Principles to Guide Assessments of Ecosystem Service Values
Summary of Cascadia briefing presentations, December 2013 to February 2014
Executive Summary
This report documents the discussion at three meetings held in Seattle and Portland from
December 2013 to February 2014. The purpose of those meetings was to brief organizations
on the Principles to Guide Assessments of Ecosystem Service Values, a document that articulates 10
guiding principles that encourage comprehensive, interdisciplinary approaches to assessing
the social, ecological, and economic benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity.
The principles document, briefing presentation, and information from the workshop from
which the principles arose is available at: http://www.pdx.edu/sustainability/ecosystemservices-valuation-workshop
Discussion Highlights
 The process in which decisions are made and the ecosystems and the values people
attach to them are assessed is as important to agencies, community groups and
individuals as are the outputs of those assessments
 There is interest in both making economic assessments of ecosystem services more
robust and meaningful, and making social and ecological values more visible and tangible
for resource decision makers
Next steps identified
The briefings yielded the following actions that could be taken to further this effort:
 Develop ways to communicate the risks associated with not soundly protecting,
managing and accounting for ecosystem services that will inspire the various decision
makers to action
 At the Federal policy level, two priorities would be to have the principles
incorporated into the Council of Environmental Quality’s Principles and Guidelines
for federal water investments, and NEPA
 Consider the extent to which an improved state of ecosystem value assessments
depends upon improved processes of ecosystem assessment and natural resource
management decision-making more broadly.
Detailed summaries of the three meetings is attached.
1
Meeting Summaries
Note: for the purpose of consistency across the three meetings detailed here, speakers’
names have been removed. Each paragraph represents a specific speaker.
Meeting 1: Thursday December 12 2013, Bullitt Center, Seattle
Attendees: 12
Presenters: Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife; Dave Ervin and Simon Ngawhika,
Portland State University.
Notes of discussion:
The new Council on Environmental Quality’s Federal Principles and Guidelines for water
investments (March 2013). The Guidelines to those (Chapter III) are still under review
I’m looking at trying to apply these principles to a Regional Open Space or Intertwine-type
planning and investment program that seeks to optimize investments in ecological health.
Maybe some of you could discuss how we could move to a fuller consideration of this in
terms of land management policy, generally.
We’re going to have to shift trillions of dollars in our economy to shift from unsustainable
economy and land management, to sustainable. Conservation easements, those are good
investments. Also, funding easements. Forests that supply flood reduction, sequestration,
but all they are being paid for is timber. Last century we had no roads, and state and Federal
funding mechanisms were put in place, and now we have roads. We need to have those
kinds of mechanisms to invest in natural assets.
Do you have some examples of qualitative assessments where they’ve been done well?
Social scientists on our IGERT program have been working with tribes e.g. the Klamath
Basin, describing the qualitative values. I can give you some citations to good studies I’ve
seen.
I think that cultural values mapping is a good technique that can elucidate those values.
Researchers from PSU were instrumental in some of that work in the Olympic Peninsula.
We’re actually engaging those same folk at PSU for the Portland Metro Area. We’ve found
that, locally, there’s a high value on setting aside nature, even though they wont go there.
They’d vote to tax themselves to have that land purchased and set aside, even though they
wouldn't plan to use it.
That's what economists call existence value.
Looking specifically at FSC certified wood, and how to succinctly describe those many
values and benefits, if people really knew more of the differences between FSC and other
forest systems, we would get so much further. So how do you describe those values, and
avoided costs.
2
You need full information at the point of making the purchasing decision. We need the
funding mechanisms. We have 14 utilities in the US that pay watershed fees that invest back
into natural capital.
We did a study on social and cultural aspects for a natural resource damage assessment – we
proposed three frameworks to the tribes we worked with – gross national happiness,
mapping, and quantification. The tribes said ‘we don't want our cultural values valued’, but
also said ‘if it forces the government to do more clean-up, then we should value some
things.’ Its complicated, but bringing that qualitative part in is the first step.
Its important to remember that quantitative doesn’t automatically mean monetary. Miles of
road returned to natural state, walkability, carbon, etc. If we could get past defaulting to
dollars, that's one thing. The other thing is if you’re going to do economic analysis, then do
it, all of it, comprehensively. About FSC forestry, all those socio-economic values—jobs,
income, etc. That's all straight economics. Its other things, biodiversity, soil quality, etc.,
where more work needs to occur.
Having the correct processes and forethought can really help as well. The process these
principles encourage could help and complement the economic.
The planet doesn't care about dollars, but that's how our investment is allocated. The planet
cares about carbon.
A member of the Snonomish tribe told us ‘We need more trees to slow the water’. The
county ran with that and, with I think good intentions, came back with a number of how
much tree cover you could take away before you had a change of stream flow. People came
out of that meeting with this threshold-type number.
I think a project we are working on right now, to assess the ecosystem benefits of the Bullitt
Center, could potentially apply the principles. The right scale is something we are grappling
with.
And its not just the city block or the urban environment, it's the communities who harvested
and grew all of the FSC timber in the building, etc. There’s a genuine cost and benefit in a
traditional sense, but there are all these non-traditional benefits.
For example, the human health benefits of no longer using chemical compounds.
Don't let them keep you in the cost box, talk about all the benefits as well.
Its largely about a narrative, and considering all of the benefits.
This building is a product of innovation, in the design, building, and finance.
Is this a critical time for this work? Is there a window?
This is the window to set a path for the next 15-20 years at the Federal level. At the state
level, we’ve learned that OR and WA really want to stride ahead.
The Master Plans that only happen every 10-15 years are coming up as well.
There are lots of challenges that actually provide opportunity. A lot of municipalities are
actually struggling financially, so there is opportunity to ensure that a bridge is not ‘just a
bridge’, but provides a wider range of benefits. Seattle is just looking at resilience planning
right now, so there is opportunity there.
3
Those multiple benefits – it can be seen negatively, as the whims of public officials, e.g. to
create green space along a creek, instead of managing stormwater systems. Its counterlogical.
Partly driven by court cases.
Those silos get entrenched.
If this money is salmon money, then it can only be spent on salmon.
For that systems approach, communication is vital. If you’re not able to communicate how
that system fits together, there will be pushback.
How do you talk to more people about this, and get people to the same message.
It gets beyond just providing information, its much more complex than doing a better job of
telling a story.
My favorite line is “Lose an ecosystem service, gain a tax district.” It's a way to get people
onto that whole system thinking.
Meeting 2: Friday January 24 2014,
Briefing with PSU Social Sustainability Colloquium Group, Portland State University
Presenters: Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife; Dave Ervin, Samantha Hamlin, and
Simon Ngawhika, Portland State University.
Attendees: 19
Notes of discussion:
Dry land forestry process in NE Oregon – accelerated restoration – concerned with getting
through the NEPA environmental impact process at a landscape level. Stopped by Federal
agencies saying ‘that is not how NEPA works’ – constraints, bureaucratic roadblocks. How
do you get past something as ‘strong’ as NEPA?
In DC in November, NEPA was brought up a lot. The trainer for the NEPA process for the
F&WS referred to the broad purpose statement of NEPA. The way its been implemented
has been at the project scale, but she got all excited about the principles to put greater
emphasis on the broader purpose and intent of the NEPA legislation. The Forest Service is
interested in taking this ‘all lands’ approach, where they look at the ecosystem beyond their
management/jurisdictional boundaries. Its rarely anybody’s job to knit together all of the
different agencies, groups, perspectives, etc.
We know that this is a roadblock, we’re going to be talking about this with the head NEPA
person at CEQ.
In terms of representation, its my experience that ecology is often under-represented. There
is often a call for a non-economic metric to allow more voice for ecological values. Is there a
metric that is at the center of no one discipline?
More traditional economists want to look at things one at a time, as if unrelated. But a
landscape that has many different values is better than one that optimizes only for one.
4
The Genuine Progress Indicator incorporates social and cultural benefits alongside
monetary/economic benefits.
Part of the basis for this work is around banking and trading of ecosystem services, and so
there is an emphasis on monetary values there.
But those mechanisms need regulation: a cap and trade, a temperature or pollution
maximum, or something. Unless society wants to impose more regulations, then those other
attributes that are important are not going to be relevant for trading. Just because we cant
buy or sell them, it doesn’t meant they’re not important.
Until we can find some metric that is more transferable across disciplines or uses, it will be
hard to convince decision-makers to pay attention to them.
If USDA wanted to they could assess Farm Bill restoration programs based on optimally
functioning ecosystems existing on agricultural lands, and then assign dollar values to actual
farms and ranches.
It's a great question, and we haven’t solved it. The reason we did this is because dollars are
not enough. But we haven’t gotten there. We do know that's where we need to go. We have
to get beyond that economic ‘nirvana’ of maximum net present value.
The workshop had an interesting session on how you can make the value-holders’
participation a pre-condition for the studies. The UK’s national ecosystem service
assessment uses more of a unitary approach. EcoMetrix Solutions Group uses a more
performance-based approach.
Question: people with the money have the power. There’s often a disparity of power among
stakeholders, and those with the power (i.e. the money) don't want a different metric. How
do we shift the power dynamic and bring more equality of agency?
Currently in these assessments we don’t say who benefits and who pays.
Its awesome that qualitative values are – in principle – actually being considered. Sometimes
there are power imbalances among the stakeholders. Planners think about this a lot. There’re
limitations to participatory and consensus-building processes.
I love that this is looking to be trans-disciplinary. I love that you want to get rid of jargon –
lets get rid of the term ‘stakeholders’ – these are human beings. Is there a language that
allows everyone to participate? My focus is on relational ecology. I heard today that you are
thinking about relationships, and how to say that these relationships are important. In
economics, those relationships are ‘externalities’.
What word would you recommend?
“Human beings.” You may have to create your own language. Keep going with the transdisciplinary and breaking down on jargon.
A much more engaging and iterative approach than someone going away and coming back
with the numbers.
We made up our own word for how you engage and build that ‘social capital’, its called
‘dignilogue’ [dignity+dialogue].
We have ecosystem service projects and challenges that are long term, but we have a very
short (2-4year) [election] cycle. How do you know if you’ve reached a ‘better’ decision?
5
Well, one of them is that you don't get sued. Clean Water Services has done these riparian
buffers, and they did a really good job of getting people to trust them to do things differently
– they did the first watershed assessment in terms of their daily temperature load. They got
the ratepayers and farmers on board.
So it's a mix of short term, tangible evidence, and long term vision. Sara: and that's rare,
because agencies don’t encourage visionaries as much as they ought to.
The more we can foster a process that is really deliberative and arrives at a more
comprehensive solution.
The Oregon State bar is looking at how to incorporate the views of future generations in
matters of law. New Zealand’s regulatory planning frameworks have people who stand in for
future generations. There is also the B-Corp. legislation for Oregon which encourages social
and ecological performance
Oregon Fish and Wildlife are looking at how to measure the effectiveness of the marine
protected areas along the Oregon coast. The only metric of effectiveness is fisheries. We
would like to survey communities not just on the coast.
Changing the language – there are not just human being ‘stakeholders’, there are also
ecological stakeholders – plants and animals, and minerals. Reference to the ‘Thinking like a
mountain’ exercise.
One attendee at the workshop from the Puyallup tribe didn’t like the term ‘valuation’, and
that spurred the title referencing ‘assessments of ecosystem services values’.
The tribes are a really important stakeholder to engage, but its difficult to engage with them.
Any suggestions?
There is a different legal relationship here in Oregon due to the treaties.
The thing I remember from the last ACES [A Community on Ecosystem Services)
conference was the tribal sessions, and the comment ‘don't think of them as ecosystem
services, think of them as ‘Nature’s gifts’.
Understanding that they are coming at this from a different way, and different approaches
might be needed. One of the principles of participatory research is that you don’t own that
data.
Its about building a quality relationship and not going in ‘wanting to take data’. Trust that is
tested and holds.
Tribes look at timescales in different ways.
The tribes are not a homogenous, unified group.
I’m on board with including social benefits, but there is a need to incorporate economic
benefits better. If we can get stronger monetary assessments, I think it can progress the field
as a whole.
6
Meeting 3: Tuesday February 11 2014
Briefing with community and government groups, Portland State University
Presenters: Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife; Dave Ervin, Samantha Hamlin, and
Simon Ngawhika, Portland State University.
Discussion notes
The most astounding thing for me at the workshop was the ecologists, economists and
sociologists having conversations that were very apart in the beginning, and by the end were
at the same place. I think that the principles are great and hope that they get a lot of traction.
Having these principles has been really useful for us as we talk with businesses.
A tribal representative she met in Florida in December—when their tribe makes a decision,
the frame is ‘what will be the impact over the next seven generations’
I’m so interested in this conversation that I wanted to leave you with a couple questions. We
struggle to be able to fund projects unless we can make a specific connection to the BES
[Portland Burueau of Environmental Services] core mission, which is not very
comprehensive. I’ve been trying to get more green infrastructure investment. I’m in such a
silo, and I don't have a clear idea of how these valuation tools are used and how they are
important for others. If I had a better sense it might help me utilize these tools in a better
context. Another thing: we would like to change GASB (government accounting standards
board) rules – it would help us to fund projects. So we’ve been trying to facilitate a
discussion of other city water managers in Oregon, to look at maybe standardizing our
approaches.
Earth Economics is working on that.
We had an intern look at all the ES valuation we could find, and I’d be happy to share that.
On that asset management stuff, we are being encouraged to talk about green infrastructure
etc. in terms of risk- right now the stream layer on the GIS file doesn’t highlight risks of
erosion, etc. We are trying to change the way we categorize and inventory conditions and the
value of those aspects.
Valuation – what do you mean: monetary value, or relative value, or ecological value.
We want to steer away from just monetary values.
I had a similar experience where they were strip mining, and moving their pinion pines. Well
this tribe, they buried their dead in pinion pines like those. It really shifted how you even
approach the values embedded in the natural landscape. There’s a real shift in how you do
the assessment, how you connect with people to understand what is important. We had a
grass roots group take us around their lands and show us the different parts of the landscape
and essentially teach us what values were there for them.
For me, its about shared value – increasing the way we share values. For example, the
knowledge they gained by learning about the local conditions, was hugely valuable to the
assessment.
When I listen to this, it sounds like the principles are very sound, but don't define what the
values are. Should the next part of this work define what the values are?
7
It seems that many of these principles describe good governance process. Its ultimately
about creating the equivalent of an economic market. The engagement is the involvement of
local communities in a new currency – away from dollars and cents and towards more of a
weighted points measurement that incorporates both quantitative and qualitative data. Some
work I’ve been doing on corporate sustainability, the focus is on the means to the end, not
the end itself. So things like avoidance of risk, including climate risk, the firm’s reputation,
etc. Focusing on those things ultimately ends up with a better bottom line.
On your first question, when you mention NEPA assessments and EIS [Environmental
Impact Statement] work, it’d be very interesting to see NEPA change to incorporate
ecosystem services. But then you get into values. Values can change with education; I think
that's a really important part. Education will result in better understanding of ecosystem
services projects and the benefits of protecting ecosystem services. If this can enable
identification of values that are shared among different groups or sections of the
community, then that is a great outcome in itself.
Education, that is key. I’m so glad you have put this together. But the value of cultural
interests is so hard to get across to the people who make decisions. My world is habitat. If
I’m going to be successful, then I have to prove that not extracting resources and making
millions is the better investment.
The governor’s office is looking really closely at Genuine Progress Indicators.
How do you get at those values in a way that shows some of those nuanced or shared
values? Our agency programs are not geared towards a good dialogue.
One thing that really hops out is that these values are very contextual and contingent. Maybe
it requires being very specific about the context that has brought the value assessment to set
up the stakeholder environment – acknowledge the similarities, differences and
contradictions, acknowledges the power differentials, and has some mechanism to resolve
disputes in the process.
Take the resources in Alaska—those natural systems have international significance, even if
they don't intend on going there. So the geographical context is important as well. In the
values mapping exercise that is coming up in the academic studies, it is a much more
contextual. “Where do you fish?”
There’s a little intellectual dishonesty if we don't have comparability, because we ask for the
moon and the stars but then we can’t back them up because a small but very important
group is ignored. That's one of the danger grounds that we are in right now. Ultimately, we
are working on the embedded assumption that people will or can or should pay for the
things that we can’t monetize. I think that's a really important part of the conversation that
we shouldn’t shy away from, and intellectual honesty should be put right through this.
Yesterday I was in a hearing in Salem about setting up a NEPA requirement for Oregon. I
put my regulatory hat on and thought whoever has the money and the resources to bring to
the table, its going to be slanted in that direction: an independent third party that can be
separated from the decision maker and the affected parties.
There is a real shortage of supply of and funding for those independent third party
conveners.
8
Agencies are like that as well. We are very much drawn up in our own camps. “I’m very
willing to give up your piece of the pie.”
Agreed, that's a really interesting concept. Thinking about that neutral entity, maybe its not
to make the decision, but to certify the process and ensure the right things were looked at.
I concede that the principles are very difficult to apply in a project tomorrow. But it can help
to ensure that the views and interests and ‘values’ of all parties to a decision are assessed.
Who’s job is it to facilitate this collaborative process? Who’s got the money to pay for it?
Do you intend to have this applied to both public and private lands? I’m a real estate
development attorney, so I work a lot with private landowners. For a lot of landowners, the
‘value’ that they place in being a landowner goes far beyond the market value. How does this
really work when this hits the road?
I think we are learning.
This right now is more of a public accounting frame, but we are beginning to look at how
this applies to private landowners.
From the infrastructure perspective, mitigation (of impacts) is very important. I have clients
that are willing to listen to more ecologically sound solutions, so long as it will yield them a
better mitigation margin.
I work in the wetland area; we’ve been prioritizing the state’s most important wetlands.
Working with agencies and researchers, we’ve seen that working with ODOT and
Department of State Lands. We’re working with EPA and the Association of State Wetland
Managers. Its taken years but we have gotten some real traction.
One of the things that might be there is I hear the term ‘assessment’, and I think objective,
purely informational. But there is a lot of social aspects to this. I heard a really deep intrinsic
value in land ownership. From an assessment perspective, we need to describe the
distribution of ownership – who’s providing those ecosystem services at a cost? Who’s
paying for them? These assessments can break down the barriers to the discussion if we can
assess the equity and ownership aspects of the parties coming to the table. Private property
rights and distribution of ownership are really important. From an assessment perspective,
who stands to win, and who stands to lose?
There’s been a lot of discussion of good governance and equity effects. With forest
collaborative groups in Oregon, we begin to see this happen in a very open way. There’s a
lot of work in schools of government here in Oregon on collaborative governance models
that may inform this work.
Is part of this discussion should be a mass balance of ecosystem services so that if one
project might take some away, we need to find the right reproduction of those services
elsewhere, or how to share the costs of those?
We were arguing for a more comprehensive assessment of the state’s resources, because
entire sets of values are being ignored.
Its currently really about commodities, when there are other types of values that you could
take into consideration, I think there could be a way of doing land transactions in a different
way.
9
One project that I’m working on, the landowner is trying to keep the property in terms of
cash flow, but is retiring or the industry has wound down. Maybe the landowner would not
be paid for the ecosystem services provided on their land, but could borrow against them.
But its not robust. From 2008-13, I bet a lot of land that owners wanted to keep was lost,
because of the inability to service debt. The revolving funds don't work because the value of
ecosystem services those lands are provided are not part of the banks’ value framework.
10