Post on 26-Jan-2021
transcript
Managing Sustainability?Proceedings of the 12th Management International ConferencePortorož, Slovenia, 23–26 November 20112011
PAYMENTS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES: AMBITIOUS
TOOLS FOR THE SUSTAINABLE USE OF NATURAL CAPITAL
Prof. Giovanni LAGIOIA, Dr. Annarita PAIANO Faculty of Economics- Department of Geographical and Commodity Science
University of Bari Aldo Moro Largo Abbazia Santa Scolastica, 53-70124 Bari (Italy)
g.lagioia@dgm.uniba.it, a.paiano@dgm.uniba.it
ABSTRACT
The flows of natural resources, goods and services (air quality, soil fertility etc.) from
ecosystems are the natural capital of the economies. Among these flows the ecosystem
services are critic and in decline. It has been underlined the need for ecosystem accounting
techniques to study the relationship between economic sectors and their dependence from
ecosystem goods and services, as well as the impacts on the last ones.
Many countries are being developed payment programmes for ecosystem services (PES). This
paper analyses definitions, scope, schemes and the main actors of the PES as tool to protect
the natural capital.
Keywords: payments for ecosystem services (PES), sustainability, natural capital,
biodiversity.
INTRODUCTION
The flows of natural resources, goods (food, fibre, fuel, medicines) and services (air quality,
water flow and quality, soil fertility and cycling of nutrients, climate regulation, pollination
and others) from natural ecosystems are a vital necessity for humanity’s economic and social
development. These flows represent the material basis, or the natural capital, of economy. The
main criticism is concerning the services from nature and the significant reason is that there
are not alternative methods to obtain those services. In summary, if pollutants affect the
natural ecosystems, these are not capable of flowing services to economy and it is not possible
to search for alternative options. Today around two-thirds of ecosystem services worldwide
are in decline. This is a heavy threat, probably greater than climate change and it often
concerns the developing countries, where the most of the world’s biodiversity lies.
Biodiversity conservation is the key factor to maintain the global ecosystems and their
services.
275
The need of knowing and assess these services to realize a suitable management it is clear by
trends of health of the biodiversity of biomes, which has been and actually is heavily under
pressure, as Figure 1 illustrates.
Figure 1. Past and future trends of the main impacts on Earth’s biodiversity per biome
Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005
A policy framework has accomplished since several years, at European and international
level, to face the deterioration of ecosystem.
The first step was the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), signed by 168 countries
under the aegis of the United Nations (today the total countries are 190), and it entered into
force on 29 December 1993. The world public growing commitment to sustainable
development inspired the CBD and the European Union (EU) is actively promoting its
effective implementation, so the EU new policy should enhance treatment of biodiversity in
international development programmes.
276
Some years later, the EU launched a new EU Biodiversity Action Plan (the previous was in
the 2001), annex I to EU Council conclusions “Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010 and
beyond”, adopted in the 2006 (Commission of the European Communities, 2006; European
Commission. 2010).
This Action Plan underlines the importance of biodiversity and ecosystem protection as a
prerequisite for sustainable development and protecting the natural capital. It provides a
strategic European response to tackle biodiversity loss to undertake to halt the loss of
biodiversity by the year 2010. The four key policy areas of the EU action plan are the
following:
biodiversity in the EU,
the EU and global biodiversity,
biodiversity and climate change,
the knowledge base.
These four policy areas are backed up by a range of supporting measures, as ensuring
adequate funding for biodiversity conservation, strengthening EU decision-making, building
partnerships with key stakeholder groups and encouraging greater public awareness and
participation in biodiversity conservation.
Yet, whilst important progress has been made, the change has been too slow to meet the 2010
target. Overall, biodiversity in Europe continues to decline.
Another important step was the initiated preparatory work for a global and independent study,
which is named “The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity” (TEEB). It is hosted and
organized by UNEP. Several countries and organisations have joined TEEB.
The study is evaluating the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the associated decline in
ecosystem services worldwide, and comparing them with the costs of effective conservation
and sustainable use. The estimate of benefits of ecosystem goods and services is a key point.
The conventional economics has failed to recognise the economic values of natural capital
and the ecosystem services it provides. The European Environmental Agency (EEA) has
underlined the need for ecosystem accounting techniques to study the relationship between
economic sectors and their dependence from ecosystem goods and services, as well as the
impacts on the last ones. These data should converge into policy-making and local
management of natural resources.
Worldwide in many countries there are being developed payment programmes for ecosystem
services (PES programmes). They are very important in providing adequate rewards to
landowners who protect ecosystem services that are useful to society. PES are part of a new
277
and more direct conservation pattern that makes clear the linkage between the interests of
landowners and outsiders.
This paper will analyse definitions, scope, schemes and the main actors of the PES. Moreover
some of PES programmes put into practise, both in developed and in the developing and poor
countries, will be reviewed.
The aim is to highlight the main aspects of this new tool, underlining its several drawbacks
and perspectives for managing the sustainability of economies.
PAYMENTS FOR ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Definition and scope
The implicit idea of PES is those who benefit from ecosystem services (ES), like climate
regulation, water quality, protection against natural and human made hazards, soil formation,
biodiversity conservation, natural recreation, and so on should pay those who provide these
services. But many definitions exist for the PES, for instance one commonly used defines
them as voluntary transactions in which a well-defined environmental service is bought by a
(minimum of one) buyer from a (minimum of one) provider if and only if the provider
continuously secures the provision of the service (Farley and Costanza, 2010; Werz-
Kanounnikoff and Wunder, 2010). This is a restrictive definition for PES.
In the PES scheme it is possible to delineate many steps for their implementation. The first
one is to choose and clearly define the environmental goods and service and the second one
has to be the identification of stakeholders involved in this programme. The following step is
the economic evaluation of the specific ecosystem service and finally it has to carry out the
relative “payment”, according to the type of economic and/or financial tools chosen. Each of
these steps shows several issues and controversial aspects, due to many reasons so as it has
illustrated in the following sections.
The identification of ecosystem goods and services
Ecosystem services derive from interactions between the organisms and their function within
the ecosystems. The purification of air and water, carbon sequestration and soil fertility are
services that result from interaction, rather than organisms themselves. Each ecosystem
(forest, wetland, grassland, coral etc.) has different functions and services, which in turn
depend on the health of the ecosystem, the pressures weighing upon it and the way they are
used by society in a given bio-geographical and geo-economical context (such as local,
regional and global). This issue of ecosystems in connection with social wellbeing was
278
underlined by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005), a study published in
2005 that involved over 1,000 experts from 95 countries, which defined the concept of
“ecosystem services” as the multiplied benefits provided to human beings by ecosystems and,
then, ecosystem services are the end products of nature that yield human wellbeing. The basic
concept is that generally our wellbeing strongly depends on services (material and not-
material) provided by nature. The Figure 2 shows the identification of the main ecosystem
services provided by Hearth’s biomes.
Figure 2. Main ecosystem services provided by Hearth’s biomes
Source: Ministero dell’Ambiente della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare, 2009
It is possible to consider several classifications of ecosystem services, narrow or broad ones.
In the first case only the environmental services, such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity,
water quality and erosion control (Wunder, 2005), can be included. Instead the broader
interpretation include four macro-categories, which are extracted from Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment and illustrated in Figure 1:
279
- Supporting services, e.g. services necessary for the production of all other ecosystem
services, like soil formation, nutrient cycling and primary production.
- Provisioning services, e.g. products obtained from ecosystem, like food, fresh water,
fuelwood, fiber, biochemicals and genetic resources.
- Regulating services, e.g. benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes, as
climate protection, disease regulation, water regulation and water purification.
- Cultural services, e.g. non material benefits obtained from ecosystems, as spiritual and
religious, recreation and ecotourism, cultural heritage.
The exact identification of the main ecosystem services it is important to focus the analysis
that is carrying out, besides to limit the bio-geographical scale and territory which must be
considered.
Identification of stakeholders involved
The identification of stakeholders involved is very important and, at the same time, sometimes
difficult.
It is possible to divide them in beneficiaries or end users of ecosystem services and buyers of
the same. Almost always, in fact, the actual purchaser of an environmental service is often not
the same as the beneficiary. This is due to the difficulty to exactly identify the spatial-
temporal scale of service delivery: establishing where (at local, regional or global level) and
when (at present or into the future) the benefits from ecosystem services occur are essential
elements for evaluating the potential demand for them and identifying as many buyers as
possible from the longer list of potential beneficiaries (FAO, 2007).
But since these services are public goods and beneficiaries are frequently diffuse (e.g. local or
global community), buyers tend to be public organizations.
However there is a growth in demand and willingness to pay for ecosystem services at the
global or local scale mainly driven by environmental regulations. So, private and public firms
and individuals are ready to pay for such services when they provide a low-cost way of
complying with a regulation. Carbon sequestration payments, for instance, are driven by
international regulation limiting carbon emissions and creating a market for offsets (Gutman,
Davidson, 2007).
The economic evaluation of ecosystem services: the main issues
The defining of ecosystem services and their spatial and temporal scale are essential to
identify buyers and beneficiaries of these services but the core problem is the economic
280
evaluation of ecosystem services. The conventional economics has failed to recognise the
economic values of natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides (Gomez-Baggethun
et al, 2010).
It is therefore important not to limit assessments to monetary values, but to include qualitative
analysis and physical indicators as well, like Figure 3 illustrates. Measurement approaches
vary depending on what it should be measured. For provisioning services (fuel, fibre, food,
medicinal plants, etc.), measuring economic values is relatively straightforward, as these
services are largely traded on markets. The market prices of commodities such as timber,
agricultural crops or fish provide a tangible basis for economic valuation, even though they
may be significantly distorted by externalities or government interventions and may require
some adjustments when making international comparisons. For regulating and cultural
services, which generally do not have any market price (with exceptions such as carbon
sequestration) economic valuation is more difficult. However, a set of techniques has been
used for decades to estimate non-market values of environmental goods, based either on some
market information that is indirectly related to the service (revealed preference methods) or on
simulated markets (stated preference methods). These methods have been stated by the MEA
in 2005 and they have been applied to many components of biodiversity and ecosystem
services.
Fig 3: Valuing ecosystem services
Source: TEEB, 2008
281
The TEEB study, that continues the work of the MEA, made a preliminary attempt to evaluate
the loss of ecosystem services. Particularly the loss of biodiversity that would have produced
ecosystem services is about € 50 billion per year, only for land based ecosystem alone. Taking
2000 as the baseline, within three years this loss amount to € 150 billion so, by 2010 the loss
will be to over € 500 billion, equal to 1% of world GDP. It forecasts that the loss in the value
of flow of services, in case that any conservation action shall not be made, could cost about €
14 trillion, around the 7% of total GDP by 2050 (Table 1). It is necessary to highlight that the
loss of services from natural ecosystems will require costly alternative options or simply no
alternatives. This analysis suggests that without halting biodiversity loss, the world in 2050
shall benefit much less from the flow of ecosystem services than in 2000.
Figure 4: Annual Flow of benefits from forest from selected countries.
Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005
The relevant lack of balance between the economic value commonly used for resources and
the economic value of the entire flow of services of specified ecosystem is underlined by
282
Figure 4. In most countries, in fact, the marketed values of ecosystem, for example, associated
with timber and fuelwood production are less than one third of the total economic value,
including non marketed values such as carbon sequestration, watershed protection and
recreation. Among these countries Italy, the author’s country, has a very marked difference.
Table 1. Annual monetary estimate of loss of ecosystem services in 2050
Value of loss of ecosystem services per year in billion of Euros (109)
Relating to 2000 Relating to 2010 Relating to 2000 Relating to 2010
Area Billion of Euros Billion of Euros % GDP in 2050 % GDP in 2050
Natural areas - 15,568 -12,703 -7.96 -6.50 Denuded natural areas -10 -6 -0.01 0.00 Managed forest 1,852 1,691 0.95 0.87 Extensive agriculture -1,109 -819 -0.57 -0.2 Intensive agriculture 1,303 736 0.67 0.38 Ligneous biofuels 381 348 0.19 0.18 Cultivated pasture -786 -1,181 -0.40 -0.60 Artificial surfaces 0 0 0.00 0.00 Global total (terrestrial ecosystems) -13,938 -11,933 -7.1 -6.1
Source: (Braat, and ten Brink, 2008; Chevassus-au-Louis et al, 2009)
SOME EXAMPLES OF WORLDWIDE PES TRANSACTIONS
It should underline there are many tools for managing environmental resources and their
services and they can classified according the voluntary of their. So, PES can be included in
public provision, direct regulation or voluntary and educational approaches and they utilize
many mechanisms, like subsidies, incentives and others, or in the latter case, information and
communication, green labelling and green marketing. In this frame, through eco-labels and
certification programmes for sustainable production, consumers pay for environmental
services with their purchases.
The private sector is increasingly involved in paying to promote environmental service
provision, for example in the case of voluntary carbon sequestration and biodiversity
conservation. But, as already mentioned, most PES programs are led by the public sector.
Frequently International public sector funding is also very important for PES programmes: for
instance the World Bank and the Global Environment Facility (GEF) have been the main
contributors in developing countries, regarding large scale projects, and often they have led to
development of national level of PES programmes, as in Costa Rica and Mexico (Kosoy et
al., 2008). In Costa Rica, for instance, where, from 1997 to 2004, US$ 200 million in PES
283
programmes have been invested (funding by World Bank and GEF, co-financing by national
governments), protecting around 460,000 hectares of forests and forestry plantations and
indirectly contributing to the well being of more than 8,000 people (TEEB, 2008; UNEP,
2010).
Several examples of PES since many years have been fulfilled also in the developed
countries, like the US and one of them regards the water services management in New York.
An agreement between the municipal company for water supplying of the city and the forest
owners of the catchment basin has been signed. The last ones have undertaken to manage
their forests according suitable practises to assure the steady water run-off to reduce water
pollution impact. The off-set for these ecosystem services is paid by the end-users, through an
additional rate of water services. The program implementation, by cost of 1.5 US$ billion,
allowed savings expense of 6-9 US$ billion, equal to a amount necessary to build a filtration
system to comply with more stringent regulation on drinking water quality.
PES schemes have also been used to achieve quality standards beyond those required by law.
Vittel-Evian in France has been paying farmers to adopt more environmentally sound
practices to reduce agricultural run-off (pesticides and nitrates) and improve soil natural
filtration capacity. Investment reached 980 Euros per hectare per year, equivalent to 1.52 euro
per m3 of bottled water produced and the French National Agronomic Institute demonstrated
that under the assumption that one hectare of well-managed pasture produced 3000 m3 of
mineral water every year (Branca et al, 2009).
Other common PES example, more simply than the previous ones and widespread in the
world, could be considered the payments for guided tours of marine protected areas or the
management of fishing licenses, in the same areas. A share of these revenues is used to
preservation and conservation of these areas (Ministero dell’Ambiente della Tutela del
Territorio e del Mare, 2009).
CONCLUSION
Payments for Ecosystem Services are surely new feasible tools to manage the natural capital
to prevent further loss and damage in its goods and services. In this paper frequently it has
been underlined that the knowledge of natural ecosystem and its services is a priority for
suited managing them. In this direction the studies and analysis concerning the material base
of economy are very critical. It should be stressed the importance to know the material and
energy flows of the production cycle to obtain goods, services and others so as to use some
284
indicators, such as Ecological Footprint, Environmental Input-Output analysis (EIOA),
Material/Substance Flows Accounting (M/SFA), to create specific and physical databases
concerning this subject. This would to account and monitor the true consumption of natural
resources and to obtain a better comprehension concerning how much natural capital is
necessary to support human economy and in particular how many ecosystem services have
been used for.
The issue of ecosystem services and their relationship to human activities that oppose or
enhance them falls within the large field of the externalities, related to taking out of alignment
of the benefits (or costs) between individuals and community. In the past, most of the
ecosystem services, those are externalities, are not adequately remunerated by the market, so
frequently PES have been implemented through regulatory instruments, particularly in the
European countries. At present, instead, the attention focuses on other incentives based tools
and market mechanisms, so through voluntary transactions. The suited solution would be an
appropriate mix of instruments that have to be used by decision makers. In this context, the
implementation of the PES may involve the transformation of public goods and services into
new products of market, with the expected consequence and potential distortions.
REFERENCES
Branca, G., Lipper, L., Neves, B., Lopa, D., Mwanyoka, I. 2009. New Tools for Old
Problems: Can Payments for Watershed Services Support Sustainable Agricultural
Development in Africa?, ESA working paper no.09-10.
Braat, L., and ten Brink, P. (eds). 2008. The Cost of Policy Inaction: The Case of not Meeting
the 2010 Biodiversity Target, Study for the European Commission, DG Environment in
support to the TEEB First phase. Http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/bio-
diversity/economics/pdf/copi.zip, last access June 2011.
Chevassus-au-Louis, B., Salles, J.M., Pujol, J.L. 2009. An economic approach to biodiversity
and ecosystems services. Contribution to public decision-making. Centre d’analyse
Strategique, Paris.
Commission of the European Communities. 2006. Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010-
and beyond. Sustaining Ecosystem Services for Human well-being, Commission Staff
Working Document, Annexes to the Communication from the Commission,
285
COM(2006)216 final, Technical annex. Http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/bio-
diversity/comm2006/pdf/sec_2006_621.pdf, last access May 2011.
European Commission. 2010. EU Biodiversity Action Plan: 2010 Assessment.
Http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/2010_bap.pdf, last access July
2011.
FAO. 2007. The state of food and agriculture. Paying farmers for environmental service,
Food And Agriculture Organization of The United Nations, Rome.
Ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a1200e/a1200e00.pdf, last access June 2011.
Farley, J., and Costanza, R. 2010. Payments for ecosystem services: from local to global,
Ecological Economics. 69: 2060-2068.
Gomez-Baggethun, E., de Groot R., Lomas, P.,L., Montes C. 2010. The history of ecosystem
services in economic theory and practise : from early notions to markets and payments
schemes. Ecological Economics. 69: 1209-1218.
Gutman, P. and Davidson, S. 2007. The Global Environmental Facility and Payments for
Ecosystem Services, FAO, PESAL paper series no.1, WWF Macroeconomic for
Sustainable Development Program Office – WWF-MPO.
Kosoy, N., Corbera E., Brown K. 2008. Participation in payments for ecosystem services:
case studies from the Lacandon rainforest, Mexico. Geoforum. 39: 2073-2083.
MEA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystem and human well-being:
synthesis. Island Press, Washington DC. Http://www.millenniumassessment.org/docu-
ments/document.356.aspx.pdf, last access July 2011.
Ministero dell’Ambiente della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare. 2009. Definizione del metodo
per la classificazione e quantificazione dei servizi ecosistemici in Italia.
Http://www.minambiente.it/export/sites/default/archivio/allegati/biodiversita/Verso_la_
strategia/TAVOLO_7_SERVIZI_ECOSISTEMICI_completo.pdf, last access July
2011.
TEEB. 2008. The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity. An interim report, European
Communities. Http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/te-
eb_report.pdf, last access May 2011.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme), Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel
(STAP). 2010. Payments for Environmental Services and the Global Environment
Facility, revised edition 2010. Http://www.unep.org/stap/LinkCli-
ck.aspx?fileticket=N1tMo87PkA%3D&tabid=2912&language=en-US, last access May
2011.
286
Wertz-Kanounnikoff, S., and Wunder, S. 2010. How Redd+ can learn from PES, CIFOR
(Centre for International Forestry Research, Washington D.C.
Wunder, S. 2005. Payments for Environmental Services: Some nuts and bolts. CIFOR (Centre
for International Forestry Research), Occasional Paper no.42.
Http://www.cifor.cgiar.org/publications/pdf_files/OccPapers/OP-42.pdf, last access July
2011.
287
/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 300 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 1200 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile () /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False
/SyntheticBoldness 1.000000 /Description > /Namespace [ (Adobe) (Common) (1.0) ] /OtherNamespaces [ > /FormElements false /GenerateStructure false /IncludeBookmarks false /IncludeHyperlinks false /IncludeInteractive false /IncludeLayers false /IncludeProfiles false /MultimediaHandling /UseObjectSettings /Namespace [ (Adobe) (CreativeSuite) (2.0) ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfileSelector /DocumentCMYK /PreserveEditing true /UntaggedCMYKHandling /LeaveUntagged /UntaggedRGBHandling /UseDocumentProfile /UseDocumentBleed false >> ]>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice