Workshop on Biodiversity and Economics European Environment Agency October 5, 2006 Kongens Nytorv 6, DK-1050 Copenhagen K ECONOMICS OF BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION AND PRESERVATION Pablo Campos-Palacín Spanish Council for Scientific Research

2 Table 1a Galician private actors preferences: Demand WTP in conserving and increasing Galician natural protected areas Source: Own elaboration from Prada et al. (2005). ClassAvoiding environmental losses by public investment in managing 3 current protected mountain areas (2001) Avoiding environmental losses by public investment in managing 24 Natura 2000 protected natural areas (2001) Area36,000 ha280,000 ha Questionnaire size600 Household (H) Household monthly net income1,293/H Valuation techniqueCVM Payment vehicleAnnual income tax increase payment Actor demand/supply indicator Mean WTP: 7/HMean WTP: 113/H Annual unitary surface value163/ha339/ha Total annual revenues5,868,00094,920,000

3 Table 1.b Galician private actors preferences: Supply WTA in conserving and increasing Galician natural protected areas Source: Own elaboration from Prada et al. (2005). ClassSupplying environmental benefits by private investment in managing common forest in private ownership (2002) Area670,000 ha Questionnaire size30 Representative land owner Household monthly net income 675/H Valuation techniqueDELPHI Payment vehicleGovernment compensation by concerted private forest management Actor demand/supply indicator Median WTA compensation payments for planting and managing native broadleaves trees: Plantation (first year): 3,505/ha. Annual restoration cost (from 2 to 9 years): 464/ha. Current annual income loss (until year 19): 35/ha

4 Table 2 Environmental income from a steady state management in Guadarrama silvopastoral system natural protected area (2002) Source: Campos and Carrera, forthcoming The environmental net value applied to accounting identity in the steady state situation: NVA E = OSA + VR +VC + M – IC G – FCC G

5 Table 3 Net capital gains present discounted values of Cork oak planting and natural regeneration (20002, /ha) Source: Campos et al., in preparation.

6 Table 4 Cork oak woodlands environmental final outputs Source: Campos et al., in preparation. ClassPrice (2002 /ha) AljibeMonfragüeGavarras Private amenities Public visitors services n.a Recreation n.a Conservation n.a n.a.: not available

7 Figure 1 Jerez and Iteimia trade-off between forage unit price and conditioned livestock total income (2002) Source: Campos et al., in revision. CB C B

8 Concluding remarks It is our feeling that European governments have been unjustifiably postponing the improvements and creation of new statistics to incorporate relevant economic exchange value quantifications of site-specific environmental services from ecosystems. The Spanish pilot experience taken from the scientific literature presents operational and reliable results that show the vast difference between conventional commercial income and real income (if environmental income is incorporated) that society and the landowner enjoy.

9 Concluding remarks Future CAP reform could introduce suitable incentives to improve biodiversity assets in European Union extensive and intensive agricultures (European Commission, 2005). The agreed action between private landowners and public administration will be better applied if economic quantification is developed on the basis of specific ecosystems. Thus, the European Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) could be modified and extended to incorporate the ecosystem perspective and not only family agricultural income, as is the case today.

10 Concluding remarks Demand values for environmental services must always be a useful tool for public policy action. Nevertheless, in preserving biodiversity the policy option could be taken to ignore social preferences, when the policy makers and society accept that a loss of income is tolerable, against the unknown benefit of mitigating the biodiversity loss rate.

11 Thank you…