1. GEF Session 3 Setting Priorities for Improved Environmental Management John A. Dixon (johnkailua@aol.com) The World Bank Institute Morteza Rahmatian (mrahmatian@fullerton.edu) California State University, Fullerton Ashgabad, November, 2005

2. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Questions What criteria and approaches can be used in ranking environmental problems? What are the advantages and limitations of economic methods for defining priorities? (e.g. BCA, CEA) What are the principles of and key lessons in environmental priority-setting?

3. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Priority Setting with limited information In a “first best” world all costs and benefits can be valued and an economic efficiency criterion used to rank actions... In a “second best” world all benefits cannot be valued and a cost-effectiveness criterion may be necessary…... In a “third best” situation with little information, time or resources, qualitative ranking approaches are the best recourse

4. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Priority setting and available information –a simple example. Given this information, what is the priority?? Impacts on growth Air qualitymedium Water qualityhigh Waste management medium Congestionhigh Noiselow

5. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Priority setting and available information – if we add information on distribution of impacts, what is the priority now?? PROBLEMS: How to compare a waste management project with a congestion reduction one? Weighting of the different criteria depends on political considerations It is possible to use experts’ opinion (Delphi technique) The focus on weights to different cualitative criteria is known as “Multi-criteria analysis” Impacts on growth Distribution al impacts Air qualitymediumhigh Water qualityhigh Waste management mediumhigh Congestionhighmedium Noiselowhigh

6. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Priority setting and available information – with added information on health impacts, do priorities change now?? PROBLEMS: It is necessary to define the spacial and time limits of the analysis: financial analysis vs. economic analysis Pollution can have different impacts: -Productivity -Health -Recreation -Ecology Impacts on growth Distribution al impacts Health effects Air qualitymediumhigh Water qualityhigh Waste management mediumhighmedium Congestionhighmediumlow Noiselowhighlow

7. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting An Example of Use of Expert Judgment in Nigeria—what are the priority problems?? ProblemEconomic GrowthDistributional Equity Resource Integrity Soil DegradationHigh Water contamination High DeforestationHigh Gully erosionModerate Fisheries lossModerate High Coastal erosionModerate Wildlife & Biodiversity loss Low High Air pollutionLowHighModerate Water HyacinthModerateLow

8. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Economic methods for defining priority actions: Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) Identifies the cheapest means of attaining a given environmental objective, e.g. an emissions reduction target. A powerful “second-best’ tool when data on benefits are not available. Can only prioritize measures that mitigate the same type of environmental impact, i.e. have the same end-point

9. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Priority setting and available information – with management cost information – what is the priority now? Impacts on growth Distributional impacts Health effects Management costs Air qualitymediumhigh 1000 Water qualityhigh 800 Waste management mediumhighmedium900 Congestionhighmediumlow1500 Noiselowhighlow1200

10. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Cost-effectiveness in controlling air pollution in Mexico City Interesting features Identifies measures with negative costs (benefits) illustrating “easy-win” actions with small budget implications. Assumes that the marginal benefits of mitigating air pollutants are constant. Analyzing different air pollutants requires a weighting of toxicity impacts on human health (the end-point: combination of multiple criteria and CEA approaches).

11. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Cost effectiveness in controlling Mexico City air pollution

12. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting The preferred form of analysis: Benefit Cost Analysis (BCA) Maximizes the present discounted stream of all future benefits and costs of the action. Economic efficiency criteria include: –Net present value (NPV) –Economic rate of return (ERR) –Benefit-cost ratio (B/CR) Information requirements for a “social” or “full” BCA are large: data on all marginal benefits and marginal costs constraints include poor data, but also poor knowledge and acceptability of non-market valuation methods among decision-makers.

13. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Evaluation Criteria: all three measures use the same inputs (benefits, costs, time, discount rate) Net Present Value (NPV):

14. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting ERR/ EIRR Economic Rate of Return (or Internal Rate of Return): r * is the discount rate that equates the present value of the benefits from the project to the present value of the costs of the project. IRR = r *

15. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Benefit/ Cost Ratio (B/CR): present value of benefits divided by present value of costs

16. GEF Measurement and Analysis of Benefits and Costs “Benefits” refer to the benefits associated with additional environmental or natural resource preservation, conservation, or restoration. Likewise “costs” refer to the costs of additional environmental or natural resource preservation, conservation, or restoration.

17. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Measurement and Analysis of Benefits and Costs (cont’d) Costs are usually relatively easy to estimate in dollar terms. Examples: – The additional cost of producing diesel engines that comply with more stringent particulate matter regulations. – The additional costs and foregone revenues associated with certified sustainable timber harvest methods. – The reduced commercial fishing revenues due to more stringent fishing regulations

18. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Measurement and Analysis of Benefits and Costs (cont’d) Benefits are more difficult to estimate in dollar terms. Examples include: – The improvements in human health associated with more stringent particulate matter regulations. – The watershed benefits associated with certified sustainable timber harvest methods. – The ecological and future gains to stocks associated with more stringent fishing regulations

19. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Measurement and Analysis of Benefits and Costs (cont’d) Benefit/cost analysis usually uses money as a measure of utility, and thus monetizing benefits and costs is an important aspect of such an analysis.

20. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Limitations of benefit/cost analysis: Value of Human Lives: Some of the benefits of environmental improvements include the reduced loss of human life. What are the policy implications of placing an infinite value on a life? Of measuring the value of a life based on earnings capacity? Future vs. Current Generations: What discount rate is appropriate when bringing future impacts into present discounted value? Will future generations value things the same way we do? If not, then how can we bring their values and preferences into policy debates today that will affect them?

21. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Priority setting and available information – when both cost and benefit information are available -- the full Benefit Cost Analysis Impacts on growth Distribution al impacts Health effects Management costs BenefitsNet Benefits Air qualitymediumhigh 10001300300 Water qualityhigh 800900100 Waste management mediumhighmedium9001150250 Congestionhighmediumlow15001300(200) Noiselowhighlow12001100(100) Benefit Cost Analysis

22. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Example: Benefit Cost Analysis of air-pollution control in Santiago, Chile

23. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Determining economic values to include in a BCA: Economic Valuation Methods (again!) Changes in Production –Crops, fisheries, water –Health –Opportunity cost Hedonic Approaches –Property value –Land values –Wage differential Survey Techniques –CVM (Contingent Valuation Method) Surrogate Markets –Travel Cost

24. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Selecting the appropriate valuation technique (again)

25. GEF Caspian EVE 2005/UNDP and WBI John A. Dixon & Morteza Rahmatian, Valuation & Priority Setting Limitations of Economic Policy Analysis Incremental impacts of activities Uncertainty (wrt the future) Irreversible impacts Preferences of future generations Distributional effects across social sectors