General

Financial contribution of ecosystem services, such as high quality drinking freshwater

• 12.11.2015
• Author:Eyüp Yüksel
• (0) Comment
• 851

Financial contribution of ecosystem services, such as high quality drinking freshwater as a provisional ecosystem service derived from inland waters; fiber, wood, and hydrologic “Archimedes” power of water as a regulatory ecosystem service used in marine&river&lake transport, to national economies Eyüp Yüksel, Biologist, B.S., Middle East Technical University  (ODTÜ),  M.S., Ankara University Faculty of Agriculture, UNECE EPR Expert Former EEA ETC/BD Task Manager, General Directorate for Natural Assets Protection (former Environmental Protection Agency for Special Areas, Özel Çevre Koruma Kurumu Başkanlığı, ÖÇKK, EPASA) on behalf of Turkey Abstract Upon key sustainability requirements arised in last years which have urged the society basic ecosystem services (abbreviated as ESS) have been explored to prepare a classification system at its very early stages in 2000s.  Some controversial situations and ideas have arised later on. The acceptance of their importance varies also according to differing component of the society, such as businessmen, development based organisations, NGOs, governments, regional and global organisations. In line with these new trends the Economic Cooperation and Development Organisation, OECD has arranged important biodiversity and biodiversity induced ecosystem services meetings in Paris, specifically aimed for businessmen, private sector, and government members. We have participated many of them in the last ten years on behalf of our Government. Mutual impacts between economy and productive ecosystems are important determining elements in the integration of ecosystem services to national accounts in Europe. To make further analyses CICES, TEEB works are considered amongst the useful and practical instruments for this. CICES is rather  more detailed work arranged by UNEP and EEA, coordinated by Nothingham University where we have some contribution on behalf of our country Turkey. In Europe, ESSs frequently come from large ecosystems of Natura 2000 protected sites network, an important factor related to local, national development. Nature conservation in EU in turn needs a good status of economy. The direct consequences of degradation of each ecosystem type could be demonstrated by exploring its economic impacts for the decison makers. Development and urban management are in close relation  with ESS production, conservation, and maintenance.  Today,  ecological benefits received by urban systems by far exceeds those of rural small towns and villages. So to cope with unavoidable results of exploiation,  management of ecosystems, farming enterprises, villages, big cities, tourism centres, and industrial areas should be harmonised very carefully by means of measuring, stocking, protecting, and sustainable using ESS. This needs a high quality knowledge of biodiversity and updated biodiversity research. Natura 2000 risk analysis can be made by other exploration means beyond methods so far implemented., COUNTRY SCALE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ASSESSMENT,  NATIONAL ECONOMIC PRODUCTION, and FINANCIAL TREND Biodiversity capital sould be expressed in terms of financial resources for the public and the leading investors in each country. This calculation can be facilitated by ESS classification and inventories in future which will depend upon versatile implementation of economic tools of finance and nature conservation, so have to followed-up appropriately. Likewise,  

• Components of each composite urban functions which have prominent regulatory roles in urban lives, and livelihoods and having a certain monetary value in national economy in terms of ESS should be determined first so as to take into each value produced in rurala areas, such as Natura 2000, EMERALD sites, Natioanl parks (Milli Parklar in Turkey, Özel Çevre Koruma Bölgeleir in Turkey), and CDDAs nominated by EEA,

• The most vulnerable sides of special ecosystems, functioning mainly in the economy of country as a driving force should then be decided in order to determine priorities to be implemented by national decision makers, and the EU Commission.

• The most ecosystem dependent component of the national economy for the last ten years should be determined as well.  This requires a selective data collection and a new set of special assessment techniques beyond making a general ESS classification assumption, and classical economic valuations styles e.g. contingency valuation, and/or travel cost focused merely on a specific location.

Urban functions can be classified in accordance with ESS, 

• Provided both man-made and natural values owned by towns, small scale farming enterprises, High Nature Value Farming Land Areas (HNVFAs), wetlands, forests, and etc. irrespective of naturalness of the source,

• Those sources of which the public mostly dependent on, can be represented in national financial economy by introducing ESS taxes (Further information can be found in OECD libraries),

• A rough estimation of the most possible climate change vulnerability degree estimated for each city, and for each benefit provider living in that given city. The corresponding ecosystem type/capacity/magnitude/spatial geometry can be matched so as to be used in estimating future economic resilience conditions which may be expected probably more severe compared to present conditions, at last for some extreme events conditions on the globe. This task may cover a ten years period or a couple of ten years. It may differ in different EU countries in accordance with locality least and most affected by the “randomly” altering climate change characteristics of Europe manifested by extreme flood, and drought events so far. This information will provide us earlier adjusting tools and estimation of their corresponding cost in advanece of facing them, for future degradations caused by climate change impacts. Upon receiving this information the degree of  consumption can be balanced beforehand,

• Analysis of possible financial trends for future can be considered with this, and should be recalculated accordingly by taking into consideration the expected/occurred so far absolute and relative values of ESS.

 THE DEGREE of EXCHANGE OF FARMING PRODUCTS  PRODUCED by VILLAGERS, PHEASANTS, FARMERS, THE MOST NEGLECTED CLASS OF SOCIETIES, ALONG WITH THE ONGOING GLOBALISED COMMERCE TRENDS

• The marginal cost of farming products may varies depending on the country in Europe, even for each social class, age class, and the region. For this reason, EU Commisson may adjust the situation more in legislative instruments according to varying characters and degree of economic value of ESS owned by each country. So accordingly each provisional ESS may be reassessed by the Commission again so as to taking into account this variable beyond preparing a standard for the all.

INDUSTRIAL EXPENDITURES COMMONLY PAID BY THE PUBLIC CAN BE ABATED By introducing new ESS economic instruments like EU CAP payments, industrial costs paid by the publice can be rearranged by means of internalising ESS values in Europe. Accordingly EC Bird and Habitat Directives may be reassessed by EU countries and the Commission. MONETARY RETURNS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS They are related to also ESS provided by natural ecosystems biodiversity. In particular Crop Wild Relatives (CWRs) are the most typical overlapping issues. When assessing a CWR value of protected area in relation to a) farming (crop harvesting, trade, markets), b) biodiversity conservation, and c) protected area value should be assessed simultaneously to get rid of any externalisation probability. It would be better to wisely setting a balance between economical and ecological intact integrated systems instead of assessing each ecosystem seperately. So the “economic power” of each ecosystem could also be tested elaborately and differentially according to needs to be required by the national economy.  These requirements may fluctuate, or oscillate in line with abruptly changing global economic trends. Thus no one can either easily  or accurately make the same assumptions in a changing economy of the world when making ecosyetem assessments and pricing. In otrher words, no one can obtain the same value of the same ecosystem due to shifts or moderate alterations recorded in recent global economy. LISTS OF MAJOR USERS LIVING IN URBAN AND RURAL AREAS CAN BE PREPARED SEPERATELY Who contribute to which ecosystem service in the country at hand along with her/his daily payments, consumption, and with respect to also long term family budgets? For example, people living in some countries may prefer buying clothes, expensive opera tickets, and books (i.e. Western, central Europe countries) whereas other countries’ (e.g. Turkey, and Greece and similar Mediterranean countries) people may prefer buying more expensive and qualified food, in large amounts. THE RATIO OF MOST BENEFITED VERSUS NON-BENEFITED HUMAN POPULATION AND CLASSES AT SOCIETY LEVEL FOR EUROPE, AND FOR EACH EU and NON-EU EEA COUNTRY The governments can handle this task as they have central statistics agencies. Discussion As mentioned previously, global economy interferes with national economies of European countries.  Likewise, global commerce and resource consumption trends can more influentially determine, social economic situation, e.g. earnings gained by farming in a small village in Europe. Global drivers frequently interfere with governmental decisions and farming practice. The rank of making comparisons between ecosystem values received by ESS classification and assessments in Europe should be as follows,

1. The extent of evaluation of impacts exerted on ecosystems by global economic trends should be taken into consideration first,

2. Second, the resilience and current trends of national economies should be followed-up carefully by comparing “ESS National Accounts” of the given country,

3. Only after completing the first and second, single, relatively “isolated” ecosystem assessment in valuation studies could be made at the final step. All ecosystems owned by a given country in fact is linked to national economy of that country when making economic assessments of ESS.

One day perhaps bankers, financial managers, businessmen of the highly reputaed global econmy leaders will invest on biodiversity and ESS to gain extra money and make their jobs more sustainable and resistant to unexpected economic depressions. In fact, from automobile manufacturing, to computer circuitys, and the food all of them require always a considerable suples of water, a commodity and regulatory ecosystem service produces in biodiversity rich natural ecosystems, such as grasslands, forests, and wetlands. With the result that, resilience of high technology manufacturing depends on bees, insects, flies, roots, and leaves of trees, mammalians, reptilians, fruits, vineyards, even rice pads, fungi, bacteria, foxes, wolves, frogs, birds, and so on, all together form biodiversity.