POLLINATORS POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION

THE ASSESSMENT REPORT ON POLLINATORS, POLLINATION AND FOOD PRODUCTION
TABLE 4.9
Summary of estimates of the economic value of pollination services in 2015 US$
Study Region Crops Method Year 2015US$
National scale
Calderone (2012) USA All Dependence ratio 2009 $17.1bn
Mwebaze et al (2010) UK (pollinators) NA Stated preferences
(contingent
valuation)
2009 $3.0bn
Garratt et al (2014) UK Apples (2 Cultivars) Yield analysis 2010 $62.1M
Calderone (2012) USA All Dependence ratio 2010 $17.9bn
Breeze et al (2015)
UK (pollination
service benefits)
NA
Stated preferences
(choice experiments)
2010 $1175M-$640M
Vanbergen et al (2014) UK 18 Crops Dependence ratio 2011 $1,173.4M
Giannini et al (2015) Brazil 85 Crops Dependence ratio 2012 $12.5bn
Gill et al (1991) Australia 35 Crops Partial equilibrium
model (CS only)
1986/1987 $523M-$10,858M
Morse and Calderone (2000) USA All Dependence ratio 1996-1998 $21.8bn
Gordon and Davis (2003)
Cook et al (2007)
Australia
(honeybees)
Australia
(honeybees)
35 Crops Partial equilibrium
model
1999-2000 $1.5bn
25 Crops Dependence ratio 1999-2003 $16.8M-$39.9M*
Sanjerehei (2014) Iran 32 Crops Dependence ratio 2005-2006 $7.9bn
Stanley et al (2013) Ireland Oilseed rape Yield analysis 2009-2011 av $5.8M
Multinational scale
Klatt et al (2014) EU Strawberries Yield analysis 2009 $1.6bn
Partap et al (2012) Himalayan region All Partial equilibrium
model (CS only)
2008/09 $3.0bn
Leonhardt et al (2013) Europe All Dependence ratio 1991-2009 av $24.0bn
Global scale
Pimentel et al (1997) Global All Dependence ratio 1986 $435.9bn
Costanza et al (1997) Global All Crop value 1996 $177bn
Bauer and Wing (2014) Global All Partial equilibrium
model
Bauer and Wing (2014) Global All General equilibrium
model
2004 $160bn-$191.5bn
2004 $367.9bn-$689.3bn
Gallai et al (2009) Global All Dependence ratio 2005 $232.1bn
Gallai et al (2009) Global All Surplus analysis 2005 $176.2bn-$486bn
Lautenbach et al (2012) Global All Dependence ratio 2009 $235.1bn-$577bn**
*: These values are subject to discounting on a 30 years time scale
**: These values are not reported directly in the paper but can be read from Figure 4.1
Study: The cited reference in which the original value was found. Region: The region over which the estimates of benefit was conducted. Crops: The crops that were assessed
for value with all denoting all possible insect pollinated crops in the region for which data was available. NA denotes studies where the method does not apply to a specific crop.
Method: Denotes the method used to estimate benefit: Crop Value (2.2.1), Hive Rental (2.1.2), Yield Analysis (2.2.1.), Dependence Ratio (2.2.2.), Replacement Costs (2.3),
Partial Equilibrium Analysis (CS = Consumer Surplus; PS = Producer Surplus) and General Equilibrium Analysis (2.4) and Stated Preferences (2.5.). Year: the year the estimate
relates to, usually based on what year the data relate to, studies denoted av = average of the years. 2015 US$: The monetary estimate of the study inflated (and in many cases
converted) to 2015 US$ as of July 2015 – this was done to standardize the estimates to some extent.
All estimates were converted into US dollars using average annual spot exchange rates from the Bank of England (Bank of England, 2015). These dollar estimates were inflated
to 2015 US$ using Consumer Price Index (CPI) data from the United Stated Federal Government’s Bureau of Labour and Statistics (BLS, 2015a, Table 24). Inflation was based
on the CPI for July of the year the estimate was related to compared with the CPI in July 2015 (BLS 2015b, Table 1). If this year was not stated then they were assumed to
be the year before the study was published. Where a study used average data from across several years (e.g., Lui et al., 2011), conversion and inflation rates were averaged
across the years concerned. These inflations only represent a change in the value of currency and do not capture any changes such as the relative input prices, price controls or
subsidies. Note that the value of $1 will still vary between countries based on their purchase power piety (see Section 3).
257
4. ECONOMIC VALUATION OF POLLINATOR GAINS
AND LOSSES