Convention on biological diversity
|
|  Yüklə 1.31 Mb.
|
Economic valuesDirect use valuesThe value of forests is most commonly associated with the production of timber and fuelwood. These are major products for many countries, providing building materials, energy, pulp and paper, industrial raw materials and valuable foreign exchange. Estimates by FAO (2001b) show that global production of roundwood reached 3335 million m3 in 1999, a little more than half of which is used for fuelwood and and the remainder for industrial roundwood. Timber valuesTwo types of timber use need to be distinguished: commercial and non-commercial. Local uses may be commercial or can relate to subsistence, e.g. building poles. World industrial roundwood production expanded substantially between 1960 and 1990 from some 1 billion m3 to 1.6 billion m3 but has since fallen back to some 1.5 billion m3 in the late 1990s (Barbier et al., 1994; FAO, 2001b). Tropical wood production in 1999 represented a relatively small proportion of overall global production of the various commodities: about 15% of the world’s industial roundwood production, 14% of sawnwood, 15% of wood-based panels and 9% of paper and paperboard (FAO, 2001b). Industrial roundwood production in 1999 was dominated by developed countries, which together accounted for 79% of total global production. Industrial roundwood production varied from year to year during the 1990s, but the overall trend was relatively flat. This was a significant change from the rapid growth that occurred prior to 1990. Wood-based panel and paper/paperboard production show a steadily rising demand, which is partially offset by reductions in the demand for sawnwood. Fibre production has risen nearly 50% since 1960 to 1.5 billion m3 annually. In most industrial countries, net annual tree growth exceeds harvest rates; in many other regions, however, more trees are removed from production forests than are replaced by natural growth. Fibre scarcities are not expected in the foreseeable future. The potential for forest plantations to partially meet demand for wood and fibre for industrial use is increasing. Although accounting for only 5% of global forest cover, forest plantations were estimated in the year 2000 to supply about 35% of global roundwood, with anticipated increase to 44% by 2020. In some countries, forest plantation production already contributes the majority of industrial wood supply (Carle et al., 2001). In a comprehensive survey of sustainable forestry practice, Pearce et al. (2001) found that sustainable forest management is less profitable than non-sustainable forestry, although problems of definition abound. Profit here refers only to the returns to a logging regime and do not include the other values of the forest. Sustainable timber management can be profitable, but conventional (unsustainable) logging is more profitable. This result is largely due to the role that discount rates play in determining the profitability of forestry. The higher the discount rate the less market value is attached now to yields in the future. If logging can take place in natural forests with maximum harvest now, this will generate more near-term revenues than sustainable timber practice. Similarly, sustainable timber management involves higher costs, e.g. in avoiding damage to standing but non-commercial trees. The significance of the general result is that the non-timber benefits, including ecological and other services, from sustainable forests must exceed the general loss of profit relative to conventional logging for the market to favour sustainable forestry.
Fuelwood and charcoalFAO (2001b) statistics suggest that in 1999 some 1.75 billion m3 of wood was extracted from forests for fuelwood and conversion to charcoal. Of this total, roughly one-half comes from Asia, 26% from Africa, 10% from South America, 8% from North and Central America and 5% from Europe. The International Energy Agency (1998) estimates that 11% of the world’s energy consumption comes from biomass, mainly fuelwood. IEA (1998) estimates that 19% of China's primary energy consumption comes from biomass, the figure for India being 42% and the figures for developing countries generally being about 35% (see also UNDP et al., 2000). All sources agree that fuelwood is of major importance for poorer countries and for the poor within those countries. While fuelwood may be taken from major forests, much of it comes from woodlots and other less concentrated sources. Extraction rates may or may not be sustainable, depending on geographic region. Hardly any fuelwood and charcoal is traded internationally. As with other non-timber products (see below), local values of fuelwood and charcoal can be highly significant in terms of the local economy. Shyamsundar and Kramer (1997) show that the value of fuelwood per household per annum for villages surrounding Mantadia National Park in Madagascar is $39. This can be compared with an estimated mean annual income of $279, i.e. collected fuelwood from the forest accounts for 14% of household income. Houghton and Mendelsohn (1996) find that the value of fuelwood constitutes from 39-67% of local household income from fodder, fuel and timber in the Middle Hills of Nepal. Non-timber forest productsNTFP extraction may be sustainable or non-sustainable and few studies make observations as to which is the case. One example of sustainable use is in the Sinharaja Forest Reserve in Sri Lanka, where the most popularly collected NTFPs (Calamus species/rattans, Caryota urens/kithul palm used for jaggery production, wild cardamom and a medicinal herb, Costcinium fenestratum) all performed better in selectively logged-over forest than in undisturbed forest, where they were either absent or showed poor growth (Gunatilleke et al., 1995). Extractive uses include: taking mammals, fish, crustaceans and birds for local or international trade or for subsistence use, taking plant products such as latex, wild cocoa, honey, gums, nuts, fruits, flowers/seeds, berries, fungi and spices, also plant material for local medicines, rattan and fodder for animals. Detailed analysis of the available studies suggests that economic values for NTPF (net values, i.e. net of costs) cluster from a few dollars per hectare per annum up to around US$100/ha/yr. Lampietti and Dixon (1993) suggested a 'default' value of around US$70 per hectare, and Pearce (1998) has suggested US$5010. However, these values cannot be extrapolated to all forest. Typically, the higher values relate to readily accessible forests, values for non-accessible forests would be close to zero in net terms due to the costs of access and extraction. The benefits of NTFPs accrue mainly to local communities. The size of the population base making use of the forests may be comparatively small and the implied value per hectare may therefore also be small due to the unit values being multiplied by a comparatively small number of households. It is important to discern, as far as possible, what the value of the NTFPs is as a percentage of household incomes. Available studies suggest NTFPs may account for 30-60% of local community household income and in some cases the amount exceeds 100% of other income. This perspective demonstrates the critical importance of NTFPs as a means of income support. Indeed, it underlines (a) the need to ensure that measurements of household income include the non-marketed products taken 'from the wild' and (b) the role that NTFPs play in poverty alleviation.
Biodiversity and genetic informationTropical forests probably contain more than half the world's terrestrial species. Numbers vary according to whether mammals, birds, insects or plants are being considered. Islands have a critical role to play in biodiversity, often containing high species endemism. The economic value of this diversity arises from the fact that diversity embodies the value of information and insurance. Existing diversity is the result of evolutionary processes over several billion years and subject to many different environmental conditions. Hence, the diversity of living things also embodies characteristics that make them resilient to further 'natural' change (but not to many human interventions). In essence, the existing stock of diversity provides the entire range of goods and services, including information, provided by the diverse system [check comments]. The value of genetic variation can be expressed as ecological, economical or ethical value. In practice, however, it is difficult to determine whether a specific genetic form (variant) of a species will be of future value. Hence, within species, it is difficult to distinguish between genetic resources and genetic variation (Graudal et al, 1995). Potentially, the information embodied in biodiversity can be used in, for instance, plant breeding, into developing drugs and perhaps into industrial processes. The more distinctive the information is, the more potentially valuable it is, so that the existence of substitutes is a critical factor affecting the economic value of the information. This has affected efforts to value the information content in several ways. First, while forest degradation continues, it can be argued that the remaining stock is so large that willingness to pay to conserve part of the stock is currently small. That willingness to pay will rise as the stock depletes. Second, the willingness to pay will be small as long as there are substitutes and this is true of both agricultural germplasm and 'medicinal' germplasm. Also relevant is the fact that research and development effort is more easily diverted to genetic manipulation than to the identification of 'wild' genetic information. Swanson (1997) reports the results of a survey of plant-breeding companies, finding that the sampled companies rely on germ-plasm from relatively unknown species for a small part of their research (i.e. on in situ and ex situ wild species and landraces). Swanson's analysis suggests that the stock of germplasm within the agricultural system tends to depreciate at a rate of about 8% of the material currently in the system. Thus the stock of germplasm within the agricultural system is being renewed at a time interval that is probably around 12 years (100/8). But the 8% comes from a stock of natural assets – biodiversity – that is itself eroding. Hence the loss of biodiversity worldwide imposes an increasing risk on the agricultural sector. Biodiversity has economic value simply because it serves this maintenance function. Without it, there are risks that the system will not be able to renew itself. There are several ways of estimating the economic value of this germplasm. First, it could be argued that the economic value of wild crop genetic material is what the crop breeding companies are willing to pay for it. At a minimum, this must be equal to that portion of their R&D budgets spent on germplasm from the more remote sources. Second, an effort could be made to estimate the crop output that would be lost if the genetic material was not available. This is an approach based on damages. Third, an attempt could be made to estimate the contribution of the genetic material to crop productivity – a benefits approach. This approach might proceed by asking what the cost would be of replacing or substituting the wild genetic material should it disappear – a ‘replacement cost’ approach. The role of forests in providing agriculturally relevant genetic information should not be exaggerated. As far as plant based foods are concerned, existing widely used crops tend not to emanate from tropical forests but from warm temperate regions and tropical montane areas. The existing 'Vavilov' centres of crop genetic diversity are mainly in areas with low forest diversity. However, it does not follow that forests are irrelevant to future crop production. It seems probable that their value lies more at the regional than the global level (Reid and Miller, 1987). Overall, systematic estimates of the informational value of wild species to crop output are not available and remedying this is an important research task. The informational value of forest diversity for pharmaceutical use is better studied. There is little dispute about the local values of traditional medicines, and these are substantial within the context of a local economy (see under NTPFs). There is more debate about the ‘global’ value of medicinal plant material. The economic studies are concerned with the values of marginal species [is meaning of this sentence clear?]. The total value of biodiversity is clearly unbounded; without biodiversity there would be no human life and hence no economic value. In the pharmaceutical context, the relevant economic value is the contribution that one more species makes to the development of new pharmaceutical products and, by inference, the value of one extra hectare of forested land is the value attached to the species in that area The ownership rights to this kind of information is a controversial issue and there are varied views on how to recognise the importance of indigenous peoples’ traditional knowledge and whether and how they should be compensated for the use of the information and genetic material derived from it. The available studies that focus on the pharmaceutical value of forests focus on the 'hot spots' - areas of high endemic diversity that are heavily threatened. The evidence suggests that pharmaceutical genetic material could be worth several hundreds of dollars per hectare in most hotspot areas, and perhaps up to several thousands of dollars for selected areas. For the major part of the world's forests, however, values will be extremely small or close to zero. [reference needed?] Diversity is a precondition for all the other values defined for the forest, from tourism to timber and non-timber products, and including the information flows. On this basis, the economic value of diversity as insurance is the premium that the world should be willing to pay to avoid the value of the forest goods and services being lost. The actuarially fair premium for this insurance, if a market for it existed, is the probability of the loss occurring multiplied by the value of all the losses that would occur (Pearce, 2001 or Pearce et al., 2001). No attempt has been made anywhere to estimate, even approximately, what this premium is, but it is clearly very large since the probability of loss is known to be high11 and the values are also potentially high. The complication, again, is that the premium will be small for the initial continuing losses of forest cover, rising only as the forest cover is lost. Tourism and recreation valuesEcotourism is a growing activity and constitutes a potentially valuable non-extractive use of tropical forests. Caveats to this statement are (a) that it is the net gains to the forest dwellers and/or forest users that matter; (b) tourism expenditures often result in profits for tour organisers who do not reside in or near the forest area, and may even be non-nationals; (c) the tourism itself must be 'sustainable', honouring the ecological carrying capacity of the area for tourists. In principle, tourism values are relevant for any area that is accessible by road or river. Some forest ecotourist sites attract enormous numbers of visitors and consequently have very high per hectare values. Values clearly vary with location and the nature of the attractions and none of the studies available estimates the extent to which expenditures remain in the region of the forest. For tropical forests, values range from a few dollars per hectare to several hundred dollars [reference needed?]. A substantial number of studies exist for the tourism and recreational value of temperate forests. Indicative values for European and North American forests suggest per person willingness to pay of around $1-3 per visit. The resulting aggregate values for forests could therefore be substantial. Elasser (1999) suggests that forest recreation in Germany is worth some $2.2 billion per annum for day-users alone and a further $0.2 billion for holiday-makers. Indirect use valuesWatershed protectionWatershed protection functions include: soil conservation and hence control of siltation and sedimentation; water flow regulation, including flood and storm protection; water supply and water quality regulation, including nutrient outflow. The effects of forest cover removal can be dramatic if non-sustainable timber extraction occurs, but care needs to be taken not to exaggerate the effects of logging and shifting agriculture (Hamilton and King, 1983) or permanent conversion to agriculture. Available studies suggests that watershed protection values appear to be small when expressed per hectare, but it is important to bear in mind that watershed areas may be large, so that a small unit value is being aggregated across a large area. Secondly, such protective functions have a 'public good' characteristic since the benefits accruing to any one householder or farmer also accrue to all others in the protected area. Third, the few studies available tend to focus on single attributes of the protective function - nutrient loss or flood prevention etc. The aggregate of different protective functions is the relevant value. Fourth, the Hodgson and Dixon study (1988) for the Philippines suggests that fisheries protection values could be substantial in locations where there is a significant in-shore fisheries industry. Comprehensive estimates have still to be researched. Carbon storage and sequestrationBrown and Pearce (1994) suggest benchmark figures for carbon content and loss rates for tropical forests. A closed primary forest has some 280 tonnes/ha of carbon and if converted to shifting agriculture would release about 200 tonnes of this, and a little more if converted to pasture or permanent agriculture. Open forest would begin with around 115 tC and would lose between a quarter and third of this on conversion. Using such estimates as benchmarks, the issue is what the economic value of such carbon stocks is. A significant literature exists on the economic value of global warming damage and the translation of these estimates into the economic value of a marginal tonne of carbon. A recent review of the literature by Clarkson (2001) suggests a consensus value of US$34/tC. Tol et al., (2000) also review the studies and suggest that it is difficult to produce estimates of marginal damage above US$50/tC. Taking US$34-50/tC as the range produces very high estimates for the value of forests as carbon stores. In practical terms, however, a better guide to the value of carbon is the price at which it is likely to be traded in a 'carbon market'. Carbon markets have existed since 1989 and refer to the sums of money that corporations and governments have been willing to invest in order to sequester carbon or prevent its emission. More sophisticated markets will emerge as emissions trading schemes develop under the Kyoto Protocol. Zhang (2000) suggests that, if there are no limitations placed on worldwide carbon trading, carbon credits will exchange at just under US$10 per tC.12 At this carbon 'price' tropical forest carbon storage would be worth anything from $500 per hectare to US$2000/hectare, confirming the view of a number of commentators that carbon values could easily dominate the economic values of tropical forests. These sums are 'one off' and therefore need to be compared to the price that is paid for forestland for conversion to agriculture or logging. In most cases, carbon storage is more than competitive with conversion values. These values relate to forests that are (a) under threat of conversion and (b) capable of being the subject of deforestation avoidance agreements. Carbon regimes in temperate countries have also been extensively studied and afforestation carbon values probably range from about US$100 to $300/ha. Option and existence valuesThere are three contexts in which option and existence values might arise: (a) someone may express a willingness to pay to conserve the forest in order that they may make some use of it in the future, e.g. for recreation. This is known as an option value; (b) someone may express a willingness to pay to conserve a forest even though they make no use of it, nor intend to. Their motive may be that they wish their children or future generations to be able to use it. This is a form of option value for others' benefit, sometimes called a bequest value; (c) someone may express a willingness to pay to conserve a forest even though they make no use of it, nor intend to, nor intend it for others' use. They simply wish the forest to exist. Motivations may vary, from some feeling about the intrinsic value of the forest through to notions of stewardship, religious or spiritual value, the rights of other living things, etc. This is known as existence value. There are few studies of the non-use values of forests. The available evidence suggests that (a) existence values can be substantial in contexts where the forests in question are themselves unique in some sense, or contain some form of highly prized biodiversity - the very high values for spotted owl (Strix occidentalis) habitats illustrate this; and (b) aggregated across households, and across forests generally, existence values are modest when expressed per hectare of forest. [check comments]. Valuing sustainable forestryOne approach to estimating the economic value of sustainable, as opposed to 'conventional' forest management, is to determine what consumers are willing to pay by way of a price premium for timber and wood products from certified forests. Certification schemes exist to guarantee the sustainability of certain forests, akin to ‘eco-labelling’ of products. Various certifying bodies are accredited by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) and 3.5 million m3 of certified timber entered international trade in 1996, whilst 10 million ha of forests had been certified by 1998 (Crossley and Points, 1998). Certification costs are around US$0.2 to US$1.7 per ha for developing countries and 9-12 cents per acre for assessment and 1-3 cents per acre per annum for licensing and auditing in the USA (Crossley and Points, 1998). Accordingly, any willingness to pay by consumers above this level of cost represents the ‘net premium’ for sustainable forest management. The evidence on the premium consumers are willing to pay (WTP) for certified timber is mixed. A survey of four studies in Barbier et al., (1994) revealed the following: (a) a survey of UK manufacturers in 1990 suggested 65% were WTP more for certified timber; (b) a survey of UK consumers in 1991 suggested a 13-14% WTP premium; (c) a survey of UK consumers in 1992 indicated that 58% would not buy timber if they knew it came from rainforests; and (d) a 1992 survey of timber importers suggested that 70% thought their customers were not WTP for certified timber. An additional survey in British Columbia suggested that 67% of respondents to a survey would pay 5% more for certified timber, and 13% said they would pay 10% more (Forsyth et al., 1999). Crossley and Points (1998) suggest that certified products are securing premiums of 5-15% in some cases, but that the real benefits of certification for industry lie in securing greater market share and longer-term contracts. There is some evidence that companies gaining certification secure higher company value, i.e. the value of certification shows up in share prices on the stock exchanges.
Summary of economic valuesTable 8. summarises the economic values outlined above. It is important to understand the limitations of the summarised estimates. Values will vary by location so that summary values can do no more than act as approximate indicators of the kinds of values that could be relevant. Nonetheless, the table suggests that the dominant values are carbon storage and timber. Second, these values are not additive since carbon is lost through logging. Third, conventional (unsustainable) logging is more profitable than sustainable timber management. Fourth, other values do not compete with carbon and timber unless the forests have some unique features or are subject to potentially heavy demand due to proximity to towns. Unique forests (either unique in themselves or as habitat for unique species) have high economic values, very much as one would expect. Near-town forests have high values because of recreational demand, familiarity of the forest to people and use of NTFPs and fuelwood. Uniqueness tends to be associated with high non-use value. Fifth, non-use values for 'general' forests are very modest. Table 8. Summary economic values (US$/ha/pa unless otherwise stated)
Notes 1 See Annex 1.2 of background document - annuitised NPV at 10% for illustration. 2 THIS IS MISSING 3 – (Pearce 1994). 4 - assumes compensation for carbon is a one off payment in the initial period and hence is treated as a present value. It is a gross value since no costs are deducted. 3 EXPLAIN NPV AND GVP IN TABLE 3 Emerging methods for valuing forest goods and servicesEstimates of economic value of forest services tend to be based on a few economic valuation methodologies. The first of these is the 'production function' approach whereby some output or service is measured. The output or service is then valued at market prices (e.g. the price of timber, fuelwood, or medicinal plants, etc.). Some of these values can also be derived by stated preference techniques, notably contingent valuation. Stated preference techniques seek to elicit willingness to pay through the use of structured questionnaires. The advantage of these techniques is that they measure directly the total value that users of forest products are willing to pay for them. For tourism and recreation the most widely used technique is the travel cost method. This method looks at the expenditures made by people travelling to a forest site, using their expenditure as a means of estimating willingness to pay for the site experience. The valuation of genetic information has been based on what the purchasers (e.g. a drug company) of that information are, implicitly, willing to pay. In turn, this willingness to pay reflects the value of the genetic information as a potential input to the manufacture of the good in question (e.g. a drug). Hence the value of the genetic material is a 'derived' demand and reflects the production function approach again. The same is true of watershed values in that the forest, as an 'input' to watershed protection, defines the object of value. Avoided expenditures tend to be the source of the unit value, e.g. the willingness to pay of a hydroelectric company for upstream forest conservation reflects the losses that would otherwise accrue due to reservoir sedimentation if the forest was degraded. Climate benefits also tend to be based on the production function approach: climate regulation is an input to many services such as avoided sea level rise, crop damage etc. The individual forms of damage may be valued in many different ways, but market prices and avoided costs tend to dominate. Finally, non-use values can only be valued by stated preference techniques, i.e. through questionnaires about willingness to pay, because non-use values leave no 'behavioural trail' for the analysts to assess. Table 9. gives valuation techniques applicable to some forest goods and services. One technique listed appears to have general application. This is 'choice modelling'. Choice modelling refers to a range of techniques in which respondents to a questionnaire are presented with options between which they have to choose. The options combine various features or attributes. The level of these attributes is varied across the options so that respondents are choosing between different 'bundles' of attributes. A price or cost is generally included as an attribute. Rather than stating their willingness to pay for the different attributes, respondents imply valuations through their rankings. The analyst elicits the valuations through econometric procedures. The relevance of choice modelling to the forest context will be evident. Potentially, each forest good or service can be treated as an attribute. The attributes will vary in level across different forest management systems (and across different forest conversions). In principle, then, choice modelling could lead to valuations of each of the attributes of the forest. To date, there have been only a few studies of forest values using choice modelling. Table 9. Valuation techniques for forest goods and services
PF = production function, MP = market price, CV = contingent valuation, CM = choice modeling [WHAT’S AC, TC AND HP?] Costs and benefits of forest conversionSome attempt can be made to look at the likely costs and benefits of converting existing forests to alternative uses. Unfortunately, the data remain very limited and there is the added problem that costs and benefits will vary by forest location. It should also be noted that the comparisons all assume that non-market values are actually captured through some market creation mechanism. Bearing this in mind, the evidence suggests the following conclusions: 1) converting primary forest to any use other than agro-forestry or very high value timber extraction is likely to fail a cost-benefit test; 2) the conversion of secondary forest to the 'cycle' of logging, crops and ranching could make prima facie economic sense. As with the primary forest conversion, however, it needs to be borne in mind that the 'sequence' of land use does not always occur and many conversions to slash and burn agriculture would make no economic sense; 3) the conversion of secondary forest and open forest to agro-forestry appears to make economic sense assuming that most of the forest's services (including biodiversity) are retained; 4) carbon storage is of the utmost importance to the economic case for forest conservation; 4) the non-market values almost certainly fail to capture the economic value of biodiversity which, apart from the value of genetic information, is omitted from the analysis. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||