Guidelines for Evaluating the Values and Functions Provided by Wetlands

“Guidelines for evaluating the values and functions provided by wetlands”

Outline for a report to be produced for Ramsar STRP Task 1.4 iii

Draft 2 (19 June 2004)

By Rudolf de Groot1 () and Mishka Stuip2 ()

1) Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University

(PO Box 47, 6700 AA, Wageningen, The Netherlands)

2) Foundation for Sustainable Development

(FSD, P.O. Box 570, 6700AN, Wageningen, The Netherlands)

with input from:

David Coates (), Lijuan Cui () , Lucy Emerton (), Dave Pritchard ()

Question: please advise how we eventually are going to refer to the authors of these guidelines; for now I listed the principal authors and people that provided input.

In the final document we should probably add a footnote to explain that this guideline-document will take (i.e. took) into consideration, existing and on-going relevant work on this subject by various individuals and organizations (esp. IUCN, MA, ..

1. Background and purpose

Wetlands are composed of a number of physical, biological and chemical components such as soils, water, plant and animal species and nutrients. Interactions among and within these components allow the wetland to perform certain functions, such as erosion control and flood control. In addition, Wetlands generate products such as from wildlife, fisheries and forest resources. They also have ecosystem scale attributes such as biological diversity and cultural uniqueness/heritage that have value either because they induce certain uses or because they are valued themselves by humans.

It should be noted that not all wetlands possess all or the same characteristics but all wetlands yield multiple values.

Because of their many functions and multiple values, many stakeholders are involved in wetland use, often leading to conflicting interests and the over-exploitation of some functions (eg. fisheries or waste treatment) at the expense of others (eg. biodiversity conservation and flood-control). However, increasingly studies are showing that sustainable, multi-functional use is usually not only ecologically more sound but also economically more beneficial (Balmford et al., 2002).

To ensure more balanced decision-making it is crucial to better assess the full importance (value) of wetlands and communicate these values to decision-makers and the general public.

The importance or “value” of ecosystems is viewed and expressed differently by different disciplines, cultural conceptions, philosophical views, and schools of thought (Goulder and Kennedy 1997). One important aim of this Guideline-document is to analyze and as much as possible quantify the importance of ecosystems to human well-being in order to make better decisions regarding the sustainable use and management of ecosystem services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2003).

No matter how the value of the worth of a wetland is established, it is important to appreciate the links between the ecological processes taking place in a wetland ecosystem and the worth of the values that it provides, most especially to people. In the light of this, the 3rd meeting of the Conference of contracting parties in Regina, Canada from May 27th to June 5th 1987, in its adopted definition of wetlands, defined sustainable utilization of wetlands as “ human use of a wetland so that it may yield the greatest continuous benefit to present generations while maintaining its potential to meet the needs and aspirations of future generations”

Subsequent to the CoP8 in Valencia, Spain in November 2002, the Ramsar SC Committee, after their meeting in March 2003, requested that the STRP determine and develop guidelines on the ecological character of Ramsar sites and other wetlands, including techniques for delineating and mapping wetlands and for evaluating their values and functions and goods and services, including:

i) Guidelines for defining the "ecological character" of Ramsar sites and other wetlands

ii) Guidelines on techniques for delineating and mapping wetlands

iii) Guidelines for evaluating the values and functions, goods and services provided by wetlands

This report deals with the third task.

As a subset of its request to ‘further review and, as appropriate, develop guidance (guidelines?) and report to COP9, concerning identified gaps and disharmonies in defining and reporting the ecological character of wetlands through inventory, assessment, monitoring and management of Ramsar sites and other wetlands, giving priority to advice and guidance on practical matters on issues that should include: the Ramsar Classification System for Wetland Types, (bio)geographical regionalisation schemes, and their application in defining and reporting the ecological character of wetlands’

The main purpose of this project (report?) therefore is to provide practical guidelines for evaluating the functions and values (ecological, socio-cultural and economic) provided by wetlands.

2. Overview of steps proposed in the guidelines

To assess wetland functions and values in a systematic manner, the following steps are distinguished in this report (see Figure 1 for a visual representation of the interlinkages between these steps)

1. Analysis of policy processes and management objectives: in order to identify the kinds of values and valuation systems that policy makers and managers require, insight in the policy processes and management objectives is essential to set the stage for a discussion of what kind of valuation is needed (eg. to assess effects of trade-offs in wetland use or –conversion (= partial valuation) or to determine the Total Value of the intact wetland to the local community and (national) economy) and how values can be generated that will influence policy and management decisions.
2. Stakeholder-analysis and –involvement: in all steps, stakeholder-involvement is essential to determine the main policy and management objectives, identify the main relevant functions in a given situation and determine the value placed on the availability of wetland functions and quantification of the costs and benefits associated with changes in wetland functions.
3. Function analysis: translation of wetland characteristics (processes and components) into a comprehensive list of goods and services, which should be quantified in appropriate units (biophysical or otherwise) to determine sustainable use levels (see table 5.1)
4. Function valuation: assessment of the ecological, socio-cultural and economic benefits of the wetland goods and services identified in step 3. These benefits should be quantified in both the appropriate value-units (ecological, socio-cultural and economic indicators) as well as monetary values (see Table 6.2(??). for details).

Although the guidelines in this report stop with this last step, it is of course crucial that the information generated by function analysis and valuation is structurally integrated in decision-making instruments such as cost-benefit analysis.

To analyse wetland functions, their values and trade-offs associated with their use in a systematic manner, a conceptual framework is proposed which is presented in a simplified form in fig 2.1. The four steps described above are indicated with colours in the figure: function analysis is green, valuation is red, stakeholder involvement yellow and policy analysis blue. The white fields (i.e. Cost-Benefit Analysis, Planning & Management and External Pressures) are not further discussed in this report.

Figure 2.1:Framework for Integrated Assessment and Valuation of Ecosystem

Functions, Goods and Services (after: De Groot, 1992 and De Groot et al, 2002)

`

In the following sections, further information is given on the main methods, data needs and linkages with related projects and possible data sources for each step.

3. Step 1: Policy analysis

Note from author: several reviewers remarked the need to start with an analysis of policies, institutions and governance aspects which influence the kind of values that will be taken into account in decision making and management measures. Below some statements on this topic have been included (I am afraid I am not sure anymore which statement was made by whom …)

Policy analysis should identify the types of information (kinds of values) required and by whom. The analysis should include a discussion of how decision-making processes work (and their basis) and how they influence the kind of information that is required. It should cover the advantages and disadvantages of each approach. The subject of the need to be able to compare different kinds of values should be raised and an introduction of the concept that for “difficult” values the key factor is to enable key stakeholders to assign their own values and incorporate that into decision making The subject of livelihoods analysis should also be introduced here. A stakeholder analysis needs to be conducted to identify the right stakeholder groups to involve in the whole process.

What is policy? : “Defining policy is rather like the elephant – you know it when you see it but you cannot easily define it” (Cunningham, 1963, cited in Keeley and Scoones, 1999:4).

Policy does not happen in isolation. It is not formulated and implemented solely by policy makers in government offices. A range of institutions, such as markets or the legal system, and organizations such as NGOs or bureaucracies, mediate a messy relationship between policy and people’s livelihoods. This is the interface where policy and people meet.

Methods for Policy analysis

Some methods for policy analysis are included in Table 3.1

Table 3.1: Example methods for analysing different elements of policy and policy process.

Element of analysis

/

Example methods

Policy priorities

/

Interviews, policy mapping, policy ranking, visioning.

Social capital

/

Power analysis, social maps, strategy flow diagrams, institutional analysis

Policy process and actors

/

Stakeholder analysis, actor network analysis, key informant interviews

Policy context

/

Document analysis, time lines, policy mapping

Policy statements

/

Document analysis, key informant interviews

Policy measures

/

Document analysis, key informant interviews

Institutions & organisations

/

Institutional analysis, social maps, power analysis

Livelihood strategies

/

Semi-structured interviews, preference ranking, strategy flow diagrams

Source:

Some methodological issues

- Policy affects different groups in different ways

- Institutional/organisational environment is not uniform

- Policy and policymaking are macro, meso and micro processes.

- Policy is highly political

Livelihood Analysis

An analysis of policies for sustainable livelihoods (SL) requires an understanding of the livelihood priorities, the policy sectors that are relevant, and whether or not appropriate policies exist in those sectors. The policy priorities will be realized more effectively if the capacity to articulate demands and influence the policy process is made possible. Finally, policy is made and is implemented at a variety of ‘levels’: international and regional, national and sub-national (state, provincial or local). The linkages and paths of influence between these levels are also significant for understanding policy (see figure 3.2).

Fig. 3.2 The Livelihoods Framework

See for example

The above, for example, is a useful framework for analysing the value of wetlands to local communities – without the need to use formal economic or monetary criteria

Institutional analysis

Institutions (rules, procedures and norms of society)and organizations (government, private sector and

civil society) form the interface between policy and people. (see figure 3.3)

Why do policy statements often say one thing, but quite another is observed in the field? How do the realities of the micro-level situation get fed into the policy making process?

1) Firstly, the impact of policy on people and their livelihoods is mediated by organizations and

institutions, such as markets, laws, the media, NGOs or bureaucracy. For example, macro-economic policy is transmitted through markets (devaluation increases the price of goods in the market); or forest management policy is mediated by the front line workers of the forest department. Often the impact of a policy will depend on the extent and nature of people’s interaction with those organisations and institutions (Shankland, 2000).

2) Secondly, institutions and organisations mediate citizens’ influence on the policy process. Again, the market place, civil society organisations, media, interactions with bureaucracies, etc, provide people with opportunities to articulate demands, express dissatisfaction, and challenge dominant ideas that inform policy. For example, NGO projects illustrate alternative policy options in practice; or research may challenge dominant policy narratives.

Figure: 3.3 Analysis for Sustainable Livelihoods

Source:

4.Step 2: Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder analysis is a technique to identify and assess the importance and interests of key people, groups, or institutions that significantly influence policy-making processes or are influenced by policy. The method can be used flexibly to investigate and analyse a whole range of stakeholder interests, characteristics, relative power, and circumstances (see table 4.1).

Stakeholder analysis identifies people, groups and organizations that are important when a valuation is conducted. It addresses people who are affected by the policy that results from the valuation, as well as those who affect policy. A distinction should be made between stakeholders that identify themselves as a cohesive group (e.g. companies and NGO’s) and unorganised ‘ groups’ such as small businesses and households.

Other participatory methods that can be used or adapted to investigate policy issues include: resource tenure and rights maps indicating ownership of land or resources; mobility maps showing seasonal movement, migration trends, etc; visioning exercises to elicit livelihood priorities; flow diagrams to map policy strategies; and time-lines to draw up policy/livelihood changes over time.

Participatory methods imply certain obligations, and researchers must be aware of the following (IIED 1997):

• Active involvement of people in research and analysis means that all participants should have ownership of the results. This implies a requirement for effective and timely feedback, the sharing of reports and the recognition of contributions.
• The use of interactive, participatory research methods may generate enthusiasm and excitement and raise expectations. This implies that plans for follow-up must always be part of research activities. Rooting research work within local structures, seeking alliances with development actors on the ground and finding a means to pursue findings all require prior planning and a commitment that stretches both before and beyond the research study.
• Open and frank discussions about research use can raise latent resource-related conflicts that then need to be addressed. Do researchers have the skills to deal with some of these conflicts?
• Finally, active local involvement in research has costs as well as the well-recognized benefits. These costs include the real costs of time out of busy lives and material costs in terms of accommodation and food provided, as well as the potential costs political and social disputes generated by the intervention of a new set of actors. Researchers must recognize these costs and compensate in locally appropriate ways.

It is essential to identify what form of participation is both desirable and feasible for the different actors in each research stage and activity. This will depend largely on the objectives of the research. These objectives, in turn, will have many implications for the research design. If it is to be a data gathering exercise, then rapidity will probably win over pursuit of local analytical processes. If it is to be an exercise leading to local action, then building local analysis and competence will need to be prioritised over quick research outcomes.

Participatory, local-level valuation can be used for the following purposes (Guijt, I. and Hinchcliffe, F. (eds.) 1998:

• To address and challenge a particular natural resource, land-use or market policy that may threaten wild resources and wilderness areas;
• To conduct an environmental impact assessment of a planned development, such as plans to convert a local wilderness area to agriculture, focusing on the potential loss of value
• To understand the costs and benefits of different development options such as cultivating wild plants as opposed to opportunistic gathering
• To seek improvements in local institutions that manage resources such as resource sharing or community management schemes
• To identify better markets and resource management options for wild resources and their products
• To investigate people’s livelihood strategies and how these determine the constraints and options for making the use of wild resources

Table 4.1Integrating Environmental considerations into Economic Policy Making Processes

Source: ESCARP Virtual Conference (

Mode / Relationship of Stakeholder Groups / Method of integration, monitoring and enforcement
Top down / Government issues and implements policies and programs. Participants must behave in a prescribed way. / Public awareness campaigns, Government monitoring and enforcement.
Consultation / Government formulates plans and policies and present to stakeholders for comments and reactions. / Consultation meetings and consideration of some or all recommendations. Involvement of other groups in implementation and monitoring may or may not be sought.
Participation / Government encourages involvement of stakeholder groups (voluntarily or with market incentives) in its programs and activities. / Public awareness campaigns, affiliation with NGOs and community groups. Joint government and community monitoring and enforcement.
Collaboration / Government involves stakeholder groups in the design and operation of programs and projects but under its overall direction and leadership. / Public awareness, consultations at the initial stage and community assistance with monitoring and enforcement
Partnership / Together, stakeholder groups design, implement and monitor plans, policies, programs and projects in equal footing. / Stakeholders share in formulating, raising public commitment, funding, monitoring and enforcement
Autonomous / Stakeholder groups individually design and implement respective programs and projects. / Stakeholder groups may or may not coordinate and share information.

5.Step 3: Function analysis