groups.
❚ Establishment of taxesTaxes aim to raise the cost of production or consump-tion of environmentally damaging goods, thereby reducing or limiting demand for these goods, and thus reducing or limiting the environmental damage. It involves government action and monitoring and social acceptance of these taxes. An example of this is the eco-tax in Europe on plastic-based products, which then directly funds their recycling.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
41
❚ Implementation of bansThese require strong government action and moni-toring and can be costly to enforce. An example of this is in Rwanda, where plastic bags are being banned to reduce environmental pollution.
❚ Provision of opportunities to make voluntary payments for environmental conservation or offset
An example of this is voluntary payments to offset carbon consumption, or the provision of monetary support to environmental conservation charities and non-governmental organizations, which are cur-rently being promoted by some airline and train organizations.
❚ Provision of microfinanceMicrofinance focuses on promoting local, small-scale business establishments. Credit facilities are provided at a lower interest rate than those offered by traditional banking establishments, who consider these initiatives as too small or too risky. Microfi-nancing is seen by economists as a good alternative to subsidies which tend to have adverse conse-quences on society and behaviours 67. Access to microfinance has successfully contributed to poverty reduction in Bangladesh at the individual level (espe-cially for women), as well as at the village level 68. Recent evidence suggests that access to microfi-nance is not sufficient on its own to lead to improve-ments in health, education, and women’s empower-ment 42, 69, but it is an integral part of the “action option mix” to promote sustainable land manage-ment.
❚ Establishment of research, policy, and stakeholder networks and platforms for exchange
The development of networks and platforms leads to greater information exchange between local stake-holders and decision-makers, as well as increasing the scientific basis for informed decision-making 70.
❚ Improving data availabilityThe current spatial variations in data availability impair scientific research activities and active inter-national communications 71. Data availability depends on the wealth level (per capital GDP), language (Eng-lish), security level, and geographical location in relation to the country. Through scientific education, communication, research, and collaboration, data
availability can be improved by building capacity in low-GDP countries with fewer English speakers that are located far from the Western countries that host global databases, and in countries that have experi-enced conflict.
The pathways to the provision of these options rely mostly on the policy-making process and government action, and can provide direct benefits to private stake-holders. The provision of funding from external donors or private investors depends on their incentives to do so (which may change over time), but private investors will act if they can be convinced that they will get a return on their investment. Short term funding will be effective in promoting change if it lowers financial bar-riers to change.
C H A P T E R 0 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements
42
Six steps to estimate the economic benefits and costs of action, and one to take action
The approaches, frameworks, and methods detailed in previous sections have been summed up into a 6-step methodology conzeptualised by the Global Mechanism of the UNCCD 52 and further developed by Noel and Soussan (2010) 49 for the OSLO Consor-tium, with each step further disaggregated as required in order to meet the specific objectives of individual studies:
1. Inception: Identification of the scope, location, spatial scale, and strategic focus of the study, based on stakeholder consultation and the prep-aration of background materials on the socio-economic and environmental context of the assessment.
2. Geographical characteristics: Assessment of the quantity, spatial distribution, and ecological characteristics of land cover types, categorized into agro-ecological zones and analysed through the use of a Geographical Information System (GIS).
3. Types of ecosystem services: Analysis of ecosys-tems services stocks and flows for each land cover category, based on the ecosystem service frame-work.
4. Role of ecosystem services and economic valu-ation: The role of the assessed ecosystems ser-vices in the livelihoods of communities living in each land cover area, and also the role of overall economic development in the study zone. This implies estimating the total economic value of these services to estimate the benefits of action or the cost of inaction.
5. Patterns and pressures: Identification of land degradation patterns, drivers and pressures on the sustainable management of land resources, including their spatial distribution and the assessment of the factors causing the degrada-tion. This is to inform the development of sce-narios for cost-benefit analysis. The following sub-steps can be taken to choose the appropriate valuation method under available data, resources, local capacity, and specific objective to be achieved: (a) deciding the type of environ-mental problem to be analysed; (b) reviewing
which valuation method is appropriate for that problem and the type of environmental value to be captured (use value or total economic value); (c) considering what information is required for the identified environmental problem and cho-sen valuation method, and; (d) assessing what information is readily available, how long it would take to access it, and at what monetary cost.
6. Cost-benefit analysis and decision-making: The assessment of sustainable land management options that have the potential to reduce or remove degradation pressures, including the analysis of their economic viability and the iden-tification of the locations for which they are suit-able.
7. Take action: Implement the most economically desirable option(s). This may require adapting the legal, political, and economic contexts to enable the adoption of most economically desir-able option(s), and removing existing barriers to adoption.
A range of tools have been released for mapping ecosystem services, such as the Natural Capital Pro-ject’s Integrated Valuation of Environmental Ser-vices and Tradeoffs (InVEST) tool or the ARtificial Intelligence for Ecosystem Services (ARIES) model-ling platform. These tools aim to help map ecosys-tem service provision and model their evolution with time, associate them to an economic value, identify scenarios, and help decision-makers assess trade-offs between these scenarios for informed decision-making. GLUES (Global Assessment of Land Use Dynamics, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Ecosystem Services) is a project led by the German Ministry of Education and Research that publicly shares datasets and data related to sustainable land management and optimal use of land and land ser-vices. The Australian INFFER (Investment Frame-work for Environmental Resources) is a privately operated system that aims to develop and prioritise projects addressing environmental issues such as reduced water quality, biodiversity, environmental pests, and land degradation. MIMES (Multiscale Integrated Models of Ecosystem Services) 72 is an ini-tiative lead by the University of Vermont which also aims to evaluate ecosystem services. All of these tools can in theory produce results for various levels of available data but with a level of uncertainty that decreases with the level of available data.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
43
The drivers of land degradation have been described by Geist and Lambin 73, and further elaborated by Nkonya et al.74. Indications of the data and potential sources required to identify these drivers is included in Appendix 2 26.
Other economic approaches
There are other economic approaches which adopt a slightly different but complementary perspective to cost-benefit analysis.
Shadow interest rateThe shadow interest rate is similar to the rate of interest charged by banks for loans, and is applied to the natural capital we borrow from future genera-tions. It is the interest that society as a whole pays for not managing natural resources sustainably. The lower the shadow interest rate, the more sustainable the management pathway will be. Case Study 8 is an example of this, showing that fishers who overfish the stocks end up borrowing natural capital at much higher rates than they would pay to borrow money in a bank (at a typical 6 % rate of interest).
The shadow interest rate concept can be applied directly to a land management context, and is one way of communicating effectively with a private sector driven by economic goals and comprehen-sion.
Multi-Criteria analysisMulti-criteria analysis, also called multi-criteria decision analysis, is a semi-qualitative procedure used to compare or determine overall preferences between alternative and often conflicting options. It helps identify a preferred option in multi-discipli-nary contexts without requiring preliminary con-sensus between stakeholders on how costs and ben-efits will be measured.
Multi-criteria analyses assess options (scenarios) along several quantified or scored criteria (attrib-utes). Assessment criteria can be quantitative or qualitative (scores) and can relate to social, techni-cal, environmental, economic, and financial changes. It is easy to use and has a wider scope than cost-benefit analyses because it includes qualitative as well as quantitative data.
Shadow interest rate: An example from Europe (Quaas et al. 2012 75)
“’We borrow the earth from our children,’ environmentalists say – but at what rate of interest?”
c A S e S t U D y 8
Fish stocks can be considered a natural capital stock that provides harvestable fish. Overfishing from these stocks means borrowing from the nat-ural asset. While fishing for a particular quantity above the sustainable population threshold gener-ates immediate profits and income, an interest rate has to be paid in terms of foregone future fishing income, as the fish stock’s reproductive capacity will remain low, and fishing costs will remain high. The concept of the shadow interest rate can be interpreted as the interest that has to be paid by fishermen in future years on the fishing income earned this year. It can quantify the degree of over-fishing and make its economic consequences transparent, as well as evaluate the profitability of short-term catch reductions as investments in long-term natural capital stocks. It also quantifies the economic return on reducing the catch to just slightly below a given (sustainable) value. Accord-
ingly, such a catch reduction can be regarded as an investment in the natural capital stock. The shadow interest rate incorporates the relevant biological and economic information and can be used to com-pare fish stocks. The shadow interest rates below have been computed for 13 major European fish stocks, and range from 10 % to more than 200 %. This means that fishers pay considerable interest when mismanaging fish stocks. Recent manage-ment improvements and catch reduction (e.g. in the Eastern Baltic cod or North Sea herring fisheries) have led to a decrease in the shadow interest rates in recent years, indicating greater economic returns. Fishers would thus benefit from managing the fish stocks more sustainably.
The difference in rate of interest paid is graph-ically highlighted in this study on a map with fish shapes proportional to the rate of interest for each fish stock.
C H A P T E R 0 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements
44
Multi-criteria analysis is not an environmental valu-ation method but rather helps to identify preferred scenarios without using economic valuation tech-niques. This analysis tends to be adopted as an alter-native to cost-benefit analyses when decision-making is influenced by political rather than economic forces. However, this method has limits. There is a risk of double-counting for overlapping objectives, it relies on expert judgement which does not always corre-spond to the preferences of society as a whole, and the scoring of qualitative impacts can be arbitrary in some cases. Furthermore, it is subject to small sample biases which arise when the sample is too small to allow for proportional extrapolation to an entire population, which can make it difficult to derive a scenario that would be acceptable to all groups.
Multi-criteria analysis does not always translate into economically sound decisions compared to cost-benefit analysis 76 and cost-benefit analysis should be preferred. In certain situations however, it may constitute a more acceptable exercise to stakehold-ers. It can also be used as a preliminary screening to environmental valuations that analyses scenarios
and identifies a preferred choice and criteria that can then be more formally economically valued.
Macro-economic approachesThe approaches detailed in previous sections focus on estimating potential flows of money within soci-ety or changes in existing monetary flows to make them match on economically and socially optimal levels. As such, they are micro-economic approaches.
On the other hand, macro-economic approaches focus on government macro-economic accounting at the national or regional level to estimate indica-tors similar to the GDP, while taking the environ-ment into account. The objective of macro-eco-nomic analyses is therefore different from that of micro-economic analyses which use economic val-uation and cost-benefit analysis to assess whether action is economically worth doing or not. Because of this difference in objective, macro-economic approaches can be used as complement to the micro-economic approach and frameworks detailed above and used for the ELD Initiative.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
45
Examples of macro-economic approaches include the UN System of Environmental-Economic Account-ing (SEEA), which describes stocks and changes in stocks of environmental assets, and the Wealth Accounting and the Valuation of Ecosystem Services (WAVES) global partnership, which provides a method for natural capital and national ecosystem accounting. Due to their focus on improving national accounting methods by including economic values of environmental goods and services, these macro-economics approaches focus on use values only. These use values are mostly measured through non demand-based methods (market price, replacement costs, dose-response methods, damage cost avoided, mitigation costs, and opportunity costs).
Condition for improved decision-making
The appropriate technical, political, legal, cultural, social, and environmental conditions are needed to ensure the successful implementation of economic action and instruments for long-term sustainabil-ity. The most economically desirable option has to be technically and legally feasible, and environ-mentally and socially acceptable. Additionally, physical and monetary resources to achieve the practical implementation of sustainable land man-agement should be accessible and available.
Economic sustainability of land use and land-based economic activities depends on how the property rights for these land uses are allocated and formally recognised, with both the type of property right owner (open access, individual property, common property) and the type of use (cropping and plant-ing, passage on the land, passage in the air over the land) formally recognised 77. When customary prop-erty rights are not formally registered, they can be easily ignored or overlooked by governments or international investors to the detriment of local and poorer populations, and leading to social unrest. Establishing formally recognised land registers and enforcing individual and collective property rights can help to identify the appropriate stakeholder(s) who should be taking action against land degrada-tion or be receiving compensation when property rights are transferred to another land manager (e.g. foreign investors). The FAO has already established a set of voluntary guidelines regarding responsible governance and land tenure, which could act as a policy template or blueprint for governments, pol-icy-makers, and practitioners in determining what constitutes acceptable or fair practices for all 78.
Legal systems need to recognise total economic valuation as a principle for sound decision-making and action. Unless total economic values and prop-erty right ownerships are recognised by legal sys-tems and compensation is provided to those who depend on the land, it will be difficult to avoid social unrest 79. This is even more so the case when inter-national investors, perceived as ‘rich’ by the local populations, are involved.
Education and outreach activities may also be required to provide access to information at the local level. Physical, technical, and monetary resources should also be made available at the local level to ensure action is effectively taken. A lack of access to these resources and information about sustainable land management is particularly acute in Sub-Saharan African countries.
The most important condition for success is to establish discussions and identify win-win options between all stakeholders, including local popula-tions and their representatives. This is referred to as a “participatory” approach, and can be applied to methods used to derive economic values. This pro-cess considers the opinions of stakeholders to be on an equal footing regardless of their bargaining power and thereby goes beyond mere consultation.
b o x 5
Examples of adaptations to facilitate and foster action
❚ Formalise informal property rights regimes and allocation and change them if necessary to promote improved land management 77
❚ Provide some microfinance scheme to promote access to monetary capital to small holders 80
❚ Implement a payment for ecosystem services scheme 81
❚ Conduct local consultation 82 through partici-patory valuation and policy-making
❚ Remove institutional constraints
❚ Consider gender aspects
C H A P T E R 0 2 The ELD methodology in assessing potential economic improvements
46
The 6 (plus 1) steps build a process that takes a range of informed actions from economic valuations and scenario-building suited to specific social, political, legal, and economic contexts. The focus on the total economic value of economic benefits from action will help assess the potential gains for society from adopting sustainable land management through improved agricultural production or the provision of alternative livelihoods. This process builds upon previous initiatives and partnerships with parallel initiatives. The remaining challenge is to translate existing academic methods into pragmatic applica-tions for wider practice, by building stakeholders’ capacity to gather this information and then take informed action.
Sampling method for extrapolation of existing case studies and global comparison
One of the problems faced by the initiative is how to scale up local estimates of the costs of land degrada-tion or economic benefits from sustainable land management estimated for specific case studies to derive global estimates. To tackle this issue, a solu-
tion is to group case studies based on identified characteristics, which can be accomplished by sev-eral methods.
The first option is to use a methodology based on the drivers of land degradation. This is the approach taken by ZEF and IFPRI, who have devel-oped a three-step sampling strategy for grouping case studies based on the drivers of land degrada-tion. This is to ensure the analysis can be extrapo-lated to a global context in an accurate and rele-vant manner. The first step aims to group countries of the world based on their socio-economic and institutional underlying factors of land degrada-tion by: GDP per capita, government effectiveness, population density, and agricultural intensifica-tion 25. The second step is to check that the groups of countries are valid, by verifying that the follow-ing are different between groups: other socio-eco-nomic and biophysical indicators of land degrada-tion, share of rural population, share of agricul-ture in GDP, and average cereal yields per ha. An example of the heterogeneity in the groups can be seen in Table 6. These first two steps ensure that the case studies selected are representative of global
Clu
ster
s
GD
P p
er c
apit
a
Gov
ernm
ent
effe
ctiv
enes
s
Pop
ulat
ion
de
nsit
y
Agr
icul
tura
l in
ten s
ifica
tion
Maximum changes in normalised differenced vegetation index values
between the baseline (1982–84) and endline (2003–06)
Cer
eal y
ield
s
Shar
e of
ag
ricu
ltur
e in
GD
P
Shar
e of
rur
al
popu
latio
n in
tota
l
1 lower lower higher lowerhighest dispersion,
both biggest decreases and increaseslower higher higher
2 mid mid higher higher smaller decreases mid mid higher
3 mid mid higher mid smaller decreases mid mid mid
4 mid mid lower mid larger decreases mid mid lower
5 mid mid lower lower mid lower mid mid
6 higher higher mid higher larger decreases mid mid lower
7 higher higher higher smaller decreases higher lower lower
t A b l e 6
Clustering and validation results (Nkonya et al. 2013 26, Table 1, pg. 13)
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
47
heterogeneity in terms of socio-economic, institu-tional, and land degradation characteristics.
The third step is to choose countries from each group to commission new in-depth case studies, based on regional representativeness, existing data, and/or data being collected. This driver-of-land-degradation-based approach is most relevant when the drivers are addressed directly (e.g. to reduce agricultural land erosion).
Alternatively a methodology based on the type of objective to be achieved can be used when alternative livelihood options are being considered as the action. In this case, the driver-based method is limited and a similar method based on objectives rather than drivers may be more appropriate. For instance, the drivers of land degradation will not inform the setting up of eco-tourism as much as other economic factors such as access to the loca-tion, flora and fauna, risk of kidnapping, political stability, etc. This amounts to grouping relevant
case studies by the ecosystem service of interest for statistical analysis to ensure that the findings can be extrapolated to a global context.
Method to assess the relevance of existing case studies and commissioning new case studies
Moving forward from the methodologies discussed in this chapter, the ELD case studies presented in Chapter 3 are categorized so as to facilitate the future identification of relevant case studies and analyses by the ELD Initiative working groups, depending on specific objectives (e.g. increasing agricultural productivity or setting up new eco-nomic activities). The literature has been catego-rized by: world region, type of ecosystems, type of ecosystem service (food, fibres, carbon storage, tourism, amenity, etc.), type of economic value, and type of valuation method (when applicable). They have also been allocated to one or more of the ELD working groups (Data and Methodology, Scenarios, and Options and Pathways for action).
The selection of new case studies commissioned by the ELD Initiative was made based on knowledge and practice gaps, as well as to ensure a comprehen-sive geographical and thematic scope (Box 6).
b o x 6
Criteria for selection of case studies to be commissioned by the ELD Initiative
Proposals have been evaluated according to the following criteria:
(a) scientific quality and “value for money”
(b) use of top-down or bottom-up approaches or innovative aspects of both
(c) use of non-market valuations as well as market valuations
(d) potential for integration of results across scales
(e) consideration of land rehabilitation, prevention of land degradation, and alternative livelihoods for action
(f) capacity to involve and/or reach out to a range of audiences (scientific community, decision-makers, private sector)
(g) selected location(s) is (are) representative of its (their) specific region(s) of the World
(h) addresses one or more of the identified gaps (list in annex of this document)
(i) well-defined time plan and adequate proposed budget
C H A P T E R
03
48
Existing case studies on the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management: The known and unknown (preliminary results)
This report re-emphasizes the conclusions of previ-ous reviews that there are insufficient case studies to draw definitive conclusions on the economics of land degradation mainly because there have been no comprehensive studies on the total economic value of land. First estimates indicated that the costs of land degradation were in the order of 3 – 7 % (up to a maximum of perhaps 10 %) of agricultural produc-tivity 83, with the cost of remedial action being an order of magnitude less than the costs of degrada-tion. Other estimates indicate costs of environmen-tal degradation to be of the order of 4 – 8 % of GDP in developing countries, 2 – 7 % of GDP in North African and West Asian dryland countries 84, and 3.3 – 7.5 % of global GDP 85. A review by Nkonya et al. 38 in 2011 showed that in general the costs of taking action to prevent/reverse land degradation were less
than the costs of not taking action. Nkonya et al. 2011 also showed that there is a global loss of arable land per capita to the order of 40 – 50 m2 per year 74. For the 2 billion peo-ple living in drylands this can amount to a loss of 8 – 10 mil-lion ha per year. The value of drylands has recently been estimated to range from USD 101 – 5,640 per ha 86, meaning
a loss of value to the order of USD 0.8 – 56.4 billion per year from land degradation in drylands. These figures are probably underestimated because the values were not based on total economic values, but rather on what each particular study had measured in terms of ecosystem services. The estimates are thus of a similar order of magnitude to global esti-mates of costs of desertification of USD 42 billion/year, amongst others 87, 88.
To address the deficiencies in data the ELD Initia-tive sent out a call for existing case studies that reflected research on and analyses of the econom-ics of land degradation. The received case studies were complemented by additional literature searches, with over 200 studies referenced. This list
our doubts are traitors, and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.
William Shakespeare, Measure for Measure
(Act 1, Scene 4) 1603
is non-exhaustive and is being expanded and updated continuously. The preliminary analysis below is based on the first 186 resources refer-enced, of which 121 were identified as case studies, and the other 65 as reviews and theoretical frame-works. Within these preliminary results, several trends were revealed.
Heightened interest in land value after the food crises security, in relation to addressing food security issues
Temporally, most research related to the economics of land degradation has taken place over the past 5 years (Figure 8). This coincides with the first food price spikes and the pioneering use of economics for global assessments of environmental action by the Stern Review on Climate Change (2007) 53.
A need for capacity building in Africa, Asia, Central and South America
Case studies were further broken down into their world region, in order to determine if there are par-ticular zones that were being targeted for analyses on the economics of land degradation more than others (Figure 9). Most studies tended to focus on Africa or Asia, or had a global context, whereas the Americas, Oceania, and Europe had relatively few studies by comparison. This demonstrates a gener-ally predominant focus on developing regions (excluding areas like Oceania, which are considered developing states, but have proportionally much lower populations).
However, close to two thirds of the study authors were based in developed country regions. This reflects the fact that environmental economic valu-ation methods have primarily been developed in developed countries, as well the lack of academic and institutional capacity in developing countries in order for them to undertake valuation studies themselves (Box 7). Further, 47 studies (26 %) had
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
49
f i g U r e 8
Recent interest in land-related publication, in line with food security issues
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
unpu
blis
hed
mul
tiple
yea
rs
Num
bers
of r
esou
rces
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
f i g U r e 9
Geographical repartition of resources
World24%
Oceania5%
Europe7%
Asia18%
Americas13%
Africa33%
UN world regions(Total: 186, of which 121 are case studies)
C H A P T E R 0 3 Existing case studies on the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management
50
b o x 7
Issues faced when implementing valuation techniques in developing countries (from Christie et al. 2008 89)
The focus of this study is on biodiversity, but the same points apply to land valuation.
Practical issues:
❚ Many developing countries are affected by extreme environmental conditions which may affect the researcher’s ability to access areas or effectively undertake research.
❚ In many developing countries there may be a lack of local research capacity to design, administer, and analyse research projects. However, the involvement of local people is considered essential within the research process to ensure that local nuances/values are accounted for.
❚ There is some evidence that it may be easier to administer valuation studies in developing coun-tries as: response rates are typically higher; respondents are receptive to listening and consid-ering questions posed; and interviewers are rela-tively inexpensive (allowing for larger sample sizes).
Policy issues:
❚ The lack of local research capacity in many devel-oping countries may result in a lack of awareness of valuation methods and of the importance of natural assets (e.g. land or biodiversity) to people. A capacity building programme focused on these issues is important if developing countries are to effectively address environmental issues.
❚ The lack of empirical valuation studies in develop-ing countries is an issue when trying to effectively illustrate the importance of natural assets to peo-ple and for future input into benefits transfer.
❚ Much of the existing valuation research on the management of natural assets has been extrac-tive, with little input or influence on local policy. Incorporating ideas from action research into valuation is essential if this type of research is to meaningfully influence policy.
Methodological issues:
❚ Low levels of literacy, education, and language creates barriers to valuing complex environ-mental goods, as well as creating difficulties for using traditional survey techniques like questionnaires and interviews. More delibera-tive and participatory approaches to data col-lection may overcome these issues.
❚ Many developing countries have informal or subsistence economies, in which people may have little or no experience of dealing with money. The consequence of this is that they would find it extremely difficult to place a mon-etary value on a complex environmental good.
❚ Most of the methods reviewed have been devel-oped and refined by researchers from devel-oped counties. There is evidence that the cur-rent best-practice guidelines for these meth-ods might not be appropriate for applications in developing countries.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
51
authors based out of at least two different world regions (Figure 10).
A need to progress beyond use value and the agricultural sector
Most valuation studies have focused on estimating the use value of agricultural production, i. e. food and to a lesser extent, raw materials. This almost exclusive focus on use value and agricultural pro-duction (which periodically includes tourism) is well illustrated by the case studies undertaken by ZEF and IFPRI 38. In their study of 5 countries and 8 production systems losses of crop production were used to estimate costs of action against various land degradation processes versus no action. In 7 of the 8 case the costs of action were less than the costs of inaction, ranging from 11 to 90 %. However, all stud-ies recognise that economics based solely on crop losses from land degradation misses important un-quantified benefits of other ecosystem services.
f i g U r e 1 0
Geographical repartition of authors
World0%
Oceania8%
Europe36%
Asia9%
Americas27%
Africa20%
These case studies demonstrate a need to move beyond use value and consider the total economic value of land, as well as alternative livelihood poten-tial (Figure 13). Land may be too degraded to be eco-nomically worth restoring for agricultural produc-tion, but may still be viable for other uses (e.g. to build tourist accommodations or act as buffer zone for water pollution regulation). The agricultural sector plays a great role in land values because of food security issues, but it is important to consider a broader, more comprehensive picture to make the most of land’s full economic potential.
Economic valuation methods have been so far imple-mented in relation to their perceived ease-of-use, which does not always reflect how easy the methods actually are to use (Figure 13). However, for each eco-system and ecosystem service, there is at least one available starting point from which inspiration can be drawn (Figure 11, Figure 12, and Figure 13).
UN world regions for authors(Total: 186, of which 121 are case studies)
C H A P T E R 0 3 Existing case studies on the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management
52
f i g U r e 1 1
Proportion of resources for each ecosystem
Arid and Semi-Arid Farmland
10%
All Ecosystems in a given
Geographical Area 6%
Wetlands 5%
Urban 3%
Valleys 1%
Tropical Forests 4%
Rangelands 5%
Plains 2%
Mountains and Highlands and Uplands
8%
Hills 2%
Grasslands and Pastures
14%
Freshwater and Water Bodies
5%
Forests and Woodlands (Non Tropical)
13%
Floodplains 1%
Non-Arid Farmland 13%
Dunes 2%
Desert 3%
Coastal 3%
Ecosystems(Total: 186, of which 121 are case studies)
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
53
f i g U r e 1 2
Number of resources for each ecosystem service
Ecosystem services – Provisioning
Ecosystem services – Regulating
Ecosystem services – Cultural
Num
bers
of r
esou
rces
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Oth
er C
ultu
ral S
ervi
ces
Spir
itual
Am
enity
Hun
ting
Rec
reat
ion
Oth
er R
egul
atin
g Se
rvic
es
Pol
lutio
n C
ontr
ol
Clim
ate
Reg
ulat
ion
Soil
Reg
ulat
ion
Wat
er F
low
Reg
ulat
ion
Oth
er P
rovi
sion
ing
Serv
ices
Bio
dive
rsity
and
Gen
etic
Res
ourc
es
Wat
er S
uppl
y
Non
-Tim
ber
Fore
st P
rodu
cts
Min
ing
Hon
ey
Hor
ticul
ture
Bio
fuel
s
Pas
tora
lism
and
Mea
t
Fore
st T
imbe
r
Fibr
es
Food
s
64
11
36
43
2
12 12
1714
74
1
119
1618
30 3028 28
8
18
Ecosystem services (Total: 186, of which 121 are case studies)
C H A P T E R 0 3 Existing case studies on the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management
54
f i g U r e 1 3
Number of resources for each quantified value and valuation method
Non-demand based
Type of valuequantified
Revealedpreferences
Statedpreferences
Valuation method
Num
bers
of r
esou
rces
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Oth
er V
alua
tion
Met
hod
Agg
rega
tion
Acr
oss
Serv
ices
Ben
efit
Tran
sfer
Cho
ice
Expe
rim
ent
Con
tinge
nt V
alua
tion
Trav
el C
ost M
etho
d
Hed
onic
Pri
ce M
etho
d
Opp
ortu
nity
Cos
ts
Miti
gatio
n C
osts
Dos
e-R
espo
nse
Met
hod
Mar
ket P
rice
Met
hod
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic V
alue
(TEV
)
Use
Val
ue O
nly
67
28
38
19
5
17
41
9 8
21
12
21
* Aggregation across services is a specific form of benefit transfer which takes trade-offs into account
(Total: 186, of which 121 are case studies)
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
55
f i g U r e 1 4
Repartition of resources across the ELD working groups
Scenarios24%
Options an pathways for action
39%
Methodology and data
37%
f i g U r e 1 5
Cost of action as a % of cost of inaction – case studies (von Braun et al. 2013 11)
Per
cent Break-even point
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Kenya (sorghum):
soil nutrient depletion
Kenya (rice): soil nutrient
depletion
Kenia (maize): soil nutrient
depletion
India (rice): salinity
Peru (maize): soil erosion
Peru (rice):salinity
Niger: overgrazing
Niger (rice): salinity
Collected resources for each ELD working group(Total: 186, of which 121 are case studies)
C H A P T E R 0 3 Existing case studies on the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management
56
Application of the ELD Initiative framework
In terms of the ELD Initiative framework, the resources collected and analysed thus far are fairly equitably distributed across the 3 ELD working groups on Data and Methodology, Scenarios, and Options and Pathways for action (Figure 14). This shows the diversity of avail-able resources, which cover:
❚❚ The potential scale for action, such as estimat-ing the scale of taxes, subsidies and payments for ecosystem services through valuation methods (Data and Methodology working group),
❚❚ The different choices and avenues for future decisions, such as payments for ecosystem ser-vices, policies, private sector investment, action on the drivers of adoption, etc. (Options and Path-ways for action working group),
❚❚ The predictions for future situations to adjust the scale and scope for action, such as current biophysical trends, climate change impact, and human pressures, and how to take the most rel-evant option and pathway for action (Scenarios working group).
It is important to note that economic valuation (data and methodology) and the consideration of scenar-ios provide information for more economically sound decision-making, but options and pathways for action can be adopted independently.
Options and pathways for action: Scaling up and out
The focus on the value of the agricultural sector in the current literature is in accordance with con-cerns for food security, but fails to consider the eco-nomic use values that could be derived from con-verting land from agriculture use to alternative economic activities, such as tourism and mining. It also ignores the non-use value of land-based ser-vices. Collectively, this means that the true eco-nomic value of land and land-based services is underestimated. There are two consequences of this: (i) decision-making based on use-value esti-mates will not reflect values to society as a whole and could generate more losers than winners, and (ii) not measuring the non-use value leads to missed opportunities in setting up new economic activi-ties, which could capture at least some of this non-use value. A more comprehensive approach to the total economic value of land involves combining both use and non-use values, and would show more
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
57
balance between the different methods used and the different services valued.
Adoption of more sustainable land management (decreasing land degradation) was touted in almost all studies as the most economically sensible future, in line with what was presented in Nkonya et al. 2011 (Ch. 6, pgs. 149 – 181) 38 and von Braun et al. 2013 (Fig-ure 15) 11. The actual options and pathways suggested and analysed in the studies demonstrated a range of possible actions for implementation of sustainable land and land-based ecosystem service manage-ment. Alternative land practices (e.g. afforestation or reforestation, conservation for tourism) were pro-posed and determined to have positive values even when considering associated costs. Recommended profits can come from numerous sources, including; increased crop and livestock production, increased
Driver Proximate Underlying NaturalAnthropo-
genic
Topography ◊ ◊
Land Cover ◊ ◊ ◊
Climate ◊ ◊
Soil Erodibility ◊ ◊
Pest and Diseases ◊ ◊
Unsustainable Land Management ◊ ◊
Infrastructure Development ◊ ◊
Population Density ◊
Market Access ◊
Land Tenure ◊
Poverty ◊
Agricultural Extension Service Access ◊
Decentralization ◊
International Policies ◊
Non-farm Employment ◊
t A b l e 7
Drivers related to land degradation and their causes (adapted from von Braun et al. 2013 11, Table 1)
tourism, increased market prices (for land), pay-ments for carbon sequestration. Overall, the case studies provide a rather holistic practical path for-ward, where sustainable land management is tied in with increased economic viability for the greatest social and economic net profit.
Pathways to provide these options rely mostly on the policy-making process and government action, and can provide direct benefits to private stakehold-ers. These private investors will act if they can be convinced that they will get a return on their invest-ment The provision of funding from external donors or private investors thus ultimately depends on their incentive to do so, which may change over time. Shorter term funding can be effective in pro-moting change if it lowers financial barriers to change.
C H A P T E R 0 3 Existing case studies on the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management
58
b o x 8
Pressures and drivers of land degradation for consideration in economic assessment of action (sourced from von Braun et al. 2013 11)
When considering something like land degradation that has potentially large-scale temporal and spatial impacts, it is important to be able to identify potential outcomes based on all the different variables at play. Thus far, the main pressures on land that have been considered in the literature include:
❚ Changes in biophysical factors, including climate change 90, 91, 92, 93, 94
Climate, that is, precipitation and temperature, com-bined with topography, determine vegetative cover and growth in any region. Alterations in these param-eters will affect vegetative ability to adapt, leading to loss of cover, soil erodibility and erosion, soil salini-zation, poor organic matter production, and increased oxidation, amongst other things.
❚ Impact of pests, diseases and invasive species 95, 96, 97, 98, 99
Pests and diseases can lead to loss of biodiversity, crop and livestock productivity and other forms of land degradation. Invasive species can also lead to a loss of economic benefits associated with tourism when tourists value native species more than inva-sive ones.
❚ Changes in land use 25, 100, 101, 102, 103
Land clearing, overgrazing, bush burning, pollution of land and water sources by agriculture or indus-tries, and soil nutrient maiming are amongst the major causes of land degradation. For example, the conversion of grasslands, rangelands, and forests to irrigated farming can result in increased soil salinity and loss of forest services.
❚ Changes in price levels and speculation over agricultural prices 104, 105
During the period from 1970 – 1985, maize and ferti-liser prices influenced forest conversion to planted agricultural area in Mexico. Beef prices, credit dis-bursement, and population numbers have also influ-enced cattle numbers and associated land uses. Relative change in prices can therefore provide strong incentives to change land use, especially for poorer populations.
❚ Changes in income (poverty) level and number of income sources 103, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111
The poor are often associated with land under high levels of degradation. It is not always clear whether
it is poverty that leads to land degradation or land degradation that leads to poverty. On the other hand, the poor’s livelihoods often depend heavily on their land and they have therefore a strong incentive to invest into maintaining their land in a good state. As a result of this context-dependent relationship, an increase in income level (decrease in poverty level) could either help achieve more sustainable land management, or further drive land degradation. It would seem that land management is more sustain-able for people depending directly on land and less sustainable when livelihoods are less directly derived from land use. Investment and development of alternative livelihoods could help farmers rest their lands or use non-farm income to invest into land improvements.
❚ Increase in population numbers and/or density 7, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118
Increasing demand on the productivity of the land (without increasing the yield of a singular land unit both long-term and sustainably) by a rapidly growing human population or population density can lead to more rapid and less sustainable extractions that fur-ther land degradation. However, bigger populations can also put more pressure on land owners to main-tain their land in good condition. Whether population and population density lead to land improvements or land degradation depend on the specific case study context.
❚ Changes in consumption patterns, access to market and level of supply chain development 73, 103, 119, 120
There is a marked increase in consumption of meat and “westernized” food staples in rapidly emerging economies. This shift to resource-intensive con-sumption can result in widespread deforestation, over-grazing, and further resource consumption by livestock. Land degradation can also occur in asso-ciation with the development of infrastructure as well as new processing and storage facilities, which improve market access. This is because these facil-ities can lead to increased demand and thereby intensification of production. Improved market access also increases the opportunity cost of labour which in turn increases land degradation when labour-intensive practices are also the most sustain-able. On the other hand, land users in area with good
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
59
market access have more incentives to invest in good land management.
❚ Changes in land tenure and property right allocation 104, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127
There is some mixed evidence showing that well-defined and secure land tenure can help achieve more sustainable land management. Insecure land tenure has been shown to be associated with adop-tion of less sustainable land management practices. However, this is not always the case, as farmers may still invest in sustainable land management despite insecure property rights. The problem of property right security and allocation is therefore not relevant when land is already managed sustainably, but is relevant when land is managed unsustainably. When land is managed unsustainably, there is almost always potential to improve land management by making property rights more secure or better allo-cating them.
❚ Changes in foreign direct investment 159
Multi-national enterprises and nations now com-monly invest directly in foreign lands to meet their own resource needs, or to capitalise on resources found elsewhere. They however do not necessarily have an incentive to maintain the land quality over-time as they can always choose to invest somewhere else. A lack of policy within host countries (often developing nations) can lead to over-exploitation and unsustainable practices that directly affect the land people traditionally use for self-sustenance and income.
❚ Changes in institutional settings 110, 132, 133, 134,
135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143
Access to agricultural extension services has the potential to enhance the adoption of more sustaina-ble land management, depending on the capacity and orientation of the extension providers. Setting up cooperative systems can also improve land manage-ment by fostering knowledge exchange and bulk buy-ing. Increasing school age and providing training specific to land management may also increase land management sustainability. Sustainable land man-agement can also be enhanced through decentraliza-tion allowing local institutions to set up land regis-tration systems to effectively secure property rights. Also, strong local institutions with a capacity for land management are likely to enact bylaws and other regulations.
❚ Changes in domestic and international policy 125, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
Domestic policies that will impact land management are extremely varied and go beyond the agricultural sector and land tenure. Policies can foster adoption of sustainable land management are for instance stable agricultural pricing policies, policies increas-ing returns to sustainable land management enough, labour policies that balance “pulling” workers to the manufacturing sector and “pushing” them out of agriculture with food production needs, policies that helped provide access of poorer rural households to land and credit markets, to the necessary key infra-structure, provided support private sector initiatives, provided effective rural extension service and mar-keting services to the poor in rural areas, success-fully reduced corruption. The removal of perverse subsidy programmes can also be just as effective as implementing new policies. These policies are usu-ally not enough to promote sustainable land manage-ment on their own, requiring a coherent series of policy measures to be adopted. This requires also the adoption of relevant macro-economic policies for international trade. It also requires the assessment of trade-offs with other sectors of the economy. For instance, building a dam will help improve the coun-try’s energy production and control of water flows, but also means the loss of agricultural land in the areas that are flooded.
International policies through the United Nations and other organizations have influenced interna-tional and national policy formulation and land management. The World Trade Organization offers a platform for exchange and negotiation to remove policies that are detrimental to trade (i.e. western subsidy schemes for farmers that distort world prices and are detrimental to poorer countries).
C H A P T E R 0 3 Existing case studies on the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management
60
t A b l e 8
Potential scenarios, from most ideal (darker green) to least (darker brown) (adapted from the UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011 27)
Conservation Fully Implemented
This amounts to protecting the ecological environment. Ecosystem services are promoted for maximal environmental health. There would be a decline in income derived from intensive agri culture, and changes to the market. However, this would see the largest net social benefits, increases in long-term sustainability, green space, social and recreational values, and declines in greenhouse gas emissions and loss of viable land.
Green and Pleasant Land
A moderate reduction in agricultural intensity will lead to a decline in farm income. The focus is pro-environmental and will result in greenhouse gas reductions, and increases in green space, recreational, and social values. However, it can greatly impact a nation’s overseas ecological footprint, if they are unable to meet their own food needs. This should be done respecting cultural values.
Local Stewardship
Society is concerned with their immediate, local surroundings, and strives to make sustainable life a focus in this area. There is not much focus on intervention or assistance to other nations, or concern about an overseas ecological footprint. This is a small scale win-win, but not a global one.
Maintain Current Practices
The status quo is maintained. At best, market prices, agricultural incomes and recreational values will increase, but be negated by an increase in greenhouse gases and continued loss of viable land. In developing nations with drylands, living conditions will decline as viable land becomes scarce and degraded.
National Security
Climate change will result in increased global energy prices, and force many countries to focus on self-sufficiency. Market prices and agricultural income may increase, but there will be continued decline in land availability and greenspace that will dominate the other monetary values generated, resulting in an overall negative value. Governance and intervention will dominate.
Focus on Market Growth
In this scenario, a focus on the highest economic growth possible will drive land management decisions. With only a focus on market value for goods, this will trigger incre-ases in greenhouse gases and steady loss of viable land. This situation is expected to result in the most substantial reduction in the net social values of any of the scenarios.
Scenarios: Looking forward
The main pressures on and drivers of land use change that have been considered in the literature include: climate change, population increase, changes in consumption patterns, and changes in foreign direct investment. In combination with increasing land degradation and desertification, several scenarios can be constructed based on these identified pressures (Box 8, Table 7, and Table 8).
It is further possible to construct a matrix of poten-tial scenarios involving a series of variables (climate change, market growth, social values, etc.), and chart the likely outcomes of different balances in choice. This has already been done in various con-texts, including an in-depth analysis performed for
the United Kingdom by the UK National Ecosystem Assessment in 2011 27. Table 8 is an adaption of their research on future scenarios, but with a more tar-geted focus on land use management and choices.
What are the opportunities for the private sector?
These case studies reveal that there are not only eco-nomic benefits from sustainable land management, but also new opportunities for the business sector to invest and contribute to beneficial social and envi-ronmental impacts through better production and livelihood strategies. Studies have demonstrated that addressing land degradation, mitigating the negative impacts caused by industry, and/or improving raw material availability by ensuring
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
61
sustainable land management, can result in busi-ness opportunities 151.
Businesses can also gain through involvement in partnerships with other private and civil society sectors. For example, Coca-Cola India partnered up with an irrigation company (Jain Irrigation) to improve mango production and reduce soil erosion. By investing EUR 0.75 million each, mango produc-tion was doubled, and around 50,000 farmers were
educated in better land management practices. Farmers invested around EUR 1,050 per acre in bet-ter cultivation and irrigation systems, and since 2011, some 60 % of the mango pulp needed by Coca-Cola India has been sourced within the region tar-geted by the project 151.
In an analysis of risks from land degradation to the private sector (commissioned by the ELD Initiative), the highest at-risk sectors were: basic resources (for-estry, papers and metals), food and beverages, con-struction materials, leisure and travel, water and electricity utilities, and personal, household, and industrial goods 151. This study shows the benefits from sustainable land management extend beyond the agricultural sector. In particular those busi-nesses that had direct contact with land, food and beverage, leisure and travel, and basic resources were most sensitive to land degradation. They are also likely to be the most interested in efforts to pre-vent and/or reverse land degradation.
Going beyond knowledge gaps: Case studies commissioned by the ELD Initiative and links with parallel initiatives and projects
The ELD Initiative aims to build from and move beyond the initial case studies undertaken by ZEF and IFPRI 38 by estimating the total economic value of land, and better reflecting the true worth of land to society as a whole. The initiative also aims to move beyond the sole consideration of agricultural production (foods and raw materials) and include other land-based economic activities for improved identification of the most economically viable and desirable type of action.
Contrary to current perceptions, the range of case studies collected so far shows that valuation approaches do not have to be necessarily complex and complicated 83, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156.
The ELD Initiative is addressing the issue of land degradation and economic valuation through sev-eral key projects. With funding support from its partners, new case studies focused on these issues are in the process of being funded by the ELD Initia-tive. Research projects were selected based on sci-entific merit and the ability of the project to address the following identified knowledge gaps (Box 9).
b o x 9
Knowledge gaps
Technological
1. Overall costs/benefits of different land management interventions (trade-offs with focus on livestock and rangelands)
2. Understanding of drivers of changes (case studies)
3. Relationship between population density and land degradation
4. Identify system tipping points for land degradation
Environmental evaluation
5. Lack of harmonized methodology (scales, discount rate)
6. Lack of information on social costs of land degradation
7. Lack of information on mapping ecosystem services
8. Lack of information on non-market values of ecosystem services
9. Lack of robust low cost methods applicable by affected countries in short term
10. Limited understanding of value of ecosystem services to local livelihoods
Policy
11. Lack of plausible scenarios12. Lack of monitoring and evaluation for total
ecosystem assessments13. How can policies promote sustainable land
management
Institutional and private sector
14. Lack of incentives for sustainable land management
15. Greater interdisciplinary approaches (incentives)
16. Lack of knowledge management
C H A P T E R 0 3 Existing case studies on the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management
62
Out of 64 proposals received, 3 research proposals were competitively selected for funding by the ELD Initiative to address some of the gaps identified above. They were chosen based both on a series of criteria listed in the call for proposals, and to ensure a comprehensive geographical and the-matic scope.
The first proposal is from the University of Wyo-ming, with an objective to provide a more system-atic spatial and econometric analysis of the concen-tration of the world’s rural population and poor on degraded and less favoured land. It includes impli-cations of this concentration for the incidence of poverty across low and middle income economies, and suggests improved policies for sustainable land management.
The second proposal is between the University of Leeds (Sustainability Research Institute), Birming-ham City University, and the University of Bot-swana. It seeks to advance knowledge on the costs, benefits, and trade-offs associated with land use and management strategies in southern Africa, including: private ranches, communal grazing, parks, and wildlife management areas, with a focus on capacity building and interdisciplinary meth-odological development.
The third proposal is between the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and project partners in Mali, Jordan, and Sudan. It is an eco-nomic valuation of rangeland ecosystem services and degradation, and a cost-benefit analysis of sus-tainable land management methodologies. It will identify management options, relevant ecosystem goods/services to be valued, and policy and invest-ment pathways and recommendations.
Through collaborative funding focused on the key areas of land degradation and environmental eco-nomics, the ELD Initiative aims to provide on-the-ground research that reaches all levels of stakehold-ers and results in efficient, tangible changes towards sustainable land management. Having useful and practical examples can provide guid-ance to decision-makers, private industries, various levels of governments, and any practitioner, in a global effort to achieve economically viable, improved land management. Joining forces with complementary initiatives and projects promotes the cohesive, multidisciplinary, multi-tiered approach that is needed to effectively trigger action in tackling this complex global issue.
The collection of knowledge and research assem-bled by the initiative demonstrates that it is possible to arrive at a basic starting point for valuation in any situation, and then make the estimation of the eco-nomic value of land more complex and relevant over time. The ELD Initiative aims to make these methods simpler to understand and apply by pro-viding establishing a series of likely scenarios, iden-tifying potential options and pathways for relevant action, and then providing a practical, useful tool-box for valuation.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
63
The contribution of forest products to dryland household economies: Kenya (Ngugi et al. 2011 154)
c A S e S t U D y 9
Selected case studies
SummaryAn ethnobotanical survey was undertaken in the Kiang’ombe forests found in the Mbeere District of Kenya, using an amalgamated method of participa-tory rural appraisal (PRA), participatory environ-mental valuation (PEV), household surveys, group discussions, and forest walks with informed locals. The use of PEV in this region, where no formal for-est use records exist, was important when assign-ing monetary value to elements of biodiversity essential to survival, but presumed to be “free for the taking”. Assigning monetary values gives cre-dence to non-monetary values that are recognised by locals, but otherwise ignored as they do not enter “formal markets”. PEV is a recommended method when estimating the value of forest resources in a non-monetary environment (“non-cash economy”).
The average annual forest value to a household was found to be KSh. 16,175.6 (USD 256.80), approximately 55.4 % of the average household income. There were ten forest uses found, with the service most depended upon being the supply of building materials and medicine. Medicine had the highest average annual household value, at KSh 2953 (USD 47).
ContextKiang’ombe hill forest is under Trust Land tenure, and as such exposed to over exploitation, with une-qual access to products and benefits by the adja-cent communities because of poor management and lack of control by the local county council. The forest is surrounded by an increasing population which is encroaching on it with heightened pres-sure. As a result, there are anthropogenic distur-bances such as subsistence cultivation, charcoal production, and frequent forest fires which are set annually in preparation for the rains.
There is a need for better management plan-ning, but it can only be effective if the needs of the local community are respected. This can be achieved either by maintaining current uses, or providing alternatives. Any action requires deter-mining which forest services and products have the most value to the local community. This study thus aimed to estimate the value of the forest to the local community by valuing plant products
extracted from it and activities held within it, both of which contribute to the household economy.
Method overviewThis study uses participatory environmental valu-ation; a form of contingent valuation where people state how much they value a good or service using an item of value that can easily be translated into a monetary amount. This was particularly appropri-ate to the study context because of the lack of for-mal forest-use records, and the fact that some of the surveyed activities are officially banned.
Thirteen villages across three locations around Kiang’ombe Hill were selected. Participants were asked to identify and rank forest uses along the importance they had to them, and then assign a number of counters to reflect these values to them. Participants were also requested to identify the priced good associated with the counters, its average lifespan, and its market price. The house-hold survey questionnaire used is published as an annex of the paper.
In addition, a household wealth ranking was undertaken during group discussions with village elders to check for differences in forest use across different wealth groups. This wealth rank-ing assessment relied on livelihood analysis and household survey for plant usage and annual fam-ily earnings. Data gathered during direct inter-views was used to estimate average household resources.
ResultsParticipants chose the value of a bicycle in the local economy (KSh 3000, ~USD 47.6), with a discount rate of 3 % and lifespan of 5 years, to measure the value they attach to each forest use. The main value of the forest to participants was associated with medicinal products (6 – 9 % of annual household income), then fuel wood, building material, bee farming, veterinary medicine, food, timber, fibre, weaponry, stimulants, and thatch. There were a few variations across wealth groups, but the over-all tendency remains the same.
Valuation results are represented for each wealth group, but do not show any change in the level of dependence on the forest based on wealth status.
C H A P T E R 0 3 Existing case studies on the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management
64
Issues (theory and practice)Participatory environmental valuation technique allows villagers to express the value of forest prod-ucts within the context of their own perception, needs, and priorities rather than through conven-tional cash-based techniques. Its strength is that it relies on local knowledge.
However, wealth ranking was found to be a flawed technique, because of personal relation-ships between people assisting with the ranking and the interviewees. The most accurate method was found to be accompanying resource users into their fields, to observe the parts of plants gathered and gauge the volume of harvest. This method can be time consuming however, and becomes increasingly challenging when there is an increase in participants involved.
Participants were not willing to value the use of the forest for rituals and cultural ceremonies. They stated was that it was the realm of the com-munity sages and therefore the value of such ser-vices was above their wisdom.
Conclusions and recommendationsDependency upon the forest by locals cannot be ignored if forest management plans are to be suc-
cessful. Understanding forest income-dependence is important in guiding plans for forest product use at all levels of governance. It is also very important to find win-win solutions, such as conservation strategies that involve local people and provide for sustainable livelihoods. For instance, local com-munities could cultivate more of the useful trees for household use and sale, whilst forest management activities could be developed to support indigenous tree planting for reforestation. In addition, govern-ments could help build partnerships with local communities and NGO’s, so as to reduce population pressure on the forest. This could be done by focus-ing on improved health and nutrition for improved family planning as well as improved education of local populations for forest conservation.
The original publication includes a figure showing wealth levels and forest resource dependence per household near Kiang’ombe hill forest. This figure could be used to inform prioritizing action over current forest uses. The most important use of the forest is for medicinal purposes – therefore, action could be taken to ensure sustainability of this use, or to provide suitable alternatives that would be accept-able to and preferred by the local community.
c A S e S t U D y 1 0
South East Asia: The values of land resources in the Cardamom Mountains in Cambodia (Soussan & Sam 2011 156)
Objective of the studyEcosystems in the Mekong region contain biodiver-sity resources of global significance and provide services to both locals and non-locals. This study attempted to value all ecosystem services provided by a smaller area of the Mekong region, the Central Cardamom Mountains in Cambodia. This area con-tains globally threatened species and high levels of endemism, and its services include: carbon sequestration, non-timber forest products, and watershed protection functions. This study identi-fied the role and value of land resources to liveli-hoods of local communities, and aimed to generate evidence to support sustainable land management policies and investments, based on existing and potential contributions to national development and poverty reduction.
Method overview (including aggregation method)This study used the 6-step methodology (detailed in Chapter 2) to assess the value of sustainable
land management and the cost of land degradation. It also informed potential action by identifying sus-tainable land management policies and options that would contribute to the maintenance of eco-system integrity and land resource values of the Cardamom Mountains and comparable areas in Cambodia. This study involved assessing the dis-tribution and inherent quality of land resources, analysing the role of these resources in the liveli-hoods of local communities and wider ecosystems services functions, and assessing the main degra-dation pressures on these resources.
Economic valuation of timber (provisioning service) was based on the benefit transfer approach from recent studies in the same region. Two alternatives were taken for valuation: the value of the stock of timber available if forests were clear-felled, and the value of the timber services provided by the forest through sustain-able harvesting and thus for a longer period of time.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
65
Economic valuation of agricultural lands (pro-visioning service) was based on two methods of estimation: the first one was the market price of rice (border export price for South East Asia) mul-tiplied by the quantity of rice produced to estimate the overall value of rice production in the area; and the second estimated the value of rice pro-duction as a proportion of household income. Non-marketed crops values were not estimated in this study.
Economic valuation of watershed functions (regulating service) was based on a benefit trans-fer approach, from a recent study of the value of watershed functions in relation to hydropower in Vietnam.
Economic valuation of biodiversity (regulating service) was based on a benefit transfer approach, derived from a study on the value of biodiversity for high quality forests. The value was updated based on inflation and increased biodiversity pressures, as well as on international compari-sons. Appropriate values were also estimated for other land cover types (with an unspecified valu-ation method).
Economic valuation of carbon sequestration (regulating service) was based on the value of the carbon stored by the forest in the study area, and estimated using the market price and quantity of carbon stored by tropical forests from REDD-related studies in the Mekong region.
Economic valuation of tourism and other cul-tural (spiritual) services (cultural service) was not specifically assigned in this study. Biodiversity richness and the beauty of the landscape make the central Cardamom Mountains an area of great (eco)tourism potential (high value niche market). However, the lack of facilities and poor transpor-tation means that tourism is small scale and con-fined to limited parts of the region that are close to main access points. The extent and value of potential tourism is a matter of speculation, and will depend on the level of investments made in transport, accommodation, and other facilities. Cultural (spiritual) values are of great signifi-cance, but difficult to quantify in monetary terms, and so this study did not estimate them.
Contextual pressuresLivelihoods of the communities in and around the study area are completely dependent upon access to land resources. The main sources of livelihoods are derived from a combination of farming (rice), livestock rearing (with fodder collected from or grazing in the forests) and the collection of fuel, foods, and other forest products. There are also a
small number of traders and shopkeepers who service the rest of the population, and a few people employed by the government or other outside agencies as rangers or similar positions. They do not depend directly on the land resources for their livelihoods, but rather indirectly through their cus-tomers or because of the nature of their jobs.
This study has identified a “livelihood support zone” surrounding each village, as the forest and land resources of these zones underpin the villag-ers’ livelihoods. Access to these resources is essential for basic survival.
There are concerns over the extent and sever-ity of land resource degradation in this area due to soil erosion and deforestation. Traditional and sustainable systems of land resource manage-ment are increasingly under pressure following recent influxes of migrants to the area, which has led to new forms of land resource exploitation and encroachment as well as increased use pres-sures. Pressure on land resources have also increased because of illegal forest exploitation (e.g. illegal logging or wildlife trade), and are threatening the ecological integrity of vulnerable ecosystems.
Economic valuation resultsEconomic value of timber (provisioning service): total stock values were estimated as high as USD 20,000/ha if forests were clear-felled, and the total timber service value with sustainable harvesting ranged from USD 200 – 450/ha/year, depending on forest type and quality. If the entire area was sus-tainably harvested, this would have an aggregate income of nearly USD 440 million annually.
Economic value of agricultural lands (provi-sioning service): the average rice production is 758 kg per household per year, which is lower than subsistence needs. The border price for South-East Asia available from FAO at the time of the study was USD 460/ton, making rice production worth USD 349 per household per year. This pro-vides a total of just under USD 1,400,000 per year for the whole study area. A second method of esti-mation gave the same estimates: rice production amounts to 66 % of household income, represent-ing about USD 363 per household per year and a total of just over USD 1,450,000 per year for the whole study area. The total economic value of the 6,682 ha of agricultural lands in the study area is thus estimated to amount to USD 1,500,000 per year.
Economic value of watershed functions (regu-lating service): estimated annual benefits to hydropower schemes from erosion protection
C H A P T E R 0 3 Existing case studies on the economics of land degradation and sustainable land management
66
were USD 55/ha/year, and from water conserva-tion were USD 15/ha/year. Thus, the value of watershed functions of the study area are over USD 75 million a year.
Economic value of biodiversity (regulating ser-vice): biodiversity value was estimated at USD 650/ha/year for the richest forests, and USD 550 for the remaining forest areas, amounting to an estimate of USD 1.36 billion per year for the study area.
Economic value of carbon sequestration (reg-ulating service): sequestration was estimated at USD 3,669 million, one of the highest value for an ecosystem service in the region. This is a globally significant resource.
Economic value of tourism and other cultural values (cultural service): there was no available value estimate, but they are suspected to be eco-nomically significant.
Issues (theoretical and practical)An issue in this study was the lack of data in the area of estimating potential economic benefits from tourism in the Mekong region. Additionally, some of the values estimated reflect potential ben-efits (e.g. carbon storage) rather than actual ben-efits, and may not be realised fully.
Conditions for successful actionAll of the values cannot be realised at the same time (e.g. clear-felling trees and storing carbon), so choices will have to be made amongst the options. Further, it should be clear who would pay for each of these services and how. For there to be successful management of service-providing resources, there must be effective, legitimate, and understood governance in sustainable land man-agement, as well as access to the benefits of eco-system services.
Conclusions and recommendationsThe land resources of the Cardamom Mountains have multiple values, many of which have tradition-ally not been taken into account in planning deci-sions. These resources underpin local livelihoods and are of national and global significance. There are several options to develop sustainable land management strategies that reflect local dynamics of change and can provide a more harmonious relationship between desirable development (e.g. livelihood changes, hydropower investments) and long-term sustainability of land resources.
The livelihood of local communities depends on sustainable access to a variety of resources gath-ered from local forests and lands, in addition to farming. Most of the resource uses are based on a customary rights system rather than land own-ership, and come from a zone within five kilome-tres of villages. This zone could be placed under a form of communal management, with safe-guards for sustainable management. Local com-munities have shown great interest in being involved in the management of the resources they depend upon.
Hydropower schemes currently being devel-oped in the area will bring great benefits to Cam-bodia’s overall development. In turn, they would gain enormous economic benefits from effective watershed conservation that conserves water and reduces sedimentation. A payment for ecosystem service could be implemented, with income for this scheme levied based on electricity consump-tion.
The forest conservation measures already in place in the Cardamom Mountains should be con-tinued and strengthened, so as to maintain the high value biodiversity, watershed maintenance, and carbon sequestration ecosystems services that are contingent upon continued integrity of its large forest ecosystems. A payment for ecosys-tem service could be implemented, with income for this scheme levied from tourists and down-stream water users.
There is also a need to better regulate and limit the impact on resources from ‘outsiders’ who ille-gally occupy land newly made accessible by road transport improvements. This could be achieved through working with existing and new migrants to assist them in developing sustainable systems of land management compatible with the actions taken by local communities. These systems could include the development of appropriate and sus-tainable upland farming systems on permanent plots closer to the villages, which would also help reduce “slash-and-burn” farming.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
67
Preliminary analyses of case studies: A summary
This non-exhaustive review of sound, global research has demonstrated many important ideas that will be integral to the foundation of the ELD framework. The groundwork for this can be found in Appendix 3, which includes the 87 case studies in the ELD database that have provided monetary val-ues for land and land-based services. The appendix provides further particulars on geography, valua-tion method, valuations, etc. that were discussed in Chapter 3. As demonstrated in these details, the cur-rent focus on economic valuation as it relates to land has been primarily within the last 5 years, targeted at developing nations by researchers in developed nations, and has focused on use and agricultural values. Within the scope of the current research available in this database, knowledge gaps were identified that could easily be addressed, and that will provide great progress in tackling the issue of land degradation from an economic perspective.
Overall, parties involved on all levels should strive to create a relatively balanced focus between the means (valuations and scenarios) and the end (options and pathways for action). This can be achieved through a focus on capacity development in developing nations (which often contain the most degraded lands) that is locally targeted and applicable, with valuations that analyse the full economic value of land, and the development of tools created at appropriate scales that will ensure maximal uptake of sustainable, economically sound, land management practices for the most optimal benefits for society as a whole.
R e f e R e n c e s
68
References
1. M i l len n iu m Ecos y s tem A ssessment . (2 0 05a).
E c o s y s t e m s a n d h u m a n w e l l - b e i n g . G e n e v a ,
Switzerland: World Health Organization.
2. Barbier, E. B. (2011). Pricing nature. Annual Review of
Resource Economics, 3, 337 – 353.
3. Hillel, D. (1991). Out of the Earth: Civilization and the
life of the soil. Berkeley, California: University of
California Press.
4. Montgomer y, D. R . (201 2). Dir t: The erosion of
civilizations. Berkeley, California: Universit y of
California Press.
5. Beddington, J. (2010). Food security: Contributions
from science to a new and greener revolution.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B:
Biological Sciences, 365 (1537), 61 – 71.
6. Nellemann, C. (2009). The environmental food crisis:
The environment’s role in averting future food crises:
A UNEP rapid response assessment, United Nations
Publications.
7. Bai, Z. G., Dent, D. L., Olsson, L., & Schaepman, M. E.
( 2 0 0 8 ) . P r o x y g l o b a l a s s e s s m e n t o f l a n d
degradation. Soil use and management, 24, 223 – 234.
8. M i l len n iu m Ecos y s tem A ssessment . (2 0 05b).
Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversit y
synthesis. Washington, D.C .: World Resources
Institute.
9. Godfray, H. C. J., Beddington, J. R., Crute, I. R.,
Haddad, L ., Law rence, D., Muir, J. F., Pret t y, J.,
Robinson, S., Thomas, S. M., Toulmin, C. (2010). Food
security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people.
Science, 327 (5967), 812 – 818.
10. FAO. (2006). World agriculture: Towards 2030/2050,
i nte r i m r e p or t : P r o s p e c t s for fo o d , nut r it ion ,
agriculture and major commodity groups. Rome,
Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations (FAO).
11. von Braun, J., Gerber, N., Mirzabaev, A., & Nkonya, E.
(2013). The economics of land degradation. ZEF,
University of Bonn, Germany.
12. Koohafkan, P., Salman, M., & Casarotto, C. (2009).
Investments in land and water. SOLAW background
thematic report (TR-17). Rome, Italy: FAO.
13. Lambin, E., Gibbs, H., Ferreira, L., Grau, R., Mayaux,
P., Meyfroidt, P., Morton, D.C., Rudel, T.K., Gasparri,
I . , Mu nge r, J . (2 0 1 3). E s t i m at i ng t he world’s
potentially available cropland using a bottom-up
approach. Global Environmental Change.
14. Barbier, E. B. (2012). Land degradation and the rural
poor. World Agriculture, 3 (2), 23 – 28.
15. Barbier, E. B. (2010). Poverty, development, and
e nv i r on me nt . Env i ron me nt a nd D e ve lopme nt
Economics, 15, 635 – 660.
16. von Braun, J., & Gerber, N. (2012). The economics of
land and soil degradation-toward an assessment of
the costs of inaction. Netherlands: Springer.
17. Turner, W. R., Brandon, K., Brooks, T. M., Gascon, C.,
Gibbs, H. K., Lawrence, K. S., Mittermeier, R. A., Selig,
E. R. (2012). Global biodiversity conservation and the
alleviation of poverty. Bioscience, 62, 85 – 92.
18. Harvey, F. (2012, 20/01). Conserving biodiversity
hotspots ‘could bring world’s Poor 500bn a year’. The
Guardian, UK.
19. Foley, J. A., Ramankutty, N., Brauman, K. A., Cassidy,
E. S., Gerber, J. S., Johnston, M., Mueller, N. D.,
O’Connell, C., Ray, D. K., West, P. C., Balzer, C.,
Bennett, E. M., Carpenter, S. R., Hill, J., Monfreda, C.,
Polasky, S., Rockstrom, J., Sheehan, J., Siebert, S.,
Tilman, D., Zaks, D. P. M. (2011). Solutions for a
cultivated planet. Nature, 478, 337 – 342.
20. World Bank. (2008). Sustainable land management
sourcebook. Washington, D.C.: International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development/The World
Bank.
21. UNCCD. (2013a). Funding opportunities in the field of
SLM for the annex V countries of the UNCCD. Bonn,
Germany: UNCCD.
22. WOCAT. (2007). Where the land is greener: Case
studies and analysis of soil and water conservation
initiatives worldwide. WOCAT/CTA/UNEP/FAO/CDE.
23. Wu, J., & Jiefen, Y. (2008). Best practices for land
degradation control in dryland areas of China.
Beijing, China: China Forestry Publishing House.
24. Te r r A f r i c a . ( 2 0 0 9 ) . U s i n g s u s t a i n a b l e l a n d
management practices to adapt to and mitigate
climate change in Sub-Saharan Africa. Rome, Italy:
FAO.
25. Nkonya, E., Gerber, N., Baumgartner, P., von Braun,
J., De Pinto, A., Graw, V., Kato, E., Kloos, J., Walter, T.,
Walter, T. (2011). The economics of land degradation:
Toward an integrated global assessment. Frankfurt,
Germany: Peter Lang.
26. Nkonya, E., von Braun, J., Mirzabaev, A., Le, Q. B.,
Kwon, H. Y., Kato, E., Kirui, O., Gerber, N. (2013).
Economics of land degradation initiative: Methods and
approach for global and national assessments (basic
standards for comparable assessments). Draft for
discussion. ZEF, University of Bonn, Germany.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
69
27. UK National Ecosystem Assessment. (2011). The UK
national ecosystem assessment: Synthesis of the key
findings. Cambridge: UNEP World Conservation
Monitoring Centre (WCMC).
28. Cot u la , L . (2 01 2). T he i nter nat iona l pol it ic a l
economy of the global land rush: A critical appraisal
of trends, scale, geography and drivers. Journal of
Peasant Studies, 39, 649 – 680.
29. Rulli, M. C., Saviori, A., & D’Odorico, P. (2013). Global
land and water grabbing. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 110 (3), 892 – 897.
30. Biot, Y., Blaikie, P. M., Jackson, C., & Palmer-Jones, R.
(1995). Rethinking research on land degradation in
developing countries. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
31. von Braun, J., & Pandya-Lorch, R. (1991). Income
sources of malnour ished people in r ural areas:
Microlevel information and polic y implications.
Washington, D.C.: IFPRI .
32. Méndez, R. P. (1993). Alternative livelihood systems
in the dr ylands: The need for a new paradigm.
GeoJournal, 31, 67 – 75.
33. Ellis, F. (2000). The determinants of rural livelihood
diversification in developing countries. Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 51, 289 – 302.
34. T homas, R . J. (2008). 10 t h anniversar y rev iew:
Addressing land degradation and climate change
in dryland agroecosystems through sustainable
la nd m a n agement . Jou r na l of Env i ron me nta l
Monitoring, 10 (5), 595.
35. A d e e l , Z . , & S a f r i e l , U . ( 2 0 0 8 ) . A c h i e v i n g
s u s t a i n a b i l i t y b y i n t r o d u c i n g a l t e r n a t i v e
livelihoods. Sustainability Science, 3, 125 – 133.
36. T he Global Mechanism of t he UNCCD. (2007).
Practical guide to designing integrated financial
strategies for combating desertification. Rome, Italy:
Global Mechanism (GM) of the UNCCD.
37. Kuiper, M., & Ruben, R. (2007). Poverty targeting with
heterogeneous endowments: A micro-simulation
analysis of a less-favoured Ethiopian village. UK: CAB
International.
38. Nkonya, E., Gerber, N., von Braun, J., & De Pinto, A.
(2011). Economics of land degradation: The costs of
action versus inaction. IFPRI issue brief. (No. 68).
Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
39. U NCC D. (2 0 1 3). C on fe r e nc e r ep or t. s y nt he sis ,
conclusions, and recommendations of the UNCCD 2nd
scientific conference on the economic assessment of
desertification, sustainable land management and the
resilience of arid, semi-arid, and dry sub-humid areas.
9 – 12 April. Bonn, Germany. Bonn, Germany: UNCCD.
40. Do, T. N. (2007). Impacts of dykes on wetland values
in Vietnam’s Mekong river delta: A case study in the
plain of reeds (Master’s Thesis). Penang, Malaysia:
Economy and Environment Program for Southeast
Asia.
41. Vidal, J. (2012, 12/02). Indian investors are forcing
Ethiopians off their land. The Guardian, UK.
42. Provost, C., & McClanahan, P. (2012, 11/04). Sierra
Leone: Local resistance grows as investors snap up
land. The Guardian, UK.
43. Chomitz, K. M., Brenes, E., & Constantino, L. (1999).
Financing environmental services: The Costa Rican
experience and its implications. Science of the Total
Environment, 240 (1 – 3), 157 – 169.
44. Kosoy, N., Mar t inez-Tuna, M., Muradian, R ., &
M a r t i n e z - A l i e r , J . ( 2 0 0 7 ) . P a y m e n t s f o r
environmental services in watersheds: Insights
from a comparative study of three cases in Central
America. Ecological Economics, 61 (2 – 3), 446 – 455.
45. Engel, S., Pagiola, S., & Wunder, S. (2008). Designing
payments for environmental services in theory and
practice: An overview of the issues. Payments for
Environmental Services in Developing and Developed
Countries, 65, 663 – 674.
46. Balmford, A., Rodrigues, A. S. L., Walpole, M., ten
Brink, P., Kettunen, M., Braat, L ., & de Groot, R.
(2008). The economics of biodiversity and ecosystems:
Scoping the science. Final report. Cambridge, UK:
European Commission.
47. Dominati, E., Patterson, M., & Mackay, A. (2010).
A framework for classifying and quantifying the
natural capital and ecosystem services of soils.
Ecological Economics, 69, 1858 – 1868.
48. T E E B . (2 0 10) . T h e e c on om ic s of e c o s y s te m s &
biodiversity for local and regional policy makers.
Geneva, Switzerland: TEEB.
49. Noel, S., & Soussan, J. (2010). Economics of land
degradation: Supporting ev idence-base decision
m a k i n g . M e t h o d o l o g y f o r a s s e s s i n g c o s t s o f
d e g r a d at i o n a n d b e n e f it s o f s u s ta i n abl e l a n d
management. Paper commissioned by the Global
Me c h a n i s m of t he U NCC D to t he Sto c k hol m
Environment Institute (SEI). September 2010.
R e f e R e n c e s
70
50. Quillérou, E., & Thomas, R. J. (2012). Costs of land
degradation and benefits of land restoration: A
review of valuation methods and their application.
CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture, Veterinary
Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources, 7, 1 – 12.
51. B e r t r a m , C . , & R e h d a n z , K . ( 2 0 1 3 ) . O n t h e
environmental effectiveness of the EU marine
strategy framework directive. Marine Policy, 38,
25 – 40.
52. Mersmann, C., Quatrini, S., Buric, B., Schild, J., &
Asen, A . (2010). Economic valuation of land: An
i n n ov at i v e a n d s c a l abl e ap pr o a c h to a d v a n c e
sustainable land management. Rome, Italy: GM of the
UNCCD.
53. Stern, N. (2007). Stern review on the economics of
climate change. UK: HM Treasury, Cabinet Office.
54. FAO. (2013a). Land degradation assessment. Rome,
Italy: FAO (http://www.fao.org/nr/land/degradation/
en).
55. Naidoo, R . & Iwamura, T. (2007). Globa l-sca le
mapping of economic benefits from agricultural
lands: Implications for conservation priorities.
Biological Conservation, (140), 409 – 449.
56. Barnes, J. I., & De Jager, J. (1996). Economic and
financial incentives for wildlife use on private land
in Namibia and the implications for policy. South
African Journal of Wildlife Research, 26 (2), 37 – 46.
57. Spenceley, A., & Barnes, J. (2005). Economic analysis
of rhino conservation in a land-use context within
t h e S A D C r e g i o n . H a r a r e , Z i m b a b w e: S A D C
Regional Programme for Rhino Conservation.
58. Norton-Griffiths, M., & Said, M. Y. (2009). The future
for wildlife on Kenya’s rangelands: An economic
perspective. Wild Rangelands: Conserving Wildlife
while Maintaining Livestock in Semi-Arid Ecosystems,
367 – 392.
59. Say ad i, S ., G on z á lez-Roa , M . C ., & C a lat rav a-
Requena, J. (2009). Public preferences for landscape
features: The case of agricultural landscape in
mountainous Mediterranean areas. Land use Policy,
26, 334 – 344.
60. Organisat ion for Economic Co - operat ion and
D eve lopment . (2 0 10). Pay i ng for bio d ive r sit y :
Enhancing the cost-effectiveness of payments for
ecosystem services OECD Publishing.
61. Perrot-Maitre, D. (2006). The Vittel payments for
ecosystem services: A “perfect” PES case. London,
UK: International Institute for Environment and
Development (IIED).
62. Jac k, B. K ., Kousk y, C ., & Sim s, K . R . E . (2008).
Desig n i ng pay ment s for e cos y s tem ser v ices:
Lessons from previous experience with incentive-
based mechanisms. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 105, 9465 – 9470.
63. Turpie, J. K., Marais, C., & Blignaut, J. N. (2008). The
working for water programme: Evolut ion of a
payments for ecosystem services mechanism that
addresses both povert y and ecosystem ser vice
delivery in South Africa. Ecological Economics, 65 (4),
788 – 798.
64. Pag iola , S ., & Z h a ng, W. (2 0 10). Us i ng PE S to
implement REDD. Paper presented at the Conference
Paper for the 4th World Congress of Environmental
Economists, Montreal, CA.
65. Yamasaki, S. H., Guillon, B. M. C., Brand, D., & Patil,
A. M. (2010). Market-based payments for ecosystem
services: Current status, challenges and the way
forward. CAB Reviews: Perspectives in Agriculture,
Veterinary Science, Nutrition and Natural Resources,
5, 13.
66. Jayasinghe, D., & Bandara, R. (2011). Small scale
e nv i r on me nt pr oj e c t s a nd t he i r i mp ac t s on
minimizing land degradation in Sri Lanka: A case
s t u d y o f c o m m u n i t y d e v e l o p m e n t c e n t r e ,
Aranayake. Proceedings part 1 – abstracts of papers,
sixteenth international forestry and environment.
S y mposiu m of t he D epar t ment of Forest r y and
E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n c e , U n i v e r s i t y o f S r i
Jayawardenapura, Sri Lanka, 54 – 55.
67. Morduch, J. (2000). The microfinance schism. World
Development, 28 (4), 617 – 629.
68. Khandker, S. R. (2005). Microfinance and poverty:
Evidence using panel data from Bangladesh. The
World Bank Economic Review, 19 (2), 263 – 286.
69. Banerjee, A., Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kinnan, C.
(2013). The miracle of microfinance? Evidence from a
randomized evaluation. Cambridge, USA: MIT.
70. Thomas, R. J., Akhtar-Schuster, M., Stringer, L. C.,
Marques Perez, M., & Escadafal, R. (2012). Fertile
ground? Options for a science-policy platform for
land. Environmental Science & Policy, 16, 122 – 135.
71. Amano, T., & Sutherland, W. J. (2013). Four barriers
to t he glob a l u nde r s t a nd i ng of bio d i ve r s it y
conservation: Wealth, language, geographical
location and securit y. Proceedings of the Royal
Society B: Biological Sciences, 280 (1756).
72. Boumans, R., & Costanza, R. (2007). The multiscale
integrated Eart h systems model (MIMES): T he
dynamics, modelling and valuation of ecosystem
services. Issues in Global Water System Research, 2,
10 – 11.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
71
73. Geist, H. J., & Lambin, E. F. (2004). Dynamic causal
patterns of desertification. Bioscience, 54 (9), 817 –
829.
74. Nkonya, E., Koo, J., Marenya, P., & Licker, R. (2011).
Land under pressure. Global food polic y report.
Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
75. Quaas, M. F., Froese, R., Herwartz, H., Requate, T.,
Schmidt, J. O., & Voss, R. (2012). Fishing industry
bor rows f rom nat ura l capita l at h igh shadow
interest rates. Ecological Economics, 82: 45 – 52.
76. Dobes, L ., & Ben net t , J. (20 09). Mu lt i- c r iter ia
analysis: “Good enough” for government work?
Agenda, 16, 7 – 29.
77. Deininger, K., Byerlee, D., Lindsay, J., Norton, A.,
Selod, H., & Stickler, M. (2011). Rising global interest in
farmland: Can it yield sustainable and equitable
benefits? Washington D.C.: World Bank.
78. FAO. (2012). The state of food insecurity in the world:
Economic growth is necessary but not sufficient to
accelerate reduction of hunger and malnutrition.
Rome, Italy: FAO.
79. Kiishweko, O. (2012, 18/02). Tanzania takes major
step towards curbing land ‘grabs’. The Guardian, UK.
80. Bourns, N. (2009). Adding biodiversity conservation
values to a value chains and rural finance initiative:
The AFIRMA project experience in Mexico. Mexico
City, Mexico. DAI.
81. Corbera, E., Soberanis, C. G., & Brown, K. (2009).
Institutional dimensions of payments for ecosystem
services: An analysis of Mexico’s carbon forestry
programme. Ecological Economics, 68 (3), 743 – 761.
82. Smalley, R., & Corbera, E. (2012). Large-scale land
deals from the inside out: Findings from Kenya’s
Tana Delta. Journal of Peasant Studies, 39, 1039 – 1075.
83. Berry, L., Olson, J., & Campbell, D. (2003). Assessing
the extent, cost and impact of land degradation at the
national level: Findings and lessons learned from seven
pilot case studies. commissioned by Global Mechanism
with support from the World Bank. Rome, Italy: The
GM of the UNCCD.
84. C r o it o r u , L . , & S a r r a f , M . ( 2 0 1 0) . T h e c o s t o f
environmental degradation: Case studies from the
Middle East and North Africa. Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank.
85. T E E B . (2 0 0 8). T he e c onom ic s of e c o s y ste m s &
b i o d i v e r s i t y : A n i n t e r i m r e p o r t . E u r o p e a n
Commission.
86. Schild, J. E. M., van der Ploeg, S., & de Groot, R. S. (In
press, 2013). A ssessing t he econom ic va lue of
drylands: A meta-analysis of dryland ecosystem
services.
87. D r e g n e , H . E . , & C h o u , N . ( 1 9 9 2 ) . G l o b a l
desertification dimensions and costs. Degradation
and Restoration of Arid Lands, 73 – 92.
88. Requier-Desjardins, M. (2007). Why we should invest
in arid areas. (CSFD Les dossiers thématiques, Issue
5). Montpellier, France: Agropolis International.
89. Christie, M., Fazey, I., Cooper, R., Hyde, T., Deri, A.,
Hughes, L., Bush, G., Brander, L., Nahman, A., de
Lange, W. (2008). An evaluation of economic and non-
economic techniques for assessing the importance of
biodiversity to people in developing countries. London,
UK: Department for Environment, Food, and Rural
Affairs.
90. Voortman, R. L., Sonneveld, B. G. J. S., & Keyzer, M. A.
(2003). African land ecology: Opportunities and
constraints for agricultural development. Ambio,
32 (5), 367 – 373.
91. Safriel, U., & Adeel, Z. (2005). Chapter 22: Dryland
systems. In R. Hassan, R. Scholes & N. Ash (Eds.),
Ecosystems and human well-being: Current state and
trends (pp. 623 – 662). Washington, DC: Island Press.
92. Bonilla, C. A., & Johnson, O. I. (2012). Soil erodibility
mapping and its correlation with soil properties in
central Chile. Geoderma, 189 – 190 (0), 116 – 123.
93. Barrow, C. J. (1991). Land degradation: Development
a n d b r e a k d o w n o f t e r r e s t r i a l e n v i r o n m e nt s .
Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
94. Wischmeier, W., & Smit h, D. (1978). Predicting
rainfall erosion losses: A guide to conser vation
p l a n n i n g . (A g r i c u lt u r e H a n d b o o k N o . 5 3 7 ) .
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
95. Sternberg, T. (2008). Environmental challenges in
Mongolia dryland pastoral landscape. Journal of
Arid Environments, 72 (7), 1294 – 1304.
96. Rai, R. K., & Scarborough, H. (2013). Economic value
of mitigation of plant invaders in a subsistence
economy: Incorporating labour as a mode of payment.
Environment and development economics, 18(02),
225 – 244.
97. Adams, D. C., Bwenge, A. N., Lee, D. J., Larkin, S. L., &
Alavalapati, J. R. R. (2011). Public preferences for
controlling upland invasive plants in state parks:
Application of a choice model. Forest Policy and
Economics, 13, 465 – 472.
98. Currie, B., Milton, S. J., & Steenkamp, J. C. (2009).
Cost–benefit analysis of alien vegetation clearing
f o r w at e r y i e l d a n d t o u r i s m i n a m o u nt a i n
catchment in the western Cape of South Africa.
Ecological Economics, 68, 2574 – 2579.
99. Barbier, E. B. (2007). Land conversion, interspecific
c o m p e t i t i o n , a n d b i o i n v a s i o n i n a t r o p i c a l
ecosystem. Journal of Agricultural and Applied
Economics, 39, 133 – 147.
R e f e R e n c e s
72
100. Gao, J., & Liu, Y. (2010). Determination of land
degradation causes in Tongyu County, northeast
C h i n a v i a l a n d c o v e r c h a n g e d e t e c t i o n .
International Journal of Applied Earth Observation
and Geoinformation, 12 (1), 9 – 16.
101. Lu, D., Batistella, M., Mausel, P., & Moran, E. (2007).
Mapping and monitoring land degradation risks
i n t h e w e s t e r n B r a z i l i a n A m a z o n u s i n g
multitemporal landsat TM/ETM+ images. Land
Degradation & Development, 18 (1), 41 – 54.
102. Pender, J. L., & Kerr, J. M. (1998). Determinants of
farmers’ indigenous soil and water conservation
invest ment s in sem i-a r id Ind ia. Agricult ural
Economics, 19 (1 – 2), 113 – 125.
103. Nkonya, E ., Pender, J., Ka izzi, K . C ., Kato, E .,
Mugarura, S., Ssali, H., & Muwonge, J. (2008).
L i n k a g e s b e t w e e n l a n d m a n a g e m e n t , l a n d
degradation, and poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa: The
c a s e o f U g a n d a . ( R e s e a r c h R ep o r t N o . 1 59) .
Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
104. Barbier, E. B. (1997). The economic determinants of
l a nd de g r ad at ion i n de ve lopi ng c ou nt r ie s .
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 352, 891 – 899.
105. Barbier, E. B., & Burgess, J. C. (1996). Economic
analysis of deforestation in Mexico. Environment
and Development Economics, 1, 203 – 239.
106. Way, S. (2006). Examining t he links bet ween
poverty and land degradation: From blaming the
poor toward recognizing the rights of the poor. In
P. M. Johnson, K. Mayrand & M. Paquin (Eds.),
G o v e r n i n g g l o b a l d e s e r t i f i c a t i o n : L i n k i n g
e n v i r o n m e n t a l d e g r a d a t i o n , p o v e r t y, a n d
participation (pp. 27 – 41). Burlington, Vermont,
USA: Ashgate.
107. Scherr, S. J. (2000). A downward spiral? Research
evidence on the relationship between poverty and
natural resource degradation. Food Policy, 25 (4),
479 – 498.
108. de Janvry, A., Fafchamps, M., & Sadoulet, E. (1991).
Pea sa nt hou sehold behav iou r w it h m i ssi ng
markets: Some paradoxes explained. The Economic
Journal, 101 (409), 1400 – 1417.
109. Cleaver, K., & Schreiber, G. (1994). Reversing the
spiral: The population, agriculture, and environment
nexus in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington, D.C.: The
World Bank.
110. Clay, D. C ., By iringiro, F. U., Kangasniemi, J.,
Reardon, T., Sibomana, B., Uwamariya, L., & Tardif-
Douglin, D. (1995). Promoting food securit y in
R w a n d a t h r o u g h s u s t a i n a b l e a g r i c u l t u r a l
productivity: Meeting the challenges of population
p r e s s u r e , l a n d d e g r a d a t i o n , a n d p o v e r t y.
(I nter n at ion a l D eve lopment Pap er 17 ). E a s t
L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , U S A : M i c h i g a n S t a t e
University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and
Resource Economics.
111. SUMAMAD. (2002). Sustainable management of
ma rgi na l d r yla nds: Usi ng sc ie nce to promote
sustainable development, project findings from
northern A frica to Asia. Paris, France: United
Nat ions Edu cat ional, Scient ific and Cult ural
Organization (UNESCO).
112. Me ye r, W. B ., & Tu r ne r, B . L . ( 19 92). Hu m a n
population growth and global land-use/cover
change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,
23, 39 – 61.
113. Ramankutty, N., Foley, J. A., & Olejniczak, N. J.
(2002). People on the land: Changes in global
population and croplands during the 20th century.
AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 31 (3),
251 – 257.
114. Mortimore, M. (1993). Population growth and land
degradation. GeoJournal, 31 (1), 15 – 21.
115. Boserup, E. (1965). The conditions of agricultural
growth: The economics of agrarian change under
population pressure. New York, USA: Aldine Press.
116. Tiffen, M., Mortimore, M., & Gichuki, F. (1994). More
people, less erosion: Environmental recover y in
Kenya. London, UK: Wiley and Sons.
117. Grepperud, S. (1996). Population pressure and land
degradat ion: T he case of Et hiopia. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Management, 30,
18 – 33.
118. Pascual, U., & Barbier, E. B. (2006). Deprived land-
use intensification in shifting cultivation: The
p o p u l at i o n pr e s s u r e hy p o t h e s i s r e v i s it e d .
Agricultural Economics, 34, 155 – 165.
119. Pender, J., Nkonya, E., Jagger, P., Sserunkuuma, D.,
Ssali, & Henr y. (2006). St rategies to increase
ag r ic u lt u r a l pr o duc t i v it y a nd r e duc e l a nd
degradation in Uganda: An econometric analysis.
In J. Pender, & S. Ehui (Eds.), Strategies for sustainable
land management in the east African highlands (pp.
165 – 190). Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
120. Scherr, S. J., & Hazell, P. B. R. (1994). Sustainable
agricultural development strategies in fragile lands.
Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
73
121. Alston, L. J., Libecap, G. D., & Schneider, R. (1996).
The determinants and impact of property rights:
Land titles on the Brazilian frontier. Journal of Law,
Economics, and Organization, 12, 25 – 61.
122. Kabubo-Mariara, J. (2007). Land conservation and
tenure security in Kenya: Boserup’s hypothesis
revisited. Ecological Economics, 64, 25 – 35.
123. Besley, T. (1995). Property rights and investment
incentives: Theor y and evidence from Ghana.
Journal of Political Economy, 103 (5), 903 – 937.
124. Brasselle, A., Gaspart, F., & Platteau, J. (2002). Land
tenu re se c u r it y a nd i nves t ment i ncent ives:
Puzzling evidence from Burkina Faso. Journal of
Development Economics, 67 (2), 373 – 418.
125. FAO, IFAD, UNCTAD, & World Bank Group. (2010).
Principles for responsible agricultural investment
that respects rights, livelihoods and resources
(extended version). FAO, IFAD, UNCTAD, and the
World Bank Group.
126. Kassie, M., Jaleta, M., Shiferaw, B., Mmbando, F., &
Mekuria, M. Adoption of interrelated sustainable
agricultural practices in smallholder systems:
Ev idence from r ural Tanzania. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 80 (3): 525 – 540.
127. Chhatre, A., & Agrawal, A. (2009). Trade-offs and
synergies between carbon storage and livelihood
benefits from forest commons. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 106 (42), 17667 – 17670.
128. Moran, T. H. (1998). Foreign direct investment and
development: The new policy agenda for developing
countries and economies-in-transition, Washington,
D.C.: Peterson Institute.
129. Li, Q., & Resnick, A. (2003). Reversal of fortunes:
D emo c rat ic i n s t it ut ion s a nd foreig n d i re c t
invest ment inf lows to developing count r ies.
International Organization, 57 (1), 175 – 212.
130. C ot u l a , L . (2 0 0 9). La nd grab or de ve lopme nt
o p p o r t u n i t y ? A g r i c u l t u r a l i n v e s t m e n t a n d
international land deals in Africa. London, UK: IIED.
131. Von Braun, J., & Meinzen-Dick, R. S. (2009). “Land
gr abbi n g” b y for e ign i nve stor s i n de ve lo pi n g
countries: Risks and opportunities. Washington,
D.C.: IFPRI.
132. Toulmin, C. (2009). Securing land and property
rights in Sub-Saharan Africa: The role of local
institutions. Land use Policy, 26, 10 – 19.
133. Paudel, G. S., & Thapa, G. B. (2004). Impact of social,
in st it ut iona l a nd ecolog ica l fac tors on la nd
management practices in mountain watersheds of
Nepal. Applied Geography, 24, 35 – 55.
134. Benin, S., Nkonya, E., Okecho, G., Pender, J., Nahdy,
S., Mugarura, S., & Kayobyo, G. (2007). Assessing the
impact of the national agricultural advisory services
(NAADS) in the Uganda – Rural livelihoods. (IFPRI
Discussion Paper 00724). Washington, D.C.: IFPRI.
135. Nkonya, E., Dayo, P., Mogues, T., Pender, J., & Kato,
E. (2010). From the ground up: Impacts of a pro-poor
community-driven development project in Nigeria.
(IFPRI Research Monograph). Washington, D.C.:
IFPRI.
136. FAO (2013). State of the world’s forests. Rome, Italy;
FAO.
137. G o v i n d a s a m y, R . , & C o c h r a n , M . J . ( 1 9 9 5 ) .
Implications of alternative environmental policies
on phos phor u s load i ng f r om p ou lt r y l it ter.
Agricultural Economics, 13, 137 – 148.
138. Goldman, R. L., Thompson, B. H., & Daily, G. C.
(2007). Institutional incentives for managing the
l a n d s c a p e : I n d u c i n g c o o p e r a t i o n f o r t h e
product ion of ecosystem ser v ices. Ecological
Economics, 64 (2), 333 – 343.
139. Prediger, S., Vollan, B., & Frölich, M. (2011). The
impact of culture and ecology on cooperation in a
common-pool resource experiment. Ecological
Economics, 70, 1599 – 1608.
140. F r a n k s , J . R . , & M c G l o i n , A . ( 2 0 0 7 ) . J o i n t
s ubm i s s ion s , out put r e l ate d p ay me nt s a nd
env ironmental co -operatives: Can t he Dutch
experience innovate UK agri-environment policy?
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management,
50 (2), 233 – 256.
141. Franks, J. R., & Mc Gloin, A. (2007). Environmental
co-operatives as instruments for delivering across-
farm environmental and rural policy objectives:
Lessons for the UK. Journal of Rural Studies, 23 (4),
472 – 489.
142. Sla nge n , L . H . G ., & Pol m a n , N. B . P. (2 0 02).
Environmental co-operatives: A new institutional
arrangement of farmers. In K. Hagedorn (Ed.),
Env ironmental co- operation and institutional
c h a n g e . T h e o r i e s a n d p o l i c i e s f o r E u r o p e a n
agriculture (pp. 69 – 90). Cheltenham, UK: Edward
Elgar.
143. Clark, L. (2012). Knowledge management impact
c h a l l e n g e c a s e s t o r y o v e r v i e w. K n o w l e d g e
Management for Development Journal, 8 (1), 13 – 29.
144. Sanwal, M. (2004). Trends in global environmental
g o v e r n a n c e : T h e e m e r g e n c e o f a m u t u a l
supportiveness approach to achieve sustainable
development. Global Environmental Politics, 4 (4),
16 – 22.
R e f e R e n c e s
74
145. Com m it te e on World Fo o d S e c u r it y. (2 0 1 2).
Voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance
of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context
of national food security. Rome, Italy: FAO.
146. B a r b i e r, E . B . ( 1 9 9 8 ) . D e f o r e s t a t i o n , l a n d
degradation and rural poverty in Latin America:
Examining the evidence. Planejamento E Políticas
Públicas (Public Planning and Policy), Instituto De
Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada (IPEA), Brazil, Special
Is s u e o n E c o n o m i c Is s u e s fo r E nv i r o n m e nta l
Policymaking in Developing Countries, 18, 155 – 170.
147. Alfsen, K. H., De Franco, M. A., Glomsrød, S., &
Johnsen, T. (1996). T he cost of soil erosion in
Nicaragua. Ecological Economics, 16, 129 – 145.
148. Aklilu, Y. (2008). Livestock marketing in Kenya and
Ethiopia: A review of policies and practice. Addis
Ababa: Feinstein International Center.
149. Ba rbier, E . B. (2000). T he econom ic lin kages
bet ween rural povert y and land degradation:
Some evidence from Africa. Agriculture, Ecosystems
& Environment, 82, 355 – 370.
150. Barbier, E. B., Damania, R., & Léonard, D. (2005).
Corruption, trade and resource conversion. Journal
of Environmental Economics and Management, 50,
276 – 299.
151. P ö y r y M a n a g e m e n t C o n s u l t a t i o n . ( 2 0 1 3 ) .
Economics of land degradation (ELD) initiative,
opportunity lost: Mitigating risk and making the
most of your land assets. A n assessment of the
exposure of business to land degradation risk and the
o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n h e r e n t i n s u s t a i n a b l e l a n d
management. Final report (commissioned by the ELD
Initiative). Bonn, Germany: ELD Initiative.
152. Birch, J. C., Newton, A. C., Aquino, C. A., Cantarello,
E., Echeverría, C., Kitzberger, T., Schiappacasse, I.,
Garavito, N. T. (2010). Cost-effectiveness of dryland
forest restoration evaluated by spatial analysis of
ecosystem services. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 107, 21925 – 21930.
153. Gascoigne, W. R., Hoag, D., Koontz, L., Tangen, B.
A., Shaffer, T. L., & Gleason, R. A. (2011). Valuing
ecosystem and economic services across land-use
scenarios in the prairie pothole region of the
Dakotas, USA. Ecological Economics, 70, 1715 – 1725.
154. Ngugi, G. W., Newton, L. E., & Muasya, A. M. (2011).
The contribution of forest products to dryland
household economy: The case of Kiang’ombe Hill
Forest, Kenya. Ethnobotany Research & Applications
9, 163 – 180.
155. Tilahun, M., Vranken, L ., Muys, B., Deckers, J.,
Gebregziabher, K., Gebrehiwot, K., Bauer, H.,
Mathijs, E. (2013). Rural households’ demand for
f ra n k i ncen se forest con ser v at ion i n T ig ray,
Ethiopia: A contingent valuation analysis. Land
Degradation & Development, Forthcoming.
156. Soussan, J., & Sam, C. (2011). The values of land
resources in the Cardamom Mountains in Cambodia.
Final report. (in partnership with the Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Forests (Cambodia), the
GM of the UNCCD, Conservation International and
the Asian Development Bank).Rome, Italy: The GM
of the UNCCD.
157. Ad h i ka r i, B., & Nadel la, K . (2011). Ecolog ica l
economics of soil erosion: A review of the current
state of knowledge. Annals of the New York Academy
of Sciences, 1219, 134 – 152.
158. Requier-Desjardins, M., Adhikari, B., & Sperlich, S.
(2011). Some notes on the economic assessment of
land degradation. Land Degradation & Development,
22, 285 – 298.
159. Aitken B., Harrison A., & Lipsey R.E. (1996) Wages
and foreign ownership: A comparative study of
Mexico, Venezuela, and the United States. Journal
of International Economics, 40(3): 345-371.
A p p e n d i x 1 Economic valuation methods
76
App
endi
x 1
– Ec
onom
ic v
alua
tion
met
hods
(Ada
pted
from
Adh
ikar
i & N
adel
la 2
011,
pgs
. 138
– 13
9 15
7 ; Nko
nya
et a
l. 20
11, p
g. 7
2 25
; Req
uier
-Des
jard
ins,
et a
l. 20
11, p
gs. 2
87 –
289
158 )
Met
hod
Des
crip
tion
Step
s in
impl
emen
ting
th
e m
etho
dTy
pe o
f ec
onom
ic v
alue
ca
ptur
ed
Exa
mpl
eD
ata
and
met
hods
: A
dvan
tage
sD
ata
and
met
hods
: Li
mit
atio
ns
Non
dem
and
base
d
Mar
ket p
rice
Giv
es a
n es
timat
e of
the
tota
l ec
onom
ic v
alue
(p
eopl
e’s
actu
al
will
ingn
ess
to p
ay)
in th
eory
, oft
en o
f th
e di
rect
use
val
ue
in p
ract
ice
❚ C
osts
to b
uy o
r se
ll a
good
or
prod
uct
❚ C
olle
ct m
arke
t dat
a on
pri
ces
❚ Es
timat
e qu
antit
y co
nsum
ed/s
old
❚ M
ultip
ly p
rice
by
quan
tity
Tota
l eco
nom
ic
valu
e in
theo
ry
(in p
ract
ice,
use
va
lue)
Cro
p pr
ices
Met
hod:
dir
ect
estim
atio
n of
val
ue,
asso
ciat
ed to
act
ual
mon
ey fl
ows
Met
hod:
mis
sing
or
dist
orte
d m
arke
ts
Dat
a: m
arke
t pri
ces
can
be r
ecor
ded
easi
lyD
ata:
mar
ket p
rice
s ca
n be
mis
sing
or
inac
cura
tely
rec
orde
d
Rep
lace
men
t co
sts
Estim
ates
the
cost
s of
rep
laci
ng
ecos
yste
m s
ervi
ces
and
good
s
❚ A
scer
tain
ben
efits
ass
ocia
ted
with
go
od/s
ervi
ce
❚ Id
entif
y m
ost l
ikel
y al
tern
ativ
e to
pr
ovid
e eq
uiva
lent
leve
l of b
enefi
ts
❚ C
alcu
late
cos
ts o
f ins
talli
ng a
nd
runn
ing
repl
acem
ent
Use
val
ueC
osts
of f
ertil
iser
s to
re
plen
ish
soil
nutr
ient
s
Met
hod:
eas
y to
im
plem
ent
Met
hod:
the
assu
mp -
tion
that
the
artifi
cial
re
plac
emen
t is
equi
vale
nt m
ay n
ot b
e tr
ue a
nd th
e re
plac
e-m
ent c
ost m
ay o
nly
refle
ct p
art o
f the
tota
l ec
onom
ic v
alue
.
Dat
a: m
arke
t pri
ces
of
repl
acem
ents
can
be
reco
rded
eas
ily
Dat
a: r
epla
cem
ent
cost
s ca
n be
inco
m-
plet
e or
inac
cura
tely
re
cord
ed
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
77
Met
hod
Des
crip
tion
Step
s in
impl
emen
ting
th
e m
etho
dTy
pe o
f ec
onom
ic v
alue
ca
ptur
ed
Exa
mpl
eD
ata
and
met
hods
: A
dvan
tage
sD
ata
and
met
hods
: Li
mit
atio
ns
Dos
e-re
spon
se
met
hods
Estim
ates
by
how
m
uch
pric
e or
qu
antit
y ch
ange
for
a ch
ange
in p
rodu
c-tio
n in
puts
qua
ntit
y.
Also
cal
led
prod
uctio
n fu
nctio
n–ba
sed
or
prod
uctiv
ity
chan
ge
appr
oach
es.
❚ D
eter
min
e co
ntri
butio
n of
goo
d/se
rvic
e to
rel
ated
sou
rce
of p
rodu
ctio
n
❚ Sp
ecify
rel
atio
nshi
p be
twee
n ch
ange
s in
goo
d/se
rvic
e an
d ch
ange
s in
rel
ated
ou
tput
❚ R
elat
e ch
ange
in p
rovi
sion
of g
ood/
serv
ice
to p
hysi
cal c
hang
e in
out
put
❚ Es
timat
e m
arke
t val
ue o
f cha
nge
in
prod
uctio
n
Use
val
ueEs
timat
ion
of
chan
ges
in c
rop
yiel
ds (c
ausi
ng
loss
es in
agr
icul
tura
l pr
ofits
) for
a c
hang
e in
fert
ilise
r qu
antit
y.
Met
hod:
eas
y to
im
plem
ent i
n a
prod
uctio
n se
ttin
g, w
ith
clea
r in
puts
and
ou
tput
s re
latio
nshi
ps
Met
hod:
the
rela
tion -
ship
bet
wee
n ch
ange
in
ecos
yste
m s
ervi
ces
(dos
e) a
nd p
rodu
ctio
n (r
espo
nse)
is n
ot a
lway
s ea
sy to
mod
el o
r es
timat
e, a
nd m
ay n
ot
be a
pplic
able
in
diff
eren
t set
tings
Dat
a: b
ased
on
biop
hysi
cal d
ata
with
re
cord
s of
ten
avai
labl
e in
a p
rodu
ctio
n se
ttin
g
Dat
a: fa
irly
dat
a in
tens
ive
to b
uild
a
mod
el
Dam
age
cost
av
oide
dEs
timat
es th
e us
e va
lue
of th
e av
oide
d co
sts
of la
nd
degr
adat
ion
❚ Id
entif
y pr
otec
tive
func
tions
of g
ood/
serv
ice
❚ Id
entif
y da
mag
es c
ause
d by
loss
of
diff
eren
t deg
rees
of p
rote
ctio
n
❚ Lo
cate
infr
astr
uctu
re, o
utpu
t or
popu
latio
n th
at w
ould
be
affe
cted
❚ O
btai
n in
form
atio
n on
like
lihoo
d an
d fr
eque
ncy
of d
amag
e oc
curr
ing
❚ C
ost d
amag
es a
ssoc
iate
d w
ith g
iven
lo
ss o
f goo
d/se
rvic
e
Use
val
ue
(indi
rect
)B
enefi
ts fr
om
redu
ced
(avo
ided
) si
ltin
g of
wat
erco
urs -
es, r
educ
ed (a
void
ed)
coas
tal e
rosi
on
Met
hod:
eas
y to
im
plem
ent
Met
hod:
pro
ne to
ov
eres
timat
ion.
Avo
ided
da
mag
e co
sts
may
not
be
equ
al to
eco
nom
ic
bene
fits.
It is
not
alw
ays
easy
to e
stim
ate
beca
use
it ha
s be
en
avoi
ded
(hyp
othe
tical
si
tuat
ion)
Dat
a: b
ased
on
a m
ix o
f bi
ophy
sica
l and
ec
onom
ic d
ata
Dat
a: a
void
ed d
amag
e co
sts
can
be d
ifficu
lt to
m
easu
re (h
ypot
hetic
al
situ
atio
n)
A p p e n d i x 1 Economic valuation methods
78
Met
hod
Des
crip
tion
Step
s in
impl
emen
ting
th
e m
etho
dTy
pe o
f ec
onom
ic v
alue
ca
ptur
ed
Exa
mpl
eD
ata
and
met
hods
: A
dvan
tage
sD
ata
and
met
hods
: Li
mit
atio
ns
Miti
gatio
n co
sts
Estim
ates
the
use
valu
e as
the
cost
s of
miti
gatin
g or
av
ertin
g th
e lo
ss o
f ec
osys
tem
goo
d or
se
rvic
e
❚ Id
entif
y ha
zard
s ar
isin
g fr
om lo
ss o
f go
od/s
ervi
ce
❚ Lo
cate
are
a an
d po
pula
tion
that
wou
ld
be a
ffec
ted
❚ O
btai
n in
form
atio
n on
peo
ples
’ re
spon
ses
and
mea
sure
s ta
ken
to c
ope
with
eff
ects
of l
oss
❚ C
ost t
he m
itiga
tion
resp
onse
Use
val
ue
(indi
rect
)C
osts
of m
aint
aini
ng
hedg
es o
r dr
y st
one
wal
ls to
red
uce
soil
eros
ion
Met
hod:
eas
y to
im
plem
ent
Met
hod:
pro
ne to
ov
eres
timat
ion
Dat
a: e
asy
to m
easu
reD
ata:
miti
gatio
n co
sts
can
be in
com
plet
e or
in
accu
rate
ly r
ecor
ded
Opp
ortu
nity
co
sts
Estim
ates
use
va
lue
as th
e pr
ofit
mad
e un
der
the
next
bes
t al
tern
ativ
e la
nd u
se
❚ Id
entif
y th
e ne
xt b
est a
ltern
ativ
e la
nd-u
se
❚ Es
timat
e co
sts
and
bene
fits
of th
is n
ext
best
alte
rnat
ive
❚ C
alcu
late
the
forg
one
profi
t fro
m th
is
next
bes
t alte
rnat
ive
as th
e m
easu
re o
f op
port
unit
y co
sts
Use
val
ueTh
e op
port
unit
y co
st
of a
fore
st s
tand
is
the
profi
t fro
m
agri
cult
ural
pr
oduc
tion
that
cou
ld
be m
ade
by
conv
ertin
g fo
rest
ed
land
to a
gric
ultu
re.
This
opp
ortu
nity
cos
t is
usu
ally
low
er th
an
the
econ
omic
val
ue
of c
urre
nt la
nd u
se
(fore
st),
or th
e la
nd
wou
ld a
lrea
dy b
e co
nver
ted
to
agri
cult
ure
Met
hod:
allo
ws
to
cons
ider
alte
rnat
ive
land
use
s co
nsid
erin
g th
at th
e cu
rren
t one
is
the
mos
t eco
nom
ical
ly
profi
tabl
e
Met
hod:
sec
ond-
best
al
tern
ativ
e un
der-
estim
ates
the
bene
fits
from
the
curr
ent
(firs
t-be
st) o
ne
Dat
a: e
asy
to m
easu
re
for
exis
ting
near
by
alte
rnat
ive
land
use
s
Dat
a: a
ltern
ativ
e la
nd
use
cost
s an
d be
nefit
s ca
n be
diffi
cult
to
tran
sfer
to a
giv
en
cont
ext (
hypo
thet
ical
si
tuat
ion)
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
79
Met
hod
Des
crip
tion
Step
s in
impl
emen
ting
th
e m
etho
dTy
pe o
f ec
onom
ic v
alue
ca
ptur
ed
Exa
mpl
eD
ata
and
met
hods
: A
dvan
tage
sD
ata
and
met
hods
: Li
mit
atio
ns
Dem
and-
base
d m
etho
ds: R
evea
led
pref
eren
ce (u
se v
alue
)
Hed
onic
pr
ice
met
hod
Estim
ates
use
va
lue
as a
pr
opor
tion
of
surr
ogat
e m
arke
t pr
ices
❚ Fi
nd a
sur
roga
te m
arke
t whe
re th
e va
lue
of th
e go
od o
r se
rvic
e to
be
valu
ed is
em
bedd
ed in
to
❚ Id
entif
y ch
arac
teri
stic
s th
at in
fluen
ce
the
surr
ogat
e go
od m
arke
t pri
ce
❚ D
ecom
pose
the
pric
e of
the
surr
ogat
e m
arke
t goo
d in
to in
divi
dual
ch
arac
teri
stic
pri
ces
❚ Es
timat
e th
e de
man
d cu
rve
and
com
pute
the
will
ingn
ess
to p
ay.
Alte
rnat
ivel
y, ta
ke th
e un
it pr
ice
for
the
good
or
serv
ice
to b
e va
lued
.
Use
val
ueVa
lue
of a
nea
rby
park
or
sea
view
ca
ptur
ed in
hou
se
pric
es to
det
erm
ine
entr
y fe
e or
tax
leve
l
Met
hod:
rel
ies
on a
n ex
istin
g su
rrog
ate
mar
ket
Met
hod:
the
surr
ogat
e m
arke
t may
be
dist
orte
d or
impe
rfec
tly
reco
rded
, and
may
im
perf
ectl
y ca
ptur
e th
e us
e va
lue
of th
e go
od o
r se
rvic
e to
val
ue
Dat
a: c
an b
e ea
sy to
ob
tain
Dat
a: m
ay b
e in
com
-pl
ete
or in
accu
rate
ly
reco
rded
Trav
el c
ost
met
hod
Use
s tr
avel
cos
ts to
es
timat
e us
e va
lue
❚ Id
entif
y ar
ea fr
om w
hich
vis
itors
com
e,
how
muc
h tim
e an
d m
oney
they
spe
nt
to g
et to
the
area
to b
e va
lued
, and
th
eir
soci
o-ec
onom
ic c
hara
cter
istic
s
❚ Es
timat
e th
e co
st o
f one
trip
as
a fu
nctio
n of
the
num
ber
of v
isito
rs,
trav
el c
osts
, tra
vel t
ime
and
visi
tors
’ so
cio-
econ
omic
cha
ract
eris
tics
❚ In
trod
uce
a hy
poth
etic
al e
ntry
fee
and
calc
ulat
e th
e ex
pect
ed n
umbe
r of
vi
sito
rs fr
om th
e ne
w to
tal c
ost
(dem
and
curv
e)
❚ C
alcu
late
con
sum
er s
urpl
us fr
om th
is
dem
and
curv
e
Use
val
ueVa
lue
of a
nat
iona
l pa
rk in
ferr
ed fr
om
obse
rved
trav
el c
osts
to
set
an
entr
y fe
e
Met
hod:
can
be
easi
ly
impl
emen
ted
thro
ugh
a su
rvey
of v
isito
rs a
t a
give
n ge
ogra
phic
al s
pot
Met
hod:
lim
ited
to
recr
eatio
nal b
enefi
ts
linke
d to
a tr
ip
Dat
a: e
asy
to c
olle
ct
thro
ugh
surv
ey o
f vi
sito
rs
Dat
a: d
edic
ated
da
taba
se w
hich
is
spec
ific
to a
giv
en s
ite
and
time
of s
urve
y
A p p e n d i x 1 Economic valuation methods
80
Met
hod
Des
crip
tion
Step
s in
impl
emen
ting
th
e m
etho
dTy
pe o
f ec
onom
ic v
alue
ca
ptur
ed
Exa
mpl
eD
ata
and
met
hods
: A
dvan
tage
sD
ata
and
met
hods
: Li
mit
atio
ns
Dem
and-
base
d m
etho
ds: S
tate
d pr
efer
ence
(Tot
al E
cono
mic
Val
ue)
Con
tinge
nt
valu
atio
nEs
timat
es th
e ec
onom
ic v
alue
fr
om s
tate
d am
ount
pe
ople
are
will
ing
to p
ay (o
r ac
cept
)
Surv
ey o
f res
pond
ents
:❚
Pre
sent
a h
ypot
hetic
al s
ituat
ion
desc
ribi
ng th
e en
viro
nmen
tal g
ood
or
serv
ice,
the
inst
itutio
nal c
onte
xt a
nd
paym
ent m
eans
(tax
, fee
) in
a cr
edib
le
way
❚ A
sk r
espo
nden
ts th
eir
will
ingn
ess
to
pay
(acc
ept)
for
incr
ease
(los
s) in
goo
d or
ser
vice
❚ D
raw
up
freq
uenc
y di
stri
butio
n re
latin
g w
illin
gnes
s to
pay
(acc
ept)
st
atem
ents
to n
umbe
r of
peo
ple
mak
ing
them
❚ C
ross
tabu
late
will
ingn
ess
to p
ay
(acc
ept)
resp
onse
s w
ith e
xpla
nato
ry
vari
able
s (in
com
e, a
ge, e
duca
tion)
❚ C
arry
out
mul
tivar
iate
ana
lysi
s to
co
rrel
ate
resp
onse
s to
exp
lana
tory
va
riab
les
❚ Su
m u
p sa
mpl
e re
sult
s
Tota
l eco
nom
ic
valu
eSt
ated
val
ue o
f a
near
by p
ark,
bi
odiv
ersi
ty h
otsp
ot,
sym
bolic
spe
cies
(b
lue
wha
le, t
iger
s,
mou
ntai
n go
rilla
s,
pand
as)
Met
hod:
eas
y to
un
ders
tand
and
im
plem
ent
Met
hod:
is p
rone
to
man
y bi
ases
and
oft
en
lead
s to
ove
rest
imat
e th
e ac
tual
will
ingn
ess
to p
ay, a
nd it
doe
s no
t al
low
to e
stim
ate
trad
e-of
fs b
etw
een
diff
eren
t goo
ds o
r se
rvic
es
Dat
a: e
asy
to c
olle
ct
thro
ugh
surv
ey o
r fo
cus
grou
ps
Dat
a: d
edic
ated
da
taba
se w
hich
is
spec
ific
to a
giv
en s
ite
and
time
of s
urve
y
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
81
Met
hod
Des
crip
tion
Step
s in
impl
emen
ting
th
e m
etho
dTy
pe o
f ec
onom
ic v
alue
ca
ptur
ed
Exa
mpl
eD
ata
and
met
hods
: A
dvan
tage
sD
ata
and
met
hods
: Li
mit
atio
ns
Cho
ice
expe
ri-
men
tEs
timat
e th
e ec
onom
ic v
alue
fr
om s
tate
d w
illin
gnes
s to
pay
(o
r w
illin
gnes
s to
ac
cept
) for
a r
ange
of
att
ribu
tes
(like
d to
the
sam
e or
ot
her
econ
omic
ac
tiviti
es) a
nd th
e tr
ade-
offs
bet
wee
n th
em.
Surv
ey o
f res
pond
ents
:
❚ P
rese
nt a
hyp
othe
tical
situ
atio
n de
scri
bing
the
envi
ronm
enta
l goo
d or
se
rvic
e, th
e in
stitu
tiona
l con
text
and
pa
ymen
t mea
ns (t
ax, f
ee) i
n a
cred
ible
w
ay
❚ Es
tabl
ish
alte
rnat
ive
optio
ns, e
ach
of
whi
ch a
re d
efine
d by
var
ious
att
ribu
tes
and
a pr
ice
❚ D
esig
n un
ique
cho
ice
card
s by
se
lect
ing
com
bina
tions
of a
ltern
ativ
e op
tions
. The
res
pond
ent s
houl
d ch
oose
on
ly o
ne o
ptio
n fr
om e
ach
choi
ce c
ard
❚ Ag
greg
ate
resu
lts
and
estim
ate
will
ingn
ess
to p
ay o
vera
ll an
d fo
r ea
ch
attr
ibut
e
Tota
l eco
nom
ic
valu
eTr
ade-
offs
bet
wee
n co
nser
vatio
n m
easu
res
such
as
the
pres
erva
tion
of
embl
emat
ic s
peci
es,
a bi
odiv
ersi
ty h
otsp
ot
or a
nea
rby
park
, and
ot
her
econ
omic
ac
tiviti
es s
uch
as
agri
cult
ural
pr
oduc
tion
or m
inin
g
Met
hod:
onl
y m
etho
d th
at a
llow
s to
est
imat
e bo
th th
e to
tal e
cono
mic
va
lue
and
trad
e-of
fs
betw
een
good
s an
d se
rvic
es
Met
hod:
pot
entia
l bi
ases
; con
text
spe
cific
Dat
a: c
ompl
ete
data
set
Dat
a: v
ery
data
in
tens
ive
Ben
efit t
rans
fer
Ben
efit t
rans
fer
Res
ults
obt
aine
d in
a
spec
ific
cont
ext
are
tran
sfer
red
to
ano
ther
co
mpa
rabl
e si
te
❚ Id
entif
y “s
ourc
e” s
ite(s
), th
at is
, the
si
te(s
) fro
m w
hich
the
econ
omic
val
ue
will
be
tran
sfer
red
from
, and
thei
r ch
arac
teri
stic
s (in
com
e le
vels
, typ
e of
la
nd u
se, a
rea
cove
red,
type
of a
rea:
ho
t spo
t or
othe
r, ge
ogra
phy)
❚ Es
timat
e th
e w
illin
gnes
s to
pay
as
a
func
tion
of th
e so
urce
site
(s)
char
acte
rist
ics
❚ U
se th
e ch
arac
teri
stic
s of
the
site
to b
e va
lued
in th
e w
illin
gnes
s to
pay
eq
uatio
n ob
tain
ed a
nd d
eriv
e th
e w
illin
gnes
s to
pay
Dep
ends
on
the
met
hod
used
in
the
orig
inal
co
ntex
t, be
fore
tr
ansf
er
The
valu
e of
a
biod
iver
sity
hot
spot
is
est
imat
ed fr
om
valu
es o
f sev
eral
ot
her
biod
iver
sity
ho
tspo
ts a
nd
adju
stin
g fo
r sp
ecifi
c ch
arac
teri
stic
s (s
ize,
in
com
e le
vel o
f st
akeh
olde
rs …
).
Met
hod:
eas
y to
co
ncep
tual
ise
and
impl
emen
t
Met
hod:
can
be
very
da
ta in
tens
ive.
Res
ults
ca
n be
inac
cura
te
depe
ndin
g on
how
di
ffer
ent s
ocia
l pre
fer-
ence
s in
diff
eren
t pla
ces
are
and
econ
omie
s of
sc
ale
and
scop
e.
Dat
a: b
ased
on
data
av
aila
ble
in p
revi
ous
stud
ies
and
does
not
re
quir
e pr
imar
y da
ta
colle
ctio
n
Dat
a: p
revi
ous
stud
y re
sult
s ca
n be
bia
sed
A p p e n d i x 2 Required data for drivers of land degradation and their availability (global level analysis)
82
App
endi
x 2
– R
equi
red
data
for
driv
ers
of la
nd d
egra
datio
n an
d
thei
r av
aila
bilit
y (g
loba
l lev
el a
naly
sis)
(from
Nko
nya
et a
l. 20
13 2
6 , Tab
le 5
)
Dat
aD
ata
sour
ceW
ebsi
teA
vail
abil
ity
Acc
esse
d
ND
VIG
IMM
Sht
tp:/
/glc
f.um
d.ed
u/da
ta/g
imm
sFr
eeYe
s
Glo
bal A
dmin
istr
ativ
e B
orde
rsG
AD
Mw
ww
.gad
m.o
rgFr
eeYe
s
Glo
bal S
oil P
rope
rtie
sIS
RIC
-WIS
Ew
ww
.isri
c.or
g/da
ta/d
ata-
dow
nloa
dFr
eeYe
s
FAO
/IIA
SAw
ww
.fao.
org/
nr/l
and/
soils
/har
mon
ized
-wor
ld-s
oil-
data
base
/so
il-qu
alit
y-fo
r-cr
op-p
rodu
ctio
n/en
Afr
ica
Soil
Info
rmat
ion
–
Geo
refe
renc
ed D
ata
on
Lan
d D
egra
datio
n Su
rvei
llanc
e
AFS
ISw
ww
.afr
icas
oils
.net
Free
No
Bio
dive
rsit
yP
BL
Net
herl
ands
Env
iron
men
tal A
sses
smen
t Age
ncy
Free
No
Clim
ate
Con
ditio
nsEa
st A
nglia
Clim
ate
Res
earc
h U
nit
ww
w.c
ru.u
ea.a
c.uk
Free
Yes
Land
Man
agem
ent P
ract
ices
FAO
(Rat
e of
fert
ilise
r us
e,
cons
erva
tion
agri
cult
ure,
etc
.)FA
OST
AT; A
QU
AST
ATFr
eeYe
s
Topo
grap
hyYC
EO
(Yal
e C
entr
e fo
r Ea
rth
Obs
erva
tion)
D
EM fr
om F
AO
ww
w.y
ale.
edu/
ceo/
Doc
umen
tatio
n/de
m.h
tml
Free
Yes
CC
IAR
-cor
rect
ed S
RTM
ww
w.c
giar
-csi
.org
/dat
a/sr
tm-9
0m-d
igita
l-el
evat
ion-
data
base
-v4-
1Fr
eeYe
s
Roa
d D
ensi
tyA
fric
a ro
ad d
ata
– ht
tp:/
/inf
rast
ruct
urea
fric
a/af
db.o
rg/m
odel
s/ir
riga
tion.
asp
Free
Yes
Acce
ss to
Info
rmat
ion
Mob
ile p
hone
cov
erag
eIT
UFr
eeYe
s
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
83
Dat
aD
ata
sour
ceW
ebsi
teA
vail
abil
ity
Acc
esse
d
Land
Ten
ure
WR
I, U
nive
rsit
y of
Wis
cons
inw
ww
.wri
.org
/map
/sta
tus-
land
-ten
ure-
and-
prop
erty
-rig
hts-
2005
Free
Yes
Nat
iona
l Pol
icie
sEn
viro
nmen
tal P
erfo
rman
ce In
dex
http
://e
pi.y
ale.
edu
Free
Yes
Inst
itutio
nsG
over
nmen
t eff
ectiv
enes
sw
ww
.gov
indi
cato
rs.o
rgFr
eeYe
s
Soci
o-ec
onom
ic In
dica
tors
Wor
ld D
evel
opm
ent I
ndic
ator
sw
ww
.wor
ldba
nk.o
rgFr
eeYe
s
Pop
ulat
ion
Den
sity
CIE
SIN
http
://s
edac
.cie
sin.
colu
mbi
a.ed
u/da
ta/c
olle
ctio
n/gp
w-v
3Fr
eeYe
s
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
84
App
endi
x 3
– C
ase
stud
ies
(A r
epos
itory
of r
efer
ence
s in
rel
atio
n to
the
appr
oach
use
d fo
r th
e Ec
onom
ics
of L
and
Deg
rada
tion
initi
ativ
e as
wel
l as
case
stu
dies
is a
cces
sibl
e at
w
ww
.Ref
wor
ks.c
om (G
roup
Cod
e: R
WM
cMas
terU
, Log
in: u
nu-i
nweh
, Pas
swor
d: in
weh
).
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
1K
ing,
D.A
. and
Sin
den,
J.A
., 19
88. I
nflue
nce
of s
oil
cons
erva
tion
on fa
rm la
nd
valu
es. L
and
Econ
omic
s. 6
4(3)
: 24
2 – 2
55.
1988
Aust
ralia
(M
anill
a Sh
ire,
N
ew S
outh
W
ales
)
Oce
ania
food
s;us
e va
lue
only
; he
doni
c pr
ice
met
hod
Cos
ts p
aid
thro
ugh
prop
erty
pri
ces
for
cons
ervi
ng th
e la
nd r
ange
from
AU
D 0
/ha
to
AUD
11/
ha, a
nd th
e co
st o
f tre
atm
ent (
i.e.
adop
ting
prac
tices
red
ucin
g la
nd e
rosi
on) i
s AU
D 1
/ha
2N
elso
n, R
.A.,
Dim
es, J
.P.,
Silb
urn,
D.M
., P
anin
gbat
an,
E.P.
and
Cra
mb,
R.A
., 19
88.
Eros
ion/
prod
uctiv
ity
mod
ellin
g of
mai
ze fa
rmin
g in
the
Phi
lippi
ne u
plan
ds: P
art I
II:
econ
omic
ana
lysi
s of
alte
rna -
tive
farm
ing
met
hods
. Ag
ricu
ltur
al S
yste
ms.
58(
2):
165 –
183.
1997
Phi
lippi
nes
(upl
ands
)A
sia
food
s;us
e va
lue
only
; do
se-r
espo
nse
met
hod;
m
arke
t pri
ce
met
hod;
Net
pre
sent
val
ue r
angi
ng fr
om
PH
P -2
,000
/ha/
yr to
PH
P 40
,000
/ha/
yr
(10%
dis
coun
t rat
e)
3B
isho
p, J
. and
Alle
n, J
., 19
89.
The
on-s
ite c
ost o
f soi
l ero
sion
in
Mal
i. En
viro
nmen
t Wor
king
P
aper
No.
21.
The
Wor
ld B
ank,
W
ashi
ngto
n D
.C.
1989
, ba
sed
on
data
from
19
81–1
988
Mal
i (u
sing
dat
a fr
om B
urki
na
Faso
)
Afr
ica
food
s; fi
bres
use
valu
e on
ly;
dose
-res
pons
e m
etho
d;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d;
Aver
age
loss
of N
, K, P
on
crop
land
ran
ging
fr
om U
SD 0
.79/
ha (C
FA 2
36/h
a) to
U
SD 5
.46/
ha (C
FA 1
,638
/ha)
; nat
ionw
ide
of
USD
7.4
1 m
illio
n (C
FA 2
,225
mill
ion)
, i.e
. 0.3
7% G
DP
of M
ali a
nd 0
.95%
of
agri
cult
ural
GD
P
4R
ocke
l, M
.L a
nd K
ealy
, M.J
. 19
91. T
he v
alue
of n
onco
n -su
mpt
ive
wild
life
recr
eatio
n in
th
e U
nite
d St
ates
. Lan
d Ec
onom
ics.
67(
4): 4
22 –
434.
base
d on
da
ta fr
om
1980
Uni
ted
Stat
esA
mer
icas
recr
eatio
n (n
on-c
onsu
mpt
ive
use
of w
ildlif
e);
use
valu
e on
ly;
bene
fit tr
ansf
er;
othe
r va
luat
ion
met
hod
(tim
e sp
ent w
ildlif
e w
atch
ing)
Aggr
egat
ed w
elfa
re e
stim
ates
from
pa
rtic
ipat
ion
rang
e fr
om U
SD 7
.8 –
161
billi
on,
depe
ndin
g on
the
valu
e al
loca
ted
to ti
me
and
func
tiona
l for
m u
sed
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
85
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
5G
arro
d, G
.D. a
nd W
illis
, K.G
. 19
94. V
alui
ng b
iodi
vers
ity
and
cons
erva
tion
at a
loca
l lev
el.
Bio
dive
rsit
y an
d C
onse
rvat
ion.
3:
555
– 56
5.
1994
Gre
at B
rita
inEu
rope
recr
eatio
n;
amen
ity;
ot
her
cult
ural
se
rvic
es
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; co
ntin
gent
va
luat
ion
Tota
l ave
rage
WTP
: GB
P 10
.045
/yr/
mem
ber
of th
e w
ildlif
e tr
ust.
The
CVM
res
pons
es
sugg
este
d th
at m
embe
rs w
ould
be
will
ing
to
pay
an a
ggre
gate
of G
BP
2,40
4/yr
tow
ards
th
e co
nser
vatio
n of
Bor
der
mir
es;
GB
P 9,
444/
yr fo
r th
e co
nser
vatio
n of
the
red
squi
rrel
in K
ield
er F
ores
t; bu
t onl
y
GB
P 1,
492/
yr to
war
ds th
e pr
ovis
ion
of
new
Tru
st h
eadq
uart
ers
6N
avru
d, S
. and
Mun
gata
na,
E.D
. Env
iron
men
tal v
alua
tion
in
deve
lopi
ng c
ount
ries
: The
re
crea
tiona
l val
ue o
f wild
life
view
ing.
Eco
logi
cal E
cono
mic
s.
11: 1
35 –
151.
base
d
on d
ata
from
199
1
Ken
ya
(Lak
e N
akur
a N
atio
nal P
ark)
Afr
ica
recr
eatio
n;us
e va
lue
only
; tr
avel
cos
t m
etho
d; c
ontin
-ge
nt v
alua
tion
Ann
ual r
ecre
atio
nal v
alue
of w
ildlif
e vi
ewin
g in
Lak
e N
akur
u N
atio
nal P
ark
in K
enya
was
fo
und
to b
e U
SD 7
.5 –
15 m
illio
n.
7P
imen
tel,
D.,
Har
vey,
C.,
Res
osud
arm
o, P
., Si
ncla
ir, K
., K
urz,
D.,
McN
air,
M.,
Cri
st, S
., Sh
pritz
, L.,
Fitt
on, L
., Sa
ffou
ri,
R. a
nd B
lair,
R.,
1995
. En
viro
nmen
tal a
nd e
cono
mic
co
sts
of s
oil e
rosi
on a
nd
cons
erva
tion
bene
fits.
Sci
ence
. 26
7(52
01):
1117
– 11
23.
1994
Glo
bal
Wor
ldfo
ods;
pa
stor
alis
m/m
eat;
w
ater
flow
re
gula
tion;
so
il re
gula
tion;
re
crea
tion
use
valu
e on
ly;
repl
acem
ent
cost
met
hod;
do
se-r
espo
nse
met
hod;
op
port
unit
y co
sts
Inve
stm
ent o
f USD
6.4
bill
ion/
yr (4
0/ha
/yr
for
cons
erva
tion)
to r
educ
e U
S er
osio
n ra
tes
from
abo
ut 1
7 to
ns/h
a/yr
to a
sus
tain
able
ra
te o
f 1 to
n/ha
/yr
on m
ost c
ropl
and,
and
an
addi
tiona
l USD
2.0
bill
ion/
yr (U
SD 5
/ha/
yr fo
r co
nser
vatio
n) to
red
uce
eros
ion
on p
astu
re-
land
. Ero
sion
cau
ses
abou
t USD
44
billi
on/y
r in
dam
ages
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
86
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
8B
arne
s, J
. 199
6. C
hang
es in
the
econ
omic
use
val
ue o
f ele
phan
t in
Bot
swan
a: th
e ef
fect
of
inte
rnat
iona
l tra
de p
rohi
bitio
n.
Ecol
ogic
al E
cono
mic
s. 1
8(3)
: 21
5 – 2
30.
1989
– 19
92B
otsw
ana
Afr
ica
recr
eatio
n;
hunt
ing
(saf
ari
hunt
ing
by q
uota
, lic
ence
d hu
ntin
g
by c
ount
ry
natio
nals
by
quot
a,
culli
ng p
ro-
gram
me)
;
use
valu
e on
ly
(dir
ect u
se o
nly)
; m
arke
t pri
ce
met
hod;
op
port
unit
y co
sts
(o
f alte
rnat
ive
elep
hant
non
- co
nsum
ptiv
e us
e);
othe
r va
luat
ion
met
hods
(s
hado
w p
rici
ng)
Econ
omic
cos
t of g
over
nmen
t exp
endi
ture
s at
trib
utab
le to
ele
phan
t man
agem
ent:
U
SD 7
.52/
m2 in
199
2, e
xpec
ted
to r
ise
to
USD
116
/m2 o
ver
15 y
ears
(200
7);
Net
pre
sent
val
ue (v
alue
add
ed o
ver
15 y
ears
to
nat
iona
l inc
ome,
net
of g
over
nmen
t ex
pend
iture
s, a
fter
dis
coun
ting
at 6
% a
nd
afte
r sh
adow
pri
cing
) ran
ging
from
G
BP
99.8
mill
ion
(199
2) to
GB
P 20
2.3
mill
ion
(199
2), w
ith to
uris
m th
e m
ain
cont
ribu
tor
to
the
econ
omic
pre
sent
val
ues
of e
leph
ant
use
in B
otsw
ana.
9R
. Cos
tanz
a, R
., d’
Arg
e, R
., de
G
root
, R.,
Farb
erk,
S.,
Gra
sso,
M
., H
anno
n, B
., Li
mbu
rg, K
., N
aeem
, S.,
O’N
eill,
R.V
., P
arue
lo, J
., R
aski
n, R
.G.,
Sutt
on, P
. and
van
den
Bel
t, M
. 19
97. T
he v
alue
of t
he w
orld
's
ecos
yste
m s
ervi
ces
and
natu
ral c
apita
l. N
atur
e. 3
87:
253 –
260
.
1997
Glo
bal
Wor
ldfo
ods;
fibr
es;
fore
st ti
mbe
r;
hort
icul
ture
; bi
odiv
ersi
ty/
gene
tic r
esou
rces
; ot
her
prov
isio
ning
se
rvic
es;
pollu
tion
cont
rol;
clim
ate
regu
latio
n;
wat
er fl
ow
regu
latio
n;
soil
regu
latio
n;
othe
r re
gula
ting
serv
ices
; am
eniti
es;
recr
eatio
n;
spir
itual
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; be
nefit
tran
sfer
; ag
greg
atio
n ac
ross
ser
vice
s
For
the
entir
e bi
osph
ere,
the
valu
e
(mos
t of w
hich
is o
utsi
de th
e m
arke
t)
is e
stim
ated
to b
e in
the
rang
e of
U
SD 1
6 – 5
4 tr
illio
n (2
012)
/yr,
with
an
aver
age
of U
SD 3
3 tr
illio
n/yr
. Bec
ause
of t
he n
atur
e of
th
e un
cert
aint
ies,
this
mus
t be
cons
ider
ed a
m
inim
um e
stim
ate.
Glo
bal g
ross
nat
iona
l pr
oduc
t tot
al is
aro
und
USD
18
trill
ion/
yr.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
87
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
10G
arro
d, G
.D. a
nd W
illis
, K.G
. 19
97. T
he n
on-u
se v
alue
of
enha
ncin
g fo
rest
bio
dive
rsit
y –
A co
ntin
gent
ran
king
stu
dy.
Ecol
ogic
al E
cono
mic
s. 2
1:
45 –
61.
1995
Gre
at B
rita
inEu
rope
biod
iver
sity
/ ge
netic
res
ourc
es;
Tota
l eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; ot
her
valu
atio
n m
etho
d
(dis
cret
e-ch
oice
co
ntin
gent
ran
king
ap
proa
ch);
Estim
ated
WTP
for
an a
dditi
onal
uni
t of
Stan
dard
A (b
asic
sta
ndar
d of
bio
dive
rsit
y co
nser
vatio
n) fo
rest
var
ied
betw
een
GB
P 30
.3 a
nd 3
3.4/
yr; w
hile
for
Stan
dard
B
(des
ired
sta
ndar
d of
bio
dive
rsit
y co
nser
va-
tion)
fore
st it
var
ied
betw
een
GB
P 51
.7 a
nd
56.4
/yr.
WTP
was
low
est f
or S
tand
ard
C
(con
vers
ion
to n
ativ
e w
oodl
and)
fore
st,
vary
ing
betw
een
GB
P 18
.5 a
nd 2
0.7/
yr. T
hese
es
timat
es w
ere
alm
ost c
erta
inly
infl
ated
due
to
non
-res
pons
e bi
as, a
nd 't
rue'
val
ues
may
m
ore
clos
ely
corr
espo
nd to
thos
e in
Tab
le 4
.
11A
nda,
A.,
1999
. Why
the
new
m
inin
g re
gula
tions
can
not
yet
as
sure
a s
ucce
ssfu
l min
e re
habi
litat
ion?
An
anal
ysis
of
the
regu
lato
ry fr
amew
ork
of
min
e re
habi
litat
ion
in th
e P
hilip
pine
s. U
npub
lishe
d.
Que
zon
Cit
y, P
hilip
pine
s.
1999
Phi
lippi
nes
(Ben
guet
)A
sia
min
ing;
n/a
n/a
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
88
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
12B
lam
ey, J
., R
olfe
, J.,
Ben
nett
, J.
and
Mor
riso
n M
. 200
0.
Valu
ing
rem
nant
veg
etat
ion
in
Cen
tral
Que
ensl
and
usin
g ch
oice
mod
ellin
g. T
he
Aust
ralia
n Jo
urna
l of
Agri
cult
ure
and
Res
ourc
e Ec
onom
ics.
44(
3): 4
39 –
456.
2000
Aust
ralia
(D
eser
t U
plan
ds
regi
on)
Oce
ania
past
oral
ism
/mea
t;To
tal E
cono
mic
Va
lue
(TE
V);
choi
ce e
xper
imen
t
Impl
icit
pric
e fo
r th
e at
trib
utes
for
a on
e un
it im
prov
emen
t:
❚ Jo
bs lo
st in
loca
l reg
ion:
AU
D 3
.04
❚ Lo
ss in
reg
iona
l inc
ome
(AU
S m
illio
n):
AUD
5.6
0
❚ N
umbe
r of
end
ange
red
spec
ies
lost
: AU
D 1
1.39
❚ P
erce
ntag
e re
duct
ion
in p
opul
atio
n of
no
n-th
reat
ened
spe
cies
: AU
D 1
.69
❚ P
erce
ntag
e lo
ss in
are
a of
uni
que
ecos
yste
ms:
AU
D 3
.68
Will
ingn
ess
to p
ay fo
r m
ore
stri
ngen
t tre
e cl
eari
ng g
uide
lines
ran
ging
from
AU
D 7
6/ho
useh
old
to A
UD
117
/hou
seho
ld
13K
ulsh
resh
tha,
K.,
Lac,
S.,
John
ston
, M. a
nd K
inar
, C.
2000
. Car
bon
sequ
estr
atio
n in
pr
otec
ted
area
s of
Can
ada:
An
econ
omic
val
uatio
n. E
cono
mic
Fr
amew
ork
Pro
ject
Rep
ort
549.
Par
ks C
anad
a. W
arsa
w,
Ont
ario
, Can
ada.
2000
Can
ada
Am
eric
ascl
imat
e re
gula
tion;
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; re
plac
emen
t cos
t m
etho
d; b
enefi
t tr
ansf
er
Aver
age
valu
e of
car
bon
in th
is s
tudy
was
ba
sed
on r
epla
cem
ent a
nd s
ubst
itute
cos
t m
etho
ds. F
ores
ts w
ere
take
n as
the
mos
t lo
gica
l rep
lace
men
t for
seq
uest
ratio
n.
Ref
ores
tatio
n w
as a
ssum
ed. A
cos
t of
CD
N 1
6.25
/ton
ne (C
DN
200
5) w
as e
stim
ated
fo
r th
is o
ptio
n. T
he n
ext b
est o
ptio
n w
as
conv
ertin
g th
e m
argi
nal a
gric
ultu
ral l
ands
in
to fo
rest
s th
roug
h af
fore
stat
ion.
Th
is o
ptio
n w
as C
DN
17.
50/t
onne
. In
addi
tion
to th
e m
edia
n va
lues
, car
bon
sequ
este
red
was
eva
luat
ed a
t a lo
w p
rice
sce
nari
o
– C
DN
2.3
0–3.
00/t
onne
and
und
er a
hig
h pr
ice
scen
ario
, CD
N 5
00/t
onne
.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
89
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
14C
BD
. 200
1. T
he v
alue
of f
ores
t ec
osys
tem
s. C
BD
Tec
hnic
al
Seri
es N
o. 4
. Sec
reta
riat
of t
he
Con
vent
ion
on B
iodi
vers
ity.
M
ontr
eal,
Can
ada.
2001
Glo
bal
Wor
ldfo
rest
tim
ber
(tim
ber,
fuel
woo
d);
NTF
P;
othe
r pr
ovis
ioni
ng
serv
ices
(cha
rcoa
l);
clim
ate
regu
latio
n;
wat
er fl
ow
regu
latio
n (w
ater
shed
pr
otec
tion)
; re
crea
tion
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; be
nefit
tran
sfer
; ag
greg
atio
n ac
ross
ser
vice
s
USD
40
per
ha p
er y
ear
for
fuel
woo
d,
20 –
4400
/ha/
yr in
trop
ical
fore
sts
and
U
SD -
4000
– 70
0/ha
/yr
in te
mpe
rate
fore
sts,
U
SD 0
– 10
0/ha
/yr
in tr
opic
al fo
rest
s, a
nd
USD
15 –
850
/ha/
yr fo
r w
ater
shed
ben
efits
❚
Fuel
woo
d: U
SD 4
0/ha
/yr
in tr
opic
al
fore
sts
Non
-tim
ber
fore
st p
rodu
cts:
U
SD 0
– 10
0/ha
/yr
in tr
opic
al fo
rest
s ❚
Gen
etic
info
rmat
ion:
USD
0 –
3,00
0/ha
/yr
in
trop
ical
fore
sts
❚ R
ecre
atio
n: U
SD 2
– 47
0 fo
r tr
opic
al fo
rest
s;
USD
770
for
trop
ical
fore
sts
near
tow
ns;
USD
100
0 fo
r un
ique
trop
ical
fore
sts;
U
SD 8
0/ha
/yr
in te
mpe
rate
fore
sts
❚ W
ater
shed
ben
efits
: USD
15 –
850
/ha/
yr in
tr
opic
al fo
rest
s; U
SD 1
0 – 5
0/ha
/yr
in
tem
pera
te fo
rest
s ❚
Clim
ate
bene
fits:
USD
360
– 22
00/h
a/yr
(g
ross
pre
sent
val
ue o
f one
-off
pay
men
t in
initi
al y
ear)
in tr
opic
al fo
rest
s an
d
USD
90 –
400
/ha/
yr (a
ffor
esta
tion)
in
tem
pera
te fo
rest
s ❚
Opt
ion
valu
e: U
SD 7
0/ha
/yr
in te
mpe
rate
fo
rest
❚
Exi
sten
ce v
alue
: USD
2 –
45/h
a/yr
and
U
SD 4
400/
ha/y
r fo
r un
ique
site
s
15H
erat
h, G
., 20
01. E
stim
atin
g th
e us
er c
ost o
f soi
l ero
sion
in
tea
smal
lhol
ding
s in
Sri
Lan
ka.
Aust
ralia
n Jo
urna
l of R
egio
nal
Stud
ies
7(1)
: 97 –
111.
1999
– 20
00Sr
i Lan
kaA
sia
food
s;us
e va
lue
only
; do
se-r
espo
nse
met
hod;
mar
ket
pric
e m
etho
d;
Mar
gina
l use
r co
sts
rang
ing
from
LK
R R
s 0–
7332
1.19
/cm
/ha;
Ag
greg
ate:
LK
R R
s 73
.1 m
illio
n/yr
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
90
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
16K
reut
er, U
.P.,
Har
ris,
H.G
., M
atlo
ck, M
.D. a
nd L
acey
, R.E
. 20
01. C
hang
e in
eco
syst
em
serv
ice
valu
es in
the
San
Ant
onio
are
a, T
exas
. Eco
logi
cal
Econ
omic
s. 3
9: 3
33 –
346.
base
d on
da
ta fr
om
1982
– 19
97
Texa
s
(San
Ant
onio
), U
nite
d St
ates
of
Am
eric
a
Am
eric
asfo
ods;
fibr
es;
fore
st ti
mbe
r;
hort
icul
ture
; bi
odiv
ersi
ty/
gene
tic r
esou
rces
; po
llutio
n co
ntro
l, cl
imat
e re
gula
tion;
w
ater
flow
re
gula
tion;
so
il re
gula
tion;
am
eniti
es;
recr
eatio
n;
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; be
nefit
tran
sfer
;
Tota
l eco
syst
em s
ervi
ce v
alue
s ar
ound
U
SD 2
2 m
illio
n/yr
. Clim
ate
bene
fits:
USD
36
0 – 2
200/
ha/y
r (g
ross
pre
sent
val
ue o
f on
e-of
f pay
men
t in
initi
al y
ear)
in tr
opic
al
fore
sts
and
USD
90 –
400
/ha/
yr (a
ffor
esta
tion)
in
tem
pera
te fo
rest
s
17B
arne
s, J
., M
acG
rego
r, J.
and
W
eave
r, L.
C. 2
002.
Eco
nom
ic
effic
ienc
y an
d in
cent
ives
for
chan
ge w
ithin
Nam
ibia
's
Com
mun
ity
Wild
life
Initi
ativ
es.
Wor
ld D
evel
opm
ent.
30(4
): 66
7 – 6
81.
2001
Nam
ibia
Afr
ica
past
oral
ism
/mea
t; hu
ntin
gTo
tal E
cono
mic
Va
lue
(TE
V);
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d;
oppo
rtun
ity
cost
s (o
f con
serv
ancy
re
sour
ce u
se);
othe
r va
luat
ion
met
hod
(n
on-u
se v
alue
, do
nor-
fund
ed);
Inte
rnal
rat
e of
ret
urn
(dep
endi
ng o
n th
e ac
tivit
y): E
cono
mic
: 22 –
132%
; Fin
anci
al
(pro
ject
): 8 –
19%
; Fin
anci
al (c
omm
unit
y):
23 –
220%
Rec
eipt
by
cons
erva
ncie
s of
don
or
gran
ts e
nhan
ces
retu
rns,
but
onl
y in
wea
kly
viab
le c
onse
rvan
cies
wou
ld r
emov
al
jeop
ardi
ze fi
nanc
ial i
ncen
tives
to p
artic
ipat
e.
In th
ree
or fo
ur o
f the
five
con
serv
anci
es,
dire
ct u
se v
alue
s sh
ould
be
suffi
cien
t to
attr
act c
omm
unit
y in
vest
men
t.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
91
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
18B
erry
, L.,
Ols
on, J
. and
C
ampb
ell,
D.,
2003
. Ass
essi
ng
the
exte
nt, c
ost a
nd im
pact
of
land
deg
rada
tion
at th
e na
tiona
l lev
el: fi
ndin
gs a
nd
less
ons
lear
ned
from
sev
en
pilo
t cas
e st
udie
s. G
loba
l M
echa
nism
, Rom
e, It
aly.
2003
(b
ased
on
data
from
19
86-1
999)
Chi
na,
Ethi
opia
, M
exic
o,
Uga
nda,
R
wan
da,
Chi
le,
Indo
nesi
a
Wor
ldso
il re
gula
tion;
use
valu
e on
ly;
oppo
rtun
ity
cost
s3 –
7%
of a
gric
ultu
ral G
DP
❚ C
hina
– C
ost o
f lan
d de
grad
atio
n:
USD
7.7
6 bi
llion
dir
ect /
USD
31
billi
on
indi
rect
/ 4%
GD
P; L
evel
of r
espo
nse:
U
SD 1
– 2
billi
on a
nnua
lly; T
ype
of r
espo
nse:
fo
rest
ry, p
hysi
cal s
truc
ture
s
❚ Et
hiop
ia h
ighl
ands
– C
ost o
f lan
d de
gra-
datio
n: 4
% G
DP
dire
ct / a
cute
pov
erty
; Le
vel o
f res
pons
e: 0
.2 –
0.5%
Ag
GD
P;
Type
of r
espo
nse:
fert
ilise
r, ph
ysic
al
stru
ctur
es
❚ M
exic
o –
Cos
t of l
and
degr
adat
ion:
U
SD 3
.5 b
illio
n / m
igra
tion;
Lev
el o
f re
spon
se: v
arie
d /h
ard
to q
uant
ify; T
ype
of
resp
onse
: pol
icy
chan
ge, r
efor
esta
tion
❚ U
gand
a –
C
ost o
f lan
d de
grad
atio
n: 4
% G
NP
?;
Leve
l of r
espo
nse:
har
d to
qua
ntify
; Ty
pe o
f res
pons
e: p
olic
y, te
rrac
ing
in S
W
❚ R
wan
da –
Cos
t of l
and
degr
adat
ion:
3.
5% A
g G
DP
dire
ct / a
cute
pov
erty
; Le
vel o
f res
pons
e: h
ard
to q
uant
ify;
Type
of r
espo
nse:
cen
tral
ised
terr
acin
g po
licy
❚ C
hile
(Coq
uim
bo) –
Cos
t of l
and
de
grad
atio
n: 5
0% o
n w
heat
/ 23%
goa
t;
Leve
l of r
espo
nse:
not
kno
wn;
Ty
pe o
f res
pons
e: n
ot k
now
n
❚ In
done
sia
– C
ost o
f lan
d de
grad
atio
n:
0 – 4%
cro
p va
lue;
Lev
el o
f res
pons
e:
not k
now
n; T
ype
of r
espo
nse:
long
term
so
il &
wat
er m
anag
emen
t
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
92
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
19Tu
rpie
, J.K
. 200
3. T
he
exis
tenc
e va
lue
of b
iodi
vers
ity
in S
outh
Afr
ica:
how
inte
rest
, ex
peri
ence
, kno
wle
dge,
in
com
e an
d pe
rcei
ved
leve
l of
thre
at in
fluen
ce lo
cal
will
ingn
ess
to p
ay. E
colo
gica
l Ec
onom
ics.
46(
2): 1
99–2
16.
2002
Sout
h A
fric
aA
fric
abi
odiv
ersi
ty/g
enet
ic
reso
urce
s;To
tal E
cono
mic
Va
lue
(TE
V);
cont
inge
nt
valu
atio
n
WTP
for
cons
erva
tion
was
rel
ativ
ely
high
(U
SD 3
.3 m
illio
n/yr
for
fynb
os, 5
8 m
illio
n
for
natio
nal b
iodi
vers
ity)
, and
com
para
ble
with
gov
ernm
ent c
onse
rvat
ion
budg
ets.
W
TP in
crea
sed
dram
atic
ally
(to
up to
U
SD 1
5 m
illio
n an
d 26
3 m
illio
n/yr
, re
spec
tivel
y) w
hen
resp
onde
nts
wer
e
face
d w
ith th
e pr
edic
ted
impa
cts
of
clim
ate
chan
ge o
n bi
odiv
ersi
ty.
20Ad
ebis
i, A
., 20
04. A
cas
e st
udy
of G
arci
nia
kola
nut
pro
duc -
tion-
to-c
onsu
mpt
ion
syst
em in
J4
are
a of
Om
o Fo
rest
Res
erve
, so
uth-
wes
t Nig
eria
(Cha
pter
7)
. In:
Sun
derl
and,
T. a
nd
Ndo
ye, O
., Fo
rest
pro
duct
s,
livel
ihoo
ds a
nd c
onse
rvat
ion:
C
ase
stud
ies
from
non
-tim
ber
fore
st p
rodu
cts.
CIF
OR
, Bog
or,
Indo
nesi
a.
base
d on
da
ta fr
om
1990
-199
9
Nig
eria
(O
mo
Fore
st
Res
erve
, So
uthw
est
Nig
eria
)
Afr
ica
NTF
P (G
arci
nia
kola
Hec
kel n
uts
also
kno
wn
as
'bitt
er k
ola'
);
othe
r cu
ltur
al
serv
ices
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d;
NG
N 5
37.5
–687
.5 (U
SD 5
.37–
6.87
)/25
kg
bask
et o
r ab
out 2
,500
nut
s at
farm
gat
e; to
N
GN
2,0
16–2
,383
(USD
20.
16–2
3.83
)/25
kg
bask
et o
r ab
out 2
,500
nut
s fr
om it
iner
ant
vend
or
21D
eini
nger
, K.a
nd C
ham
orro
, J.
S., 2
004.
Inve
stm
ent a
nd
equi
ty e
ffec
ts o
f lan
d re
gula
risa
tion:
the
case
of
Nic
arag
ua. A
gric
ultu
ral
Econ
omic
s. 3
0(2)
: 101
–116
.
base
d on
da
ta fr
om
2000
Nic
arag
uaA
mer
icas
food
s;
fore
st ti
mbe
r;
past
oral
ism
/mea
t; so
il re
gula
tion
(fallo
w la
nd);
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d;
Rec
eipt
of r
egis
tere
d tit
le is
foun
d to
incr
ease
la
nd v
alue
s by
30%
and
at t
he s
ame
time
grea
tly
incr
ease
the
prop
ensi
ty to
inve
st,
brin
ging
suc
h in
vest
men
t clo
ser
to th
e op
timum
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
93
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
22H
olde
n, S
.and
Shi
fera
w, B
., 20
04. L
and
degr
adat
ion,
dr
ough
t and
food
sec
urit
y in
a
less
-fav
oure
d ar
ea in
the
Ethi
opia
n hi
ghla
nds:
a
bio-
econ
omic
mod
el w
ith
mar
ket i
mpe
rfec
tions
. Ag
ricu
ltur
al E
cono
mic
s. 3
0(1)
: 31
–49.
2002
(b
ased
on
data
from
19
86-2
000)
Ethi
opia
(h
ighl
ands
)A
fric
afo
ods;
pas
tora
lism
/m
eat;
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d; o
ppor
tu-
nity
cos
ts;
ETB
213
9 (n
o cr
edit
cons
trai
nt) t
o E
TB 2
679
(cre
dit c
onst
rain
t) lo
st in
dro
ught
yea
r
(res
p 0.
79 a
nd 0
.99%
of p
over
ty li
ne).
Loss
es
incr
ease
to E
TB 2
408
(no
cred
it co
nstr
aint
) to
ETB
255
8 (c
redi
t con
stra
int)
the
4th
year
af
ter
the
drou
ght y
ear
(res
p 0.
81 a
nd 0
.86%
of
pove
rty
line)
.
23M
oral
es, C
., D
asca
l, G
., A
rani
bar,
Z. a
nd M
orer
a, R
., 20
00. M
easu
ring
the
econ
omic
co
sts
of la
nd d
egra
datio
n an
d de
sert
ifica
tion
in s
elec
ted
Sout
h A
mer
ican
cou
ntri
es.
Sech
eres
se. 2
3(3)
: 168
–176
.
base
d on
da
ta fr
om
1985
-200
8
Latin
Am
eric
a/C
arib
bean
Am
eric
asfo
ods;
pa
stor
alis
m/m
eat
use
valu
e on
ly;
oppo
rtun
ity
cost
sla
nd d
egra
datio
n lo
wer
s ag
ricu
ltur
al G
DP
by
8–14
% a
nnua
lly
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
94
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
24Sp
ence
ly, A
. & B
arne
s, J
. 200
5.
Econ
omic
ana
lysi
s of
rhi
no
cons
erva
tion
in a
land
-use
co
ntex
t reg
ion.
SA
DC
Reg
iona
l P
rogr
amm
e fo
r R
hino
C
onse
rvat
ion.
Har
are,
Zi
mba
bwe.
2005
Sout
h A
fric
a,
Zim
babw
e,
Swaz
iland
, Ta
nzan
ia,
Mal
awi,
Bot
swan
a,
Zam
bia
Afr
ica
recr
eatio
n;
hunt
ing
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d
Con
trib
utio
n of
0.4
6–.0
60 (U
SD 2
004)
per
ha
/yr.
C
umul
ativ
e ne
t pro
fit fr
om th
e sa
le o
f 243
w
hite
rhi
no fr
om H
luhl
uwe-
Imfo
lozi
sin
ce
2000
was
USD
4,9
95,4
41, w
hile
the
net p
rofit
fr
om 1
3 bl
ack
rhin
o w
as U
SD 6
87,7
3123
(p
ublic
man
agem
ent)
. It s
houl
d be
not
ed
that
this
rev
enue
doe
s no
t acc
rue
dire
ctly
to
Hlu
hluw
e-Im
folo
zi P
ark,
but
cen
tral
ly to
KZN
W
ildlif
e. T
hus
profi
t gen
erat
ed b
y in
crea
sed
rhin
o po
pula
tions
due
to c
onse
rvat
ion
man
agem
ent i
n H
luhl
uwe-
Imfo
lozi
is u
sed
for
the
bene
fit o
f oth
er p
rote
cted
are
as in
the
prov
ince
too.
Si
nce
2002
, Phi
nda
(a p
riva
te c
ompa
ny) h
as
sold
14
whi
te r
hino
thro
ugh
nego
tiate
d sa
les.
Th
e av
erag
e pr
ice
over
3 y
ears
was
USD
17
,256
, pro
vidi
ng a
tota
l tur
nove
r of
USD
24
1,00
0, a
nd a
net
pro
fit o
f USD
192
,800
aft
er
dedu
ctin
g co
sts.
Not
e P
hind
a’s
perc
eptio
n th
at c
usto
mer
s pa
y pr
emiu
m v
alue
s fo
r P
hind
a’s
rhin
o be
caus
e th
ey w
ere
habi
tuat
ed
to v
ehic
les
(per
s. c
omm
. Pre
tori
us, 2
005)
.
25Tu
rpie
, J.K
., N
gaga
, Y.M
. &
Kar
anja
, F.K
. 200
5. C
atch
men
t ec
osys
tem
s an
d do
wns
trea
m
wat
er: T
he v
alue
of w
ater
re
sour
ces
in th
e P
anga
ni
Bas
in, T
anza
nia.
Wat
er, N
atur
e an
d Ec
onom
ics
Tech
nica
l P
aper
No.
7, I
UC
N. G
land
, Sw
itzer
land
,
2003
Tanz
ania
(P
anga
ni B
asin
)A
fric
aw
ater
sup
ply;
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d; b
enefi
t tr
ansf
er
Dep
ends
on
usag
e co
nsid
ered
– A
gric
ultu
re
alon
e co
ntri
bute
s TZ
S 3,
310,
977
mill
ion
(10,
000
TZS
= 1
USD
(200
3)).
Valu
e of
wat
er T
ZS 1
–2 m
illio
n/ha
.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
95
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
26C
osta
nza,
R.,
Wils
on, M
., Tr
oy,
A.,
Voin
ov, A
., Li
u, S
. and
D
’Ago
stin
o, J
. 200
6. T
he v
alue
of
New
Jer
sey'
s ec
osys
tem
se
rvic
es a
nd n
atur
al c
apita
l. G
und
Inst
itute
for
Ecol
ogic
al
Econ
omic
s. V
erm
ont,
Uni
ted
Stat
es.
2004
-200
6N
ew J
erse
y,
Uni
ted
Stat
esA
mer
icas
wat
er fl
ow
regu
latio
n;
pollu
tion
cont
rol;
soil
regu
latio
n;
othe
r re
gula
ting
serv
ices
; re
crea
tion;
am
enit
y
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; he
doni
c pr
ice
met
hod;
be
nefit
tran
sfer
; ag
greg
atio
n ac
ross
ser
vice
s;
The
serv
ices
pro
vide
d by
New
Jer
sey’
s ec
osys
tem
s ar
e w
orth
, at a
min
imum
, U
SD 1
1.6–
19.4
bill
ion/
year
. For
the
mos
t par
t, th
ese
serv
ices
are
not
cur
rent
ly a
ccou
nted
fo
r in
mar
ket t
rans
actio
ns.
27IU
CN
. 200
6. H
idde
n co
st is
va
lue
lost
. The
eco
nom
ic
impo
rtan
ce o
f dry
land
goo
ds
and
serv
ices
in th
e IG
AD
reg
ion
[Pol
icy
brie
f]. In
tern
atio
nal
Uni
on fo
r th
e C
onse
rvat
ion
of
Nat
ure.
Gla
nd, S
witz
erla
nd.
2006
IGA
D r
egio
nA
fric
apa
stor
alis
m/m
eat;
wat
er fl
ow
regu
latio
n; s
oil
regu
latio
n; c
limat
e re
gula
tion;
oth
er
regu
latin
g se
rvic
es
(mov
emen
t of
wild
life
and
hum
an
com
mun
ities
)
use
valu
e on
ly;
bene
fit tr
ansf
er;
An
estim
ate
of th
e va
lue
of g
oods
and
se
rvic
es d
eriv
ed a
nnua
lly fr
om d
ryla
nd
ecos
yste
ms
thro
ugh
the
prod
uctio
n of
liv
esto
ck w
ithin
eac
h IG
AD
cou
ntry
sho
ws
that
the
aver
age
asse
t val
ue o
f the
dry
land
s is
abo
ut U
SD 1
,500
–4,5
00/h
a (U
SD 2
007)
.
28O
dhia
mbo
, M. 2
006.
Rev
iew
of
the
liter
atur
e on
pas
tora
l ec
onom
ics
and
mar
ketin
g:
Ken
ya, T
anza
nia,
Uga
nda
and
the
Suda
n. R
epor
t pre
pare
d fo
r th
e W
orld
Initi
ativ
e fo
r Su
stai
nabl
e P
asto
ralis
m, I
UC
N
EA
RO
REC
ON
CIL
E, K
enya
.
2006
Ken
ya,
Tanz
ania
, U
gand
a,
Suda
n
Afr
ica
past
oral
ism
/mea
t;us
e va
lue
only
; ot
her
valu
atio
n m
etho
d (%
GD
P)
Tota
l con
trib
utio
n of
pas
tora
lism
for
lives
tock
pr
oduc
tion
in K
enya
is K
ES
4,85
2 m
illio
n (a
bout
8%
of t
he to
tal l
ives
tock
sec
tor
valu
e).
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
96
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
29C
ampo
s, P
., D
aly-
Has
sen,
H.
and
Ova
ndo,
P.,
2007
. Cor
k oa
k fo
rest
man
agem
ent i
n Sp
ain
and
Tuni
sia:
Tw
o ca
se s
tudi
es
of c
onfli
cts
betw
een
sust
ain-
abili
ty a
nd p
riva
te in
com
e.
Inte
rnat
iona
l For
estr
y R
evie
w.
9(2)
: 610
–626
.
2007
Spai
n (C
adiz
), Tu
nisi
a
(Ain
Sno
ussi
)
Euro
peN
TFP
(cor
k);
hunt
ing;
ot
her
cult
ural
se
rvic
es
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d;
oppo
rtun
ity
cost
s;
Cap
ital g
ain/
loss
from
cor
k oa
k fo
rest
pe
rman
ent n
atur
al r
egen
erat
ion
vers
us c
ork
oak
depl
etio
n (E
UR
200
2/ha
, pre
sent
di
scou
nted
val
ues)
: ran
ging
from
EU
R -
5,25
3.7/
ha (1
0% d
isco
unt r
ate)
to
EUR
14,
890.
3/ha
(1%
dis
coun
t rat
e).
30D
avie
s, J
. 200
7. T
otal
eco
nom
ic
valu
atio
n of
Ken
yan
past
oral
-is
m. W
orld
Initi
ativ
e fo
r Su
stai
nabl
e P
asto
ralis
m.
Glo
bal E
nvir
onm
ent F
acili
ty,
UN
EP, a
nd IU
CN
.
base
d on
da
ta fr
om
1997
-200
6
Ken
yaA
fric
afo
ods;
fo
rest
tim
ber;
pa
stor
alis
m/m
eat;
biod
iver
sity
/ ge
netic
res
ourc
es;
othe
r pr
ovis
ioni
ng
serv
ices
; ho
ney;
cl
imat
e re
gula
tion;
ot
her
regu
latin
g se
rvic
es;
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; co
ntin
gent
va
luat
ion;
mar
ket
pric
e m
etho
d;
miti
gatio
n co
sts;
op
port
unit
y co
sts
USD
499
/hou
selh
old/
yr fo
r ec
osys
tem
s;
USD
40,
625/
hous
elho
ld/y
r fo
r Li
vest
ock
asse
ts; U
SD 4
82/h
ouse
lhol
d/yr
for
lives
tock
sa
les;
USD
3,5
88/h
ouse
lhol
d/yr
for
lives
tock
pr
oduc
ts; U
SD 5
,578
/hou
selh
old/
yr fo
r tr
ee/
fore
st r
esou
rces
; USD
63/
hous
elho
ld/y
r fo
r ag
ricu
ltur
al p
rodu
ctio
n
31D
iao
X. a
nd S
arpo
ng D
.B.,
2007
. C
ost i
mpl
icat
ions
of a
gric
ultu
r -al
land
deg
rada
tion
in G
hana
. IF
PR
I Dis
cuss
ion
Pap
er 6
98.
Inte
rnat
iona
l Foo
d P
olic
y R
esea
rch
Inst
itute
, Was
hing
-to
n, D
.C.
data
from
19
89/1
999
and
2000
-200
4
Gha
naA
fric
afo
ods;
pa
stor
alis
m/m
eat;
soil
regu
latio
n
use
valu
e on
ly;
othe
r va
luat
ion
met
hod
(eco
nom
y-w
ide
mul
timar
ket
mod
el)
Land
deg
rada
tion
redu
ces
agri
cult
ural
in
com
e in
Gha
na b
y a
tota
l of U
SD 4
.2 b
illio
n ov
er th
e pe
riod
200
6–20
15, w
hich
is
appr
oxim
atel
y fiv
e pe
rcen
t of t
otal
agr
icul
-tu
ral G
DP
in th
ese
ten
year
s. S
oil l
oss
is
pred
icte
d to
incr
ease
s th
e po
vert
y ra
te b
y
5.4
perc
enta
ge p
oint
in 2
015
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
97
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
32D
o, T
.N.,
2007
. Im
pact
s of
dy
kes
on w
etla
nd v
alue
s in
Vi
etna
m’s
Mek
ong
Riv
er D
elta
: A
case
stu
dy in
the
Pla
in o
f R
eeds
(PhD
The
sis)
. Eco
nom
y an
d En
viro
nmen
t Pro
gram
for
Sout
heas
t Asi
a, S
inga
pore
.
base
d on
su
rvey
s in
20
06
Viet
nam
(Tra
m
Chi
m N
atio
nal
Par
k, P
lain
of
Ree
ds/M
ekon
g R
iver
Del
ta)
Asi
afo
ods;
bio
dive
rsit
y/ge
netic
res
ourc
es;
othe
r re
gula
ting
serv
ices
(gen
eral
ec
osys
tem
hea
lth)
;
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; m
arke
t pri
ce
met
hod
(cos
ts);
dose
-res
pons
e m
etho
d (p
rodu
c -tio
n fu
nctio
n);
choi
ce e
xper
imen
t (s
ocia
l ben
efits
); ot
her
valu
atio
n m
etho
d (c
osts
of
actio
n, tr
ansa
ctio
n co
sts)
;
The
prop
osed
par
k dy
ke c
onve
rsio
n of
Tr
am C
him
wou
ld r
educ
e ri
ce y
ield
by
0.
03 to
nnes
/ha/
yr o
r 1,
500
tonn
es/y
r fo
r lo
cal
farm
ers
in a
n ad
jace
nt a
rea
of 5
0,00
0 ha
ar
ound
the
park
. Thi
s in
com
e lo
ss o
f abo
ut
USD
91,
875/
yr, t
oget
her
with
com
pens
atio
n pa
id b
y th
e go
vern
men
t for
“fa
rmer
cha
ngin
g liv
elih
ood”
cos
ts (c
osts
of a
dapt
ing
to n
ew
cond
ition
s/jo
bs a
fter
the
dyke
con
vers
ion)
an
d en
gine
erin
g co
sts,
bri
ngs
the
tota
l co
sts
of th
e pr
opos
ed fi
ve-y
ear
prog
ram
me
to U
SD 3
.4 m
illio
n. O
n th
e ot
her
hand
, re
spon
dent
s ar
e w
illin
g to
pay
for
incr
ease
d bi
odiv
ersi
ty v
alue
s of
Tra
m C
him
res
ultin
g fr
om th
e pr
opos
ed c
hang
es in
dyk
e an
d w
etla
nd m
anag
emen
t. Th
e ag
greg
ated
no
n-m
arke
t val
ues
rang
e fr
om
USD
3.9
4–5
mill
ion,
sug
gest
ing
that
the
park
dy
ke c
onve
rsio
n ca
n ge
nera
te a
net
soc
ial
bene
fit.T
he c
onve
rsio
n fr
om h
igh
to lo
w
farm
dyk
es w
ould
red
uce
rice
yie
lds
by
0.24
tonn
es p
er h
a/yr
or
VND
0.9
8 m
illio
n
per
hous
ehol
d/yr
. In
addi
tion,
it w
ould
red
uce
the
inco
me
from
live
stoc
k re
arin
g. T
he
estim
ated
cos
t of t
he d
yke
conv
ersi
on w
ould
be
VN
D 1
5.4
mill
ion/
hous
ehol
d/yr
and
VN
D 6
14 b
illio
n or
USD
38.
4 m
illio
n fo
r th
e w
hole
Mek
ong
Riv
er D
elta
. On
the
othe
r ha
nd, t
he b
iodi
vers
ity
valu
es o
f all
wet
land
s in
the
Mek
ong
Riv
er D
elta
wer
e es
timat
ed a
t U
SD 4
1.7
mill
ion
and
USD
53
mill
ion
for
the
low
er a
nd h
ighe
r bo
unds
res
pect
ivel
y.
Ther
efor
e, th
e ne
t soc
ial b
enefi
ts w
ould
ra
nge
from
abo
ut U
SD 3
.3 –1
4.6
mill
ion.
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
98
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
33H
ein,
L. 2
007.
Ass
essi
ng th
e co
sts
of la
nd d
egra
datio
n: a
ca
se s
tudy
for
the
Pue
ntes
ca
tchm
ent,
sout
heas
t Spa
in.
Land
Deg
rada
tion
and
Dev
elop
men
t. 18
(6):
631–
642.
2003
Spai
n (P
uent
es
catc
hmen
t, so
uthe
aste
rn
Spai
n)
Euro
pefo
ods;
pas
tora
lism
/m
eat;
hort
icul
ture
; w
ater
flow
re
gula
tion;
soi
l re
gula
tion;
re
crea
tion;
hun
ting
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d; r
epla
ce-
men
t cos
t met
hod;
EUR
8–1
350/
ha/y
r (2
006)
. The
cos
ts o
f er
osio
n on
cro
plan
d va
ry fr
om a
roun
d
EUR
5/h
a/yr
on
slop
es b
etw
een
5 an
d 10
%,
to a
roun
d EU
R 5
0/ha
/yr
on s
lope
s be
twee
n 30
and
50%
.
34N
aido
o, R
. & Iw
amur
a, T
. 200
7.
Glo
bal-
scal
e m
appi
ng o
f ec
onom
ic b
enefi
ts fr
om
agri
cult
ural
land
s: Im
plic
a -tio
ns fo
r co
nser
vatio
n pr
iori
ties.
Bio
logi
cal C
onse
r-va
tion.
140
: 409
–49.
base
d on
da
ta fr
om
2005
Glo
bal
Wor
ldfo
ods;
pas
tora
lism
/m
eat;
oppo
rtun
ity
cost
s;Va
ried
from
0–6
,480
/ha,
with
a m
ean
55
/ha/
yr a
nd s
tand
ard
devi
atio
n of
13
0/ha
/yr
(USD
200
5)
35Ta
kim
oto.
200
7. C
arbo
n se
ques
trat
ion
pote
ntia
l of
agro
fore
stry
sys
tem
s in
the
Wes
t Afr
ican
Sah
el: A
n as
sess
men
t of b
iolo
gica
l and
so
cioe
cono
mic
feas
ibili
ty
(Doc
tora
l the
sis)
. Uni
vers
ity
of
Flor
ida.
Gai
nesv
ille,
USA
.
2003
-200
7Sa
hel
Afr
ica
clim
ate
regu
latio
n;
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d
C sa
le c
hang
ed th
e pr
ofita
bilit
y: U
SD 1
3.9
mor
e in
net
pre
sent
val
ue (N
PV)
of a
vera
ge-
size
live
fenc
e (2
91 m
), an
d 20
.5 m
ore
in N
PV
of a
vera
ge s
ize
fodd
er b
ank
(0.2
5 ha
). W
ith
the
acco
untin
g m
etho
d th
at is
in fa
vor
for
the
inve
stor
s, th
e ex
pect
ed p
rofit
s fr
om C
sal
e in
th
e sa
me
mod
el p
rodu
ced
an in
crea
se in
NP
V of
onl
y ab
out U
SD 0
.3 in
bot
h sy
stem
s, w
hich
is
alm
ost n
othi
ng fo
r a
25-y
ear
proj
ect e
ven
in th
e lo
cal c
urre
ncy
with
farm
er‘s
mon
etar
y va
lues
. Sen
sitiv
ity
anal
ysis
and
ris
k an
alys
is
show
ed th
at C
pri
ce d
id n
ot h
ave
a m
ajor
in
fluen
ce o
n ch
angi
ng th
e co
st a
nd b
enefi
t flo
w o
f bot
h sy
stem
s.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
99
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
36Ti
lahu
n, M
., O
lsch
ewsk
i, R
., K
lein
n, C
. and
Geb
rehi
wot
, K.,
2007
. Eco
nom
ic a
naly
sis
of
clos
ing
degr
aded
Bos
wel
lia
papy
rife
ra d
ry fo
rest
from
hu
man
inte
rven
tion:
A s
tudy
fr
om T
igra
y, N
orth
ern
Ethi
opia
. Fo
rest
Pol
icy
and
Econ
omic
s.
9: 9
96–1
005.
2003
Ethi
opia
(T
igra
y, T
anqu
a A
berg
elle
)
Afr
ica
food
s;
fore
st ti
mbe
r;
past
oral
ism
/mea
t; N
FTP
(fra
nkin
-ce
nse)
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d;
dose
-res
pons
e m
etho
d;
The
finan
cial
Net
Pre
sent
Val
ues
wer
e
8622
ETB
/ha
for
clos
ed a
nd 6
468
ETB
/ha
fo
r op
en fo
rest
land
s. R
ural
hou
seho
lds
ea
rn a
bout
74%
of t
he a
nnua
l tot
al r
even
ue
(ETB
/ha)
from
clo
sed
and
open
are
a as
wag
e fo
r ta
ppin
g an
d co
llect
ing
fran
kinc
ense
and
us
ing
of g
rass
.
37Yi
ng, Z
., 20
07. T
he o
ptim
al
fore
st e
colo
gica
l pro
gram
min
g in
Hai
nan
Pro
vinc
e. F
ores
try
Econ
omic
s. 1
76(0
3): 4
9–52
.
2007
Chi
na (H
aina
n pr
ovin
ce)
Asi
afo
rest
tim
ber;
bi
odiv
ersi
ty/g
enet
ic
reso
urce
s;
wat
er fl
ow
regu
latio
n;
soil
regu
latio
n;
clim
ate
miti
gatio
n;
othe
r re
gula
ting
serv
ices
(a
ir p
urifi
catio
n ca
paci
ty);
ot
her
cult
ural
se
rvic
es
use
valu
e on
ly;
othe
r va
luat
ion
met
hod
(sha
dow
pr
ice)
;
The
aver
age
shad
ow p
rice
rea
sona
bly
used
fo
r fo
rest
land
s of
diff
eren
t kin
d of
fore
sts
is
CN
Y 25
12.4
6/ha
, and
the
optim
al e
stim
atio
n pr
ice
for
spec
ial p
urpo
se fo
rest
is
CN
Y 43
76.0
4/ha
, whi
ch is
not
C
NY
6888
.50/
ha c
urre
ntly
.
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
100
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
38O
mon
di, I
., B
alte
nwec
k, I.
, D
ruck
er, A
.G.,
Oba
re, G
. and
Za
nder
K.K
. 200
8. E
cono
mic
va
luat
ion
of s
heep
gen
etic
re
sour
ces:
Impl
icat
ions
for
sust
aina
ble
utili
zatio
n. T
ropi
cal
Ani
mal
Hea
lth
and
Pro
duct
ion.
40
: 615
–626
.
2006
–200
7K
enya
(M
arsa
bit
dist
rict
)
Afr
ica
othe
r pr
ovis
ioni
ng
serv
ices
(val
ue o
f sh
eep
gene
tic
char
acte
rist
ics)
;
use
valu
e on
ly;
choi
ce e
xper
imen
t;D
isea
se r
esis
tanc
e im
plic
it va
lue
for
wel
fare
im
prov
emen
t of u
p to
KSh
s 15
37 m
ore
for
anim
als
that
nev
er g
et il
l in
the
rain
y se
ason
, w
hich
is s
imila
r to
the
actu
al a
vera
ge c
ost
paid
by
the
lives
tock
kee
pers
(KSh
s 18
98)
with
reg
ards
to h
ealt
h ca
re o
f the
ir s
tock
(p
urch
asin
g ve
teri
nary
dru
gs a
nd s
ervi
ces
–in
clud
ing
tick
cont
rol).
The
se h
ighe
r co
sts
are
pass
ed o
nto
lives
tock
pro
duce
rs b
ecau
se
of m
arke
t im
perf
ectio
ns c
ause
d by
hig
h tr
ansa
ctio
n co
sts
incu
rred
by
the
play
ers
in
the
anim
al h
ealt
h pr
oduc
ts a
nd s
ervi
ces
mar
ket.
Thes
e tr
ansa
ctio
n co
sts,
whi
ch
mig
ht b
e as
a r
esul
t of p
oor
infr
astr
uctu
re
that
cha
ract
eriz
e th
e st
udy
area
, are
se
emin
gly
tran
sfer
red
to th
e liv
esto
ck
prod
ucer
s w
ho r
esul
tant
ly p
ay m
ore
than
th
ey a
re w
illin
g to
pay
. D
roug
ht to
lera
nce
(ani
mal
’s “
body
con
ditio
n in
dry
sea
son”
): im
plic
itly
valu
ed a
t KSh
s 69
4 m
ore
for
stro
ng/g
ood
tole
ranc
e (p
in b
ones
an
d ri
bs n
ot o
utst
andi
ngly
vis
ible
) tha
n w
eak/
poor
tole
ranc
e (b
ony
with
ver
y co
nspi
cuou
s ri
bs),
whi
ch is
low
er th
an th
e lo
ss in
curr
ed
from
the
deat
h of
a s
heep
from
dro
ught
(p
erce
ived
equ
al to
KSh
s959
by
the
past
oral
-is
ts).
It is
ther
efor
e ec
onom
ical
ly w
orth
im
prov
ing
and/
or m
anag
ing
drou
ght
tole
ranc
e in
she
ep.
Fat d
epos
ition
trai
t: im
plic
itly
valu
ed a
t K
Shs
738
mor
e fo
r an
ani
mal
bod
y fu
ll of
fat
(mai
nly
arou
nd r
ibs,
bri
sket
/bre
ast,
belly
) th
an n
ot fu
ll of
fat.
Bod
y co
nfor
mat
ion
(“
rum
p sh
ape
and
size
”): i
mpl
icitl
y va
lued
at
KSh
s 54
8 m
ore
for
rum
ps th
at a
re b
ig r
ound
an
d er
ect/
rais
ed to
war
ds th
e re
ar e
nd th
an
for
rum
ps th
at a
re s
mal
l and
slo
ping
do
wnw
ards
tow
ards
the
rear
end
.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
101
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
39R
odri
guez
, L. 2
008
A gl
obal
pe
rspe
ctiv
e on
the
tota
l ec
onom
ic v
alue
of p
asto
ralis
m:
Glo
bal s
ynth
esis
rep
ort b
ased
on
six
cou
ntry
val
uatio
ns.
IUC
N. N
airo
bi, K
enya
.
2006
–200
8Et
hiop
ia,
Iran
, K
yrgy
zsta
n,
Mal
i,
Per
u,
Spai
n
Wor
ldpa
stor
alis
m/m
eat;
recr
eatio
nus
e va
lue
only
; ot
her
valu
atio
n m
etho
d (%
GD
P);
Res
ults
indi
cate
des
pite
the
wid
espr
ead
opin
ion
that
pas
tora
lism
is n
ot a
n ec
onom
i -ca
lly v
iabl
e or
rat
iona
l liv
elih
ood
it co
ntri
bute
s si
gnifi
cant
ly to
GD
P in
man
y de
velo
ping
co
untr
y ec
onom
ies:
e.g
. ~8.
5% in
Uga
nda,
9%
in
Eth
iopi
a,10
% in
Mal
i. Ec
onom
ic c
ontr
ibu-
tions
of p
asto
ralis
m d
epen
ds o
n im
port
ance
of
live
stoc
k an
d ag
ricu
ltur
al s
ecto
r.
40B
orre
sch,
R.,
Maa
s, S
., Sc
hmitz
, K. a
nd S
chm
itz, P
.M.
2009
. Mod
ellin
g th
e va
lue
of a
m
ultif
unct
iona
l lan
dsca
pe -
A
disc
rete
cho
ice
expe
rim
ent.
Con
trib
uted
pap
er p
repa
red
fo
r pr
esen
tatio
n at
the
Inte
rnat
iona
l Ass
ocia
tion
of
Agri
cult
ural
Eco
nom
ists
C
onfe
renc
e (A
ug 1
6–22
), B
eijin
g, C
hina
.
2007
Ger
man
y (W
ette
rau
regi
on)
Euro
pebi
odiv
ersi
ty/
gene
tic r
esou
rces
(p
lant
and
ani
mal
bi
odiv
ersi
ty);
w
ater
flow
re
gula
tion;
am
enit
y
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; ch
oice
ex
peri
men
t;
oppo
rtun
ity
cost
s
Impl
icit
pric
es o
f lan
dsca
pe fu
nctio
ns:
❚ P
lant
bio
dive
rsit
y (p
er p
lant
spe
cies
):
EUR
1.5
8 fo
r a
chan
ge to
the
next
bet
ter
leve
l.
❚ A
nim
al b
iodi
vers
ity
(per
% a
nim
al s
peci
es):
EUR
3.2
6 fo
r a
chan
ge to
the
next
bet
ter
leve
l
❚ W
ater
qua
lity
(per
mg/
l nitr
ate)
: EU
R 4
.24
for
a ch
ange
to th
e ne
xt b
ette
r le
vel
Impl
icit
pric
es o
f lan
dsca
pe a
esth
etic
s (c
hang
e fr
om c
urre
nt la
ndsc
ape
aest
hetic
s to
):
❚ G
rass
land
dom
inat
ed la
ndsc
ape:
EU
R 4
8.48
❚ M
ultif
unct
iona
lity
scen
ario
: EU
R 8
7.68
❚ H
igh
pric
e sc
enar
io (w
ith h
igh
rate
of
cere
als
area
): EU
R -1
6.43
❚ In
tens
ive
scen
ario
(with
larg
er fi
elds
):
EUR
-13.
17
Neg
ativ
e va
lues
indi
cate
that
the
resp
onde
nt
has
to b
e co
mpe
nsat
ed to
acc
ept t
he c
hang
e to
this
land
scap
e ae
sthe
tics
(cor
resp
onds
to
will
ingn
ess
to a
ccep
t for
tota
l sce
nari
os).
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
102
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
41B
rain
ard,
J., I
Bat
eman
, I.J
. and
Lo
vett
, A.A
. 200
9. T
he s
ocia
l va
lue
of c
arbo
n se
ques
tere
d in
G
reat
Bri
tain
's w
oodl
ands
. Ec
olog
ical
Eco
nom
ics.
68:
12
57–1
267.
base
d on
da
ta fr
om
2001
Gre
at B
rita
inEu
rope
clim
ate
regu
latio
n;us
e va
lue
only
; ot
her
valu
atio
n m
etho
d
(soc
ial v
alue
of
car
bon)
The
min
imum
sug
gest
ed N
PV
(dis
coun
t ra
te =
3%
and
soc
ial v
alue
of c
arbo
n =
1 (U
SD)
of G
B w
oodl
ands
alr
eady
exi
stin
g in
200
1 is
U
SD 8
2 m
illio
n, w
ith a
furt
her
USD
72
mill
ion
that
mig
ht b
e ad
ded
by fu
ture
aff
ores
tatio
n.
Thes
e fig
ures
ris
e dr
amat
ical
ly if
a d
isco
unt
rate
of 1
% a
nd s
ocia
l val
ue o
f seq
uest
ered
ca
rbon
= 1
09.5
/t (U
SD) a
re a
ssum
ed.
42Em
erto
n, L
., Er
dene
saik
han,
N
., D
e Ve
en, B
., Ts
ogoo
, D.,
Janc
hivd
orj,
L., S
uvd,
P.,
Enkh
tset
seg,
B.,
Gan
dolg
or, G
., D
oris
uren
, C.,
Sain
baya
r, D
. an
d En
khba
atar
., A
. 200
9. T
he
econ
omic
val
ue o
f the
Upp
er
Tuul
Eco
syst
em (M
ongo
lia).
Mon
golia
Dis
cuss
ion
Pap
ers,
Ea
st A
sia
and
Pac
ific
Sust
ain -
able
Dev
elop
men
t Dep
eart
-m
ent.
The
Inte
rnat
iona
l Ban
k fo
r R
econ
stru
ctio
n an
d D
evel
opm
ent.
Was
hing
ton,
D.C
.
2008
–200
9U
pper
Tuu
l R
egio
n,
Mon
golia
Asi
afo
rest
tim
ber;
pa
stor
alis
m/m
eat;
NTF
P;
wat
er s
uppl
y;
recr
eatio
n;
hunt
ing
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d;
aggr
egat
ion
acro
ss s
ervi
ces
The
stud
y fo
und
that
the
land
and
res
ourc
es
of th
e U
pper
Tuu
l cur
rent
ly c
ontr
ibut
e in
com
e an
d m
arke
ted
prod
ucts
wor
th a
roun
d
MN
T 28
bill
ion/
yr in
tour
ism
, her
ding
, and
fo
rest
-bas
ed s
ecto
rs. M
eanw
hile
, the
val
ue
of w
ater
use
in U
laan
baat
ar is
est
imat
ed to
be
wor
th M
NT
90 b
illio
n/yr
at t
he m
inim
um.
43Fe
to, M
.S.,
2009
. The
rol
e of
no
n tim
ber
fore
st p
rodu
cts
to
rura
l liv
elih
oods
and
fore
st
cons
erva
tion:
A c
ase
stud
y at
H
aran
a B
ullu
k D
istr
ict O
rom
ia
Nat
iona
l Reg
iona
l Sta
te,
Ethi
opia
(M.S
c. T
hesi
s). W
ondo
G
enet
Col
lege
of F
ores
try
and
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
e, W
ondo
G
enet
, Eth
iopi
a.
base
d on
da
ta fr
om
2007
–200
8
Ethi
opia
(H
aran
a B
ullu
k D
istr
ict,
Oro
mia
N
atio
nal
Reg
iona
l Sta
te)
Afr
ica
food
s;
past
oral
ism
/mea
t; ho
rtic
ultu
re
(cof
fee)
; ho
ney;
ot
her
prov
isio
ning
se
rvic
es (…
);
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d
(sub
stitu
te g
oods
);
The
tota
l ave
rage
ann
ual h
ouse
hold
inco
me
is E
TB 2
2,20
6. In
term
s of
con
trib
utio
n to
the
hous
ehol
d an
nual
inco
me,
cro
p pr
oduc
tion,
N
TFP
s (fo
rest
pro
duct
s), a
nd li
vest
ock
and
off f
arm
con
trib
uted
in th
e or
der
of th
eir
impo
rtan
ce 4
4 %
, 35%
, 14%
, and
7%
to th
e an
nual
hou
seho
ld in
com
e, r
espe
ctiv
ely.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
103
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
44M
mop
elw
a, G
., B
ligna
ut, J
.N.
and
Has
san,
R. 2
009.
Sou
th
Afr
ican
Jou
rnal
of E
cono
mic
an
d M
anag
emen
t Sci
ence
s.
12(2
): 24
2–25
5.
base
d on
da
ta fr
om
2003
Bot
swan
a (O
kava
ngo
Del
ta)
Afr
ica
food
s; fi
bers
; fo
rest
tim
ber;
ot
her
prov
isio
ning
se
rvic
es;
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d
The
aver
age
annu
al d
irec
t use
val
ue p
er
hous
ehol
d of
nat
ive
plan
ts h
arve
sted
, suc
h as
pal
m le
aves
for
bask
etry
, gra
ss fo
r th
atch
ing,
fuel
woo
d, e
dibl
e fr
uits
and
pla
nt
part
s us
ed b
y th
ree
villa
ges
adja
cent
to th
e O
kava
ngo
Del
ta d
urin
g th
e 20
03 c
alen
dar
year
is e
stim
ated
at U
SD 1
,434
/hou
seho
ld/y
r (o
r U
SD 4
3.41
/ha/
yr).
This
val
ue is
alm
ost
equa
l to
the
aver
age
hous
ehol
d fin
anci
al
inco
me
of U
SD 1
,416
/yea
r. Th
e ne
t pre
sent
va
lue
of th
e ov
eral
l ben
efit f
rom
the
dire
ct
use
of th
e ve
geta
tive
reso
urce
s is
est
imat
ed
at U
SD 1
01.9
mill
ion.
45N
orto
n-G
riffi
ths,
M. a
nd S
aid,
M
.Y.,
2009
. The
futu
re fo
r w
ildlif
e on
Ken
ya's
ran
gela
nds:
A
n ec
onom
ic p
ersp
ectiv
e, in
W
ild R
ange
land
s: C
onse
rvin
g w
ildlif
e w
hile
mai
ntai
ning
liv
esto
ck in
sem
i-ar
id
ecos
yste
ms
(eds
; du
Toit,
J.T
., K
ock,
R. a
nd D
euts
ch, J
.C.),
Jo
hn W
iley
and
Sons
Ltd
, C
hich
este
r, U
K.
2009
Ken
yaA
fric
afo
ods;
pa
stor
alis
m/m
eat;
recr
eatio
n
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d;
oppo
rtun
ity
cost
s;
Agri
cult
ural
: 1.9
3 bi
llion
of p
oten
tial r
ents
( =
Diff
eren
tial n
et r
etur
ns to
pro
duct
ion*
ar
ea p
oten
tially
ava
ilabl
e fo
r cu
ltiv
atio
n ou
tsid
e of
the
prot
ecte
d ar
eas)
, 67
0 m
illio
n/yr
(35%
of p
oten
tial)
have
bee
n fu
lly c
aptu
red.
Liv
esto
ck: 5
73 m
illio
n/yr
. W
ildlif
e: c
once
ssio
n an
d ac
cess
fees
pai
d to
la
ndho
lder
s by
the
tour
ism
car
tels
ave
rage
10
.2/h
a/yr
but
are
som
etim
es a
s hi
gh a
s
50/h
a/yr
. Pot
entia
l wild
life
rent
s to
land
-ho
lder
s ( =
Diff
eren
tial n
et r
etur
ns to
pr
oduc
tion*
are
as o
f the
ran
gela
nds
ac
tual
ly u
sed
by to
uris
ts) o
f bet
wee
n
20–1
00 m
illio
n/yr
.
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
104
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
46Sa
yadi
, S.,
Gon
zále
z-R
oa, M
.C.
and
Cal
atra
va-R
eque
na, J
., 20
09. P
ublic
pre
fere
nces
for
land
scap
e fe
atur
es: T
he c
ase
of a
gric
ultu
ral l
ands
cape
in
mou
ntai
nous
Med
iterr
anea
n ar
eas.
Lan
d U
se P
olic
y. 2
6(2)
: 33
4–34
4.
2002
Spai
n (m
ount
ain
area
of
the
Alpu
jarr
as)
Euro
peam
enit
y;(p
art o
f)
use
valu
e on
ly;
cont
inge
nt
valu
atio
n
Aver
age
WTP
of E
UR
31.
60/d
ay fo
r ac
com
mod
atio
ns w
ith v
iew
s of
the
mos
t hi
ghly
app
reci
ated
land
scap
e (la
ndsc
apes
w
ith a
n ir
riga
tion
agri
cult
ural
com
pone
nt o
n an
inte
rmed
iate
slo
pe w
ith a
vill
age
or
trad
ition
al h
ouse
s vi
sibl
e in
the
land
scap
e);
Aver
age
WTP
of E
UR
21.
48/d
ay fo
r th
e le
ast
valu
ed i.
e. la
ndsc
apes
of a
band
oned
ag
ricu
ltur
al la
nds
with
out a
ny v
illag
e in
vie
w
and
with
a s
teep
slo
pe
47SO
S Sa
hel E
thio
pia.
200
9.
Pas
tora
lism
in E
thio
pia:
It's
to
tal e
cono
mic
val
ue a
nd
deve
lopm
ent c
halle
nges
. W
orld
Initi
ativ
e fo
r Su
stai
nabl
e P
asto
ralis
m –
GEF
UN
EP a
nd
IUC
N.
2009
Ethi
opia
Afr
ica
past
oral
ism
/mea
t; fib
ers;
N
FTP
; re
crea
tion;
ot
her
cult
ural
se
rvic
es
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d; c
ontin
-ge
nt v
alua
tion;
The
sam
ple
hous
ehol
ds e
stim
ate
the
cu
rren
t val
ue o
f the
ir li
vest
ock
hold
ing
at
ETB
3.5
7 m
illio
n. M
ean
and
tota
l Max
imum
W
illin
gnes
s to
pay
by
the
past
oral
hou
se-
hold
s to
con
serv
e th
e E
xist
ing
Pas
ture
land
s is
ETB
148
.13
and
10,2
21/y
r, re
spec
tivel
y.
Alte
rnat
ivel
y, P
asto
ral h
ouse
hold
s ar
e w
illin
g to
con
trib
ute
som
e am
ount
of
lives
tock
in o
rder
to c
onse
rve
exis
ting
past
urel
ands
. The
ave
rage
and
tota
l m
axim
um a
mou
nt o
f mon
ey th
at th
e pa
stor
al
hous
ehol
ds a
re w
illin
g to
pay
per
ann
um is
E
TB 1
33 a
nd 9
,070
, res
pect
ivel
y, to
impr
ove
the
exis
ting
past
urel
ands
. Giv
en th
e to
tal
past
oral
hou
seho
lds
(abo
ut 1
.9 m
illio
n), t
he
tota
l am
ount
of m
oney
pas
tora
l hou
seho
lds
are
will
ing
to p
ay fo
r th
e im
prov
emen
t of t
he
exis
ting
past
urel
ands
is E
TB 2
53 m
illio
n (U
SD 2
8.1
mill
ion)
per
ann
um.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
105
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
48Ti
lahu
n, M
., Vr
anke
n, L
., M
uys,
B
., D
ecke
rs, J
., G
ebre
gzia
bher
, K
., K
. Geb
rehi
wot
, K.,
Bau
er,
H.a
nd M
athi
js, E
., 20
13. R
ural
ho
useh
olds
' dem
and
for
fran
kinc
ense
fore
st c
onse
rva-
tion
in T
igra
y, E
thio
pia:
A
cont
inge
nt v
alua
tion
anal
ysis
. La
nd D
egra
datio
n an
d D
evel
opm
ent (
onlin
e).
2009
Ethi
opia
(T
igra
y)A
fric
aN
TFP
(fran
kin -
cens
e);
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; co
ntin
gent
va
luat
ion;
A ho
useh
old
is w
illin
g to
pay
at l
east
U
SD 4
.86/
hous
ehol
d/yr
or
cont
ribu
te
7.17
labo
r da
ys/h
ouse
hold
/yr
whi
ch
amou
nts
to U
SD 6
.64/
hous
ehol
d/yr
at
per
capi
ta d
aily
inco
me.
49Ad
ams,
V.M
., P
ress
ey, R
.L. &
N
aido
o, R
. 201
0. O
ppor
tuni
ty
cost
s: W
ho r
eally
pay
s fo
r co
nser
vatio
n? B
iolo
gica
l C
onse
rvat
ion.
143
: 439
–448
.
2010
Par
agua
y (M
bara
cayu
Fo
rest
B
iosp
here
R
eser
ve)
Am
eric
asfo
ods;
pa
stor
alis
m/m
eat
use
valu
e on
ly;
oppo
rtun
ity
cost
s;
aggr
egat
ion
acro
ss s
ervi
ces;
Tota
l opp
ortu
nity
cos
ts fo
r th
e st
udie
d ar
ea
(nea
rly
300,
000
ha) r
ange
from
2,5
00,0
00–
6,00
0,00
0 (U
SD) s
umm
ed a
cros
s th
ree
land
us
es: s
mal
l hol
der
agri
cult
ure,
ran
chin
g an
d so
ybea
n fa
rmin
g) d
epen
ding
on
the
scen
ario
co
nsid
ered
.
50B
atke
r, D
., K
ocia
n, M
., M
cFad
den,
J. a
nd S
chm
idt,
R.
2010
. Val
uing
the
Pug
et S
ound
ba
sin
– R
evea
ling
our
best
in
vest
men
ts. E
arth
Eco
nom
ics.
Ta
com
a, U
SA.
2008
–201
0 (im
prov
ing
a 20
08
stud
y)
Was
hing
ton
Stat
e (P
uget
So
und)
, U
SA
Am
eric
asbi
odiv
ersi
ty/
gene
tic r
esou
rces
; ot
her
prov
isio
ning
re
sour
ces
(med
ical
); w
ater
flo
w r
egul
atio
n; s
oil
regu
latio
n; c
limat
e re
gula
tion;
po
llutio
n co
ntro
l; re
crea
tion;
am
enit
y
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; be
nefit
tran
sfer
;ag
greg
atio
n ac
ross
ser
vice
s
Par
tial v
alua
tion
of 1
4 ec
osys
tem
ser
vice
s ac
ross
17
land
cov
er ty
pes
in th
e P
uget
So
und
Bas
in s
how
s an
ann
ual fl
ow o
f U
SD 9
.7–8
3 bi
llion
. Pre
sent
val
ue o
f ec
osys
tem
ser
vice
of t
he P
uget
Sou
nd B
asin
es
timat
e ra
ngin
g fr
om U
SD 9
67 b
illio
n to
8.
3 tr
illio
n fo
r a
0% d
isco
unt r
ate
over
10
0 ye
ars;
and
from
USD
305
bill
ion
to
2.6
trill
ion
for
a 3%
dis
coun
t rat
e ov
er
100
year
s.
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
106
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
51B
haru
cha,
Z. a
nd P
rett
y, J
. 20
10. T
he r
oles
and
val
ues
of
wild
food
in a
gric
ultu
ral
syst
ems.
Phi
loso
phic
al
Tran
sact
ions
of t
he R
oyal
So
ciet
y. 3
65: 2
913–
2926
.
2010
(b
ased
on
data
from
19
80–2
009)
Asi
a an
d A
fric
aA
sia
and
Afr
ica
othe
r pr
ovis
ioni
ng
serv
ices
(wild
-fo
ods)
;
use
valu
e on
ly;
bene
fit tr
ansf
erFr
om th
e lim
ited
data
ava
ilabl
e, it
is c
lear
th
at w
ild p
lant
s an
d an
imal
s ca
n pr
ovid
e
USD
170
–90
0 (U
SD 2
009)
wor
th o
f val
ue to
ru
ral h
ouse
hold
s in
Sou
th A
fric
a an
d Ta
nzan
ia. I
n G
hana
, the
bus
hmea
t mar
ket
is w
orth
USD
275
mill
ion
annu
ally
.
52B
rand
er, L
. and
Sch
uyt,
K.
2010
. TEE
BC
ase:
Ben
efits
Tr
ansf
er: T
he e
cono
mic
val
ue
of th
e w
orld
’s w
etla
nds.
TEE
B.
Gen
eva,
Sw
itzer
land
.
2010
Glo
bal
Wor
ldfo
ods;
w
ater
sup
ply;
bi
odiv
ersi
ty/
gene
tic r
esou
rces
; ot
her
prov
isio
ning
se
rvic
es;
wat
er fl
ow
regu
latio
n;
soil
regu
latio
n;
clim
ate
egul
atio
n;
pollu
tion
cont
rol;
othe
r re
gula
ting
serv
ices
; re
crea
tion;
sp
iritu
al;
amen
ity;
ot
her
cult
ural
se
rvic
es
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; be
nefit
tran
sfer
;
The
tota
l eco
nom
ic v
alue
of 6
3 m
illio
n he
ctar
es o
f wet
land
aro
und
the
wor
ld
was
est
imat
ed a
t USD
3.4
bill
ion/
yr.
Wet
land
s in
Asi
a ha
ve th
e hi
ghes
t val
ue a
t U
SD 1
.8 b
illio
n/yr
. TE
V m
ay e
ven
be h
ighe
r, ba
sed
on th
e es
timat
e by
Ram
sar
of g
loba
l w
etla
nd a
rea
of 1
2.8
mill
ion
km s
q. In
this
ca
se, t
he T
EV
of th
e w
orld
’s w
etla
nds
can
be
estim
ated
at U
SD 7
0 bi
llion
/yr.
Sedi
men
t wet
-la
nds
have
the
high
est v
alue
s, fo
llow
ed b
y fr
eshw
ater
woo
ded
wet
land
s (U
SD 3
74 a
nd
USD
206
/ha/
yr r
espe
ctiv
ely)
(Sch
uyt a
nd
Bra
nder
, 200
4). T
he h
igh
valu
e of
Asi
an
wet
land
s ca
n be
exp
lain
ed b
y hi
gh p
opul
atio
n de
nsit
y, w
hich
to h
ave
a hi
gh d
eman
d fo
r w
etla
nd g
oods
/ser
vice
s, tr
ansl
atin
g in
to
high
er e
cono
mic
val
ues.
It m
ay a
lso
corr
espo
nd to
incr
easi
ng p
ress
ure
on
biod
iver
sity
and
oth
er im
port
ant w
etla
nd
valu
es (s
cien
tific,
soc
io-c
ultu
ral)
as w
ell a
s w
etla
nd’s
eco
logi
cal p
roce
sses
. The
inve
rse
appl
ies
for
Latin
Am
eric
an w
etla
nds,
re
sult
ing
in lo
wer
val
ues.
Pop
ulat
ion
dens
ity
is g
ener
ally
low
in L
atin
Am
eric
a an
d th
ere
is
a re
lativ
e ab
unda
nce
of w
etla
nds.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
107
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
53B
renn
er, J
., Ji
men
ez, J
.A.,
Sard
a, R
. and
Gar
ola,
A. 2
010.
A
n as
sess
men
t of t
he
non-
mar
ket v
alue
s of
ec
osys
tem
ser
vice
s pr
ovid
ed
by th
e C
atal
an C
oast
al Z
one,
Sp
ain.
Oce
an a
nd C
oast
al
Man
agem
ent.
53: 2
7–38
.
2010
Spai
n (C
atal
an)
Euro
pepo
llutio
n co
ntro
l; cl
imat
e re
gula
tion;
w
ater
flow
re
gula
tion;
so
il re
gula
tion;
ot
her
regu
latin
g se
rvic
es;
recr
eatio
n;
amen
ity;
sp
iritu
al
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; be
nefit
tran
sfer
(s
patia
l);
In 2
004
a su
bsta
ntia
l eco
nom
ic v
alue
of
USD
3,1
95 m
illio
n/yr
was
del
iver
ed to
loca
l ci
tizen
s by
sur
roun
ding
eco
syst
ems.
54B
irch
, J.C
., N
ewto
n, A
.C.,
Aqui
no, C
.A.,
Can
tare
llo, E
., Ec
heve
rría
, C.,
Kitz
berg
er, T
., Sc
hiap
paca
ssee
, I. a
nd T
ejed
or
Gar
avito
a, N
., 20
10. C
ost-
ef
fect
iven
ess
of d
ryla
nd fo
rest
re
stor
atio
n ev
alua
ted
by
spat
ial a
naly
sis
of e
cosy
stem
se
rvic
es. P
roce
edin
gs o
f the
N
atio
nal A
cade
my
of S
cien
ces.
10
7(50
): 21
925–
2193
0.
2010
Nah
uel
Hua
pi,
Río
Neg
ro/
Neu
quén
(Arg
entin
a),
El T
ablo
n,C
hiap
as(M
exic
o),
Cen
tral
Vera
cruz
(Mex
ico)
,Q
uilp
ue,
Valp
araí
sore
gion
(Chi
le)
Am
eric
ascl
imat
e re
gula
tion;
N
FTP
; fo
rest
tim
ber;
re
crea
tion;
hu
ntin
g;
past
oral
ism
/mea
t
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d; d
ose-
re
spon
se m
etho
d;
oppo
rtun
ity
cost
;
Net
pre
sent
val
ue o
f eco
syst
em s
ervi
ces
(USD
/ha/
yr) f
or 2
0-y
time
hori
zon
at 5
%
disc
ount
rat
e, e
xclu
ding
res
tora
tion
cost
s,
for:
❚ C
arbo
n se
ques
trat
ion:
USD
0–3
0/h/
yr;
❚ N
TFP:
USD
0.0
45–0
.065
/ha/
yr;
❚ tim
ber:
USD
0.1
–0.8
/ha/
yr;
❚ to
uris
m: U
SD 0
.3–1
.1/h
a/yr
;
❚ liv
esto
ck p
rodu
ctio
n: U
SD -
2.7–
0/ha
/yr.
Net
soc
ial b
enefi
t of r
esto
ratio
n (i.
e. th
e ne
t ch
ange
in v
alue
of t
he e
cosy
stem
ser
vice
s as
soci
ated
with
land
cov
er c
hang
e m
inus
the
cost
s as
soci
ated
with
ref
ores
tatio
n):
❚ fo
r pa
ssiv
e re
stor
atio
n: U
SD 5
–597
/ha/
yr;
❚ fo
r pa
ssiv
e re
stor
atio
n w
ith p
rote
ctio
n:
USD
-16
to -
496/
ha/y
r;
❚ fo
r ac
tive
rest
orat
ion:
USD
-21
–772
/ha/
yr.
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
108
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
55C
ross
man
, N.D
., C
onno
r, J.
D.,
Bry
an, B
.A.,
Sum
mer
s, D
.M.
and
Gin
niva
n, J
., 20
10.
Rec
onfig
urin
g an
irri
gatio
n la
ndsc
ape
to im
prov
e pr
ovis
ion
of e
cosy
stem
ser
vice
s.
Ecol
ogic
al E
cono
mic
s. 6
9(5)
: 10
31–1
042.
2009
Aust
ralia
(T
orru
mba
rry
Irri
gatio
n A
rea
in n
orth
ern
Vict
oria
, par
t of
the
Mur
ray
Dar
ling
Bas
in)
Oce
ania
food
s;
wat
er fl
ow
regu
latio
n;
use
valu
e on
ly;
dose
-res
pons
e m
etho
d;
miti
gatio
n co
sts;
be
nefit
tran
sfer
;
Mod
el e
stim
ates
a p
oten
tial i
ncre
ase
in n
et
pres
ent v
alue
of e
cosy
stem
ser
vice
s up
to
AUD
347
mill
ion
(hor
izon
of 3
0 ye
ars
at
disc
ount
rat
e of
7%
.). In
crea
se in
eco
syst
em
serv
ices
incl
ude
reco
veri
ng 6
2 G
L of
wat
er
for
envi
ronm
enta
l flow
s, s
eque
stra
tion
of
10.6
mill
ion
tonn
es o
f CO
2e/y
ear,
12 E
C
(μS/
cm) r
educ
tion
in r
iver
sal
init
y, a
nd 9
%
incr
ease
in th
e ag
ricu
ltur
e va
lue.
With
out a
sp
atia
lly ta
rget
ed p
lann
ing
appr
oach
a 2
0%
wat
er r
educ
tion
for
irri
gatio
n co
uld
resu
lt in
a
loss
of A
UD
68.
7 m
illio
n in
eco
nom
ic
retu
rns
to a
gric
ultu
re, m
ay o
nly
be m
argi
n-al
ly o
ffse
t by
incr
ease
d va
lue
of e
cosy
stem
se
rvic
es r
esul
ting
from
ret
urn
of 6
2 G
L of
w
ater
to th
e en
viro
nmen
t.
56C
roito
ru, L
. and
Dal
y-H
asse
n,
H.,
2010
. Usi
ng p
aym
ents
for
envi
ronm
enta
l ser
vice
s to
im
prov
e co
nser
vatio
n in
a
Tuni
sian
wat
ersh
ed. M
ount
ain
Foru
m B
ulle
tin. 1
0(1)
: 89–
91.
2009
Tuni
sia
(Bar
bara
w
ater
shed
)
Afr
ica
food
s;
soil
regu
latio
n;us
e va
lue
only
; m
arke
t pri
ce
met
hod;
m
itiga
tion
cost
s;
Net
ret
urns
from
alte
rnat
ive
land
use
s:
❚ C
erea
ls w
ith n
o co
nser
vatio
n m
easu
re in
gu
llies
: TN
D 8
15/h
a fo
r fa
rmer
s;
TND
-55
/ha
for
natio
nal e
cono
my
afte
r se
dim
enta
tion
cost
s
❚ C
erea
ls w
ith s
tone
wal
ls in
gul
lies:
TN
D -
330/
ha fo
r fa
rmer
s; T
ND
-43
0/ha
for
natio
nal e
cono
my
afte
r se
dim
enta
tion
cost
s
❚ C
erea
ls w
ith s
tone
wal
ls a
nd a
caci
a in
gu
llies
: TN
D -
450/
ha fo
r fa
rmer
s;
TND
-38
0/ha
for
natio
nal e
cono
my
afte
r se
dim
enta
tion
cost
s
❚ C
erea
ls w
ith a
caci
a in
gul
lies:
TN
715
/ha
for
farm
ers;
TN
D 1
60/h
a fo
r th
e na
tiona
l ec
onom
y af
ter
sed.
cos
ts
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
109
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
57M
obar
ghei
, N.,
Liag
hati,
H. a
nd
Moh
seni
, A.S
. 201
0. E
stim
atin
g th
e w
ater
con
serv
atio
n va
lue
of
fore
st e
cosy
stem
s. P
rese
nted
at
the
"Wor
ld F
ood
Syst
em –
A
Con
trib
utio
n fr
om E
urop
e",
Sept
, 14–
16, 2
010.
Zur
ich,
Sw
itzer
land
.
2010
Iran
(Cas
pian
fo
rest
)A
sia
wat
er s
uppl
y;
wat
er fl
ow
regu
latio
n
use
valu
e on
ly;
repl
acem
ent c
ost
met
hod;
IRR
102
,000
(deg
rade
d fo
rest
) – 4
64,0
0 (e
rode
d pa
stur
e)/h
a/ye
ar (I
RR
201
0).
58R
olfe
, J. 2
010.
Val
uing
re
duct
ions
in w
ater
ext
ract
ions
fr
om g
roun
dwat
er b
asin
s w
ith
bene
fit tr
ansf
er: T
he G
reat
A
rtes
ian
Bas
in in
Aus
tral
ia.
Wat
er R
esou
rces
Res
earc
h.
46(6
): W
0630
1.
2009
Aust
ralia
(G
reat
Art
esia
n B
asin
)
Oce
ania
wat
er s
uppl
y;
wat
er fl
ow
regu
latio
n;
clim
ate
regu
latio
n;
othe
r re
gula
ting
serv
ices
(bio
dive
r-si
ty p
rote
ctio
n);
othe
r cu
ltur
al
serv
ices
(Abo
rigi
-na
l cul
tura
l he
rita
ge);
use
valu
e on
ly;
bene
fit tr
ansf
er;
Dir
ect u
se v
alue
s fo
r re
crea
tion
and
tour
ism
: be
twee
n 0.
4–0.
7 m
illio
n/yr
(AU
D 2
007)
. B
iodi
vers
ity
prot
ectio
n va
lues
for
nativ
e bi
odiv
ersi
ty: A
UD
10.
3 m
illio
n pe
r an
num
fo
r ar
tesi
an s
prin
g ec
osys
tem
s an
d
5.8
mill
ion/
yr fo
r on
e en
dang
ered
spe
cies
. B
iodi
vers
ity
prot
ectio
n va
lues
for
rem
oval
of
pest
s an
d w
eeds
: val
ue in
clud
ed in
est
imat
es
of b
iodi
vers
ity
bene
fits
Opt
ion
valu
es, f
or
both
futu
re u
se a
nd n
onus
e pu
rpos
es:
AUD
0.2
mill
ion/
yr fo
r a
0.76
% c
hang
e in
to
tal w
ater
sto
cks
over
25
year
s.
Ecos
yste
m s
ervi
ces
linke
d to
the
redu
ctio
n in
gr
eenh
ouse
gas
em
issi
ons:
app
roxi
mat
ely
AUD
1.1
4 m
illio
n/yr
in c
ost r
educ
tions
to
mee
t em
issi
on ta
rget
s if
redu
ctio
n in
gr
eenh
ouse
em
issi
ons
is a
ccou
nted
for
in
natio
nal t
arge
ts a
nd tr
adin
g ca
ps.
Cul
tura
l her
itage
pro
tect
ion
valu
es:
impo
rtan
t, bu
t lac
k of
dat
a do
es n
ot a
llow
as
sess
men
t. C
omm
unit
y pr
otec
tion
valu
es:
impo
rtan
t, bu
t not
rel
ated
to c
hang
ing
pres
sure
leve
ls.
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
110
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
59B
arro
w, E
. and
Sha
h, A
., 20
11.
TEEB
case
: Tra
ditio
nal f
ores
t re
stor
atio
n in
Tan
zani
a. w
ww
.te
ebw
eb.o
rg.
2011
Tanz
ania
(S
hiny
anga
re
gion
)
Afr
ica
fore
st ti
mbe
r;
past
oral
ism
/mea
t; bi
ofue
ls;
hort
icul
ture
; ho
ney;
ot
her
prov
isio
ning
se
rvic
es;
clim
ate
regu
latio
n;
wat
er fl
ow
regu
latio
n;
soil
regu
latio
n;
othe
r cu
ltur
al
serv
ices
;
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d;
oppo
rtun
ity
cost
s;
The
econ
omic
val
ue o
f a r
esto
red
Ngi
tili
is U
SD 1
4/pe
rson
/mon
th, w
hile
na
tiona
l ave
rage
rur
al c
onsu
mpt
ion
is
USD
8.5
0/pe
rson
/mon
th.
60B
enne
tt, J
., W
ang
X., G
uaan
g -cu
i, D
., Xi
e, C
., Xu
, J.,
Zhan
g, H
., G
uo, H
.and
Eig
enra
am, M
., 20
11. I
mpr
ovin
g th
e ef
ficie
ncy
of la
nd u
se c
hang
e in
Chi
na.
Fina
l Rep
ort.
Aust
ralia
n G
over
nmen
t. Au
stra
lian
Cen
tre
for
Inte
rnat
iona
l Agr
icul
tura
l R
esea
rch.
Can
berr
a, A
ustr
alia
.
2009
-201
1C
hina
(S
ichu
an
prov
ince
, so
uthw
est)
Asi
afo
ods;
fo
rest
tim
ber;
ot
her
prov
isio
ning
se
rvic
es;
othe
r re
gula
ting
serv
ices
(a
ir q
ualit
y)
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; ch
oice
exp
eri-
men
t;
n/a
(ave
rage
cos
t sav
ings
of C
NY
84.6
per
la
nd u
nit w
hen
carr
ying
out
land
man
age-
men
t and
aff
ores
tatio
n sc
hem
es).
61G
asco
igne
, W.R
., H
oag,
D.,
Koo
ntz,
L.,
Tang
en, B
.A.,
Shaf
fer,
T.L.
and
Gle
ason
, R.A
., 20
11. V
alui
ng e
cosy
stem
and
ec
onom
ic s
ervi
ces
acro
ss
land
-use
sce
nari
os in
the
Pra
irie
Pot
hole
Reg
ion
of th
e D
akot
as, U
SA. E
colo
gica
l Ec
onom
ics.
70(
10):
1715
–172
5.
2010
(b
ased
on
data
from
20
00,
2007
–200
8)
Pra
irie
Pot
hole
R
egio
n of
the
Dak
otas
, U
SA
Am
eric
asbi
odiv
ersi
ty
(wat
erfo
wl);
cl
imat
e re
gula
tion;
so
il re
gula
tion;
re
crea
tion;
hu
ntin
g
use
valu
e on
ly;
dose
-res
pons
e m
etho
d;
bene
fit tr
ansf
er;
Ove
rall
net p
rese
nt v
alue
val
ue r
angi
ng fr
om
USD
-14.
17/h
a fo
r E
xten
sive
Con
vers
ion
to
3.63
/ha
for
Aggr
essi
ve C
onse
rvat
ion.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
111
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
62G
herm
andi
, A. &
Nun
es, P
. 20
11. A
glo
bal m
ap o
f coa
stal
re
crea
tion
valu
es: R
esul
ts
from
a s
patia
lly e
xplic
it ba
sed
met
a-an
alys
is. F
onda
zion
e En
i En
rico
Mat
tei.
Mila
n, It
aly.
2010
Glo
bal
Wor
ldre
crea
tion;
use
valu
e on
ly;
bene
fit tr
ansf
er;
aggr
egat
ion
acro
ss s
ervi
ces;
Estim
ated
val
ues
for
coas
tal e
cosy
stem
s
up to
USD
71,
112/
ha/y
r.
63K
assi
e, M
., K
ohlin
, G.,
Bul
ffst
one,
R. a
nd H
olde
n, S
., 20
11. A
re s
oil c
onse
rvat
ion
tech
nolo
gies
“W
in-W
in?”
A
case
stu
dy o
f Anj
eni i
n th
e no
rthe
rn w
este
rn E
thio
pian
hi
ghla
nds.
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es
Foru
m. 3
5: 8
9–99
.
2001
Ethi
opia
(A
mha
ra
regi
on;
Dis
tric
t: D
embe
cha;
Lo
catio
n:
Anj
eni)
Afr
ica
food
s;us
e va
lue
only
; do
se-r
espo
nse
met
hod
Sust
aina
ble
land
man
agem
ent p
ract
ice
(Fan
ya ju
u te
rrac
es) h
ave
the
pote
ntia
l to
redu
ce n
et c
rop
inco
me
in th
e ra
nge
of E
TB
74–1
28/h
a.
64Li
ljens
tolp
e., C
. 201
1. V
alua
tion
of e
nvir
onm
enta
l im
pact
s of
th
e R
ural
Dev
elop
men
t P
rogr
am -
A h
edon
ic m
odel
w
ith a
pplic
atio
n of
GIS
. Pap
er
prep
ared
for
the
122n
d E
AA
E Se
min
ar “
Evid
ence
-bas
ed
agri
cult
ural
and
rur
al p
olic
y m
akin
g m
etho
dolo
gica
l and
em
piri
cal c
halle
nges
of p
olic
y ev
alua
tion.
” A
ncon
a, It
aly.
2011
Swed
enEu
rope
amen
ity;
use
valu
e on
ly;
hedo
nic
pric
e m
etho
d
Acco
mm
odat
ion
stan
dard
SEK
0,1
06/u
pgra
de
❚ U
rban
: SEK
-0,
050
whe
n cl
ose
to u
rban
ar
eas
❚ A
nim
al: S
EK 0
,102
whe
n an
imal
s ar
e pr
esen
t on
the
farm
❚ R
ipar
ian
with
500
0 m
buf
fer
zone
: SE
K 0
,342
e–2
for
incr
ease
d bu
ffer
zon
e
❚ C
ultiv
ated
land
with
500
m b
uffe
r zo
ne:
SEK
-0,
030
for
incr
ease
d bu
ffer
zon
e
❚ Se
mi n
atur
al p
astu
res
with
300
m b
uffe
r zo
ne: S
EK -
0,45
2e–2
for
incr
ease
d bu
ffer
zo
ne
❚ G
razi
ng la
nds
with
300
m b
uffe
r zo
ne:
SEK
-0,
408e
–2 fo
r in
crea
sed
buff
er z
one.
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
112
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
65M
a, S
. and
Sw
into
n, S
.M. 2
011.
Va
luat
ion
of e
cosy
stem
se
rvic
es fr
om r
ural
land
-sc
apes
usi
ng a
gric
ultu
ral l
and
pric
es. E
colo
gica
l Eco
nom
ics.
70
: 164
9–16
59.
base
d on
da
ta fr
om
2003
–200
7
Mic
higa
n (s
outh
wes
t),
USA
Am
eric
asfo
ods;
fo
rest
tim
ber;
pa
stor
alis
m/m
eat;
wat
er s
uppl
y;
othe
r pr
ovis
ioni
ng
serv
ices
; w
ater
flow
re
gula
tion;
so
il re
gula
tion;
po
llutio
n co
ntro
l; cl
imat
e re
gula
tion;
ot
her
regu
latin
g se
rvic
es;
recr
eatio
n;
hunt
ing;
am
enit
y
use
valu
e on
ly;
hedo
nic
pric
e m
etho
d
Sale
s pr
ice
of U
SD 1
577–
108,
104/
ha (U
SD
2003
).
66M
ajul
e, A
.E.,
Yand
a, P
.Z.,
Kan
gala
we,
R.Y
.M. a
nd L
okin
a,
R. 2
011.
Eco
nom
ic v
alua
tion
asse
ssm
ent o
f lan
d re
sour
ces,
ec
osys
tem
s se
rvic
es a
nd
reso
urce
deg
rada
tion
in
Tanz
ania
. Glo
bal M
echa
nism
. R
ome,
Ital
y.
2011
Tanz
ania
Afr
ica
food
s
(cro
ps a
nd fi
sh);
fore
st ti
mbe
r;
biod
iver
sity
/gen
etic
re
sour
ces;
w
ater
flow
re
gula
tion;
cl
imat
e re
gula
tion;
re
crea
tion;
am
enit
y
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d
Exi
sten
ce v
alue
: USD
2/h
a/yr
to 4
5/ha
/yr
and
4400
/ha/
yr (U
SD) f
or u
niqu
e si
tes
Tota
l lan
d co
ver
of 7
, 643
, 115
ha:
❚
Pro
visi
onin
g se
rvic
es v
alue
is
USD
1,4
49,3
79,3
89/y
ear
❚ W
ater
reg
ulat
ion
valu
e is
U
SD 9
08,5
82,7
00/y
ear
❚ B
iodi
vers
ity
valu
e is
U
SD 6
5,31
8,10
6,00
8/ye
ar
❚ To
uris
m &
Cul
tura
l/Ae
sthe
tic v
alue
is
USD
91,
466,
196/
year
❚ C
arbo
n se
ques
trat
ion
(on
tota
l sto
ck v
alue
) is
USD
44,
837
,504
,000
❚ To
tal v
alue
of 1
12,6
05,0
38,2
93, o
r
USD
1,4
73,2
87/h
a.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
113
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
67M
ekur
ia, W
., Ve
ldka
mp,
E.,
Tila
hun,
M. a
nd O
lsch
ewsk
i, R
., 20
11. E
cono
mic
val
uatio
n of
la
nd r
esto
ratio
n: T
he c
ase
of
excl
osur
es e
stab
lishe
d on
co
mm
unal
gra
zing
land
s in
Ti
gray
, Eth
iopi
a. L
and
Deg
rada
tion
and
Dev
elop
men
t. 22
(3):
334–
344.
2008
Ethi
opia
(N
orth
ern
Hig
hlan
ds o
f Ti
gray
)
Afr
ica
clim
ate
regu
latio
n;
soil
regu
latio
nus
e va
lue
only
; m
arke
t pri
ce
met
hod;
oth
er
valu
atio
n m
etho
d;
The
Net
Pre
sent
Val
ue o
f exc
losu
re’s
ec
osys
tem
ser
vice
s un
der
cons
ider
atio
n
(i.e.
res
tore
soi
l nut
rien
ts a
nd to
seq
uest
er
carb
on fr
om th
e at
mos
pher
e) w
as a
bout
28
per
cen
t (U
SD 8
37) h
ighe
r th
an a
ltern
ativ
e w
heat
pro
duct
ion.
68N
gugi
, G.W
., N
ewto
n, L
.E. a
nd
Mua
sya,
A.M
., 20
11. T
he
cont
ribu
tion
of fo
rest
pro
duct
s to
dry
land
hou
seho
ld e
cono
my:
Th
e ca
se o
f Kia
ng’o
mbe
hill
fo
rest
, Ken
ya. E
thno
bota
ny
Res
earc
h an
d A
pplic
atio
ns.
9: 1
63–1
80.
2011
Ken
ya
(Kia
ng’o
mbe
hi
ll fo
rest
)
Afr
ica
food
s;
fibre
s;
fore
st ti
mbe
r;
past
oral
ism
/mea
t; ho
rtic
ultu
re;
hone
y;
othe
r pr
ovis
ioni
ng
serv
ices
; hu
ntin
g;
othe
r cu
ltur
al
serv
ices
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; co
ntin
gent
va
luat
ion;
ot
her
valu
atio
n m
etho
d (p
artic
ipa-
tory
)
Aver
age
of K
Sh 1
6,17
5.56
/hou
seho
ld/y
r
(USD
256
.8/h
ouse
hold
/yr)
.
69P
olas
ky, S
., N
elso
n, E
., P
enni
ngto
n, D
. and
Joh
nson
, K
.A.,
2011
. The
impa
ct o
f la
nd-u
se c
hang
e on
eco
syst
em
serv
ices
, bio
dive
rsit
y an
d re
turn
s to
land
owne
rs: A
cas
e st
udy
in th
e st
ate
of M
inne
sota
. En
viro
nmen
tal a
nd R
esou
rce
Econ
omic
s. 4
8: 2
19–2
42.
base
d on
da
ta fr
om
1992
-200
1
Min
neso
ta
(USA
)A
mer
icas
fore
st ti
mbe
r;
clim
ate
regu
latio
n;
wat
er fl
ow
regu
latio
n;
soil
regu
latio
n;
othe
r re
gula
ting
serv
ices
; ot
her
cult
ural
se
rvic
es (u
rban
de
velo
pmen
t)
use
valu
e on
ly;
dose
-res
pons
e m
etho
d;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d;
oppo
rtun
ity
cost
s
Ret
urns
to la
ndow
ners
are
hig
hest
in a
sc
enar
io w
ith la
rge-
scal
e ag
ricu
ltur
al
expa
nsio
n. T
his
scen
ario
, how
ever
, gen
er-
ated
the
low
est n
et s
ocia
l ben
efits
acr
oss
all
scen
ario
s co
nsid
ered
bec
ause
of l
arge
lo
sses
in s
tore
d ca
rbon
and
neg
ativ
e im
pact
s on
wat
er q
ualit
y. F
urth
er, t
his
scen
ario
re
sulte
d in
the
larg
est d
eclin
e in
hab
itat
qual
ity
for
gene
ral t
erre
stri
al b
iodi
vers
ity
and
fore
st s
ongb
irds
.
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
114
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
70So
ussa
n, J
. & S
am, C
. 201
1.
The
valu
es o
f lan
d re
sour
ces
in
the
Car
dam
om m
ount
ains
in
Cam
bodi
a. G
loba
l Mec
hani
sm.
Min
istr
y of
Agr
icul
ture
, Fi
sher
ies
and
Fore
sts
(Cam
bodi
a), G
loba
l M
echa
nism
, Con
serv
atio
n In
tern
atio
nal a
nd th
e A
sian
D
evel
opm
ent B
ank.
2010
Cam
bodi
aA
sia
food
s;
fore
st ti
mbe
r;
past
oral
ism
/mea
t; ho
rtic
ultu
re;
NTF
P;
wat
er s
uppl
y;
wat
er fl
ow
regu
latio
n;
clim
ate
regu
latio
n;
soil
regu
latio
n (fe
rtili
ty, e
rosi
on
prot
ectio
n);
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; be
nefit
tran
sfer
; ag
greg
atio
n ac
ross
ser
vice
s
USD
5,0
00 (U
SD 2
010)
per
ha/
year
.
71Sz
erén
yi Z
.M.,
Ker
ekes
S.,
Flac
hner
Z. a
nd M
ilton
S.,
2011
. Th
e po
ssib
ility
of t
he e
cono
mic
ev
alua
tion
of e
cosy
stem
se
rvic
es d
escr
ibed
thro
ugh
a do
mes
tic c
ase
stud
y. In
: N
agy,
G.G
. and
Kis
s, V
. (ed
s.),
Bor
row
ing
serv
ices
from
na
ture
- M
etho
dolo
gies
to
eval
uate
focu
sing
on
Hun
gari
an c
ase
stud
ies.
C
EEw
eb fo
r B
iodi
vers
ity,
B
udap
est,
Hun
gary
.
base
d on
da
ta fr
om
1965
–201
0
Hun
gary
Euro
pew
ater
flow
re
gula
tion;
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; co
ntin
gent
va
luat
ion;
ch
oice
exp
eri-
men
t;
Con
tinge
nt v
alua
tion:
Ave
rage
will
ingn
ess
to
pay
of H
UF
6,53
3/ho
useh
old/
year
; ran
ging
fr
om H
UF
2,55
2/ho
useh
old/
year
for
non-
user
s to
HU
F 7,
094/
hous
ehol
d/ye
ar fo
r us
ers.
Cho
ice
expe
rim
ent:
HU
F 0
for
redu
ctio
n of
floo
d fr
eque
ncy;
ove
r EU
R 2
1.2
(HU
F 5,
300)
/hou
seho
ld/y
ear
for
wat
er q
ualit
y im
prov
emen
t fro
m m
ediu
m to
goo
d/ve
ry
good
.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
115
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
72Ta
it, P
., B
aska
ran,
R.,
Cul
len,
R
. and
Bic
knel
l, K
., 20
11.
Valu
atio
n of
agr
icul
tura
l im
pact
s on
riv
ers
and
stre
ams
usin
g ch
oice
mod
ellin
g: A
New
Ze
alan
d ca
se s
tudy
. New
Ze
alan
d Jo
urna
l of A
gric
ultu
ral
Res
earc
h. 5
4(3)
: 143
–154
.
2008
New
Zea
land
(C
ante
rbur
y re
gion
)
Oce
ania
wat
er fl
ow
regu
latio
n;
othe
r re
gula
ting
serv
ices
(hea
lth,
ex
cess
nut
rien
ts in
ri
vers
);
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; ch
oice
exp
erim
ent
Aver
age
WTP
in N
ZD 2
008
(Low
er, u
pper
qu
artil
es o
f WTP
dis
trib
utio
ns) f
or:
❚ R
isk
of p
atho
gens
from
ani
mal
was
te 1
0:
NZD
27/
hous
ehol
d/yr
(20,
35)
❚ lo
w-fl
ow ir
riga
tion
impa
cts
1:
NZD
52/
hous
ehol
d/yr
(42,
66)
❚ ec
olog
ical
eff
ects
of e
xces
s nu
trie
nts
good
: N
ZD 8
4/ho
useh
old/
yr (6
2, 1
05)
❚ ec
olog
ical
eff
ects
of e
xces
s nu
trie
nts
fair
: N
ZD 6
4/ho
useh
old/
yr (5
0, 8
0)
Aver
age
annu
al h
ouse
hold
com
pens
atin
g su
rplu
s in
NZD
200
8 (L
ower
, upp
er q
uart
ile
of c
ompe
nsat
ing
surp
lus
dist
ribu
tion)
:
❚ M
anag
emen
t fai
r: N
ZD 1
54 (1
25, 1
87)
❚ M
anag
emen
t goo
d: N
ZD 2
13 (1
69, 2
60)
73W
atso
n, R
. and
Alb
on, S
. (le
ad
auth
ors)
, 201
1. T
he U
K N
atio
nal
Ecos
yste
m A
sses
smen
t: Sy
nthe
sis
of th
e K
ey F
indi
ngs.
p.
42-
44. U
K N
atio
nal
Ecos
yste
m A
sses
smen
t, C
ambr
idge
.
2010
Wal
es (U
K)
Euro
pefo
ods;
fo
rest
tim
ber;
pa
stor
alis
m/m
eat;
recr
eatio
n;
amen
ity/l
ands
cape
;
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; m
arke
t pri
ce
met
hod;
ag
greg
atio
n ac
ross
ser
vice
s
rang
ing
from
‹ -5
0/ha
/yr
to
› + 1
00 G
BP/
ha/y
r.
74W
atso
n, R
. and
Alb
on, S
. (le
ad
auth
ors)
, 201
1. T
he U
K N
atio
nal
Ecos
yste
m A
sses
smen
t: Sy
nthe
sis
of th
e K
ey F
indi
ngs.
p.
49–
52. U
K N
atio
nal
Ecos
yste
m A
sses
smen
t, C
ambr
idge
.
2010
Gre
at B
rita
in
(UK
)Eu
rope
food
s;
fibre
s;
fore
st ti
mbe
r;
biod
iver
sity
/ ge
netic
res
ourc
es;
clim
ate
regu
latio
n;
recr
eatio
n;
amen
ity
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; m
arke
t pri
ce
met
hod;
ag
greg
atio
n ac
ross
ser
vice
s
Ran
ge fr
om G
PB
-20
,670
/yr
to G
PB
32,
980/
yr
depe
ndin
g on
sce
nari
o.
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
116
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
75W
OC
AT, 2
011.
Pla
ntin
g pi
ts a
nd
ston
e lin
es: N
iger
– T
assa
ave
c co
rdon
pie
rreu
x. S
WC
Te
chno
logy
.
1999
, up
date
d 20
04
Nig
er (T
ahou
a)A
fric
afo
ods;
w
ater
flow
re
gula
tion;
so
il re
gula
tion
use
valu
e on
ly;
othe
r va
luat
ion
met
hod
(cos
ts o
f ac
tion)
;
Esta
blis
hmen
t inp
uts
and
cost
s: U
SD 2
45/h
a;
Mai
nten
ance
cos
ts: U
SD 3
5/ha
/yr.
76C
haba
la, L
.M.,
Kun
tash
ula,
E.,
Ham
ukw
ala,
P.,
B.H
. Chi
shal
a,
B.H
. and
Phi
ri, E
. 201
2. A
sses
s -in
g th
e va
lue
of la
nd a
nd c
osts
of
deg
rada
tion
in Z
amib
ia (fi
rst
draf
t). G
loba
l Mec
hani
sm (G
M)
and
Stoc
khol
m E
nvir
onm
ent
Inst
itute
(SEI
).
2012
Zam
bia
Afr
ica
food
s (fi
sh);
fore
st
timbe
r; p
asto
ral -
ism
/mea
t; w
ater
flo
w r
egul
atio
n (h
ydro
elec
tric
po
wer
gen
erat
ion)
; re
crea
tion
use
valu
e on
ly;
mar
ket p
rice
m
etho
d;
repl
acem
ent c
ost
met
hod;
ag
greg
atio
n ac
ross
ser
vice
s;
❚ P
rodu
ctiv
e va
lue
is Z
MK
303
, 317
, 906
,000
❚ C
ultu
ral &
aes
thet
ic v
alue
is
ZMK
56,
690,
100,
000
❚ W
ater
reg
ulat
ion
is Z
MK
840
,914
,000
,000
❚ To
tal o
f ZM
K 1
,200
,922
,006
,000
ZM
K 1
= U
SD 0
.02
(201
2)
77D
eGro
ot, R
., B
rand
er, L
., va
n de
r P
loeg
, S.,
Cos
tanz
a, R
., B
erna
rd, F
., B
raat
, L.,
Chr
istie
, M
., C
ross
man
, N.,
Ghe
rman
di,
A.,
Hei
n, L
., H
ussa
in, S
., K
umar
, P.,
McV
ittie
, A.,
Por
tela
, R
., R
odri
guez
, L.C
., te
n B
rink
, P.
and
van
Beu
keri
ng, P
. 201
2.
Glo
bal e
stim
ates
of t
he v
alue
of
ecos
yste
ms
and
thei
r se
rvic
es
in m
onet
ary
units
. Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
. 1: 5
0–61
.
2012
Glo
bal
Wor
ldfo
ods;
fib
ers;
pas
tora
l-is
m/m
eat;
bi
ofue
ls;
biod
iver
sity
/ ge
netic
res
ourc
es;
othe
r pr
ovis
ioni
ng
serv
ices
; w
ater
flow
re
gula
tion;
so
il re
gula
tion;
cl
imat
e re
gula
tion;
po
llutio
n co
ntro
l; ot
her
regu
latin
g se
rvic
es;
recr
eatio
n;
amen
ity;
spi
ritu
al;
othe
r cu
ltur
al
serv
ices
Tota
l Eco
nom
ic
Valu
e (T
EV)
; be
nefit
tran
sfer
; ag
greg
atio
n ac
ross
ser
vice
s
The
tota
l val
ue o
f eco
syst
em s
ervi
ces
is
cons
ider
able
and
ran
ges
betw
een
49
0 in
t/ye
ar fo
r th
e to
tal b
undl
e of
eco
syst
em
serv
ices
that
can
pot
entia
lly b
e pr
ovid
ed b
y an
‘ave
rage
’ hec
tare
of o
pen
ocea
ns to
al
mos
t 350
,000
int/
year
for
the
pote
ntia
l se
rvic
es o
f an
‘ave
rage
’ hec
tare
of c
oral
re
efs.
Mor
e im
port
antl
y, o
ur r
esul
ts s
how
th
at m
ost o
f thi
s va
lue
is o
utsi
de th
e m
arke
t an
d be
st c
onsi
dere
d as
non
-tra
dabl
e pu
blic
be
nefit
s.
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
117
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
78K
aufm
an, M
. 201
2. H
umbo
ldt
Stat
e U
nive
rsit
y. E
cosy
stem
se
rvic
e va
lue
of w
ater
sup
ply
bene
fits
prov
ided
by
fore
st
stan
ds in
the
Mat
tole
Riv
er
wat
ersh
ed, C
alifo
rnia
: A
bioe
cono
mic
and
ben
efit
tran
sfer
-spa
tial a
naly
sis
appl
icat
ion
(Mas
ters
thes
is).
Hum
bold
t Sta
te U
nive
rsit
y.
Arc
ata,
USA
.
2010
–201
2C
alifo
rnia
(M
atto
le R
iver
W
ater
shed
), U
SA
Am
eric
asw
ater
sup
ply;
use
valu
e on
ly;
bene
fit tr
ansf
erTh
e re
mai
ning
old
gro
wth
sta
nds
in th
e M
atto
le W
ater
shed
pro
vide
mor
e th
an
USD
1,9
10,8
00 a
yea
r in
wat
er s
uppl
y be
nefit
s to
the
regi
on.
79N
elso
n, F
. 201
2. N
atur
al
cons
erva
tioni
sts?
Eva
luat
ing
the
impa
ct o
f pas
tora
list l
and
use
prac
tices
on
Tanz
ania
's
wild
life
econ
omy.
Pas
tora
lism
: R
esea
rch,
Pol
icy
and
Pra
ctic
e.
2:15
.
2011
Tanz
ania
(n
orth
ern)
Afr
ica
recr
eatio
n;us
e va
lue
only
; be
nefit
tran
sfer
Ann
ual v
alue
of p
asto
ralis
t lan
d us
es to
the
wild
life-
base
d to
uris
m in
dust
ry in
nor
ther
n Ta
nzan
ia is
est
imat
ed a
t app
roxi
mat
ely
U
SD 8
3.5
mill
ion,
Tot
al v
alue
of t
ouri
sm in
th
e no
rthe
rn c
ircu
it is
USD
547
.8 m
illio
n
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
118
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
80N
ill, D
., Ac
kerm
ann,
K.,
van
den
Akk
er, E
., Sc
höni
ng, A
., W
egne
r, M
., va
n de
r Sc
haaf
, C.
and
Pie
ters
e, J
., 20
12.
Wat
er-s
prea
ding
wei
rs fo
r th
e de
velo
pmen
t of d
egra
ded
dry
rive
r va
lleys
: Exp
erie
nce
from
th
e Sa
hel.
Deu
tsch
e G
esel
l-sc
haft
für
Inte
rnat
iona
le
Zusa
mm
enar
beit
(GIZ
), G
erm
any.
2011
Bur
kina
Fas
o,
Nig
er,
Cha
d
(deg
rade
d
dry
valle
ys)
Afr
ica
food
s;
past
oral
ism
/mea
t;us
e va
lue
only
; m
arke
t pri
ce
met
hod;
In N
iger
, ave
rage
gro
ss r
even
ue o
f ~. E
UR
760
pe
r us
er w
as a
chie
ved,
but
var
iatio
n w
as
cons
ider
able
, fro
m E
UR
200
–1,9
00 (T
able
4).
Exp
ense
s fo
r gr
owin
g th
e cr
ops
still
nee
d to
be
ded
ucte
d fr
om th
ese
estim
ates
. Cos
ts o
f w
ater
-spr
eadi
ng w
eirs
var
y, d
epen
ding
on
phys
iogr
aphi
c se
ttin
gs, s
truc
ture
, and
cos
t fo
r co
mpa
nies
. In
Bur
kina
Fas
o an
d N
iger
, th
e co
sts
per
wei
r ra
nge
from
EU
R 6
00–
1,50
0/ha
, dep
endi
ng o
n co
nstr
uctio
n (e
.g.
with
or
with
out a
ford
) and
phy
siog
raph
ic
sett
ing.
Indi
vidu
al w
ater
-spr
eadi
ng w
eirs
in
Bur
kina
Fas
o co
st o
n av
erag
e ~1
2 m
illio
n C
FA
fran
cs (~
EUR
18,
000)
per
wei
r, an
d be
twee
n 30
–36
mill
ion
CFA
fran
cs (E
UR
46,
000
and
55,0
00) p
er w
eir
in C
had.
Ave
rage
ann
ual
mai
nten
ance
cos
ts a
re e
stim
ated
to b
e 0.
5%
of c
onst
ruct
ion
cost
s. 9
wei
rs c
ostin
g 25
3 m
illio
n C
FA fr
ancs
(EU
R 3
90,0
00) w
ere
built
in
Gag
na, B
urki
na F
aso.
The
val
ue o
f the
tota
l pr
oduc
tion
in 2
010
from
rai
nfed
cro
ps,
post
-rai
ny s
easo
n cr
ops,
irri
gate
d cr
ops
and
fishi
ng w
as a
n es
timat
ed 2
45 m
illio
n C
FA
fran
cs (E
UR
370
,000
). A
ssum
ing
the
sum
of
prod
uctio
n co
sts,
sal
arie
s an
d w
ages
, and
ne
t inc
ome
with
out w
eirs
is 1
/2–1
/3 o
f the
to
tal p
rodu
ctio
n; th
e in
vest
men
ts w
ill p
ay fo
r th
emse
lves
with
in a
few
yea
rs.
81W
OC
AT, 2
013.
Roo
ftop
ra
inw
ater
har
vest
ing
– co
ncre
te T
ank
(Taj
ikis
tan)
.
2011
Tajik
ista
n (B
oshk
enga
sh,
Rud
aki r
egio
n)
Asi
aot
her
prov
isio
ning
se
rvic
es (r
ainw
ater
ha
rves
ting)
;
use
valu
e on
ly;
othe
r va
luat
ion
met
hod
(cos
ts o
f ac
tion)
;
Esta
blis
hmen
t inp
uts
and
cost
s: U
SD 3
97.0
0;
Mai
nten
ance
cos
ts: U
SD 5
/yr,
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
119
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
82Ad
hika
ri B
, Nad
ella
K.,
2011
. Ec
olog
ical
eco
nom
ics
of s
oil
eros
ion:
A r
evie
w o
f the
cur
rent
st
ate
of k
now
ledg
e. A
nnal
s of
th
e N
ew Y
ork
Acad
emy
of
Scie
nces
201
1;12
19(1
): 13
4–52
.
2011
Glo
bal
Wor
ldLi
tera
ture
Rev
iew
Lite
ratu
re R
evie
wLi
tera
ture
Rev
iew
83Q
uillé
rou,
E.,
Thom
as, R
. J.,
2012
. Cos
ts o
f lan
d de
grad
atio
n an
d be
nefit
s of
land
res
tora
-tio
n: A
rev
iew
of v
alua
tion
met
hods
and
thei
r ap
plic
atio
n.
CA
B R
evie
ws:
Per
spec
tives
in
Agri
cult
ure,
Vet
erin
ary
Scie
nce,
Nut
ritio
n an
d N
atur
al
Res
ourc
es 7
(060
): 1–
12.
2012
Glo
bal
Wor
ldLi
tera
ture
Rev
iew
Lite
ratu
re R
evie
wLi
tera
ture
Rev
iew
84Te
lles,
T. S
., G
uim
arãe
s M
. d.
F., D
eche
n, S
. C. F
., 20
11. T
he
cost
s of
soi
l ero
sion
. Rev
ista
B
rasi
leir
a de
Ciê
ncia
do
Solo
35
(2):
287–
298.
2011
Bra
zil/
Glo
bal
Am
eric
as/
Wor
ldLi
tera
ture
Rev
iew
Lite
ratu
re R
evie
wLi
tera
ture
Rev
iew
85Ya
mas
aki,
S. H
., G
uillo
n, B
. M.
C.,
Bra
nd, D
., P
atil,
A. M
., 20
10.
Mar
ket-
base
d pa
ymen
ts fo
r ec
osys
tem
ser
vice
s: c
urre
nt
stat
us, c
halle
nges
and
the
way
fo
rwar
d. C
AB
Rev
iew
s:
Per
spec
tives
in A
gric
ultu
re,
Vete
rina
ry S
cien
ce, N
utri
tion
and
Nat
ural
Res
ourc
es 5
(054
): 13
.
2010
Glo
bal
Wor
ldLi
tera
ture
Rev
iew
Lite
ratu
re R
evie
wLi
tera
ture
Rev
iew
A p p e n d i x 3 Case studies
120
Cas
e st
udy
Sou
rce
Stud
y pe
riod
Loca
tion
of
cas
e st
udy
UN
w
orld
re
gion
Eco
syst
em
serv
ices
Valu
atio
n
met
hodo
logy
Est
imat
ed c
osts
, cur
renc
y,
year
of c
urre
ncy
esti
mat
e
86Sc
hild
, J.,
van
der
Plo
eg, S
., de
G
root
, D.,
2013
. Evi
denc
e Fo
r Th
e Ec
onom
ic V
alue
Of
Dry
land
s: A
Met
a-A
naly
sis
Of
Dry
land
Eco
syst
em S
ervi
ces.
W
orki
ng p
aper
.
2013
Glo
bal
Wor
ldLi
tera
ture
Rev
iew
Lite
ratu
re R
evie
wLi
tera
ture
Rev
iew
S c i e n t i f i c i n t e r i m r e p o r t 2 0 1 3
121
List of figures Figure 1 Pathways to sustainable land management, considering agricultural (green)
and alternative livelihoods (orange) (adapted from Adeel & Safriel 2008 35, sourced from Thomas 2008 34, pg. 599) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 2 The provision of ecosystem services from natural capital: Linkages between ecosystem services and human well-being (adapted from Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005, Figure A, pg. vi 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Figure 3 Total economic value with types of ecosystem services and examples (adapted from Nkonya et al. 2011, pg. 70, and Soussan and Noel 2010 38, 49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 4 The Total Economic Value concept and existing valuation methods (adapted from Bertram & Rehdanz 2013, pg. 28 51) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 5 Continuum of land states between fully functioning and fully degraded, and the relationship between the costs of degradation and potential benefits from restoration (adapted from Quillérou & Thomas 2012 50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 6 Economic benefits and costs from action from preventing land degradation (adapted from Nkonya et al. 2011, pg. 4 38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Figure 7 A decision-making framework with net economic benefit as choice criterion (i. e. economic benefits minus costs) (Source: report authors) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 8 Recent interest in land-related publication, in line with food security issues . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 9 Geographical repartition of resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Figure 10 Geographical repartition of authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 11 Proportion of resources for each ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 12 Number of resources for each ecosystem service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 13 Number of resources for each quantified value and valuation method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 14 Repartition of resources across the ELD working groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 15 Cost of action as a % of cost of inaction – case studies (von Braun et al. 2013 11) . . . . . . . . . . . 55
List of tables Table 1 Hypothetical evaluation of three options for soil and water conservation
practices that address land degradation on hillsides (adapted from Biot et al. 1995 30) . . . . 16
Table 2 Problems related to land management, economic analyses, and possible actions . . . . . . . 22
Table 3 Examples of calculation of the total economic value for alternative land-based activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 4 Economic value types that are typically estimated for each ecosystem service (from Quillérou and Thomas 2012 50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Table 5 Economic options for investments into land-based activities and results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Table 6 Clustering and validation results (Nkonya et al. 2013 26, Table 1, pg. 13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 7 Drivers related to land degradation and their causes (adapted from von Braun et al. 2013 11, Table 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Table 8 Potential scenarios, from most ideal (darker green) to least (darker brown) (adapted from the UK National Ecosystem Assessment 2011 27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
122
List of boxes Box 1 Ecosystem services (adapted from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Box 2 Examples of improved land management derived from economic valuations of ecosystem services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Box 3 Calculation of the Total Economic Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Box 4 Options and pathways for action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Box 5 Examples of adaptations to facilitate and foster action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Box 6 Criteria for selection of case studies to be commissioned by the ELD Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Box 7 Issues faced when implementing valuation techniques in developing countries (from Christie et al. 2008 89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Box 8 Pressures and drivers of land degradation for consideration in economic assessment of action (sourced from von Braun et al. 2013 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Box 9 Knowledge gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
List of selected case studies Case Study 1 Total economic valuation and the establishment of national and
international markets for ecosystem services (Turner et al. 2012 17, as reported in The Guardian’s Global Development 18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Case Study 2 Deciding between alternative land options when trade-offs must be made: Vietnam (DO 2007 40) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Case Study 3 A “south-south” (developing country – developing country) demonstration of concern over land deals: Ethiopia (sourced from The Guardian 2012 41) . . . . . . . . . . 24
Case Study 4 Conflict arising from undervaluing land: Sierra Leone (sourced from The Guardian 2012 42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Case Study 5 Pioneering a system of payments for ecosystem services for carbon storage and watershed services: Costa Rica43, 44, 45 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Case Study 6 Expected benefits prior to action did not fully translate into economic benefits after action (sourced from Kosey et al. 2007 44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Case Study 7 Increased cost-effectiveness when both benefits and costs are considered (Naidoo and Iwamura 2007 55) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Case Study 8 Shadow interest rate: An example from Europe (Quaas et al. 2012 75) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Case Study 9 The contribution of forest products to dryland household economies: Kenya (Ngugi et al. 2011 154) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Case Study 10 South East Asia: The values of land resources in the Cardamom Mountains in Cambodia (Soussan & Sam 2011 156) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
THE ECONOMICS OF LAND DEGRADATION
Investment in sustainable land management pays off
The Economics of Land Degradation Initiative is a global study on the economic benefits of land-based ecosystems. The initiative highlights the value of sustainable land management and provides a global approach for analysing the economics of land degradation. The ELD Initiative is uniquely positioned to make this focus an integral part of policy strategies and decision-making.
This Interim Report of the Economics of Land Degradation Initiative is a step towards a comprehensive study of the benefits of practicing sustainable land management and costs of neglecting sustainable land stewardship.
By focusing on obtaining the total economic value of land including the provision of ecosystem services, the initiative brings together a collaborative, international group of researchers, policy-makers and private business in order to alert public and private descision-makers to the forgone opportunities and associated costs of continued land degradation.
This Interim Report highlights the background to the study, including the importance of estimating the potential economic benefits derived from addressing land degradation, suggests a methodological framework whereby countries can undertake their own evaluations and briefly reviews case studies which indicate that the overall economic benefits of adopting sustainable land management far outweigh the costs involved.
The initiative will further produce three separate final reports aimed at the scientific community, policy makers, and private decision-makers.
This report was launched and presented at the Eleventh Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD COP11) held in Windhoek, Namibia in September 2013.
www.eld-initiative.org