IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoser/v29y2018ipbp352-359.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ecosystem service valuation framework applied to a legal case in the Anchicaya region of Colombia

Author

Listed:
  • Toledo, David
  • Briceño, Tania
  • Ospina, German

Abstract

Lack of explicit value for ecosystem services has resulted in great damage being imposed on the poor when engineering projects of wealthy corporations impose externalities on local communities. Such communities are rarely in a position to extract payment for damages from the well-healed corporations. The case study reported in this manuscript is a classic example of such social injustice. The Anchicaya region in the Colombian Pacific coast is characterized by its rich cultural and biological diversity. The primary inhabitants of this region are Afro-descendant communities who are directly dependent on the surrounding natural environment. On July 21st, 2001 there was an illegal discharge of approximately 500,000m3 of accumulated sediment from a hydroelectric dam on the Anchicaya River, which gravely affected those inhabiting the region downstream of the dam. In 2002, the communities of the Lower Anchicaya region began a class action suit against the energy company in charge of the dam. After years of deliberations favoring the downstream communities, on April of 2012 the Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled in favor of the energy company in charge of the dam, overruling 10 years of deliberations. Through Judgment T-274, the Constitutional Court of Colombia declared that direct valuation studies that had been made in 2002, shortly after the spill, were inadmissible due to lack of objectivity and rigor and ordered that the studies be repeated. In order to value damage that had happened more than 10 years before, we determined that a land cover based ecosystem service valuation would provide the best science-based approach to conduct the valuation. For this we used historical data from geographic information systems, data collected in the affected areas, surveys, and the Ecosystem Valuation Toolkit created by Earth Economics. Several valuation methodologies were used including direct valuation, replacement costs, and benefit transfer. We used the ecosystem service valuation framework to quantify the material and non-material damages recognized under the Colombian legal framework. The total value for the valuation of material damages was of COP $356,688,589,331 (approximately $100 million USD). For the non-material damages, which we classified as cultural ecosystem services, we noted that the loss was high as the victims lost something invaluable and critical for their identity and their well-being. According to the Colombian judicial system, the judge who presides over the case will determine the amount to be paid for these non-material damages. In 2015, the Constitutional Court of Colombia ruled in favor of the Anchicaya community and ordered that the communities be indemnified; however a final value has not been decided to date. We provide a broad classification of valuation methodologies of ecosystem services that can, and has been, aptly used within a legal framework. It is also important to note that this study provides a valuation of services for a subsistence economy, with communities operating outside monetary markets, much like many other remote communities rich in supporting and regulating ecosystem services.

Suggested Citation

  • Toledo, David & Briceño, Tania & Ospina, German, 2018. "Ecosystem service valuation framework applied to a legal case in the Anchicaya region of Colombia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 29(PB), pages 352-359.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:29:y:2018:i:pb:p:352-359
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.022
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212041617301080
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.02.022?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jack Ruitenbeek, H., 1994. "Modelling economy-ecology linkages in mangroves: Economic evidence for promoting conservation in Bintuni Bay, Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 233-247, August.
    2. John Duffield, 1997. "Nonmarket Valuation And The Courts: The Case Of The Exxon Valdez," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 15(4), pages 98-110, October.
    3. de Groot, Rudolf S. & Wilson, Matthew A. & Boumans, Roelof M. J., 2002. "A typology for the classification, description and valuation of ecosystem functions, goods and services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 393-408, June.
    4. Richard Carson & Robert Mitchell & Michael Hanemann & Raymond Kopp & Stanley Presser & Paul Ruud, 2003. "Contingent Valuation and Lost Passive Use: Damages from the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 25(3), pages 257-286, July.
    5. Jon Nelson & Peter Kennedy, 2009. "The Use (and Abuse) of Meta-Analysis in Environmental and Natural Resource Economics: An Assessment," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 42(3), pages 345-377, March.
    6. Robert J. Johnston & Randall S. Rosenberger, 2010. "Methods, Trends And Controversies In Contemporary Benefit Transfer," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(3), pages 479-510, July.
    7. Richardson, Leslie & Loomis, John & Kroeger, Timm & Casey, Frank, 2015. "The role of benefit transfer in ecosystem service valuation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 51-58.
    8. Mauerhofer, Volker, 2008. "3-D Sustainability: An approach for priority setting in situation of conflicting interests towards a Sustainable Development," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 496-506, January.
    9. Nickerson, Donna J., 1999. "Trade-offs of mangrove area development in the Philippines," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 279-298, February.
    10. Edward B. Barbier, 2007. "Valuing ecosystem services as productive inputs [‘Valuing groundwater recharge through agricultural production in the Hadejia-Jama’are wetlands in northern Nigeria’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 22(49), pages 178-229.
    11. Bergstrom, John C. & Stoll, John R. & Titre, John P. & Wright, Vernon L., 1990. "Economic value of wetlands-based recreation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(2), pages 129-147, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Zapata-Caldas, Emmanuel & Calcagni, Fulvia & Baró, Francesc & Langemeyer, Johannes, 2022. "Using crowdsourced imagery to assess cultural ecosystem services in data-scarce urban contexts: The case of the metropolitan area of Cali, Colombia," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 56(C).
    2. Vasilis C. Kapsalis & Grigorios L. Kyriakopoulos & Konstantinos G. Aravossis, 2019. "Investigation of Ecosystem Services and Circular Economy Interactions under an Inter-organizational Framework," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-29, May.
    3. Juan F. Velasco-Munoz & José A. Aznar-Sánchez & Marina Schoenemann & Belén López-Felices, 2022. "The economic valuation of ecosystem services: bibliometric analysis," Oeconomia Copernicana, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 13(4), pages 977-1014, December.
    4. Gianmaria Tassinari & Dušan Drabik & Stefano Boccaletti & Claudio Soregaroli, 2021. "Case studies research in the bioeconomy: A systematic literature review," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 67(7), pages 286-303.
    5. Chakraborty, Shamik & Gasparatos, Alexandros & Blasiak, Robert, 2020. "Multiple values for the management and sustainable use of coastal and marine ecosystem services," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. de Groot, Rudolf & Brander, Luke & van der Ploeg, Sander & Costanza, Robert & Bernard, Florence & Braat, Leon & Christie, Mike & Crossman, Neville & Ghermandi, Andrea & Hein, Lars & Hussain, Salman & , 2012. "Global estimates of the value of ecosystems and their services in monetary units," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 1(1), pages 50-61.
    2. Chaikumbung, Mayula & Doucouliagos, Hristos & Scarborough, Helen, 2016. "The economic value of wetlands in developing countries: A meta-regression analysis," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 164-174.
    3. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Maria L. Loureiro & Ståle Navrud & John Rolfe, 2021. "Guidance to Enhance the Validity and Credibility of Environmental Benefit Transfers," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 79(3), pages 575-624, July.
    4. Hermine Vedogbeton & Robert J. Johnston, 2020. "Commodity Consistent Meta-Analysis of Wetland Values: An Illustration for Coastal Marsh Habitat," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 75(4), pages 835-865, April.
    5. Ian Bateman & Georgina Mace & Carlo Fezzi & Giles Atkinson & Kerry Turner, 2011. "Economic Analysis for Ecosystem Service Assessments," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 48(2), pages 177-218, February.
    6. Manero, Ana & Taylor, Kat & Nikolakis, William & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Marshall, Virginia & Spencer-Cotton, Alaya & Nguyen, Mai & Grafton, R. Quentin, 2022. "A systematic literature review of non-market valuation of Indigenous peoples’ values: Current knowledge, best-practice and framing questions for future research," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 54(C).
    7. Funk, Bryana & Amer, Saud A. & Ward, Frank A., 2023. "Sustainable aquifer management for food security," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 281(C).
    8. Mazzotta, Marisa & Wainger, Lisa & Sifleet, Samantha & Petty, J.Todd & Rashleigh, Brenda, 2015. "Benefit transfer with limited data: An application to recreational fishing losses from surface mining," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 384-398.
    9. Meixler, Marcia S., 2017. "Assessment of Hurricane Sandy damage and resulting loss in ecosystem services in a coastal-urban setting," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 24(C), pages 28-46.
    10. Daniels, Silvie & Bellmore, J. Ryan & Benjamin, Joseph R. & Witters, Nele & Vangronsveld, Jaco & Van Passel, Steven, 2018. "Quantification of the Indirect Use Value of Functional Group Diversity Based on the Ecological Role of Species in the Ecosystem," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 181-194.
    11. Newbold, Stephen C. & Johnston, Robert J., 2020. "Valuing non-market valuation studies using meta-analysis: A demonstration using estimates of willingness-to-pay for water quality improvements," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    12. Matthew Burlingame & Dennis Guignet & Matthew Heberling & Michael Papenfus, 2023. "Using Benefit Transfer to Estimate Housing Value Increases from Improved Water Clarity," Working Papers 23-07, Department of Economics, Appalachian State University.
    13. Ioannis Souliotis & Nikolaos Voulvoulis, 2021. "Natural Capital Accounting Informing Water Management Policies in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(20), pages 1-24, October.
    14. Rolfe, John & Brouwer, Roy, 2011. "Testing for value stability with a meta-analysis of choice experiments: River health in Australia," Research Reports 107744, Australian National University, Environmental Economics Research Hub.
    15. Dennis Guignet & Matthew T. Heberling & Michael Papenfus & Olivia Griot, 2022. "Property Values, Water Quality, and Benefit Transfer: A Nationwide Meta-analysis," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 98(2), pages 191-218.
    16. Kieslich, Marcus & Salles, Jean-Michel, 2021. "Implementation context and science-policy interfaces: Implications for the economic valuation of ecosystem services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    17. Zamboni, Nadia Selene & Noleto Filho, Eurico Mesquita & Carvalho, Adriana Rosa, 2021. "Unfolding differences in the distribution of coastal marine ecosystem services values among developed and developing countries," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    18. Roger Fouquet, 2018. "Consumer Surplus from Energy Transitions," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 3).
    19. Aryal, Kishor & Ojha, Bhuwan Raj & Maraseni, Tek, 2021. "Perceived importance and economic valuation of ecosystem services in Ghodaghodi wetland of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    20. Valencia Torres, Angélica & Tiwari, Chetan & Atkinson, Samuel F., 2021. "Progress in ecosystem services research: A guide for scholars and practitioners," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 49(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoser:v:29:y:2018:i:pb:p:352-359. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/ecosystem-services .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.