218
How to balance forestry and biodiversity conservation – A view across Europe
Box C 1
Economic valuation of biodiversity, water, and climate protection services for the stepping stone concept: Bavarian State Forest Enterprise Ebrach
J. G. Stößel
MBA Sustainability Management
In this research a first approximate economic valua- tion of a variety of forest ecosystems services was generated (biodiversity, water and climate protec- tion). The goal was to increase awareness and inte- gration of indirect use, existence, option, and bequest forest values (Cistulli 2002). The region of northern Franconia in southern Germany is espe- cially affected by climate change – currently result- ing in rising mean annual temperatures of up to 2 °C in comparison to the reference period (1970–
1999) and significantly decreased precipitation (BDG 2020). In 2019, dying beech trees (Fagus syl- vatica) were observed on more than 3000 ha of for- est areas for the first time in the region.
The estimation of the Total Economic Value (TEV) refers to 1826 ha of set-aside beech and mixed
beech forests in the area of the Bavarian State For- est Enterprise Ebrach. Although focusing on forest biodiversity and practicing integrative forest man- agement, the Ebrach enterprise primarily generates income from timber and ancillary uses (e.g. game meat or hunting lease), whilst receiving only a rather small amount of compensation for set-aside areas. An adapted ‘benefit transfer’ method was used for evaluation of TEV, transferring over 30 selected environmental economic valuations of for- est ecosystem services by national and international studies in the last two decades (see list of reports).
Overall, the annual TEV was estimated at over € 2.4 million, with 43 % provided by biodiversity and related services, 31 % by wood and ancillary use, 16 % by climate protection, and 10 % by water pro- tection services using an adapted benefit transfer.
The values were generated for 1826 ha of set- aside areas, and willingness to pay was calculated with 4.5 potential user households per hectare or approximately 8200 households in total. In Figure 1, the proportions of each service are presented, fol- lowed by the estimated annual service value, the annual value per hectare (rounded down), and potential willingness to pay for services per house- hold. Timber and ancillary use displays the potential
Indirect Use Values:
Water retention, nitrate filtration, CO2 storage and sequestration
and O2 production
Existence, Option and Bequest Values:
Promotion, protection and preservation, species richness, habitat services,
genetic diversity Direct Use Values:
Timber and ancillary use, drinking and fresh water
Annual Total Econonomic Value (TEV) Preserved Areas Forestry Ebrach:
2.4 million €
31 % 746 633 € Ø 408 €/ha
10 % 241 032 € Ø 132 €/ha or 29 €/hh
16 % 391 677 € Ø 214 €/ha or 47 €/hh
43 % 1 018 299 € Ø 557 €/ha or 123 €/hh
Integrated service values Potential Timber
and Ancillary Use
Water Protection
Services Biodiversity and
Related Services Climate Protection
Services
Fig. 1. Annual total economic value of set-aside areas with proportions of services referring to area (ha) or willingness to pay of potential user households (hh).
219 Box C 1 use value. The boxes also show the general catego-
ries of integrated service values included in the assessment. The categorisation was necessary to value the services; however, it should be noted that in practice the placement of the services in one cat- egory or another is not always clear-cut (Forest Europe 2016).
With 69 % of the value generated by biodiver- sity, water and climate protection services, the question arises of how the estimated TEV can be used to develop protection and support for these services, and also to seize future market and prod- uct opportunities associated with these services.
Increasing amounts of salvage timber, decreasing wood prices, and rising societal awareness for envi- ronmental changes in forests are increasing the pressure on forest enterprises. From a local perspec- tive further cooperation between stakeholders and effective financial support for sustainable resource use is needed to preserve and develop estimated values. The listed values can function as a basis for negotiation of local contracts, certificates, and product development. Furthermore, following the concept of ‘payment for ecosystem services’, the valuation of forest ecosystem services can provide an opportunity to foster existing ecosystems and related services as well as generate new income through public–private cooperation – e.g. with local water management, agriculture, and other societal stakeholders, such as individuals or industry (Barredo et al. 2016; Engel 2016; FAO 2018).
In short, the ‘benefit transfer’ method collects values estimated for a particular service in one area, and then uses, adapts, and transfers those values to another area (Johnston et al. 2015). The criteria of ISO 14008:2019 (ISO 2019) were included in the study selection process to increase site comparabil- ity of the valuation studies used for the benefit transfer. The standard for monetary valuation of environmental impacts and related environmental aspects was used by defining guiding questions and minimum requirements regarding accuracy, com- pleteness, consistency, credibility, relevance, and transparency. Local ecological similarity was inte- grated through criteria of relevance to at least match the biome of central European temperate forest. This adaption allowed the selection of stud- ies reaching a minimum requirement in a three- score valuation procedure with ‘weak’, ‘medium’
and ‘strong’ compliance with certain criteria. The studies were identified through searching scientific
online platforms and existing literature lists (e.g.
Müller et al. 2019) for concept-related keywords. As most included studies either referred to annual val- ues for certain areas or potential users, local demo- graphic data in the form of a potential user base including tourists was created to aggregate willing- ness to pay. The research collected the values of the spectra listed in Figure 1 and created arithmetic means. In practice, an additive approach of values of different services would probably further increase the values of, and willingness to pay for, biodiver- sity, water, and climate protection services.
Although the ‘benefit transfer’ method is still in development regarding scientific requirements, it has been used to calculate environmental values in the past decade (Johnston et al. 2015).
The TEV presented here can be interpreted as a draft of the values of forest ecosystem services and as orientation for future local research, possible cooperation between different stakeholders of for- est ecosystem services, and compensation approaches to secure the services (Müller et al.
2019). The aggregated economic value of forest ecosystem services must always be one valuation amongst others, and must not be used as a justifica- tion to maximise singular services in limited areas at the expense of other services.
References
Barredo, J.I.; San-Miguel-Ayanz, J.; Viszlai, I., 2016: Pay- ments for forest ecosystem services – SWOT analysis and possibilities for implementation. JRC Technical Reports.
EUR 28128 EN. Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg. 25 p. https://doi.org/10.2788/957929 BDG, 2020: Fortschrittliche Umwelttechnologien mittels AI im WB. Ein Forschungsprojekt der Universität Würz- burg. Big Data@Geo. https://bigdata-at-geo.eu/
Cistulli, V., 2002: Environment in decentralized develop- ment. Economic and institutional issues. Training mate- rials for agricultural planning, No. 44. Food and Agricul- ture Organization (FAO), Rome. xiii + 136 p.
Engel, S., 2016: The devil in the detail: a practical guide on designing payments for environmental services. Inter- national Review of Environmental and Resource Eco- nomics 9: 131–177. https://doi.org/10.1561/101.00000076 FAO, 2018: Forests and water. Valuation and payments for
forest ecosystem services. United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Geneva, Switzerland. (Geneva timber and forest study papers, ECE/TIM/SP/44) https://www.unece.org/filead- min/DAM/timber/publications/sp-44-forests-water-web.
pdf (retrieved 9 January 2020).
220
How to balance forestry and biodiversity conservation – A view across Europe
Forest Europe, 2016: Expert Group and Workshop on Val- uation of Forest Ecosystem Services. Group of Experts (2012–2014) & Belgrade Workshop (Republic of Serbia).
Final Report. Ministerial Conference on the Protection of Forests in Europe-Forest Europe Liaison Unit Madrid https://foresteurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/
PES_Valuation_report_.pdf, (retrieved 17 January 2020).
ISO, 2019: ISO 14008: 2019. Monetary valuation of envi- ronmental impacts and related environmental aspects.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO), Geneva, Switzerland. https://www.iso.org/standard/
43243.html (retrieved 17 January 2020).
Johnston, R.J.; Rolfe, J.; Rosenberger, R.S.; Brouwer, R.
(eds), 2015: Benefit Transfer of Environmental and Resource Values. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht.
582 p. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9930-0 Müller, A.; Knoke, T.; Olschewski, R., 2019: Can existing
estimates for ecosystem service values inform forest management? Forests 10: 132.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f10020132
Included studies/reports
Amirnejad, H.; Khalilian, S.; Assareh, M.H.; Ahmadian, M., 2006: Estimating the existence value of north forests of Iran by using a contingent valuation method. Ecological Economics 58: 665–675.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.08.015
Bade, S.; Ott, W.; Grünigen, S., 2011: Zahlungsbereitschaft für Massnahmen zur Förderung der Biodiversität im Wald [Willingness to pay for forest management activi- ties fostering biodiversity]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 162: 382–388.
https://doi.org/10.3188/szf.2011.0382
Bernasconi, A.; Iseli, R.; Lienert, S.; Lüscher, F., 2013: Bewer- tung der Wälder der OAK Schwyz. http://testweb.oak- schwyz.ch/wp-content/uploads/oak_bewertung_des_
waldes.pdf (retrieved 26 June 2020).
Broberg, T., 2007: Assessing the non-timber value of old- growth forests in Sweden. http://www.econ.umu.se/
ueslpnr/ues712.pdf (retrieved 26 June 2020).
Bürgi, A.; Spjevak, S., 2009: Grundwasserschutz im Wald kostet! Wald und Holz. 2, 09: 30–33. https://www.wald- wissen.net/wald/boden/wsl_grundwasserschutz/wsl_
grundwasserschutz_originalartikel.pdf (retrieved 26 June 2020).
Chiabai, A.; Travisi, C.; Ding, H.; Markandya, A.; Nunes, P.A.L.D., 2009: Economic valuation of forest ecosystem services: methodology and monetary estimates, SSRN Scholarly Paper. FEEM Working Paper No. 12.2009.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1396661
Christie, M.; Hanley, N.; Warren, J.; Murphy, K.; Wright, R.;
Hyde, T., 2006: Valuing the diversity of biodiversity. Eco- logical Economics 58: 304–317.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2005.07.034
Czajkowski, M.; Buszko-Briggs, M.; Hanley, N., 2009: Valu- ing changes in forest biodiversity. Ecological Economics 68: 2910–2917.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.06.016
Groot, R. de; Brander, L.; van der Ploeg, S.; Costanza, R.;
Bernard, F.; Braat, L. et al., 2012: Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units.
Ecosystem Services 1: 50–61.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2012.07.005
Hasler, B.; Lundhede, T.; Martinsen, L., 2007: Protection versus purification - assessing the benefits of drinking water quality. Hydrology Research 38: 373–386.
https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2007.018
Häyhä, T.; Franzese, P.P.; Paletto, A.; Fath, B.D., 2015:
Assessing, valuing, and mapping ecosystem services in Alpine forests. Ecosystem Services 14: 12–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.03.001
Küpker, M., 2007: Der Wert biologischer Vielfalt von Wäl- dern in Deutschland. Eine sozioökonomische Untersuch- ung von Maßnahmen zur Förderung der Biodiversität.
Doctoral dissertation, Universität Hamburg. http://web- doc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/dissts/Hamburg/Kuepker2007.
pdf (retrieved 26 June 2020).
Lehtonen, E.; Kuuluvainen, J.; Pouta, E.; Rekola, M.; Li, C.-Z., 2003: Non-market benefits of forest conservation in southern Finland. Environmental Science & Policy 6:
195–204.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1462-9011(03)00035-2
Mashayekhi, Z.; Panahi, M.; Karami, M.; Khalighi, S.; Male- kian, A., 2010: Economic valuation of water storage function of forest ecosystems (case study: Zagros For- ests, Iran). Journal of Forestry Research 21: 293–300.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11676-010-0074-3
Merker, K., 2010: Entwicklung von Märkten – unterneh- merische Umsetzung am Beispiel Trinkwasser in Nieder- sachsen [Creating markets – entrepreneurial implemen- tation by the example of drinking water in Lower Saxony]. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Forstwesen 161:
368–373. https://doi.org/10.3188/szf.2010.0368 Meyerhoff, J.; Angeli, D.; Hartje, V., 2012: Valuing the ben-
efits of implementing a national strategy on biological diversity – The case of Germany. Environmental Science
& Policy. 23: 109–119.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2012.07.020
Müller, A.; Knoke, T.; Olschewski, R., 2019: Can existing estimates for ecosystem service values inform forest management? Forests 10, 2: 132.
https://doi.org/10.3390/f10020132
UK NEA, 2011: The UK national ecosystem assessment. Valu- ation of ecosystem services provided by UK woodlands.
http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Tx- LTiDHKooI%3D&tabid=82 (retrieved 20 November 2020).
SCBD, 2001: The Value of Forest Ecosystems. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (SBCD). CBD Technical Series no. 4). https://www.cbd.int/doc/publica- tions/cbd-ts-04.pdf (retrieved 26 June 2020).
Schweppe-Kraft, B., 2009: Natural Capital in Germany – State and Valuation; with special reference to Biodiver- sity. In: Döring, R. (ed) Sustainability, natural capital and nature conservation. Metropolis-Verlag, Marburg, Ger- many. (Beiträge zur Theorie und Praxis starker Nachhal- tigkeit, 3). 1–24.
221 Box C 1
Sieberth, L., 2014: Inwertsetzung von Ökosystemdienst- leistungen. Eine objektive Bewertung auf lokaler Ebene.
Remscheid. Eine Studie im Auftrag der Waldgenossen- schaft Remscheid eG, http://www.waldgenossenschaft- remscheid.de/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/kosystem- leistungen-W-lder-im-Stadtgebiet-Remscheid.pdf (retrieved 26 June 2020).
Fig. 2. Values of non-timber forest products play an important role for example in southern Europe. The picture shows a forest area in southern Catalunya (Spain), owned by a monastery allowing for local people to obtain licenses for mushroom picking (Photo: Simon Egli).
