Sustainability Issue #2 July 2009

This is therefore a matter of both the benefits which the farmer him/herself derives from the business, and the general values which can be favoured or disfavoured by the production, “negative benefits”.

The value of existence

Some values are quite easy to understand, such as the aesthetic values. We are pleased to be able to see, listen to or smell species. Many people also attribute to biodiversity something that is called existence value. We value species quite simply because they are there, completely detached from any possible use we may have of them. The value is there, so to say, in the eye of the beholder. There are however people – such as the recently deceased Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess –who have claimed that the existence value also is completely detached from a human observer. Irrespective of how far this reasoning is carried, we can see that an existing species has a value, and that a vanished species is a loss. The actual value can be estimated as a willingness to pay, which is the answer to how much society is prepared to pay to have, say, a certain species left in a certain region.

Ecosystem services for production

Ecosystem services are the benefit we humans derive from  the processes that take place in the ecosystem. This covers all from the production of oxygen and groundwater purification to pollination and natural control of pests on crops. Services which nature performs and gives us, and which we often take for granted. The total value of all ecosystem services may be regarded as infinite (what is it worth that we all survive?) and not “only” 30 billion dollars annually as estimated by an international study by R. Constanza et al in 1997.

Organisms are involved at some point in all ecosystem services, and in general an ecosystem service functions better and will be more stable if a greater biological diversity is involved in it.  In this respect, an insurance value arises for both society and the farmer.  Unfortunately, the total value of services says very little of the value of losing one single species,  i.e. its marginal economic value. On the other hand, it can be seen today that the loss of pollination by bees and bumble bees results in very large losses for agriculture, inter alia in the west of USA and in China.

It is highly evident that biodiversity is a public benefit which is useful not only for the farmer or forest manager. Even if the farmer appreciates the biodiversity on his fields – and perhaps even more than people do in general – diversity is a pleasure for others also. This an important part of the basis for the economic support system  for measures that promote biodiversity.

More diversity for the money

Estimating the (marginal) value of the benefits of biodiversity is difficult, since they cannot normally be used for buying and selling in the market. This limits the possibilities of an effective economic management. One option is to make hypothetical studies in which a number of people are asked how much they would be prepared to pay to preserve various species, such as catsfoot, white-backed woodpecker and even bugs.

In our Formas project “Greater biodiversity for the money” we have approached the problem from another direction. Our starting point is the fact that the EU environmental support system is in existence. Through this, quite large sums of money are paid to farmers every year, and the motivation of several of these grants is that they must promote biodiversity. Some of the grants are focused on the care of small biotopes in the agricultural landscape. A price can therefore be arrived at: one metre of stone wall that is looked after properly is worth a price of SEK 2.60. We have here a simplified problem, where all that must be done to achieve national economic optimisation is to maximise biological diversity for the money. This results in cost effectivisation. The question will instead be: “How can a small biotope be best managed so as to favour biodiversity within the limits imposed by the budget?” Are all stone walls worth the same, irrespective of where they are located in relation to region, landscape or other habitats? Will we get greater biodiversity if there are more stone walls in a certain area? What value does just this element contribute to the entirety of the landscape?

Bumble bees, bees and ground beetles

In our project, we are also having a closer look at bumble bees, bees and ground beetles, since they have clear couplings to the ecosystem services pollination and natural pest control. These services can to a large extent benefit the farmer directly or be useful to the neighbouring farmer or for the surrounding landscape. It may therefore be a wise move on the part of the farmer, from a production economic standpoint, to preserve the habitats which may house biodiversities that provide benefits. We will therefore try to find just how beneficial  preservation of biodiversity in agriculture is for nature, society and the farmer.

In the same way as in the case of biodiversity in general, it is important to understand how ecosystem services depend on the structure of the landscape. Is access to small biotopes in flat country insufficient to provide habitats for pollinators and the predators of insect pests? In such a case we may ask whether directed management inputs, and perhaps the creation of new habitats at a moderate cost, might not be an effective way of reinforcing or rescuing the ecosystem services.

• Tell a friend
• Like
• Push Delicious Digg

Back issues

Conferences