c

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "c"

炼粕岑
5 years ago
Views:

2 c

4 3

5 4

6 5

7 6

8 7

9 8

10 9

11 10

12 11

13 12

14 13

15 14

16 15

17 16

18 17

19 18

20 19

21 20

22 21

23 2.2 生态系统服务功能对经济的贡献这些需求和供给双方之间的关联不仅仅是生物的生态的或水文学方面的生态系统的用水和供水还支撑着一系列的生产和消费过程正因为如此他们通常具有很高的经济价值这些生态系统的供水价值往往反映在经济产出生产过程和消费过程中以节省成本和降低开支的形式体现这些价值通过很多不同的方式累积并受益于众多不同的群体和行业部门淡水生态系统常常具有很高的经济价值例如湿地资源养育着大量的人口特别是较贫困的群体由湿地的服务功能所提供的水供给和水质保证的效益是维持城乡地区生活标准的根本基础乌干达帕里沙 PALLISA 地区的湿地就是这种贡献的最好例证 22

24 23

25 24

26 25

27 26

28 27

29 28

30 29

31 30

32 31

33 32

34 33

35 34

36 35

37 36

38 37

39 38

40 39

41 40

42 41

43 % 42

44 43

45 44

46 45

47 46

48 47

49 要做到这些我们需要将生态系统的价值表述为度量标准对决策者认真权衡各种与水相关的资金土地和资源管理的选择时具有重要意义本章阐述了将生态系统价值的数据转化为度量标准指标和标准的方法以便在与水有关的决策时权衡与生态系统关联的各种选择和替代方案 4.2 提供决策对生态系统价值影响的数据开展评价研究为我们提供了特定的与水相关的生态系统产品和服务功能的经济价值数据例如一片森林对缓解下游洪水的贡献价值这包括避免破坏减少淤积的功能对水电项目的价值或湿地资源可为地方收入或国家总收入的贡献价值及储留土壤养分的功能为水处理方面节约的费用或由于使河流和湖泊免受污染而用于游憩娱乐城市居民对此所赋予的价值但是对决策来说重要的是要能够了解并表述不同的土地水资源或投资资金的替代方案之间是如何影响生态系统价值的例如森林退化会导致多少与洪灾相关的额外费用以及额外增加的淤积量会给下游带来多少生产损失如果某块湿地被开垦会在水处理和净化方面额外增加多少投资又如如果要保持某条河流或湖泊的水质有多大的潜力可以从城镇居民中增收税收决策者想要了解并表述不同的土地利用与投资选择的经济后果要回答这些问题我们需要超越经济价值的底线进一步了解因采取某一行动过程从而带来的生态系统资源贮备生态系统服务功能流向或生态系统属性的变化所带来的经济意义我们需要将这些变化因素纳入可行性受益性和可持续性的度量标准中换而言之我们需要知道根据生态系统的成本和效益某个与水有关的决策对经济有什么样的影响 48

50 49

51 50

52 51

53 52

54 53

55 54

56 55

57 56

58 57

59 58

60 59

61 60

62 61

63 62

64 63

65 64

66 65

67 66

68 1 OECD Data; see also Winpenny, J.T., 2003, Financing Water for All: Report of the World Panel on Financing Water Infrastructure, World Water Council, 3rd World Water Forum and Global Water Partnership. 2 Guerquin, F., Ahmed, T., Hua, M., Ikeda, T., Ozbilen, V. and M. Schuttelaar, 2003, Making Water Flow for All, World Water Action Unit, World Water Council, Marseilles. 3 Winpenny, J.T., 2003, op cit. 4 Nasi, R., Wunder, S. and Campos J., 2002, Forest ecosystem services: can they pay our way out of deforestation? Discussion paper prepared for the GEF Forestry Roundtable, UNFF II, Costa Rica. Note 4 5 Daily, G. C., ed., 1997, Nature s Services: Societal Dependence on Natural Ecosystems, Island Press, Washington DC. 6 From Daily et al 1997 op cit.; Johnson, N. White, A. and D. Perrot-Maître, 2001, Developing Markets for Water Services from Forests: Issues and Lessons for Innovators, Katoomba Group, World Resources Institute and Forest Trends, Washington DC; Stuip, M.A.M., Baker, C.J., and W. Oosterberg, 2002, The Socio-Economic Value of Wetlands, Wetlands International and RIZA, Wageningen; Winpenny, J.T., 1991, Values for the Environment: A Guide to Economic Appraisal, Overseas Development Institute, HMSO Publications, London. 7 Chomitz, K. M. and Kumari, K., 1998, The Domestic Benefits of Tropical Forests: A Critical Review, World Bank Research Observer, 13(1): From Karanja, F., Emerton, L., Mafumbo, J. and W. Kakuru, 2001, Assessment of the Economic Value of Pallisa District Wetlands, Uganda, Biodiversity Economics Programme for Eastern Africa, IUCN - The World Conservation Union and Uganda National Wetlands Programme, Kampala. 9 From Iftikhar, U., 2002, Valuing the economic costs of environmental degradation due to sea intrusion in the Indus Delta, in IUCN, Sea Intrusion in the Coastal and Riverine Tracts of the Indus Delta - A Case Study. IUCN The World Conservation Union Pakistan Country Office, Karachi. 10 James, R. F., 1991, Wetland Valuation: Guidelines and Techniques, PHPA/AWB Sumatra Wetland Project Report No 31, Asian Wetland Bureau - Indonesia: Bogor. 11 Johnson et al 2001 op cit. 12 Reid, W.V., 2001, Capturing the value of ecosystem services to protect biodiversity. In Managing human-dominated ecosystems, eds. G. Chichilenisky, G.C. Daily, P. Ehrlich, G. Heal, J.S. Miller. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press. 13 Isakson, R. S. 2002, Payments for Environmental Services in the Catskills: A Socio-Economic Analysis of the Agricultural Strategy in New York City s Watershed Manage ment Plan, Report was elaborated for the Payment for Environmental Services in the Americas Project, FORD Foundation and Fundación PRISMA, San Salvador. 14 CASE STUDY REFERENCE LAO PDR 15 Gerrard, P., 2004, Integrating Wetland Ecosystem Values into Urban Planning: The Case of That Luang Marsh, Vientiane, Lao PDR, WWF Lao PDR and IUCN The World Conservation Regional Environmental Economics Programme Asia, Colombo. 16 Guerquin et al 2003 op cit. 17 DFID, 2002, Poverty and Environment, UK Department for International Development, Environment Policy Department, London. 18 STEA, 2003, Lao PDR Biodiversity: Economic Assessment, Science, Technology and Environment Agency, Vientiane. 19 NEMA, 1999, Uganda Biodiversity: Economic Assessment, National Environment Management Authority, Kampala. 67

69 20 Turpie, J., Smith, B., Emerton, L. and J. Barnes, 1999, Economic Valuation of the Zambezi Basin Wetlands, IUCN The World Conservation Union Regional Office for Southern Africa, Harare 21 Pearce, D. W., An Economic Approach to Saving the Tropical Forests. Discussion Paper 90-06, London Environmental Economics Centre, London. 22 Barbier, E., 1994, Valuing environmental functions: tropical wetlands, Land Economics 70(2): Gren, I. and T. Söderqvist, 1994, Economic Valuation of Wetlands: A Survey, Beijer Discussion Paper Series No. 54, Beijer International Institute of Ecological Economics, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm. 24 A market can be said to be competitive when there are a large number of buyers and sellers, there are no restrictions on market entry, buyers and sellers have no advantage over each other, and everyone is fully informed about the price of goods. 25 Marginal value is the change in value resulting from one more unit produced or consumed. 26 From Seyam, I.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., Ngabirano, G.S. and H.H.G. Savenije, 2001, The Value of Freshwater Wetlands in the Zambezi Basin, Paper presented at Conference on Globalization and Water Resources Management: the Changing Value of Water, AWRA/ IWLRI-University of Dundee. 27 A public good is characterised by the non-excludability of its benefits each unit can be consumed by everyone, and does not reduce the amount left for others. Many ecosystem services are pure or partial public goods for example scenic beauty (a pure public good), or water quality (which has many of the characteristics of a public good). In contrast a private good is one from which others can be excluded, where each unit is consumed by only one individual. Most natural resources are private goods. 28 A substitute good or service is one which is used in place of another for example kerosene instead of firewood, or bottled water instead of tapwater. 29 A complementary good is one which is used in conjunction with another for example between other products and fishing activities such as the collection of reeds for fishing baskets or firewood for fish smoking. 30 From Kramer, R.A., Richter, D.D., Pattanayak, S. and N. Sharma, 1997, Ecological and Economic Analysis of Watershed Protection in Eastern Madagascar, Journal of Environmental Management 49: From Brown, M., de la Roca, I., Vallejo, A., Ford, G., Casey, J., Aguilar, B. and R. Haacker, 1996, A Valuation Analysis of the Role of Cloud Forests in Watershed Protection: Sierra de las Minas Biosphere Reserve, Guatemala and Cusuco National Park, Honduras, RARE Center for Tropical Conservation, Fundacíon Defensores de la Naturaleza and Fundacíon Ecologica. 32 From Tobias, D. and R. Mendelsohn, 1991, Valuing ecotourism in a tropical rainforest reserve, Ambio 20(2): From Feather, P., Hellerstein, D. and H. LeRoy, 1999, Economic Valuation of Environmental Benefits and the Targeting of Conservation Programs: The Case of the CRP. Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Economic Report No. 778, Washington DC. 34 Consumer surplus is the difference between the value of a good and its price, in other words the benefit over and above what is paid that is obtained by a consumer who is willing to pay more for a good or service than is actually charged. When a benefit is obtained free, all of its value is consumer surplus. 35 From Mahan, B.L., 1997, Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Property Pricing Approach, US Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Evaluation of Environmental IWR Report 97-R-1, Washington DC. 36 From Emerton, L., Iyango, L., Luwum, P., and A. Malinga, 1999, The Economic Value of Nakivubo Urban Wetland, Uganda, IUCN - The World Conservation Union, Eastern Africa Regional Office, Nairobi. 37 From Gren, I., Folke, C., Turner, K. and I. Bateman, 1994, Primary and secondary values of wetland ecosystems, Environmental and Resource Economics 4: From Emerton, L., and Kekulandala, B., 2002, Assessment of the Economic Value of Muthurajawela Wetland, IUCN The World Conservation Union, Sri Lanka Country Office and Regional Environmental Economics Programme Asia, Colombo. 39 From Gren, I., 1995, The value of investing in wetlands for nitrogen abatement, European Review of Agricultural Economics 22:

70 40 From Turpie et al 1999 op cit. 41 From Emerton, L., Seilava, R. and H. Pearith, 2002, Bokor, Kirirom, Kep and Ream National Parks, Cambodia: Case Studies of Economic and Development Linkages, Field Study Report, Review of Protected Areas and their Role in the Socio-Economic Development of the Four Countries of the Lower Mekong Region, International Centre for Environmental Management, Brisbane and IUCN - The World Conservation Union Regional Environmental Economics Programme, Karachi. 42 From Pattanayak, S. and R. Kramer, 2001, Pricing ecological services: Willingness to pay for drought mitigation from watershed protection in eastern Indonesia, Water Resources Research, 37(3): From Pyo, H., 2002, The Measurement of the Conservation Value for Korean Wetlands Using the Contingent Valuation Method and Cost-Benefit Analysis, Korea Maritime Institute, Seoul. 44 Carson, R. and R. Mitchell, 1989, Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: the Contingent Valuation Method, Resources for the Future, Washington DC. 45 Examples of the application of these techniques to ecosystem water services include DGA and UAC, 2000, Catastro y localizacíon de usos publicos no extractivos o usos in situ del agua, Gobierno de Chile Ministerio de Obras Públicas, Direccion General de Aguas y Universiad Austral de Chile Facultad de Ciencias Forestales, Santiago; Griner, B.P. and S.C. Farber, 1996, A conjoint analysis of water quality enhancements and degradations in a western Pennsylvania watershed. United States Environmen tal Protection Agency, Washington DC; Kuriyama,K., 2002, Measuring the value of the ecosystem in the Kushiro wetland: an empirical study of choice experiments, Forest Economics and Policy working paper #9802, Department of Forest Science, Hokkaido University Japan; Morrison, M.D., Bennett, J.W. and R.K. Blamey, 1998, Valuing Improved Wetland Quality Using Choice Modelling, Research Report No. 6, Choice Modelling Research Reports, School of Economics, and Management, University College, The University of New South Wales, Canberra. 46 Nasi et al 2002 op cit. 47 Hitchcock, P., 2000,. The Economics of Protected Areas and the Role of Ecotourism in their Management. The World Commission on Protected Areas, 2nd South East Asia Regional Forum, Pakse, Lao PDR, 6-11 December A. G. Galt, T. Sigaty and M. Vinton. Vientiane, IUCN - The World Conservation Union, Lao PDR Country Office. 48 Brown, K. and D. Moran, 1993, Valuing Biodiversity: The Scope and Limitations of Economic Analysis, Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, London. 49 Chomitz and Kumari 1998 op cit. 50 Erickson, J. D., 2000, Endangering the economics of extinction, Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1): Freese, C. H. and D. L. Trauger, 2000, Wildlife markets and biodiversity conservation in North America, Wildlife Society Bulletin 28(1): Creemers, G. and van den Bergh, J., 1998, The use of a hydrological economic model to estimate indirect use values of wetlands: a case study in South Africa, paper presented at 4th Workshop of the Global Economics Network, Wetlands: Landscape and Institutional Perspectives Stockholm. 53 Bockstael, N, 1996, Modelling economics and ecology: the importance of a spatial perspective, American Journal of Agricultural Economics 78: From Colavito, L., 2002, Wetland economic valuation using a bioeconomic model: the case of Hail Haor, Bangladesh, paper presented at Workshop on Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wetlands: Learning from the World, IUCN - The World Conservation Union, Kathmandu. 55 From Bennett, J. and S. Whitten, 2002, The Private and Social Values of Wetlands: An Overview, Land & Water Australia, Canberra. 56 For detailed guidelines on the application of CBA techniques, see Winpenny, J.T., The Economic Appraisal of Environmental Projects and Policies: A Practical Guide, Economic Development Institute of the World Bank, Overseas Development Institute, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris. 57 It thus follows that a high discount rate reflects a strong preference for present consumption, and a low discount rate reflects longer-term considerations and preferences. 69

71 58 From Emerton, L., 1994, An Economic Valuation of the Costs and Benefits in the Lower Tana Catchment Resulting from Dam Construction, Report prepared by Acropolis Kenya Ltd for Nippon Koei, Nairobi. 59 From Dubgaard, A., Kallesøe, M.F., Petersen, M.L. and J. Ladenburg, 2002, Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Skjern River Project, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Frederiksberg; Dubgaard, A., 2003, Cost-benefit analysis of wetland restoration, Paper presented at International Conference Towards Natural Flood Reduction Strategies, Warsaw. 60 From Janssen, R. and J.E. Padilla, 1996, Valuation and Evaluation of Management Alternatives for the Pagbilao Mangrove Forest, CREED Working Paper series No. 9, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED) London and Institute for Environmental Studies (IVM), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. 61 From IUCN, 2001, Economic Value of Reinundation of the Waza Logone Floodplain, Cameroon, Projet de Conservation et de Développement de la Région de Waza-Logone, Maroua. 62 From Southgate, D. and Macke, R. (1989) The downstream benefits of soil conservation in Third World hydroelectric watersheds. Land Economics 65(1). 63 From Turpie et al 199 op cit. 70

72 71

73 PV = n Pn e -in 72

74 73

75 74

76 75

77 C Cosmos / Hollandse Hoogte C Hollandse Hoogte / Fred Hoogervorst C Laif / Hollandse Hoogte C / Amit Daye C Anzenberger / Transworld C / Peter Andrews C Laif / Hollandse Hoogte C Hollandse Hoogte / Rob Huibers 76

1 2 3

1 2 3 Why Kyoto University 1 2 3 9 Kyoto 49.6 50,000 100,000 44.2 100,000 200,000 6.2 International Graduate Programme for East Asia Sustainable Economic Development Studies Undergraduate International Course