Ståle Navrud School of Economics and Business Norwegian University of Life Sciences (NMBU), Ås, Norway

This represents joint work with the following: Jon Strand, Environment and Energy Team, The World Bank Richard Carson, University of California, San Diego Ariel Ortiz-Bobea, Cornell University Jeff Vincent, Duke University

Background: World Bank project to value Amazon forest losses The Amazon rainforest is a global public good – of value to the entire world Three main components to the value of protecting the Amazon: 1) Values accruing to the local and regional population 2) Carbon values (global) 3) “Other global values”: How much are people outside of the Amazon region willing to forego (willing to pay) in order to preserve the Amazon rainforest?

Background (cont.) Delphi Contingent Valuation (CV) survey – A tool for global value transfer (Benefit transfer) ? A set of Delphi Contingent Valuation exercises, where 216 experts from 37 countries provided their best guess of estimates for average population Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) related to protecting the Amazon, if CV surveys (described in detail in a web survey to the experts) had been conducted in their own countries

Background (cont.) The Delphi exercises might not provide fully correct values in terms of levels of population WTP, as experts may have limited direct information about these values in their country. The Delphi exercises might, in particular, indicate useful relationships between national income per capita and WTP

Key drivers of Amazon forest losses in years to come: 1. Man-made deforestation 2. Increased frequency of forest fires 3. Forest drying out, including “dieback” (transformation of forest into savannah) 2-3 may follow from interactions between man-made factors and climate change. Whatever reasons, we seek a measure of the value of such losses for populations outside of the Amazon region.

Basic features of our Delphi CV exercises: Valuation experts faced with a CV survey to be done in their country, in a manner indicated below, and asked to indicate what they believe would be its outcome. Experts are asked to provide four numbers: Mean, and median, WTP, for each of two separate plans for protecting the Amazon rainforest: Plan A: No further forest loss by 2050 (most ambitious protection plan) Plan B: 12% of current forest lost by 2050 (less ambitious protection plan) Business-as-usual (BAU) alternative (no plan): 30% of the current Amazon forest lost by Survey in 2 rounds: experts were allowed to adjust their answers in round 2 after learning about round 1 averages in their region.

Size of the Amazon rainforest area is comparable to that of the continental U.S.

Plan A Preserve current area (2012)

No planPlan B Source: Centro de Sensoriamento Remoto/UFMG, Brazil

Experts participating in the surveys: Europe (48 experts from 21 countries): Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, UK Asia (70 experts from 12 countries): Bangladesh, Cambodia, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam North America (82 experts from 2 countries): United States, Canada Oceania (16 experts from 2 countries): Australia, New Zealand In toal: 216 experts from 37 countries.

Payment mechanism Households asked to make an annual payment per household to support Plan A, and Plan B: WTP in terms of a national tax collected in each country, and submitted to an international Amazon protection fund. Key factors: (1) per household rather than individual WTP (2) annual for all future years rather than a one-time payment (3) payment coercive (tax) rather than voluntary (4) payment card (amounts shown from 0 to 1000 €, or $1500)

Examples of threathened mammal species in the Amazon (to be shown in population surveys):

Survey results

Plan A, Round 1: by country

Plan A, Round 2: by country

Not difficult at all (0) to Very difficult (10)

Conclusions Experts are not likely to precisely identify national population WTP, but may have a “feel” for it, perhaps mostly in relation to other populations. Individual experts’ answers are quite variable, but there are strong patterns across all experts as a group; perhaps most so for average assessed WTP related to average income (Elasticity = 1 with respect to PPP-adjusted per-capita national incomes).

Conclusions (cont.) Expert valuations may in this way provide clues to relative values across different populations, thus making value transfer possible from populations where values are measured to those where they are not. Testing accuracy of CV Delphi exercises: Population valuation surveys, using joint CV and Choice Experiment (CE) formats (internet-based in OECD countries). The first survey, in U.S. and Canada, has already been completed, in 2014 (results are not ready).