How does economic research contribute to the management of forest ecosystem services?

Abstract

& Key message More and more environmental and resource economists are taking a particular interest in research on forest ecosystem services (FES), especially in a context of climate change. Spatial and temporal issues are crucial to economic analyses and for the design of conservation policies. Interdisciplinary research involving ecological and economic disciplines is a prerequisite for the more effective management of forest ecosystems. & Context Economists define non-market ecosystem services (ES) as public or common goods due to their characteristics of non-rivalry in terms of consumption and/or non-excludability. Just because they do not have a price does not mean that ES have no economic value because their social benefits are undoubtedly considerable. These features, associated with the market demand for timber and a poor climate risk assessment, may lead to the under-provision of non-market forest ES and the over-harvesting of timber. & Aims In this article, we review research questions that are central to the enhancement of FES provision. Beyond the economic modelling of the joint provision of FES, we focus on issues related to the design of public policies to guide forest management. The objective is to provide crucial insights concerning the importance of a spatial and sustainable provision of FES. & Results First, we provide an economic interpretation of the FES concept and a review of economic models of forest management. Second, we explain how spatial and temporal dimensions of FES can have major implications on their supply and demand. Both dimensions explain why FESs have to be taken into account in production decisions and public policies (including the design of payment for environmental services (PESs)). & Conclusion A better understanding of FES provision and public policies to be enhanced is not possible without accounting for spatial and temporal dimensions. This helps to analyse the impact of intervention on FES and the cost-effectiveness of economic instruments, implying a coordinated effort to bring together ecological and economic data and models.

Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES)

“…Waylen and Martin-Ortega (2018) suggested that future efforts should be done in reconsidering the balance between standardization and innovation, clarifying what fits within PES and what already exists in environmental management that can also be understood as PES schemes. It is always important when developing these schemes, keeping in mind, that the opportunity cost of providing ES should be covered by payments to constitute a true incentive and not the other way around (Garcia et al 2018).…”

“…The PES program benefits people directly, through direct payments and potentially new jobs, and indirectly, by promoting healthier ecosystems. Four concrete areas can be improved: (i) use simple indicators for environmental impact; (ii) target a specific social group; (iii) consider approaches to increase cost-effectiveness; (iv) define an impact evaluation tool for continuous monitoring National Program for Hydrological Environmental Services in Mexico (Alix- Garcia et al 2018;Porras et al 2013a) The main goal of the program is forest conservation or other vegetative cover in areas threatened by conversion or degradation. It offers annual payments per hectare over 5-year periods to private and communal landowners.…”

“…Some of the main benefits of protecting and restoring forests include the protection of biodiversity, the production of biomass, and the mitigation and adaptation to climate change (Ciccarese et al 2012). Public regulations, auctions, PES schemes, among other policies, are taking place for maintaining the provision of these services (Garcia et al 2018).…”

Payments for Forest Ecosystem Services Across Europe – Main Approaches and Examples from Slovakia

“…PES are flexible, financial mechanisms for utilisation of available finances for environmental improvement. We can also characterise them as a reward for ensuring positive externalities (Daily, 1997) and their internalisation (Farley, Costanza, 2010;Garcia et al, 2018). Wunder (2015) described PES as voluntary transactions between service users and service providers that are conditional on agreed rules of natural resource management for generating offsite services.…”

“…the price is zero) and the forest owner will not consider the provision of this service in the same way as he or she would for a market good like timber. However, this non-market good or service has a value for the forest owner and for society (Garcia et al, 2018). Provisioning services are equivalents of forest production functions and include production of wood, game and other market products.…”