Presented by:Keith Lawrence, CI

Study leads: Stefanie O’Gorman &

Camille Bann, Jacobs UK Ltd.

A Valuation of England’s

Terrestrial Ecosystem

Services

Presentation Outline

BackgroundKey issues consideredThe value of England’s Terrestrial ESRecommendations

BackgroundKey issues consideredThe value of England’s Terrestrial ESRecommendations

Jacobs, for UK government (Defra)2008

‘Ecosystems Approach project’:

holistic approach to policy-makingfully reflect value of ecosystem services in decision-makingrespect environmental limits

Study Aims

1. Estimate ‘total’ annual value of England's terrestrial ecosystem services

2. Investigate existing evidence base, valuation methodologies & limitations

Broad, ambitious scopeA journey, not an end point

Key Issues: Prioritization

Academic panel:Prof. Kerry Turner, UEAProf. Dave Rafaelli, University of YorkProf. Ken Willis, University of NewcastleClient Board

Workshop

13Typology of values7Temporal considerations

13Existing and future pressures, identification & consideration

4Interactions with other habitats and ecosystems

12The counterfactual4Variation of values by location

9Extent/ availability/ scarcity of services or habitats4Variables affecting values

9Other types of value3Double counting

9Uncertainty2Multi-functional nature of habitats

8Cultural services & landscape1Scale of services & benefits

RankIssueRankIssue

Key Issues

Why do a total valuation?(Specific policies need marginal valuations)

Advocacy National accounting

Compare natural capital to produced capitalPrioritizing locations / services / habitatsTime series

Conceptually & practically harder

Key Issues

The counterfactual: What does ‘no ecosystems’ mean?

Strong sustainability argument infinite value

Assumed basics of life remain:O2

Fresh drinking water Sufficient foodComfortable climate

Key IssuesA ‘service based’ rather than a ‘habitats’ approach

Each service valued at an appropriate scaleConsider value of the system, not of a given habitat

Key Issues

Gaps in understanding biophysical mechanisms that result in ES

e.g. role of forests in water provision

Data gaps

What is the service?What is the service?

The role of ecosystems inproviding the service

The role of ecosystems inproviding the service

How people benefitHow people benefit

Monetised benefitMonetised benefit

Key Issues

Aggregation & disaggregationFrom region to nation & v.v.Summing different servicesFrom marginal source studies to total value estimates

A typology of ecosystem services & benefits

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment categoriesMaps ES against final benefits to societyHelps avoid double counting e.g. health Records valuation methods, data sources, what’s valued & what isn’tClear, consistent terminology

Consumer surplus

Economic incomeLower flood

damages

Economic income from agriculture

Provisioning Regulating Cultural

Food

Fibre & Fuel

Medicine

Climate

Erosion

Natural hazard regulation

Air quality regulation

Water regulation

Water / waste purification

Recreation Opportunities

Knowledge systems

Goods with Social Use

Values

Goods with Non-use Values

Benefits

The value of England’s Terrestrial ES

Annual benefitsIllustrative, lower bound estimates Supporting Services not valued

they are ‘intermediate’ rather than ‘final’ benefits their value may be considered infinite?

Provisioning Services

Market Value (MV) of goods sold: £10.2 billion p.a. Gross Valued Added (GVA) generated: £4.2 billion p.a.>80% of this is Agricultural Food production Used central statistics

Regulating Services

Damage Cost AvoidedCarbon sequestration £1.0 billion p.a.

Valued using UK government guidelines on Shadow Price of Carbon

Flood control & storm buffering £1.2 billion p.a.Wetlands onlyBenefits transfer

Case study on air quality regulationGap for water provision / quality

Cultural ServicesRecreation:

Participant expenditure: £5.4 billion p.a. … generating £2.0 billion economic income p.a.+ £266 million consumer surplus p.a.Used central statistics & one-off studies

Non-use value:Lower bound, based on an illustrative sourceBateman & Langford (1997): Mean WTP to preserve the Broads National Park = £18.38 p.a. per individualAt least £399 million p.a.

Summary of annual values

ProvisioningGVA

£4,211M RegulatingDamages avoided

£2,250M

RecreationEconomic Income

£1,951M Non-useCS

£399M

CS£266M

ResearchSocial Use

Recommendations1. Focus should be on

marginal valuations, both to inform policy & for advocacy

2. Research into how (and at what scales) benefits are generated

Recommendations3. Develop a benefits

transfer strategy4. Design primary valuations

with benefit transfer requirements in mind

5. Employ standards on MV & GVA that fit ecosystems approach

… And finallyLots of issues with total valuations

A serious underestimate of infinity?Some categories easier than othersDifferent conceptual frameworks for different valuationsData gapsCan generate results that illustrate where values stem fromNon monetized metrics also interesting

Thank you!

Keith Lawrencek.lawrence@conservation.org