baltic sea ecosystem services and benefits · baltic sea ecosystem services and benefits ......
TRANSCRIPT
© Natural Resources Institute Finland © Natural Resources Institute Finland
Management of environmental problems in aquatic ecosystems (ESCG-501)
Heini Ahtiainen
Senior Scientist
Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke)
Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission (HELCOM)
Baltic Sea ecosystem
services and benefits
20.11.2017 1
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Topics in this lecture
• How does the Baltic Sea affect human well-being?
• How are ecosystem services linked to benefits and values?
• What is economic value?
• How to value environmental changes?
• What are current topics in regional economic and social
analyses in the Baltic Sea area?
2 20.11.2017
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Where we are in the DPSIR framework
3 20.11.2017
Drivers
State
Impact
Responses
Ecosystem
services
Pressures
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Ecosystem services
• ”…are ecosystem characteristics that are actively or
passively used to produce human well-being” (Fisher et
al. 2009)
• Relationship between human well-being and
ecosystems
• Benefits accrue to humans
• Several definitions/classifications
– E.g. MEA, TEEB, CICES
– Usable in different contexts
4 20.11.2017
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Cascade model of ecosystem services (adapted from
Haines-Young & Potschin 2010)
5 20.11.2017
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Classification of ecosystem services
6 20.11.2017
Intermediate services
• Supporting (primary production, nutrient cycling)
• Regulating (natural hazard regulation)
Final services
• Provisioning (fish and shellfish, water, energy)
• Cultural (landscape)
• Regulating (climate regulation, pollination)
Goods
• Objects of value
• Market and non-market
• E.g. food, recreation, healthy climate
Benefits/
values
• Monetary values
• Non-monetary values
• Health values
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Source: Turner et al. (2014). UK NEA Follow-on. WP Report 4: Coastal and
marine ecosystem services. 7
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Example: recreation and tourism (cultural service)
8 20.11.2017
Value of recreation and tourism
Recreation and tourism
Fish and shellfish
Algae
Clean water
Places and seascapes
Primary production
Larval and gamete production
Nutirient cycling
Water cycling
Habitat formation
Landscape formation
Waste breakdown and detoxification
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
What is value?
• Intrinsic value
– Independent of humans
• Economic value
– Anthropocentric
– Environmental state/ecosystem services as a source of
human well-being
– Trade-offs: how much money would a person be willing to
give up to obtain a better environment
9 20.11.2017
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Why is valuation needed?
• No market prices for environmental goods and
ecosystem services – what is their value?
• Comparability
• Integrating environmental values into decision-
making
– Cost-benefit analysis
– Setting targets
– Prioritizing, allocation of resources
• Transparency and visibility
• Public participation
10 20.11.2017
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Value categories
Total economic value
Use value
Option value Actual use
Non-use value
Existence For others
Bequest Altruism
11
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Valuation of the environment/ecosystem
services
• Benefits (or damages) from changes in the environment
• Different approaches
– Qualitative
– Quantitative
– Monetary (economic)
• In principle, valuation of environmental goods = valuation of
ecosystem services
– Differences in the object of valuation/phrasing of the
research question
12 20.11.2017
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Important considerations in valuation
• Value of changes instead of total values
• Spatiality
• Double-counting
• Ecological thresholds/nonlinearities
• Account for only ecosystem services part of the
total economic value
– Part of the value may result from human actions
13 20.11.2017
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Valuation methods
14 20.11.2017
• Travel costs, property prices
Use values (recreation, tourism, landscape)
Revealed preference methods
• Contingent valuation, choice experiment
• Use and non-use values (recreation, existence)
Stated preference methods
• Applying existing data to new contexts
Benefit transfer, meta-analysis
• Food, energy, medicine
Market prices
• Avoided costs, replacement costs
• Climate regulation, flood control, waste breakdown
Cost-based methods
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Critique on ecosystem services and valuation
• Ecosystem services as an anthropocentric concept
• ”Pricing” nature
• Commodifying nature and seeing it as a service provider
• Total value of nature
Valuation methods
• Stated preferences vs. ”true” preferences
• Hypothetical values
• Results do not comply with economic theory
15 20.11.2017
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Value of Baltic Sea recreation (Ahtiainen et al. 2013,
Czajkowski et al. 2015)
• Travel cost method
• Identical surveys in 9 countries
• Value of recreation 15 billion €
per year
• Improvement in environmental
quality would lead to 7-18%
increase in value, about 2 M€
per year
16
Country Annual number of visits per
person
Annual value of Baltic Sea
recreation (M€)
Estonia 1.8 150
Finland 4 1040
Denmark 6 720
Germany 1.2 5140
Latvia 2.6 110
Lithuania 1.7 190
Poland 1.1 2070
Sweden 6.4 4430
Russia 0.5 940
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
Benefits from reduced eutrophication (Ahtiainen et al.
2014)
• Contingent valuation method
• Identical survey in 9 countries
• Willingness to pay for
reducing eutrophication
• Benefits of reduced
eutrophication in total 3800-
4400 M€ per year
17
Country Annual willingness to
pay per person (€)
Annual benefits of reduced
eutrophication (M€)
Denmark 29 – 37 125 – 158
Estonia 21 – 30 21 – 31
Finland 42 – 46 176 – 189
Germany 25 – 28 1572 – 1781
Latvia 5 – 6 8 – 9
Lithuania 9 – 10 19 – 22
Poland 12 – 13 368 – 383
Russia 11 – 12 1028 – 1129
Sweden 60 – 92 440 – 674
11/20/2017 18
Economic and social analyses at HELCOM (Baltic Marine Environment Protection Commission)
Regional economic and social analyses at HELCOM
• Important development area
• Coherent framework and information across countries – Regional results for the Baltic Sea
– Support for national implementation of EU directives
• HELCOM expert network on economic and social analyses
• EU co-funded projects 2016-2019 (TAPAS, SPICE, PanBaltic SCOPE)
• Regional workshops
• Holistic assessment of ecosystem health (HOLAS II)
• Marine spatial planning
11/20/2017 19
ANALYSIS OF THE USE OF
MARINE WATERS
Pressures
Human
activities State
Current contribution
to economy or
human welfare
Potential losses in
human welfare from
deteriorated state
ANALYSIS OF THE COST OF
DEGRADATION
Role of economic and social analysis in the HELCOM holistic assessment
• Second Holistic Assessment of Ecosystem Health of the Baltic Sea (2014-2018) and ’State of the Baltic Sea’ report
• First version published in July 2017 (final version summer 2018)
11/20/2017 20
Annual contribution from the use of marine waters to economy in the Baltic Sea region
• Selected sectors
• Monetary, employment and quantitative indicators
11/20/2017 21
FISH & SHELLFISH HARVESTING
Value of landings:
220 million € Employment:
9500 people
FINFISH AQUACULTURE
Gross value added:
14 million €
MARINE & COASTAL RECREATION (travel cost method)
Value to citizens:
15 billion €
TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE
No. of ports:
200 Total port traffic:
840 million tonnes No. of passengers, all ports:
100 million
Losses of recreation
values:
1000 – 2200 million €
Losses from degradation of
perennial vegetation and fish stocks:
1800 – 2700 million €
Losses from eutrophication:
3800 – 4000 million €
Annual welfare losses for citizens if good environmental status is not reached
• Cost of degradation
• Selected degradation themes and ecosystem services
11/20/2017 22
Economic and social analyses in marine spatial planning (MSP)
• PanBaltic SCOPE project in the Baltic Sea region, 2018 →
• HELCOM coordinates the economic and social analyses
– Review of how economic, social and cultural impacts and existing models are included in national MSP
– Recommendations on how to develop a framework for ESA in MSP
– Regional platform for exchanging experiences and knowledge
11/20/2017 23
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
References and literature (1)
• Ahtiainen, H., Artell, J., Czajkowski, M. et al. 2014. Benefits of meeting nutrient reduction
targets for the Baltic Sea – a contingent valuation study in the nine coastal states. Journal of
Environmental Economics and Policy 3(3):278‐305.
• Bateman, I., Mace, G., Fezzi, C., Atkinson, G. & Turner, K. 2011. Economic Analysis for
Ecosystem Service Assessments. Environmental and Resource Economics, 48, 177–218.
• Boyd, J. and S. Banzhaf 2007. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized
environmental accounting units. Ecological Economics 63: 616‐626.
• Czajkowski, M. et al. 2015. Valuing the commons: An international study on the recreational
benefits of the Baltic Sea. Journal of Environmental Management 156: 209-217.
• Costanza, R. et al. 2007. The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital.
Nature 387(6630): p. 253‐260.
• Fisher B, Turner RK, Morling P 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision
making. Ecological Economics 68(3): 643-653.
• Haines-Young, R., & Potschin, M. 2010. The links between biodiversity , ecosystem services
and human well-being. In British Ecological Society (Ed.), Ecosystem Ecology: A new Synthesis
(pp. 110–139). Cambridge University Press.
• Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. 2013. Common International Classification of Ecosystem
Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework
Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003
24 20.11.2017
© Natural Resources Institute Finland
References and literature (2)
• HELCOM ’State of the Baltic Sea’ summary report (HOLAS II):
http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/HELCOM_State-of-the-Baltic-
Sea_First-version-2017.pdf
• HELCOM Supplementary report on economic and social analyses (HOLAS II):
http://stateofthebalticsea.helcom.fi/wp-
content/uploads/2017/07/HELCOM_Economic_and_social_analyses_Supplementary_report_fir
st_version_2017.pdf
• Garpe, K. 2008. Ecosystem services provided by the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak. Swedish
Environmental Protection Agency Report 5873.
• Kosenius A-K, Ollikainen M. 2015. Ecosystem benefits from coastal habitats: A three country
choice experiment. Marine Policy 58:15-27.
• Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 2005. Ecosystems and human well‐being: Synthesis.
World Resources Institute: Washington D.C. p. 86.
• Obst et al. 2016. National accounting and the valuation of ecosystem assets and their services.
Environmental and Resource Economics 64(1): 1–23.
• Söderqvist, T. & Hasselström, L. 2008. The economic value of ecosystem services provided by
the Baltic Sea and Skagerrak. The Swedish Environmental Protection Agency Report 5874.
• TEEB 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). Ecological and Economic
Foundations. Edited by Pushpam Kumar. Earthscan, London and Washington.
• Turner et al. 2014. UK NEA Follow-on. WP Report 4: Coastal and marine ecosystem services.
UK National Economic Assessment (UK NEA) 2011. The UK National Ecosystem Assessment.
Technical Report. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge.
• WG ESA (Working Group on Economic and Social Assessment) 2010. Economic and social
analysis for the initial assessment for the Marine Strategy Framework Directive: a guidance
document. European Commission, 21 December 2010.
25 20.11.2017