The economic value of nature? Pricing habitats and species - Possibilities and Ivan Olsson and Stefan Jendteg

Outline - An introduction to ecosystem services and cost-benefit analyses (CBA) - The Fyledalen case study - Methods used - Cost estimates - Benefit estimates - Preliminary results - Problems encountered: Biodiversity Species without commercial values Habitats without recreational values (mires, he he …?) Robustness of variables used by Cost-Benefit Workshop - Workshop exercise

Introduction 1) Providing/producing (eg goods; food, timber) 2) Regulating (eg pollination, predators regulating herbivores) 3) Supporting (eg hydrological cycle, transport of nutrients…) 4) Cultural (eg recreational, hunting, Ecosystem services = goods and service provided by the ecosystem (beneficial for us). Unio crassus filtering water, reducing nutrients

Threats Sources responsible for loss of ecosystem services: Habitat destruction (eg pollution, the impact of invasive species) Fragmentation (eg alteration of habitats resulting in loss of connectivity) - Loss of mechanisms driving ecosystems (pacific salmon as a “nutrient carrier”) - Loss of biodiversity and genetic diversity Are traditional “ecological variables” (eg extinction rates, levels of pollutions, diversity index) - powerful enough for changing the negative trends (human behavior)? In cases they are not… The impact of canalizing; increase in extreme flooding events, nutrient transport, loss of diversity etc

The CBA as an additional (stronger?) tool describing, in monetary terms: - the negative effects of having non-functional ecosystems - the positive effects of having functional ecosystems …Pricing and valuing ecosystem services by CBA´s may create an economic motivation for its protection… and for restoring habitats and re-introduction of species… How about Cost-Benefit Analyses, CBA´s

The Case study in Improved water quality Increased biodiversity Objectives To learn a lot… Recreation, post-hoc To disseminate a lot The Baltic perspective Post-LIFE-conditions -Poor water quality, habitats -Poor aquatic biodiversity

The value of a As a pedagogue, indicator and symbol - but also as a threatened “species” and filter feeder…

Transforming responding variables (objectives) into monetary values (SEK) before and after implementation of actions: Biodiversity ??? Knowledge gained ??? Dissemination, catalyst effect ??? P-reduction, per kg = SEK N-reduction, per kg = 31 SEK Willingness to pay amongst visitors, but no fee (350 SEK per visit) Salmonids, 108 SEK per kg Other species, 9 SEK per individual Water quality Recreation Fish production Filtering/storage capacity 0.1 – 1.2 g P per mussel (?) Mussel filtering

CBA Results Accumulated costs vs benefits (SEK) Costs 10% of RV 50% of RV Recreation Value (RV) Action costs c. 6MSEK Benefits: Willingness to pay 350 SEK per visit, annually visits in Fyledalen Willingness to pay for Action costs (50% of RV), 175 SEK ? – Balance 2015 Willingness to pay for Action costs (10% of RV), 35 SEK ? – Balance 2023 The study (questionnaire) will be repeated the following years for “new” RV and accurate “willingness to pay” numbers for actions…

CBA Predicted Results - Water Accumulated costs vs benefits (SEK) Costs P-reduction N-reduction P-Mussels Tot reduction Action costs c. 6MSEK Benefits: P-reduction (range: -20 to 80 kg per month [ 1023 SEK per kg] ) by floodplain actions N-reduction (range: 100 to 300 kg per month [31 SEK per kg] ) by floodplain actions P-reduction by mussels (range 0.1 to 1.2 g per individual and year). Population density will level out 2030 (Carrying capacity 3 M) Benefits will balance costs 2021 ?

CBA Predicted Results - Action costs c. 6MSEK Benefits: Fish, annual production (range: 200 – 10000, 9 SEK/fish): Benefits: Salmonids, annual production (range: 100 – 250 kg, 108 SEK/kg) Benefits will balance costs 2070

CBA Costs vs benefits, predicted Accumulated costs vs benefits (SEK) Costs Benefits, total Benefits = (recreation + water quality improvements + increased fish production) balance project costs by 2018…

Possible to value: Costs Improvements of recreation value +++ Improvements in water quality ++ Increased fish production + Not possible to value(?): Biodiversity Dissemination Gained knowledge We were able to predict the time for when benefits balanced costs We were able to estimate the benefits of having Unio crassus re-introduced Robustness of variables/predictions(?), validation through monitoring (before-after-impact-control-design)

Future Each proposal containing concrete conservation actions must also include an action aimed to assess the socio-economic impact of the project actions on the local economy and population, as well as on the ecosystem functions"

Workshop Thematic (rivers and lakes, wetlands/bogs, grasslands, forest) groups?: The tasks: 1) Define potential ecosystem services that are influenced by your project actions 2) Quantify, in monetary terms, ecosystem services (benefits) affected by your project actions (optimal €/unit). 3) Define positive impacts on ecosystem services, not possible to quantify in monetary terms. Why isn't it possible? 4) When should we use the concept of ecosystem services and cost- benefit analyses? Why?