Ecological Goods and Services EG

1
Ecological Goods and Services (EGS) Analysis
for Policy Matthew Straub, Agri-Environmental
Policy BureauCrop Nutrient Council
SymposiumFebruary 20th, 2008
2
Ecological Goods Services are

• defined as components or services provided by
  the natural environment that benefit people, e.g.
  clean water, clean air, biodiversity, quality
  landscapes.
• associated with particular benefits that human
  populations derive, directly or indirectly, e.g.
  aesthetics, recreation, health, damage avoidance.
• Healthy agro-ecosystems can provide numerous EGS
  that produce these benefits.

3
Public Policy Issues

• Reasons to consider EGS policy
• Accounting for EGS is important to public policy
  because they contribute significantly to human
  welfare and are not captured in existing welfare
  accounts
• Producers are paid for market goods, but rarely
  for public goods
• May overuse resources and under-supply ecological
  services
• Reasons to be careful
• Other sectors liable for damage caused receive no
  particular EGS support
• Scientific and economic information is often
  lacking.

4
EGS in context on Nutrient Mgmt How do N and
P from these
5
when spread over this
6
affect some point of impact?

• If society values environmental services
  (positive externalities/risk mitigation) from
  agriculture,
• How extensive are these benefits? (scale)
• How expensive are these benefits? (cost)
• How valuable are these benefits? (social value)
• How can farmers be encouraged to produce more of
  these benefits? (policy incentives)
• We have generally adopted a watershed focus

7
Spatial scales of metrics that relate to
ecosystem services from agriculture.
Dale and Polasky, 2007
8
EGS concept is useful for evaluating tradeoffs
between environmental effects and societal values
9
Linking Science to PolicyIntegrated
economic-hydrologic modelling framework
Research and Policy development activities
underway or completed
Policy Incentives
Benefit-cost Analysis
On-farm Economic Model
Farm Behaviour Model
Modeling Toolbox
Non-market Valuation Model
Relational database management systems, GIS
(SWAT, GIBSI, etc.)
Farm Level (Sub Watershed)
Scale Up (Regional/Watershed)
Source Boxall, Wanhong, Rousseau, 2007
10
The Eight EGS Pilots

• Evaluation of EGS (costs/benefits)
• Testing acreage payments
• EFP Enhancement and Group Planning
• Ducks Unlimited Canada Manitoba
• Identification and valuation of EGS provided by
  wetlands in South Tobacco Creek
• Keystone Agricultural Producers - Manitoba
• Alternate Land Use Services (ALUS)
• Coopérative de Solidarité, Riviére-Aux Brochets -
  Quebec
• Farmers Contribution to the Production of EGS
  in the Sub-Basins of Missisquoi Bay

11
Pilot projects will help answer the tough
questions

• How to measure and place value on public demand
  for EGS?
• How to ensure results are accountable to the
  market place (private buyer) and/or public?
• Determine most efficient and effective policy
  tools?

12
but big challenges remain

• Linking physical changes in complex natural
  systems to changes in services valued by people.
• Data limitations require innovative techniques to
  assess the spatial distribution of benefits.
• Adequate approximations are needed for scaling
  up.

13
Thomas Brook Sub-Watershed (760 ha)
14
Some initial findings showing promise South
Nation Watershed (300-400 ha)
15
Next Steps

• Complete research for the development of EGS
  policy framework by
• Monitoring the development of pilot projects and
  other research within AAFC (WEBs, NAESI)
• Integrate economic research with landscape based
  research activities
• Develop research for EGS policy options to test
  effectiveness of particular approaches
• Engage other federal departments who are now
  becoming interested in EGS policy development

16
(No Transcript)
17
Addressing BMPs with lower uptake and significant
environmental benefits
PFRA, EOY 2007
18
Two Agri-Environmental Valuation Pilots

• Identify and value critical ecosystem services
  generated in agricultural landscapes using stated
  preference methods.
• Linking benefits to NAHARP indicators.
• Groupe AGÉCO
• Site Ruisseau Vacher, Lanaudière
• Gardner Pinfold Consulting Ltd and Memorial U.
• Site Thomas Brook, Kings County, NS
• Benefits Transfer Study McGill/UCONN
• Using existing values to make inferences on the
  economic value of environmental goods and
  services.

19
Valuation of EGS
20
Steppler Sub-Watershed (South Tobacco Creek)
(206 ha)