Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration? An environmental economic perspective

Julia Martin-OrtegaVNN workshop on assessing & valuing peatland ecosystem services

18-19 January 2012, Leeds

BackgroundWater related services are consistently highlighted among the main

services provided by peatland ecosystems:

Water supply, water quality, flooding and pollutant dilution

But the provisioning of these services is not so straightforward:

‘Dis-service’ of dissolved organic carbon?

Is not so much that peatlands ‘provide’ water, but that many upland catchments are peat dominated

Not all peatlands offer the same flooding services (some may contribute to flooding)

But it is clear that damaged peatlands have clear negative effects in water supply, water quality and increased risk of flooding

IUCN report: business as usual will result in increased water deterioration and increased risk of flooding WFD

BackgroundEntered into force in 2000, the WFD prescribes that all European water

bodes shall achieve the ‘good ecological status’

Peatland degradation has a clear negative effect to the ecological status of freshwater systems

Therefore, peatland restoration is a necessary requirement for the attaining WFD’s objectives

The achievement of the good ecological status is expected to generate substantial benefits (increased well-being) and the WFD itself requires these benefits to be assessed and monetized

This has generated a great research effort in trying to produce accurate estimates

A significant capital of knowledge on water (non-market) benefits and how to estimate them now exists

ObjectivesCan this capital of knowledge be used for the economic

valuation of the benefits of peatland restoration to help in the prioritization of policies?

Focus on:

Non-market benefits:

Crucial in the case of peatlands

More difficult to estimate, often ignored in practice

Added value of the WFDSpatial dimension:

Priority in the VNN

Key issuesThere are 3 main areas in which the WFD experience can

be of use:

The definition of valuation scenarios The spatial dimension in the valuation of improved

ecological status Benefit transferability

Neither the IUCN report nor the DEFRA Peatland Ecosystem Service report mention the WFD as a potential source for the economics of peatlands values and restoration, while there are strong links

This can already represent an added value of this Project

Definition of valuation scenariosThe definition of GES in the WFD is based on a number of

bio-physical/chemical parameters and hydro-morphological conditions

The GES is assumed to generate an increase on public’s welfare

This is measured in environmental economics through eliciting the public’s WTP for the improvement (welfare change from baseline to GES)

For non-market values, we use hypothetical markets in which a defined environmental change is proposed in a survey to a representative sample of the relevant population and ask them how much would they be willing to pay for it (stated preferences technique)

A key challenge is how to represent an improvement in a way that is scientifically rigorous but also understandable for the lay public (valuation scenario)

EU: AquaMoney Project (e

g.

Schaafsma, 2011)

UK: DEFRA, ChREAM (eg.

Bateman et al. 2009)

Scotland: Glenk et al.2011

Spain: Martin-Orte

ga et al. 2011

etc.

Definition of valuation scenariosHime et al. (2009): Water quality ladder

representing

physical-chemical quality

How much are you willing to pay for this improvement? (contingent valuation)

Spatially explicit valuation design: looking at distance decay and substitution effects

Humber, UK

Bateman et al. (2009)

Definition of valuation scenarios: flooding

Brouwer et al. (2010)

Definition of valuation scenarios: water scarcityChoice experiment: What option do you prefer?

Martin-Ortega et al. (2011)

The spatial dimension of water quality valuesBrouwer et al. (2009)

DOÑANA

VALLE

ALTO

CAMPIÑA

Martin-Ortega et al. (2010)

Spatial heterogeneity of prefences in the Guadalquivir River Basin (Spain)

People do not value water quality changes regardless of where they occur

Schaafsma (2011)

Water benefits transferEstimating the benefits of water quality improvements in

all European water bodies is unrealistic

Benefit transfer is required

The AquaMoney project developed 3 common valuation designs to test for transferability across countries

(not only international transfers)

€

€ €

Potential for peatland restorationClear links between WFD environmental benefits and peatland

restoration:Economic valuation is to be used for peatland prioritization of

intervention, for which the comparison between the baseline and the state after intervention is needed

The way of valuing the benefits of peatland restoration is to determine the value of the change in the water status downstream in a specific catchment

This is exactly what we have been doing in the WFD valuation

There is a potential for using existing WFD’s non-market benefits values in peatland restoration

Links are very clear in relation to water quality improvements, but there could also be potential for flooding risk and reduction of water supply

Potential for peatland restoration

Main limitation: Peatland restoration is not the only source of water ecological improvement

For GES values to be used as values of peatland restoration the link between a certain restoration action and the achievement of a certain level of ecological status needs to be establishedExisting choice experiments might offer this possibility,

because they are able to elicit values for different levels of improvement that can eventually be related to a determined restoration action (i.e. not necessarily the maximum level of improvement)

Potential for peatland restorationHowever, this will not substitute the need for primary peatland

valuation studies, in which:

A clear link between the biophysical role of peatland ecosystems and the services provided is established

This is translated into valuation scenarios capable of reflecting the variety of services provided by restoration actions

At the relevant scale and focusing on areas where this link is clear (including spatial heterogeneity of preferences)

Based on the modelling of theoretically led variables (rather than best fit principles) to make them available for benefit transfer

Is the Water Framework Directive experience useful for the (spatial) prioritization of peatland restoration? An environmental economic perspective

Julia Martin-OrtegaVNN workshop on assessing & valuing peatland ecosystem services

18-19 January 2012, Leeds