Slides

1. Monetary evaluation of ecosystem
services: accuracy and uncertainty
of basic transfer approach
Moscow, 2015.
Anton Strokov1(strokov@ecfs.msu.ru), Alexey Bryzzhev2, Alisher
Mirzabaev3 Pavel Krasilnikov1, Alexey Sorokin1 and Sergey Kiselev1
1 – Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia
2 – V.V. Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute, Moscow, Russia
3 – Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Bonn,
Germany
Eurasian Center for Food Security (ECFS)
at Lomonosov Moscow State University
Research undertaken with the financial support of
Russian Scientific Foundation, grant №14-38-00023.

2. Presentation structure
• Introduction
• Features of the studied area
• Methodology
• * estimation of total economic value (TEV)
• * cost of action vs costs of inaction
• Results
• Conclusions

3. Introduction
• Land use change (LUC) leads to land degradation;
• Land degradation influences losses in ecosystem
services of particular area;
• To resist land degradation one needs a reason, like
monetary verification;
• Monetary valuation of ecosystem services has broad
variation and a diapason of values, rather than a
particular estimate;
thus:
• The decision of taking action vs inaction against
land degradation can be uncertain and dependent
on the methods and the data we use.

4. Features of the Studied Area
Figure 1. Azov district of Rostov region in
Russia.
Note: studied area is marked by blue star
Azov district is a well developed
agricultural region of Russia.
Main specialization: grain, sunflower,
fruits.
During 2000-2010 half of orchards were
cut down and transformed into cropland.
Orchards area declined from 6 th. ha to 3
th. ha. Cropland area increased from 207
th. ha to 210 ha.
Land use change caused land
degradation.
Soil data 2000 2002 2008
Phosphorus n/a 5 4
Potassium n/a 53 70
Humus 180 n/a 174
including
organic carbon
102 n/a 99
Table 1. Average humus content and nutrients balance in
Azov district agricultural land on the fields where orchards
were transformed to cropland, ton per ha in layer 20 cm.

5. Can we bring back the orchards and what could
be the reasons for that?
Orchards in Azov district include
mainly apple trees, but also cherry
trees, vineyards, peach and
apricot's trees, and some currants
and raspberries bushes.
Cropland includes mostly grains, sugar
beet, oilcrops, potato, vegetables (more
than 95% of arable land).

6. Methodology
Cost of action vs cost of inaction (von Braun et
al., 2013 and Nkonya et al., 2014)
Necessary data:
- Land change dynamics,
- Price or TEV of the land,
- Cost of establishing new land use type,
- Cost of maintaining new land use type.

7. Ecosystem issues
• Land degradation leads to ecosystem services
(ES) losses, like carbon sequestration, soil
fertility, pollination, distortion of water
regime, natural habitat, recreational services
etc.
• Total economic value (TEV) approach can be
helpful in assessing ES evaluation.
• When we don’t have estimates for particular
area, we use basic transfer approach.

8. TEV approach
• Tianhong et al (2008) considers taking a value
of one ecosystem services (price equivalent)
and then multiplying it on coefficients, which
reveal the significance of other ES services
relatively to price equivalent.
• The ES coefficients can be taken from a survey,
or a questionnaire.

9. Estimating price equivalent of
ES cropland
(Q * P) / S =
550 USD per HA
in comparative
2010 prices
for Azov district using average
producer prices for crops in Rostov
region in 2000-2008
Where Q – quantity of
production, P – producer
price, S – land area

10. Estimating price equivalent
for ES of orchards
for Azov district using average
producer prices for fruits in Rostov
region in 2000-2008
(Q * P) / S =
842 USD per HA
in comparative 2010
prices

11. The summary of questioning 20 people in Russia, participants of the Russian Scientific
Foundation project № 14-38-00023 "The control of land degradation in Eurasia"
The type of ecosystem services
Cropn
ad
Orcha
rds
Distur
bed
land
Carbon sequestration 98 129 33
Climate regulation 92 110 40
Water regulation 80 95 36
Disturbance regulation 54 67 37
Water supply 62 87 28
Erosion control 98 128 31
Soil formation 75 98 44
Nutrient cycling 84 113 25
Maintenance of habitat 57 91 33
Genetic resources 72 92 22
Biological control 72 89 23
Pollination 90 119 28
Waste treatment 68 88 42
Food production 197 184 12
Raw materials and feed production 162 63 10
Cultural functions 81 110 25
Recreational functions 33 98 14
TOTAL POINTS 1475 1761 483
Coefficients (compared to the land
type with minimum points - disturbed
land)
3,05 3,65 1,00
Price Equivalent 550
TEV per ha 1681 2006 550

12. China coefficients (modified from Tianhong et
al 2008, based on the results Xie et al 2003)
The type of ecosystem services
Cropn
ad
Orcha
rds
Climate regulation 0,89 1,80
Air quality 0,50 2,15
Waste treatment 1,61 1,34
Water supply 0,60 2,00
Soil fertility 1,46 2,92
Biodiversity 0,71 2,17
Food production 1,00 0,20
Raw materials 0,10 1,32
Recreational functions 0,01 0,66
TOTAL POINTS (coefficients) 6,91 14,54
Price Equivalent 550
TEV per ha 3803 8004

13. Comparing market prices and TEV
prices
Market prices for orchards in Rostov region can be a lot higher than
TEV estimates!

14. Cost of action vs cost of inaction
against land degradation

15. Estimating costs of land degradation
due to land use changes

16. Finally cost of inaction will be the sum of annual losses
due to land degradation

17. Results
Variables
Provisional
services
based on Russian
ES coef.
based on Chinese
ES coef. Market price
sc1 sc2 sc3 sc4
TEV for orchards 842 2006 8004 23350USD/ha
establishment cost of
orchards 983 983 983 983USD/ha
maintenance cost of
orchards 871 871 871 871USD/ha
cost of action in 20
year period 20 472 686 36 697 504 67 160 417 37 952 256USD
cost of inaction in 20
year period 4 186 695 4 677 720 60 314 861 309 806 142USD
inaction vs action in
USD $0,20 $0,13 $0,90 $8,16
action vs inaction in % 489% 785% 111% 12%
TEV for cropland 550 1681 3803 1768USD/ha
Ratio: TEV orchards /
TEV cropland 1,53 1,19 2,10 13,21

18. Conclusions
• TEV is a diapason concept rather than concrete
value;
• TEV estimates vary because of evaluation
techniques and relevant data for ecosystem
services;
• Market price could be higher than sophisticated
TEV estimates;
• In our case only the market price can be a reason
for applying cost of action against land
degradation.

19. Thank you for your attention!