The Economics of Desertification, Land Degradation, and Drought

Only a small number of studies have attempted to measure indirect values or nonuse values.
The Österreichische Bundesforste AG (2009) attempts to value biodiversity, climate change
mitigation, soil stabilization, and cultural services provided by protected areas in Ethiopia. The results
suggest that the value of biodiversity in developing countries is in the range of $1–$30 per hectare per
year. Schuyt (2005) discussed several economic valuation studies carried out for different African
wetlands. In this study, the existence value of biodiversity was measured using the contingent
valuation method and was estimated at $4,229,309. Ecosystems that provide multiple services or that
are of a regional importance for other, dependent ecosystems provide benefits that may reach an order
of magnitude that is equal to or larger than the direct use value of the ecosystem in question (Görlach,
Landgrebe-Trinkunaite, and Interwies 2004).
The approach provided by MA (2005b), as presented in Box 1., can be linked to the TEV
concept as follows, though this is not straightforward. In general, direct use values broadly match
provisioning and cultural services, whereas indirect use values match regulating services, and
existence value partly overlaps with cultural services. There is no particular overlap between
supporting services and any value within the TEV concept; they are valued implicitly because they are
essential for the functioning of the ecosystem and, hence, provision services (Pagiola, von Ritter, and
Bishop 2004).
Balmford et al. (2008) stated that the approach of MA (2005) mixes benefits obtained from
ecosystem services and the processes by which these benefits are delivered. Mixing processes and
benefits easily leads to double-counting of values, resulting in an overstated value of ecosystems.
Balmford et al. (2008) provided an example to demonstrate this problem: Water purification could be
valued as both a regulating service and a benefit (from drinking water). If the value of the service is
quantified in addition to the value of fresh water, there is clear double-counting in the valuation of
water purification. As a possible remedy Balmford et al. (2008) 40 made a distinction between
processes and benefits (see Figure 3.6). Processes refer to core ecosystem processes, which consist of
the basic ecosystem functions (for example, nutrient cycling, water cycling) and beneficial ecosystem
processes (such as waste assimilation, water purification) that directly lead to benefits for humans
(such as clean drinking water). These benefits can then be valued in monetary terms. Focusing solely
on the valuation of the benefits derived from ecosystem services is the key to avoiding doublecounting.
40 Supporting services, as suggested by MA (2005), correspond broadly to the core ecosystem services, including some
beneficial services. Regulating services mirror “beneficial” processes, and provisional and cultural services are reflected by
“benefits” (Balmford et al. 2008).
69