P.J.H. van Beukering

Economic valuation methods for ecosystem services

Introduction Various valuation methods exist and have been applied to estimate the values of different ecosystem services. The methods reflect the extent to which the services provided by ecosystems touch on the welfare of society either as direct determinants of individuals’ well-being (e.g. as consumer goods) or via production processes (e.g. as intermediate goods). The aim of this chapter is to provide an overview of available valuation methods, to discuss their advantages and disadvantages, and to provide guidance on when to use which method. In doing so we do not aim to be comprehensive; extensive details of the underlying theory and on the actual practice of applying the valuation methods are provided in general texts, including Braden and Kolstad (1991), Freeman (2003), Bateman et al . (2002), Mitchell and Carson (1989), Champ et al . (2003), Bockstael and McConnell (2007), and Kanninen (2007). A number of economic valuation methods have been developed to estimate the value of changes in ecosystem services. An important distinction is between market-based and non-market-based valuation methods. Market-based valuation means that existing market behavior and market transactions are used as the basis for the valuation exercise. Economic values are derived from actual market prices for ecosystem services, both when they are used as inputs in production processes (production values) and when they provide direct outputs (consumption values). By observing how much of an ecosystem service is bought and sold at different prices, it is possible to infer directly how people value that good. Examples of market-based methods are the use of direct market prices, net factor income and production function methods, and the calculation of replacement costs, defensive expenditures, and avoided damage costs.

Greening the charcoal chain in Tanzania

With a population of 34 million and an extremely high reliance on charcoal, Tanzania is a classic example of the social and environmental risks faced by many developing countries. About 85% of the total urban population uses charcoal for household cooking and energy provision for small and medium enterprises (Sawe 2004). In 1992 the total amount of charcoal consumed nationwide was estimated to be about 1.2 million tons (Sawe 2004). In 2002, the charcoal business generated revenues of more than 200 billion TShs (US

Double dividends of additional water charges in South Africa

200 million), with more than 70 000 people from rural and urban areas employed in the industry (TaTEDO 2002b). Dar es Salaam, Tanzania’s largest city, accounts for more than 50% of all charcoal consumed in the country. The charcoal sector is far from sustainable. The forest resources that the industry is relying on are disappearing rapidly and the productivity of the sector has not seen any improvement either. The charcoal sector in Tanzania is operating economically, socially and environmentally in a suboptimal manner. However, solutions that safeguard the charcoal sector’s future are not straightforward.

The importance of local forest benefits: Economic valuation of Non-Timber Forest Products in the Eastern Arc Mountains in Tanzania

The purpose of this chapter is to show how double dividends could be obtained from using market instruments to tax water use in a developing country. The double dividends are namely environmental (water conservation) on the one hand, and poverty reduction dividends on the other. We apply a water tax on selected industries in South Africa to reduce demand for water, and then transfer the revenue from this tax to the poor to achieve reduction in absolute levels of poverty. South Africa is classified as a semi-arid country. Precipitation has been fluctuating over the years with an average of 500 mm per annum, well below the world average of about 860 mm (DWAF 2002). The total flow of all the rivers in the country combined amounts to approximately 49 200 million m³ per year, while the National Water Resource Strategy estimated the total water requirement for the year 2000 at 13 280 million m3 per year, excluding environmental requirements. In addition, South Africa is poorly endowed in groundwater as most of the country is underlain by hard rock formations that do not contain any major groundwater aquifers (DWAF 2002). While currently only about 24% of rural people have access to water on site, additional sources of water supply are environmentally, financially and politically hard to develop. At the same time, unemployment in rural areas of South Africa is extremely high, which results in severe poverty conditions in these areas.