Willem J. de Lange

Valuing Insect Pollination Services with Cost of Replacement

Value estimates of ecosystem goods and services are useful to justify the allocation of resources towards conservation, but inconclusive estimates risk unsustainable resource allocations. Here we present replacement costs as a more accurate value estimate of insect pollination as an ecosystem service, although this method could also be applied to other services. The importance of insect pollination to agriculture is unequivocal. However, whether this service is largely provided by wild pollinators (genuine ecosystem service) or managed pollinators (commercial service), and which of these requires immediate action amidst reports of pollinator decline, remains contested. If crop pollination is used to argue for biodiversity conservation, clear distinction should be made between values of managed- and wild pollination services. Current methods either under-estimate or over-estimate the pollination service value, and make use of criticised general insect and managed pollinator dependence factors. We apply the theoretical concept of ascribing a value to a service by calculating the cost to replace it, as a novel way of valuing wild and managed pollination services. Adjusted insect and managed pollinator dependence factors were used to estimate the cost of replacing insect- and managed pollination services for the Western Cape deciduous fruit industry of South Africa. Using pollen dusting and hand pollination as suitable replacements, we value pollination services significantly higher than current market prices for commercial pollination, although lower than traditional proportional estimates. The complexity associated with inclusive value estimation of pollination services required several defendable assumptions, but made estimates more inclusive than previous attempts. Consequently this study provides the basis for continued improvement in context specific pollination service value estimates.

Safeguarding biodiversity and ecosystem services in the Little Karoo, South Africa.

Global declines in biodiversity and the widespread degradation of ecosystem services have led to urgent calls to safeguard both. Responses to this urgency include calls to integrate the needs of ecosystem services and biodiversity into the design of conservation interventions. The benefits of such integration are purported to include improvements in the justification and resources available for these interventions. Nevertheless, additional costs and potential trade-offs remain poorly understood in the design of interventions that seek to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. We sought to investigate the synergies and trade-offs in safeguarding ecosystem services and biodiversity in South Africas Little Karoo. We used data on three ecosystem services--carbon storage, water recharge, and fodder provision--and data on biodiversity to examine several conservation planning scenarios. First, we investigated the amount of each ecosystem service captured incidentally by a conservation plan to meet targets for biodiversity only while minimizing opportunity costs. We then examined the costs of adding targets for ecosystem services into this conservation plan. Finally, we explored trade-offs between biodiversity and ecosystem service targets at a fixed cost. At least 30% of each ecosystem service was captured incidentally when all of biodiversity targets were met. By including data on ecosystem services, we increased the amount of services captured by at least 20% for all three services without additional costs. When biodiversity targets were reduced by 8%, an extra 40% of fodder provision and water recharge were obtained and 58% of carbon could be captured for the same cost. The opportunity cost (in terms of forgone production) of safeguarding 100% of the biodiversity targets was about US

The costs of household food waste in South Africa

500 million. Our results showed that with a small decrease in biodiversity target achievement, substantial gains for the conservation of ecosystem services can be achieved within our biodiversity priority areas for no extra cost.

Costs of food waste along the value chain: Evidence from South Africa

Food waste is problematic for a number of reasons, including the loss of a potentially valuable food source or resource for use in other processes (e.g. energy generation or composting), wasted resources and emissions in the food supply chain, and problems associated with the disposal of organic waste to landfill. This paper quantifies the household food waste stream in South Africa, in order to draw attention to the magnitude of the problem. In addition, it estimates the economic (monetary) value of the wasted food, as well as the costs associated with disposing putrescible food waste to landfill, in order to highlight the associated costs to society. Costs associated with the loss of a potentially valuable food source are valued using a weighted average market price of the wasted food. Costs associated with the disposal of food waste to landfill are quantified based on estimates of the financial and external costs associated with landfilling. For household food waste alone, the costs to society associated with these two food-waste related problems are estimated at approximately R21.7 billion (approximately US

Valuation of pollinator forage services provided by Eucalyptus cladocalyx.

2.7 billion) per annum, or 0.82% of South Africas annual GDP. These costs are therefore significant, particularly considering that household food waste accounts for less than 4% of total food losses across the food supply chain.

Towards more inclusive long-term bulk water resource management

In a previous paper (Nahman et al., 2012), the authors estimated the costs of household food waste in South Africa, based on the market value of the wasted food (edible portion only), as well as the costs of disposal to landfill. In this paper, we extend the analysis by assessing the costs of edible food waste throughout the entire food value chain, from agricultural production through to consumption at the household level. First, food waste at each stage of the value chain was quantified in physical units (tonnes) for various food commodity groups. Then, weighted average representative prices (per tonne) were estimated for each commodity group at each stage of the value chain. Finally, prices were multiplied by quantities, and the resulting values were aggregated across the value chain for all commodity groups. In this way, the total cost of food waste across the food value chain in South Africa was estimated at R61.5 billion per annum (approximately US

Costs of Expanding the Network of Protected Areas as a Response to Climate Change in the Cape Floristic Region

7.7 billion); equivalent to 2.1% of South Africas annual gross domestic product. The bulk of this cost arises from the processing and distribution stages of the fruit and vegetable value chain, as well as the agricultural production and distribution stages of the meat value chain. These results therefore provide an indication of where interventions aimed at reducing food waste should be targeted.

Costs of food waste in South Africa: Incorporating inedible food waste

We assess the monetary value of forage provisioning services for honeybees as provided by an alien tree species in the Western Cape province of South Africa. Although Eucalyptus cladocalyx is not an officially declared invader, it is cleared on a regular basis along with other invasive Eucalyptus species such as Eucalyptus camaldulensis, and Eucalyptus conferruminata (which have been prioritised for eradication in South Africa). We present some of the trade-offs associated with the clearing of E. cladocalyx by means of a practical example that illustrates a situation where the benefits of the species to certain stakeholders could support the containment of the species in demarcated areas, while allowing clearing outside such areas. Given the absence of market prices for such forage provisioning services, the replacement cost is used to present the value of the loss in forage as provided by E. cladocalyx if the alien tree species is cleared along with invasive alien tree species. Two replacement scenarios formed the basis for our calculations. The first scenario was an artificial diet as replacement for the forage provisioning service, which yielded a direct cost estimate of US

Beyond GDP: Towards a Green Economy Index

7.5 m per year. The second was based on a Fynbos cultivation/restoration initiative aimed at substituting the forage provisioning service of E. cladocalyx, which yielded a direct cost of US

Securing a sustainable future through a new global contract between rich and poor

20.2 m per year. These figures provide estimates of the potential additional cost burden on the beekeeping industry if E. cladocalyx is completely eradicated from the Western Cape. The cost estimates should be balanced against the negative impacts of E. cladocalyx on ecosystem services in order to make an informed decision with regard to appropriate management strategies for this species. The findings therefore serve as useful inputs to balance trade-offs for alien species that are considered as beneficial to some, but harmful to other.