Guide for Rapid
Economic Valuation of
Wetland Ecosystem Services

Ministry of the EnvironmentJapan

Suggested citation:

Chapter 1
Chapter 2
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Chapter 6

Merriman, J.C., Murata, N., (2016) Guide for Rapid Economic Valuation of
Wetland Ecosystem Services. BirdLife International Tokyo, Japan.
Merriman, J.C., Peh, K.S-H. (2016) Introduction
Merriman, J.C., Murata, N. (2016) Steps for measurement
Murata, N., Merriman, J.C., Iwabuchi, T., (2016) Methods for economic valuation
Merriman, J.C., Murata, N. (2016) Next steps
Murata, N., Merriman, J.C., Le, T.T., Nguyen, T.K.H.,(2016) Case study – Thai
Thuy Wetland, Vietnam
Peh, K.S-H., Merriman, J.C., Dae We Aung, T., Theint, S.M., Murata, N., Suzue, K.
(2015) Case study – Moeyungyi Wetland, Myanmar

This guide is prepared based on Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Assessment (TESSA).
Citation:
Peh, K. S.-H., Balmford, A. P., Bradbury, R. B., Brown, C., Butchart, S. H. M., Hughes, F. M. R., Stattersfield, A.
J., Thomas, D. H. L., Walpole, M. and Birch, J. C. (2014) Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessments(TESSA). Version 1.2 Available at: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/estoolkit.

Photos provided by: BirdLife International, BANCA and Viet Nature

SUMMARY
Over the past decade, several large-scale international studies, such as the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, haveemphasised the importance of biodiversity conservation due to the benefits (known as
ecosystem services) that nature provides to people. Through these and other studies,
wetland ecosystems have often been highlighted for their important functional roles inproviding clean water, reducing the risk of flooding and in supporting the livelihoods ofnumerous people worldwide. One global study estimated that the economic value of
wetlands is $3.4 billion yr-1 based on the variety of services these ecosystems provide forhuman well-being (Schuyt and Brander 2004). Much of this value is over-looked when it
comes to decision-making about land use in wetlands because these values do notappear in national financial accounts. Thus, over half of the world’s wetlands have been
degraded or destroyed in the last century, with Asia being one of the most impacted
regions globally (Davidoson 2014).
The aim of this guide is to introduce a simple and rapid method for assessing economic
value of wetlands for non-experts of economic valuation. It can be utilized to understandthe overall concepts and steps for economic valuation, as well as demonstrating thatwetlands have economic value for the purpose of awareness raising and decision
making. This guidance is compiled based on the Toolkit for Ecosystem Service
Assessment (TESSA; Peh et al 2014) but developed specifically for wetland ecosystems
and includes experiences from the implementation of two cases in Myanmar andVietnam. The methods extracted and adapted from TESSA aim to minimise the amountof field work and statistical work involved. The use of simple methods reduces costs(time, resources), but with a lower accuracy of the results. Hence this guide is forcarrying out an introductory ecosystem services assessment only. If more detailed
valuation and analysis is required, refer to Chapter 4, TESSA and other publishedvaluation approaches. Chapter 1 introduces wetland ecosystems and the concept of
economic valuation. Chapter 2 illustrates steps for measurement of the economic valueof ecosystem services, and methods for valuing certain ecosystem services are explainedin Chapter 3. The ecosystem services covered in this guide are; 1) harvested wild goods,
2) cultivated goods, 3) water services (water provision, water quality improvement), 4)
global climate regulation and 5) disaster risk reduction. Chapter 4 addressed theimportance of using a comparative approach to valuation to aid decision-making andfinally Chapter 5 presents a case study from Thai Thuy wetland in Vietnam and Chapter 6
demonstrates how the simple comparative approach can be used, presenting a casestudy of Moeyungyi wetland in Myanmar.

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... 2
1

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Wetland ecosystems ......................................................................................... 4
1.2 Ecosystem services from wetlands ................................................................... 5
1.3 Why value wetlands? ........................................................................................ 6
1.4 Economic valuation and its characteristics ....................................................... 6

2

STEPS FOR MEASUREMENT .................................................................................... 8
2.1 Preliminary work ............................................................................................... 9
2.2 Preliminary Scoping Appraisal ......................................................................... 10
2.3 Method selection and data acquisition ........................................................... 11
2.4 Analysis and communication........................................................................... 12
2.5 Cautions and limitations.................................................................................. 123

METHODS FOR ECONOMIC VALUATION ............................................................... 13
3.1 Harvested wild goods and cultivated goods.................................................... 13
3.2 Water services ................................................................................................. 15
3.3 Nature-based recreation ................................................................................. 17
3.4 Global climate regulation ................................................................................ 17
3.5 Disaster Risk Reduction ................................................................................... 20

4

Next Steps ............................................................................................................. 21
4.1 The importance of comparative valuation ...................................................... 21
4.2 Alternative methods for valuation .................................................................. 225CASE STUDY - Thai Thuy Wetland, Vietnam................................................................... 24
5.1 Thai Thuy Wetland site information................................................................ 26
5.2 Objective of the project .................................................................................. 26
5.3 Economic Valuation approach ........................................................................ 27
5.3.1

Preliminary scoping appraisal................................................................. 272

5.3.2

Data collection and economic valuation ................................................ 27

5.4 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 30
5.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 31
6CASE STUDY - Moeyungyi Wetland, Myanmar .............................................................. 32
6.1 Moeyungyi Wetland site information ............................................................. 34
6.2 Objective of the project .................................................................................. 36
6.3 Step and methods of valuation ....................................................................... 36
6.3.1

Preliminary scoping appraisal................................................................. 36

6.3.2

Alternative state ..................................................................................... 37

6.3.3

Field work and data collection ............................................................... 38

6.3.4

Economic Valuation ................................................................................ 39

6.4 Limitations ....................................................................................................... 43
6.5 Conclusion ....................................................................................................... 44
GLOSSARY.................................................................................................................... 46
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 48
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................ 50
Appendix 1. Example questionnaire form for harvesting wild goods............................ 50
Appendix 2. Example questionnaire form for cultivated goods ............................... 52
Appendix 3. Example questionnaire form for water use ......................................... 55
Appendix 4. Example questionnaire form for nature-based recreation .................. 59

3

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Wetland ecosystems
Wetlands are defined as areas of marsh, fen, peat land or water, whether natural or
artificial, permanent or temporary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or
salt, including areas of marine water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six
metres, according to the Ramsar Convention. They are highly productive, complex, dynamic,
ecologically sensitive and adaptive systems, supporting significant biological diversity.
Globally, wetlands cover approximately 12.8 million km2 (8.5%) of the Earth’s land area,of which inland wetlands cover at least 9.5 million km2 (Finlayson et al. 1999). However,in the last century, it is estimated that almost half of the world’s wetland area has been
lost (Davidoson 2014; UNWWAP 2003). Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)
identified that the major direct drivers are infrastructure development, land conversion,water withdrawal, eutrophication and pollution, overharvesting and overexploitation,and the introduction of invasive alien species; and the main indirect drivers have been
population growth and increasing economic development. Although the rate of wetland
habitat loss has slowed in some region such as Europe and North America, somegeographic areas, especially Asia continue to convert large tracts of wetland habitat into
other land uses (Davidoson 2014).
Due to their complex nature, the functions that are lost when wetland areas areconverted are often irreversible (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). The continued degradationand conversion of wetlands to other land uses is not just impacting on biodiversity but
also on the livelihoods of people living in and around wetlands and the wider humanpopulation. Action is needed both internationally and within nations to halt the loss ofsuch a unique and important habitat for both biodiversity and people alike.
The Ramsar Convention
The Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance is an intergovernmental agreement thatwas established in 1971 in the town of Ramsar, Iran. It provides a framework for national and international
action for the conservation of wetlands. As of 2016 there are 169 contracting parties that are committed to
the Convention’s mission of “the conservation and wise use1 of all wetlands through local and national
actions and international cooperation, as a contribution towards achieving sustainable development
throughout the world”. The objective of the Convention is thus to conserve wetlands for the benefits ofpeople and nature.

1

Wise use is defined as “the maintenance of their ecological character, achieved through the implementation of
ecosystem approaches, within the context of sustainable development”

41.2 Ecosystem services from wetlands
Ecosystem services are the aspects of ecosystems that, actively or passively, produce
human well-being (Fisher et al. 2009). These services are derived from ecologicalprocesses that occur within ecosystems such as nutrient cycling and soil formation(Figure 1), which when combined with some form of human input (such as labour orprocessing), result in benefits to people.

Ecosystem functions andprocesses (e.g. nutrient
cycling, soil formation)

Ecosystem services andgoods (e.g. climate
regulation, food)

Human well-being(includes economic,
health and social
benefits)

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of ecosystem services. Ecosystem services are produced as a result of
ecosystem functions and processes and in turn provide goods and other benefits for human well-being. Ecosystemservices represent non-use and non-material outputs from ecosystems (such as bequest values and spiritual values) as
well as direct use values.

Table 1. Inland wetland ecosystem services (adapted from Russi et al., 2013)
Ecosystem service
Erosion control

Role of wetland structure / function
Capture of sediments and soil retention

Flood protection

Regulation of the flow of water; water storage capacity

Water provision

Regular supply of water due to ability to store water in areservoir; groundwater recharge
Natural filtration through nutrient uptake; retention ofparticles and pollutants
Habitat for fish, molluscs, other plants and animal species
used for food
Habitat for grasses, and other plants used for fibre and fuel

Water purification
Food
Raw materials (fibre, fuel)Spiritual / cultural values
Nature-based recreation andtourism
Carbon storage andsequestration
Local climate regulation

Many cultures have spiritual values and religious practises
associated with wetlands
Aesthetic features of wetlands; open water; habitats forbiodiversity
Vegetation and soils capture carbon dioxide and othergreenhouse gases from the atmosphere
Water bodies are able to stabilise local temperatures. The
microclimate at wetlands is often lower than surrounding
areas

5

Many of the benefits that people derive from ecosystems are dependent on water andwetlands are integral to the global water cycle upon which all of life depends. The
complex interactions of wetlands with the surrounding landscape underpin important
ecosystem functions and processes. They provide, regulate and purify water so that it
can be used for domestic purposes (drinking, cooking, cleaning etc.) and for industry.
Wetlands also have an important role in the cultural identity of people and in spiritual
practices and beliefs. They contribute to local climate control, erosion reduction andunderpin a suite of economic industries such as inland fisheries, harvesting of raw
materials, tourism and agricultural production which rely on the provision of water (seeTable 1).

1.3 Why value wetlands?
The socio-economic benefits from wetlands have been over-looked and under-valued
which has resulted in widespread modification, degradation, over-exploitation andconversion of wetlands habitats in favour of land uses that are more ‘productive’ yet in
the long-term often lead to detrimental impacts and economic costs.
Given current trends in the loss of wetlands and the potentially huge ecological, socialand economic impacts, it is becoming increasingly realised that the diverse values of
wetlands need to be better understood, communicated and incorporated into decisionmaking. Combining improved understanding of biophysical interactions, socio-economic
dependencies and valuation of the benefits that wetlands provide to people can lead tobetter implementation of conservation, wise use and restoration.

1.4 Economic valuation and its characteristics
Valuation is simply a process to aid decision-making because it involves trading off theworth of something against another. Hence, economic value is measured by whatsomeone is willing to give up in other goods and services in order to obtain a good,
service, or state of the world. Currently, most decisions are made on the basis ofmeasures of manufactured and financial capital (a proxy for value) and overlook theother forms of capital, most importantly, natural capital2 which is the foundation of allother types of capital (Figure 2). Informed decision-making therefore needs toincorporate the contribution of natural capital and ecosystem services to human wellbeing. One way of doing this is through economic valuation which enables some of thevalue of ecosystems and biodiversity to be presented in an accessible and policyrelevant way.

2

Natural capital is defined as the world’s stocks of natural assets which include geology, soil, air, water and all living
things. It is from this natural capital that humans derive ecosystem services, which support all human life.

6

There are five types of sustainable capital from where we derive
the goods and services we need to improve the quality of ourlives. Natural capital underpins all other forms of capital fromwhich we derive our well-being. (Source: Forum for the Future)

Figure 2. The five capitals model extracted from
Porritt (2007)

However, this type of valuation can only capture part of the total value of ecosystems(Figure 3). Although economic valuation can be a useful metric, care should be taken not
to overlook other important values to society that cannot be quantified or measured inthis way. For example, ecosystems provide important livelihood benefits tocommunities, which may or may not be substantial in terms of financial rewards, butwhich are vital to sustaining their way of life such as ethical, cultural and othertraditional values. It is arguable that these benefits cannot be adequately captured in an
economic framework. However, with appropriate caveats an economic approach serves
to increase the visibility of many - otherwise overlooked - values of nature and presents
them for inclusion in decision-making about land use change and its impacts on people.

It is important to use a range of methods to assess thevalue and importance of the full range of ecosystemservices underpinned by biodiversity.

Figure 3. The limitations to measuring
ecosystem services. Adapted from TEEB, 2010.

7

2 STEPS FOR MEASUREMENT
The steps for measurement of ecosystem services introduced in this guide are as
follows.

Preliminary work
• Define site, based on biologicalimportance and perceived threats• Explore policy context• Identify and engage stakeholders

Preliminary Scoping Appraisal• Identify habitat• Identify services and beneficiaries

Methods selection• Select relevant services to assess• Select appropriate methods for eachservice

Data aquisition• Collect/collate data for site

Analysis and communication• Analyse data
• Communicate messages

Figure 4. The steps for measurement of ecosystem services (adapted from TESSA, 2014).

8

2.1 Preliminary work
 Set clear objectives
For economic valuation, the first step is to set clear objectives for the valuation.
-

Why do you want to do an economic valuation?
How will the information be used?
Who are you communicating to?
What type of information are your audience interested in?

The way you carry out the study will depend on the objectives and how you
communicate the results will depend on the audience.

Example: objective of valuation- To get an initial understanding of the value of the ecosystem services- To raise awareness of the importance of ecosystem services among local
stakeholders by demonstrating economic value- To use as information for land use decision-making

 Define site, based on biological importance and perceived threats
In accordance with the objectives for the valuation, select the site. A site is an operativeor potential management unit with a defined boundary such as a protected area,
community forest, farm co-operative, Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA) etc.
A map is needed in order to define the boundary and also identify the habitat type andthe area that each habitat covers.
 Identify and engage stakeholders
Identifying the stakeholders (e.g. local community, site managers, NGOs, government,
farmers, traders etc.) is crucial for understanding the site, identifying key ecosystemservices and who benefits from the ecosystem services. Engaging stakeholders is also
important for validating the final results.
 Collect available information and existing data on the site9In order to get background information regarding the site, exploring the available
information is necessary (e.g. previous studies on ecosystem services, natural resources
data, data held by government officials about the site and it’s use).

Example: Background information- Explore policy context: Understanding and clarifying of the policy context canhelp you to identify who are the targets for communication.
- Socio-economic overview: The information helps to understand how the site isused and who benefits from ecosystem services.
- Biodiversity and key threats: Information on biodiversity helps to identify thevalue of the site for biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity underpins the provisionof ecosystem services and so is an important factor to include.

2.2 Preliminary Scoping Appraisal


Identify habitats

Many (but not all) ecosystem services are delivered at the habitat level and associateddirectly with particular land cover. Examples of the habitat types in wetland ecosystems
are; open lake, marsh, mudflat, mangrove forest, rice field, aqua culture pond, etc.
Calculate the area of each habitat type

If there is no appropriate map showing the land use and habitat type of the defined site,a satellite image from Google Earth helps to understand the land use and habitat typeand can be used to estimate the area of each habitat type. Asking local people is also
useful to understand the area.


Identify ecosystem services

Wetlands can provide a wide range of ecosystem services. Table 2 shows the typicalexample of the ecosystem services derived from each habitat type. In order tounderstand the actual use of ecosystem services, collecting information from thestakeholders is important.

10

Table 2. Typical examples of the major ecosystem services and habitat type:
Ecosystem services (Benefits)
Open lake Marsh Mangrove
Harvestedwild goods

Food (fish, shellfish, crab,
see weed etc.)
Fibre (straw, lotus etc.)Natural medicines

Cultivated
goods

Water

Energy (timber, charcoal
etc.)
Food (rice, fish, shrimp,
clam, see weed, salt etc.)
Feed for livestock (grass,fish, molluscs etc.)
Provision (domestic use,
irrigation etc.)
Purification









()

()

Mudflat

Rice field




















Nature based Tourism, birdwatchingrecreation
etc.
Global climate Carbon storage
regulation
Disaster risk
Flood prevention etc.

reduction()…shows possible benefit but not very typical in the indicated habitat






()









()





()



()



For economic valuation, it is important to know what kind of ecosystem services aredelivered from the site. To keep the approach simple, select the top five services(according to importance for stakeholders) and less important ecosystem services can be
excluded from the valuation.


Identify the beneficiaries

After selecting ecosystem services for valuation, the beneficiaries need to be identified
to understand how ecosystem services are used.

2.3 Method selection and data acquisition
An appropriate valuation method is selected for each ecosystem service. Data iscollected by using the simple methods explained in Chapter 3. In order to simplify thevaluation, it is recommended to make best use of existing data. Previous research is also
applicable. If there is no existing data or only some of the information needed isavailable, interview key stakeholders or conduct a questionnaire with the beneficiaries.

11

As the economic value in this method is presented as an annual amount, the user willneed to convert the estimated values to annual ones if they are measured for a different
period of time.

2.4 Analysis and communication
Analyse and prepare the data for communication according to the study objective.
Communication style is designed to suit the objective and the audience. It is likely thatusers will want to communicate their results to different target audiences, including forexample, local people living in or near a site, local provincial or national
officials/decision-makers/politicians/government, NGO members, the general public etc.
These different audiences will have different levels of understanding about biodiversity
conservation, ecosystem services and the relationship between them. It is therefore
important that users identify what level of detail is appropriate.

2.5 Cautions and limitations
There is need for caution in the interpretation of ecosystem services data, particularly
when rapid approaches are used. Since only some of the ecosystem services can bemeasured, the result will be subject to errors, bias and it is often best to present a rangeof values rather than one single estimate. Usually the results will represent a minimum
estimate and incomplete estimate of the benefits provided by a site.

Caution in interpretation
 The economic valuation should be taken with caution due to that currently, only
limited ecosystem services can be measured.
 The economic values of only major ecosystem services are measured and minor
services might be excluded.
 The fundamental ecosystem services such as biodiversity, soil formation are notcovered since those services cannot be measured with monetary value.
 Intangible services such as authentic values of landscape and spiritual values arealso not covered by the valuation although these services may be greatly
significant and even more important than those capable of being quantified
and monetised.
 The monetary value will vary year by year along with the market situation.
 It is uncertain that the estimated value would be maintained at the same level infuture since the valuation does not include the sustainability of resource use.
 Using a rapid approach often incorporates bias into the results such as samplingbias. Sound scientific approaches should be used wherever possible.

123 METHODS FOR ECONOMIC VALUATIONIn this chapter, simple valuation methods for major ecosystem services are introduced.
The ecosystem services covered are1) harvested wild goods2) cultivated goods3) water services (water provision, water quality improvement)4) global climate regulation
5) disaster risk reduction

3.1 Harvested wild goods and cultivated goods
Although the harvested wild goods and cultivated goods are different, the following
calculation can be used for both.
Calculation
Calculationfor
Economic value = (A) x ((B) –(C))
Case 1: Calculation using annual gross harvested/cultivated amount(A) Annual gross harvested/cultivated amount (e.g. tonnes/year)(B) Unit price of the good (e.g. USD/tonne)(C) Unit cost for harvesting/cultivating the good (e.g. USD/tonne)
Case 2: Calculation using total harvested/cultivated area(A) Total harvested area (e.g. ha)(B) Annual income per unit area (e.g. USD/ha/year)(C) Annual cost per unit area (e.g. USD/ha/year)
Case 3: Calculation using total household number(A) Total households who harvest/cultivate the good (e.g. households)(B) Annual income per household from harvesting/cultivating the good (e.g.
USD/household/year)*If the good is for subsistence use, estimate with market price.

(C) Annual cost per household from harvesting/cultivating the good (e.g.
USD/household/year)13Annual gross harvested/cultivated amount should be the total amount of the good
harvested from the site. To know this it is necessary to find out who is harvesting within
the area and how much. A stakeholder meeting can determine this.
The cost includes all costs for harvesting or cultivating the good; example cost items areshown in table 3.
Table 3. Typical cost items and guidance for the calculation
Cost item
Guidance for the calculation
Initial investment cost -Initial investment cost should be converted to the annual cost bydividing with the depreciation period.

Equipment cost-

If any tools or equipment have a lifetime of more than one year,
divide the initial purchase cost by the expected lifetime and add
typical annual repair/maintenance cost.

Operating cost-

Operating cost and maintenance cost should be converted toannual mean cost.

Salary for hiredlabourFamily labour-

Seasonal hired labour should be converted to annual mean cost.

-

For the economic valuation, family labour cost is deducted as anopportunity cost in order to capture the net benefit from ecosystemservices. The labour cost is estimated by using the appropriate
wage such as hired labour, market average wage or legal minimum
wage depending on the local situation.
In case the family members are unable to engage in other jobs due
to high unemployment rate in the market, or old aged people who
are unable to work for other jobs, the family labour cost is notdeducted as a cost.

-

If there is existing research or statistical data relevant for the area that you areinterested in such as a government report, such data can be used and any missing
information can be collected by survey. The style of the survey can be market survey,
interviews with key stakeholders, or questionnaires from local people, depending on the
project period, available resource, and local condition. For conducting interview orquestionnaire survey, refer to the guidance and question forms prepared in TESSA(refers to Appendix 1 and 2; or see Peh et al. 2014).
Note: In case that interview survey or questionnaire survey is conducted to collectinformation such as income and cost, the precision level is dependent on the sample
size.

14

 If the harvesting period or cultivated period is longer or shorter than one year, theannual mean income and cost is used for the calculation.
 Where collecting price and cost information through interviews and questionnaires,the mean value of the answers needs to be used.
 Caution is needed for units which are used locally to quantify the product, and theconversion between the local unit and the relevant metric unit should be clearly
defined.
 This method does not reflect the sustainability of the current activities. It is also
important to collect information about changes of harvested/cultivated volume ortime spent for harvesting/cultivating during recent decades to understand whether
unsustainable use might be a problem.

3.2 Water services
The major water services can be divided into water provision and water quality
improvement. Flood protection function is covered in section 3.5.


Water provision for domestic use

If the beneficiaries can use water from the site free of charge or cheaper compared to
the water provision from another source, the difference between the costs can beconsidered as benefit from the ecosystem service.

Calculation
Economic value = (A) x ((B) – (C))
Case 1: Calculation using total amount of water use from the site(A) Gross annual amount of water use from the site (e.g. tonne/year)(B) Unit price for water from an alternative source (e.g. USD/tonne)(C) Unit cost for current water use (e.g. USD/tonne)
Case 2: Calculation using total households using the water from the site(A) Total households using the water from the site (e.g. household)(B) Annual price for water from the alternative source per household (e.g.
USD/household/year)*(B) = (Unit price for water from the alternative source) x (Annual volume of water use perhousehold)(C) Annual cost for water use per household (e.g. USD/household/year)

15

Previous research and statistical data can be used if available. If there is no existing data,a simple questionnaire or interview needs to be conducted. The template of thequestionnaire is provided by TESSA (refer to Appendix 3; or see Peh et al. 2014)
Note:
 Value of water for other uses (e.g. irrigation water) can also be calculated if it ispossible to estimate the water use as above for irrigation purposes only. Refer thecase study in Myanmar in section 6.3.4.
 If the volume of the water use varies seasonally, the annual mean value of water
volume should be used.


Water quality improvement

A specific method for water quality improvement is not covered in this guide since thewater inflow and outflow are often complicated and difficult to measure in a rapid way
for wetlands. However, the concepts of valuation are introduced here.
For economic valuation, replacement cost or avoided cost can be ways of measuring thevalue of water quality improvement by wetlands (Tuner et al., 2008). For example, if
users of water have to build a water purification plant to avoid consumption of poor
quality water, the cost of the plant represents the replacement cost (i.e. an estimate ofvalue) for this service.
In order to measure the contribution of a wetland site to water quality improvement,
data on water quality of upstream and downstream of the whole wetland is necessary. It
is possible to take water samples from the inflow and outflow to the wetland using
simple water testing kits. If water quality improves, then this could be attributed to thewetland natural filtration function. An alternative method involves estimating thecapacity of living organisms such as clams, microalgae and bacteria to carry out thispurification function in some sample areas and converting this to the capacity of thewhole site.
Construction and operation costs of a water purification plant having the same capacity
can also be transferred as the value of the ecosystem service.
For rapid and simple valuation in a limited period, use of previous research or statistical
data is recommended as the water flow of wetland is often complicated and it is difficult
to capture the contribution.

16

3.3 Nature-based recreation
The annual value of nature-based recreation is estimated from the direct expenditure ofvisitors to the site.

Calculation
Economic value = (A) x (B)(A) Annual total number of visitors (e.g people)(B) Expenditure per visitor (e.g USD/people)

The annual number of visitors is needed to estimate the value of nature-based
recreation. This could be obtained from a central office, ticket counter or by surveys (seeTESSA for details). Expenditure such as tour package costs including the site visit, cost oftransport, accommodation, food and other supplies should be included. This information
is rarely available from previous studies so interview or questionnaire survey is needed.
The questionnaire form is available from TESSA (refer to Appendix 4; or see Peh et al.
2014).
Note;
 The expenditure includes tour package costs, transportation, accommodation,
expenditure on any food or supplies, hiring guides and entrance fees.
 Calculate separately for international visitors and domestic visitors since theirexpenditure often differ greatly.
 If tourists visit other places, the general cost for the travel such as airfare andtransportation cost for whole trip should be divided by the total days of the travel
and include the portion for the required days to visit the site.
 If there is a seasonal difference in the visitor numbers, annual mean value is used forthe calculation.
 Actual expenditure is a conservative estimate of the actual tourism value of thewetland. Willingness-to-pay surveys would identify the additional non-market valuethat people attribute to the site for the benefit of nature-based recreation and thiswould be useful for more detailed valuation.

3.4 Global climate regulation
Wetlands contribute to regulating the global climate through storage of carbon. Habitat
estimates for the amount of carbon stored and suggested prices of carbon are preparedin this guide to aid simple calculation. This guide does not provide a method for17greenhouse gas sequestration / emissions which is more complex to derive. See TESSA
for details on how to estimate greenhouse gas sequestration / emissions.

Calculation
Economic value = (A) x (B)(A) Total amount of carbon stored in the site (tonne)(B) Unit price of the carbon (USD/tonne)(A) is estimated by summing the carbon stored in each habitat type:For example, if the site is combined from open lake and marshes, thecalculation is as follows.
(A) =(Area[ha] of open lake) x (carbon storage[MgC] of open lake) +(Area[ha] of marshes) x (carbon storage[MgC] of marshes)
Note: The unit for carbon is “MgC”, tonnes of carbon.
 In order to simplify the method, carbon storage in different tropical wetland habitats
is provided in table 4 prepared using tables from “IPCC 2013 Supplement to 2006
IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands”. For thewetland in other climate region, refer to the each reference.
Table 4. Carbon storage estimates per hectare for simple calculations for tropical climate
Habitat Type
Carbon storage
Reference(MgC/ha)Climate (tropical)*
Dry
Moist
Wet
MontaneMangrove forest
Intertidal mudflat
Salt farm
Aquaculture
Open lake
Inland marshes
Paddy field

820.8
88.0
88.0
88.0
22.0
121.0
31.0

68.0
167.0
77.0

49.0
148.0
58.0

82.0
181.0
91.0

(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(6)(7)(6)(7)(8)(9)(8)(9)(8)(9)*Climate classification is determined as follows;
If mean annual temperature >18, and ≤ 7 days of frost/year, tropical;
if elevation >1000m, montane; if mean annual precipitation (MAP) >2000mm, wet; if MAP >1000m, moist;
otherwise, dry (2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories. Figure 3A.5.2)
Reference:(1) Above-ground biomass (AGB) of mangroves - tropical wet: 192Mg/ha (IPCC 2013 Supplement to 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. Table 4.3)

18

(2) Carbon fraction of above-ground biomass (AGB) in mangroves: 45.1% (IPCC 2013 Supplement to 2006 IPCC
Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. Table 4.2)
(3) Ratio of below-ground biomass to above-ground biomass in mangroves - tropical wet: 0.49 (IPCC 2013
Supplement to 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. Table 4.5)
(4) Carbon stored in litter: 0.7Mg/ha and dead wood: 10.7Mg/ha (IPCC 2013 Supplement to 2006 IPCC Guidelines
for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. Table 4.7)
(5) Ave. total soil carbon for oceanic mangroves = 680.4 MgC/ha (Donato et al. 2011)(6) Dead wood in converted area: default value of 0 (IPCC 2013 Supplement to 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National
Greenhouse Gas Inventories: Wetlands. 4.2.2.2)(7) HAC tropical wet soil: 44Mg/ha (IPCC 2006 vol4 ch2 table 2.3); doubled as the value is for the top 30cm soil,
where 50% of total soil carbon is stored (IPCC in Good Practice Guidance for Land use, Land-use Change, andForestry (eds Penman, J. et al.) (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, 2003) )(8) Aboveground, belowground, litter, and dead wood carbon from Anderson-Teixeira and deLucia (2010)(9) Tropical soil carbon from IPCC 2013 Supplement to 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories: Wetlands. Table 5.2

If there is more appropriate research data from the site available, or from sites that are
geographically and biophysically similar, that data can be adopted for the calculation
instead of the table 4. General guidance for the calculation is as follows:
1. Estimate the above-ground live biomass (AGB) per hectare of each habitat type, byreferring to the existing research and convert it to carbon by multiplying by 0.5
which is the conversion factor from biomass to carbon.
2. Estimate below-ground carbon per hectare of each habitat type by using theestimate ratio of above ground to below group biomass using existing research forthe habitat type.
3. Carbon in litter, dead wood and soil are estimated per hectare of each habitat typeby using existing research.
4. Sum the carbon stored above-ground, below-ground, litter, dead wood and soil tohave a total carbon storage in MgC/ha for each habitat type.
5. Multiply the MgC/ha by the total number of hectares of the relevant habitat type.
6. Sum the total carbon for each habitat type to calculate the total carbon of the site.
7. Value can be estimated by multiplying the carbon volume by a chosen carbon price.
Note: By using published data, the carbon storage figures provided are rough estimates
based on average values from a range of sources. To obtain more accurate results,
field work is necessary. See TESSA for field methods (Peh et al. 2014)
 There is no fixed price of carbon and the market price is highly variable.
Table 5 shows some examples of the carbon price.

19

Table 5. Some examples of carbon price from different sources
Scheme

Price

unit

Plan Vivo$ 31.69

MgC in 2016

Verified Carbon Standard (VCS)$ 122.29

MgC in 2016

EU Emissions Trading System (ETS)$ 8.58MgC in 2016

*The price of Plan Vivo and VCS is the price adjusted to 2016 from 2014 by using the inflation rate of 1.015914 (IMF
inflation rate 2014-2016, available from International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April
2015)*The price of EU ETS is converted to US$ from UK£: £5.61 x 0.65416 (mean exchange rate in 2015 available fromhttp://www.oanda.com/currency/average)

3.5 Disaster Risk Reduction
If a wetland ecosystem plays a role in disaster risk reduction such as flood control, or
storm surge protection and wave attenuation at the coastal area, it performs a service ofdisaster risk reduction. The value of this service can be estimated by using the avoided
damage costs method. The cost of the avoided damage is the prevented cost of
repairing houses and equipment, loss of the farmland or aquaculture, loss of domestic
animals etc. Alternatively, the cost of maintaining man-made flood protection defences
can be used as a substitute for the ecosystem service value of natural wetlands where
the wetland has been degraded or destroyed.
However it is often difficult to estimate how much the wetland ecosystem contributes
towards disaster risk reduction without collecting detailed data at the site. If there isresearch for other similar sites, these result can be used by as a benefit transfer
approach.

Calculation
Economic value = ((A) x (B)) x (C)(A) Total households likely damaged by disaster without the wetland ecosystemor with degraded ecosystem (e.g. household)(B) Estimated cost of damage per household (USD/household)(C) Rate of incidence of disaster (e.g. 1 in 25 years = annual value 1/25)

20

4 Next Steps
4.1 The importance of comparative valuation
This guide introduces a rapid methodological approach and it was prepared bysimplifying and adapting methods from TESSA –Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based
Assessment (Peh et al. 2014). The toolkit currently covers five classes of ecosystemservices i.e. water services, harvested wild goods, cultivated goods, nature-based
recreation and climate regulation services. In TESSA, the step-by-step process formeasurement is designed as a decision key and each process is explained with moredetail and includes some additional methods beyond those provided here. Therefore,
the use of TESSA is recommended for users who would like to conduct more precise
valuation of ecosystem services.
Another key feature of TESSA is that it is designed for valuing the difference inecosystem services between two alternative states of the site. This is usually the current
state and a plausible alternative state where a decision has resulted in an alternative
land use of the site (See Figure 5). For example, the ecosystem services would be
estimated for a wetland site under current conservation protection compared with thatsame site without protection and where expansion of aquaculture has occurred.

Include costs of action

Policy Acition
e.g. Protectedarea
designation

Quantify andvalue ecosystemservices

World 'withaction'Subtract
Quantify andvalue ecosystemservices

World 'withoutacton'

Net
economic
value

Figure 5. Illustration of how to do a comparative evaluation (adapted from Balmford et al. 2008).

To make effective decisions, it is important to know the difference between the amountof the ecosystem services provided by a site in its current state compared to a plausible
alternative one (e.g. protected area vs. agricultural use, reclamation etc.) where thehabitat is converted, or in which resources are unsustainably exploited. This gives the21

net benefit of the conservation state of the ecosystem. For more information refer to
TESSA, Peh et al. 2014).
It is recommended that users of this guide refer to TESSA so as to conduct a comparative
assessment of ecosystem services for the site in order to present net benefit values
rather than gross values.

4.2 Alternative methods for valuation
Table 6 provides a list of various tools for evaluation of ecosystem services. For users
who would like to conduct evaluation of ecosystem services with other methods, thebetter known ones are compared in the list. Note that not all of these methods arefreely available.

22

ARIES(Assessment andResearch
Infrastructure for
Ecosystem)



High



Law - HighLandscape

Co$ting Nature



Law



Law

Landscape



Law



Law Moderate

VariousModerate- HighHighLandscapeModerate

Law Moderate

Various



High



High

Various()Moderate

Law

Site scale()

Law High

Moderate

Landscape





Law

Law Moderate

Site scaleModerate

High

Site scale /Landscape

ESR(Corporate
Ecosystem Services
Review)InVEST(Integrated
Valuation of
Ecosystem Services
and Tradeoffs)
LUCI(Land Utilization &Capability
Indicator)MIMES(Multi-scale
Integrated Modelsof Ecosystem
Services)
PA-BAT(Protected Areas
Benefit
Assessment)
SolVES(Social Values for
Ecosystem
Services)
TESSA(Toolkit for
Ecosystem Service
at Site-based
Assessment)
WRAP(WetlandResources Action
Planning)Specialist
softwareneededLevel ofTechnical
expertise

Scalability

Economic
valuationTimedemandTool

Qualitative

Quantitative

Comparative
approach

Table 6. Comparison of various tools for evaluation of ecosystem services











Reference:
Bagstad, K.J., D. Semmens, S. Waage, and R. Winthrop. (2013) A comparative assessment of tools for ecosystemservices quantification and valuation. Ecosystem Services e5: 27-39
Peh et al. (2013) TESSA: A toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation
importance Ecosystem Services e5: 51-57

23







5 CASE STUDY - Thai Thuy Wetland, Vietnam
Summary of the site and valuation

Site name: Thai Thuy
(Red river delta region)






Location: Thai Binh, Vietnam
Area of the site: 6,981 ha
Protected status: unprotected
Project period for valuation:
November 2015 to March 2016

Table 1. Land use and the area of Thai Thuy wetland
Land use
Aquaculture (intensive)
Aquaculture (semi natural)
Aquaculture (semi natural with mangrove)
Salt farm
Mangrove forest
Intertidal mudflat
Total land use of Thai Thuy IBA

Area (ha)
1,182
62
167
50
1,754
3,766
6,981

Table 2. The result of the valuation of the ecosystem services
Annual value
Ecosystem service(million USD)
Harvested wild goods
2.23
Fish harvesting
1.37
Shellfish harvesting
0.89
Cultivated goods
11.66
Semi natural aquaculture
0.58
Intensive aquaculture
8.93
Clam culture
1.93
Salt production
0.22
Disaster risk reduction
1.05
Total
Annual value
14.94
Climate regulation One off stock value
60.26*The economic value of a small subset was estimated using a rapid methodological approach and caution for theinterpretation is needed (see 5.4 Limitations)24Thai Binh Province

Figure 1. Map of land use of Thai Thuy wetland

25

5.1 Thai Thuy Wetland site information
Characteristic of the wetland
Thai Thuy wetland is one of the key wetland sites in the Red River Delta and it is identified as an
Important Bird & Biodiversity Area (IBA). Thai Thuy district has 16 km of coastline and is borderedby the Tra Ly river to the south and Thai Binh river to the north. The IBA site covers 6,981 ha of thecoastal area and is bisected by the Diem Ho river. To the south of the Thai Binh river mouth arelocated extensive areas of mudflats, farmed as a result of deposition sediment. To the west lies anarea of salt pans and adjacent to the Tra Ly river is a region of aquaculture ponds.
Thai Thuy wetland provides various significant benefits. Local communities living in five villages
located near the IBA harvest food from the wetland. The mangroves provide a protection function
from storms for local communities and the global benefit of climate regulation. The wetland also
conducts water purification. There are wetland benefits to wildlife as well; it provides a home for
migratory and residential birds, amphibians, fish, insects and aquatic plants etc. Among thewaterbirds, the site supports threatened species including Spoon-billed Sandpiper (CR), Baer’s
Pochard (CR) and Black-faced Spoonbill (EN).

Major threats to the wetland
The following activities are major threats to the wetland. In order to receive benefits derived fromthe wetland, such activities need to be monitored and controlled in a sustainable way.
-

Electric shock fishing : it causes overexploitation of fish resources-

Industrial and agricultural water pollution: contamination of the water affects humanhealth and threatens the existing biologically diverse plant and animal species.

Socio-economic overview/Legal status
Since the area is recognized as globally significant for the biodiversity and ecosystem services, theInstitute of Strategy and Policy on Natural Resources and Environment (ISPONRE) under the
Ministry of Natural Resource and Environment (MONRE) has a project aimed at establishing new
wetland conservation reserves in Thai Binh and Thua Thien Hue to ensure the integration of
wetland conservation into wider linked wetland landscapes.

5.2 Objective of the project
The objective of this study was to undertake a pilot assessment of the economic value of the Thai
Thuy Wetland in Vietnam to demonstrate the range of benefits that Thai Thuy wetland provides topeople. The purpose of this was to promote awareness of the importance of the wetland bycommunicating the results of the assessment to local stakeholders and decision-makers with a viewto promote an establishment of a protected area of Thai Thuy.

26

5.3 Economic Valuation approach
5.3.1 Preliminary scoping appraisal
The economic value of a small subset of the ecosystem services provided by Thai Thuy wetland wasestimated using a rapid methodological approach. Due to the limited project period and resources,
available data and information was used and necessary additional information was collected from
simple interviews. Existing data was provided by the Thai Thuy District Report submitted to District
People’s Committee in 2015.
The IBA boundary was used for the survey since there is no legal boundary for the area.
Topographically, the coast line of Thai Thuy district is separated by 2 rivers namely Tra Ly river andThai Binh river, and it is easy for the local people to understand the boundary.
The map on p.25 shows the land use of the site and the area of each habitat type was calculated
according to the land use as shown in Table 1 in p.24.
A key stakeholders workshop was held on 12 January 2016 for introducing the project andcollecting related information. The discussion identified the ecosystem services provided by Thai
Thuy wetland as shown in Table 3. The services in the brackets were excluded from the economic
valuation due to the small number of people involved in the activity or lack of data available (in thecase of water purification).
Table 3. Ecosystem services derived from Thai Thuy wetland
Ecosystem Services

Items

Harvested wild goods

Fish, Shellfish

Cultivated goods

Fish and shrimp aquaculture, Clam culture, Salt production,(Sea weed culture, Bee honey)

Water purification(Water purification of mudflat)

Nature-based recreation(Visiting and bird watching at mudflat)

Climate regulation

Carbon sequestration function of wetland

Disaster risk reduction

Protective benefit of mangrove

5.3.2 Data collection and economic valuation
In this project, only major ecosystem services with available information were selected for thevaluation. Information on shellfish harvest and aquaculture was collected by using a questionnaire
form provided by TESSA. The data related to climate regulation and disaster risk reduction was
gathered from published literature. All values were estimated in 2016 US dollars using an exchange
rate of VND22,300 = 1 USD.

Harvested wild goods
Wild Fish27

Data on wild fish capture was available from Thai Thuy district report and the gross income in 2015
was VND 348.31 billion. Based on the cost information of Bureau of Agriculture and Rural
Development, the estimation of all cost for wild fishing is about 60-65% of the income. A
conservative estimate of 65% of the income was adopted as the cost i.e. VND 226,402 million. The
annual net benefit for whole volume of landing at Thai Thuy district was estimated as $5.47 million(VND 121,909 million).
There is no physical boundary in marine areas and the value of harvested wild fish is not necessary
derived only from the site within the boundary of the assessment. However, the fish species caught
are known to benefit from the mangrove habitat during their life cycle. The site therefore
contributes to the production of wild fish, and the value of this contribution was estimated as 25%
according to previous research (Samonte-Tan, 2007). Therefore, the site contribution of the annual
net benefit of the wild fish harvesting was estimated as $ 1.37 million (VND 30,477 million).



Shellfish

The net benefit of shellfish was estimated based on a simple interview survey of shellfish collectors
in Thai Thuy. During the cold and wet season from December to March, local people collect about
48 tonnes and during the hot and dry season from April to November, the collected amount isabout 480 tonnes. The price of the shellfish is about VND 50 million/tonne; therefore, the annual
gross value is about VND 26.4 billion. The collection effort was estimated as 132,000 person/day.
Although the most of the collectors are women and children when off school days and weekends,
the opportunity cost of family labour was valued at the legal minimum wage in 2015
(VND2,150,000/month). The costs of equipment and transport were estimated at zero since theharvesting method is simple and the middlemen purchase the shellfish at the seaside. The annual
net benefit was estimated as $ 0.87 million (VND19,305 million).

Cultivated goods

Aquaculture

There are two types of the aquaculture method, one is “semi-natural aquaculture” and the other is“intensive aquaculture”. The fish and shrimps from semi-natural aquaculture are cultivated withinlarge ponds and are fed naturally by controlling the water gate with tides. On the contrary, forintensive aquaculture, feed is purchased and provided to fishes manually and the dissolved oxygen
rate in the pond is controlled since the density of the fish is high in smaller ponds compared tosemi-natural aquaculture ponds. Thus the yield per hectare of intensive aquaculture is much larger
than semi-natural aquaculture.
Since previous data was not available for the estimation, simple interviews were conducted with
two owners of each semi-natural aquaculture and intensive aquaculture. The interviews wereconducted by using the forms prepared by TESSA. The opportunity cost of family labour was valued
at the legal minimum wage in 2015 (VND2,150,000/month).
For the semi-natural aquaculture, mean value of the net benefit per hectare was estimated as$2,524 (VND56.28 million). The total area of semi-natural aquaculture is 229 ha and the total

28

annual net benefit was estimated as $ 577,947 (VND 12,888 million).The mean value of the net
benefit per hectare for intensive aquaculture was $ 7,558 (VND 168.54 million). The total area ofintensive aquaculture is 1182.19 ha and the total annual net benefit was estimated as $8.93 million(VND 199,242 million).
Due to the limited sample size, the values are estimates only and should be taken with caution. For
more accurate estimation, further survey is necessary.

Clam culture

The gross value and cost information was recorded in the Thai Thuy District report respectively
VND 297.5 million and 237 million per hectare per 20 months (in 2013) since the production cycleof clam is 20 months. By converting the figures to the annual value, the annual net benefit is VND
36.3 million per hectare. The total area of clam culture is 1,184 hectare; therefore, the annual net
benefit was estimated as $1.93 million (VND 42,979 million).

Salt production

According to the Thai Thuy District report, gross annual income was VND 7,016 million (in 2014).
The cost information of salt production was collected from an owner of the salt farm whoparticipated in the workshop. The initial and equipment cost for 0.036ha for 5 years is about VND 58 million. In order to estimate a conservative value we applied as cost of VND 8 million anddeducted this from the gross income. The family labour for salt farming was not deducted sincemost of them are elderly people or who are unable to engage in other jobs. Therefore, the annual
net benefit of the salt production was estimated as $ 0.22 million (VND 4,807 million).
If the family labour cost was estimated at the legal minimum wage with the working days of half ayear excluding the rainy days, the annual net benefit would be minus $0.36 million (minus
VND8,041 million). Although the cost calculation is very rough, it would explain the situation thatthe some of the salt farm area has been converted to aquaculture ponds and currently, someowners are waiting for the permission to convert their land to aquaculture ponds since the revenue
from salt farming is not profitable.

Disaster risk reduction
The mangrove belt has a role of wave attenuation during typhoons or storm surges. The value wasestimated by using previous research undertaken by the International Federation of Red Cross and
Red Crescent Societies in a report entitled “Case study: Mangrove plantation in Viet Nam:measuring impact and cost benefit”. According to the report, the mangrove has protective benefitof $15,330,243 for the coast line of 7.5 km in Thai Thuy from 1994 to 2025. The protective benefit
includes shoreline and river bank protection, reduced disaster-induced non-material losses,
reduced disaster-induced material losses, reduced disaster-induced indirect losses, reduced costs in
sea-dyke maintenance. Currently, there is 16km of the coast line of Thai Thuy covered by mangrove
so the annual benefit for 16 km was estimated as $1.05 million (VND 23,526 million).

29

Global climate regulation
Global climate change mitigation was estimated based on carbon stocks. The total areas of different
habitat types were identified from the land use map. Estimates of carbon stocks in the aboveground biomass, below-ground biomass, litter, dead wood and soil for mangroves and aquaculture
were taken from IPCC 2013 Supplement to 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas
Inventories: Wetlands. Carbon storage of the site was estimated at over 1,901,465 MgC. The mostsignificant carbon stock occurs in mangrove soils.
There is no fixed price of carbon and the market price is highly variable. In this survey, the price ofPlan Vivo certification ($31.69 MgC, in 2016) was used for the calculation. This is the price that abuyer would pay for carbon credits from the Plan Vivo certification scheme, if there was to be acarbon trade project established at Thai Thuy. The price of $31.69 MgC in 2016 was adjusted from2014 price based on the IMF inflation rate (2015). The estimated value was $ 60.26 million (VND
1,343,801million) by using the price of Plan Vivo.

Harvesting shellfish in mudflat

Intensive aquaculture ponds

Salt farm

Mangrove forest

5.4 Limitations
The value of ecosystem services at Thai Thuy were estimated based on existing data and simple
interview surveys. Since only some of the major ecosystem services were selected for the survey,
this is a minimum estimate. There is also need for caution in the interpretation.

30

 Economic values are estimates only and should be taken with caution due to the limited
sample size in the surveys.
 Minor services such as bee honey and harvesting sea grasses were excluded.
 Water purification function was excluded since difficult to estimate, although it is an
important function for purifying sea water.
 The fundamental ecosystem services such as biodiversity, soil formation are not covered in
the valuation since those services cannot be measured with monetary value.


The monetary value will vary year by year along with the market situation.

 It is uncertain that the estimated value would be maintained at the same level in futuresince the survey did not include the sustainability of resource use.

5.5 Conclusion
Despite the above caution, Thai Thuy wetland provides multiple benefits, some of which can be
estimated using economic valuation (Refer to table 2 in p.24). The total annual benefit of theecosystem services was estimated as $14.94 million plus $ 60.26 million of carbon storage function,
which is a one-off stored value. The overview of the beneficiaries is shown in the table 4.

Table 4. Beneficiaries of ecosystem services derived from Thai Thuy wetland
Economic benefit
Beneficiary population
Number of
beneficiaries
Harvested wild goods
Fishing
Fishermen<1,618 people
Shellfish collection
Women and children
Unknown
Cultivated goods
Semi-natural aquaculture Owners of the ponds, hired people
Unknown
Intensive aquaculture
Owners of the ponds, hired people
Unknown
Clam culture
Owners of the clam culture, hired
308 households
peopleSalt production
Owners of the salt farm
664 people
Disaster risk reduction
Coast adjacent dwellers and owners
Unknownof aquaculture pond
Climate regulation
Global population
Unknown

As explained in 5.4 Limitations, this valuation estimate should be viewed as a rapid, preliminary
assessment only. The overall objective was to highlight the benefits that the Thai Thuy wetland
provides to people for the purposes of raising awareness about the importance of the wetland. It isalso aimed at promoting the area to be designated with conservation status. The valuation result
demonstrates that there are important values that need to be incorporated into any future
decision-making about the wetland and wider landscape development activities that may impact
upon it.

31

6 CASE STUDY - Moeyungyi Wetland, Myanmar
Summary of the site and valuation







Site name: Moeyungy Wetland
Location: Bago, Myanmar
Area of the site: 10,360 ha
Protected status:-Ramsar site
-Wetland Wildlife Sanctuary(WWS)
Project period for valuation:
November 2014 to March 2015

Table 1. Land cover of the site at the driest and the wettest period of the year
Land use
Area (ha) in current state
Area (ha) in alternative state
Dry season
Wet season
Dry season
Wet season
Paddy
800
0
1100
0
Marshes
8524
7252
8224
7252
Open water body
1036
3108
1036
3108
Total
10360
10360
10360
10360

Table 2. The result of the valuation of the ecosystem services
Annual value
Annual value
Difference
Ecosystem service(million USD) in (million USD) in(millioncurrent statealternative state
USD)
Water
8.5
8.58
+0.08
Irrigation water
0.08
0.16
+0.08
Domestic use
7.99
7.99
Flood protection function
0.46
0.46
Harvested wild goods
16.2
16.2
Fish production
15.36
15.36
Buffalo grazing
0.77
0.77
Molluscs for duck food
0.08
0.08
Lotus stalk harvest
0.02
0.02
Cultivated goods (Rice)
0.44
0.60
+0.16
Nature-based Recreation
0.07
0.07
GHG Emission
-3.1
-3.1
Management cost
-0.02
-0.02
Total
Annual value
22.1
22.34
+0.24
Carbon Storage One-off value
91.6
91.6
*The economic value of a small subset of ecosystem services was estimated using TESSA. Caution for theinterpretation is needed (see 6.4 Limitations)32

Figure1. Land Map of Moeyungyi Wetland

33

6.1 Moeyungyi Wetland site information
Characteristics of the wetland
Moeyungyi Wetland Wildlife Sanctuary (WWS) is located in the administrative region of Bago in
Myanmar (Figure 1), 25 km north-northeast of Bago town, east of the Yangon to Mandalay highway
and 24 km west of the Sittuang river. The average annual rainfall is 3,200 mm and the wet months
are June to September (though most rain falls in July and August). The Sanctuary covers 10,360 ha,
82% of which is freshwater marshes, 10% is permanently covered by the lake and 8% is cultivatedland in the dry season (rice paddies). At the end of the wet season, water covers the whole site andin the dry season it recedes again.
Moeyungyi lake is a man-made reservoir that was constructed in 1873-1878 to store water for
irrigation and to use as an embankment for flood protection. During the dry season, storage waterfrom Moeyungyi wetland is fed into Bago-Sittaung Canal not only for transportation (mainly oftimber) but also for irrigating seasonal paddy fields. During the wet season, the lake serves as flood
protection (Irrigation Department, Bago Region, 2014). Its main function now is to provide waterflows to downstream areas under rice cultivation. There are seven natural creeks flowing into
Moeyungyi Lake during the wet season. In the dry season Moeyungyi wetland is recharged withwater from several upstream dams (Irrigation Department, Bago Region, 2014). There are threemajor outflows with three sluices in the eastern bund that drain water downstream to the Sittaungriver.
The Sanctuary is an important site for a wide range of wildlife including many resident andmigratory bird species. Moeyungyi WWS qualifies as an Important Bird and Biodiversity Area (IBA)
due to the presence of critically endangered birds species and significant congregations of
migratory species. Herpetofauna, mammals, insects and fish are other important animal taxa foundwithin the site with a high diversity of plant species also being present.

Socio economic overview
The wetland is surrounded by 17 villages with an estimated population of 65,000 people in 12,000
households (Bago and Waw Township Administrative Offices, 2014).
According to previous survey data collected by Biodiversity and Nature Conservation Association(BANCA) from eight of the villages (BANCA, 2014), most people derive their livelihoods from either
fishing or agriculture (rice cultivation) directly associated with the Moeyungyi WWS. The average
daily household income is 3001 – 6000 MMK (US $3-6) and 77% of the population is reported to be
directly dependent on the wetland for their livelihood (BANCA, 2014). According to the interview
survey of BANCA, in some villages, drinking water is predominately taken directly from the lake
without treatment. Many socio-economic activities occur on the lake and around it, including
fishing, water buffalo and cattle grazing, cultivation of rice for subsistence use, harvesting of thepadoma lotus and duck-rearing.

34

Small scale industry is also an important component of the communities’ livelihood. It includes, rice
milling, and industry for Ngapi (shrimp paste), cheroot (tobacco), lotus textiles and dried stalks ofpein (Taro, Colocasia esculenta).

Fishing on Moeyungyi lake

Rice planting along Moeyungyi

The boardwalk at Moeyungyi WWSChildren viewing the wildlife

Key threats
Moeyungyi WWS is managed by the Nature and Wildlife Conservation Division (NWCD) under the
Ministry of Environmental Conservation and Forestry (MOECAF). The wetland was designated as abird sanctuary in 1986 and was given Ramsar status in 2004. Despite conservation action at the site
by the park warden and NGOs such as BANCA the condition of the wetland is very unfavourable andthreats remain high (BirdLife International, 2015).
The following activities are the major threats to the wetland.
-Electric shock fishing : it causes overexploitation of fish resources
Water overuse : huge water withdrawal is necessary particularly during the summer time
Use of fertilizer and pesticides: contamination of the water can affect human health andthreatens the existing biologically diverse plant and animal species.
Land encroachment for paddy field: over wetland area reduces the extent of the wetland
and increases the level of water pollution

35

-

There are also several activities affecting the biodiversity such as bird hunting / bird
trapping with nets / trading of turtles and snakes etc.

In order to receive the benefit derived from the wetland, such activities need to be monitored andmanaged in a sustainable way.

6.2 Objective of the project
The objective of this study was to undertake a pilot assessment of the economic value of the
Moeyungyi Wetland in Myanmar to demonstrate the range of benefits that Moeyungyi wetland
provides to people. The purpose of this was to promote awareness of the importance of thewetland by communicating the results of the assessment to local stakeholders and decision-makers.
During a period of rapid developmental change in Myanmar, it is important that market and nonmarket values are recognised and incorporated into decision-making.

6.3 Step and methods of valuation
6.3.1 Preliminary scoping appraisal
The Moeyungyi WWS ecosystem services values were first identified and then quantitatively
assessed under the current management regime. The data from the immediately adjacent rice
paddy was used to estimate what the ecosystem service value of this wetland area would be if
further expansion of rice cultivation were to occur (the plausible alternative state). This study built
on available data from previous rapid assessment studies on the biological and socio-economic
status of the Moeyungyi Wetland, conducted by teams of scientists from BANCA collaborating withresearchers from Bago University, local villagers and staff from Moeyungyi, over the period from24th February to 2nd March 2014.
Preparatory meetings were held from 18 to 22 December 2014. During the meetings, existing
information and data was collated and the feasibility of this assessment was discussed. In order tocollect the necessary information for this assessment under the restricted circumstances, two
scoping workshops and two group interviews were designed. A preliminary scoping workshop of
key stakeholders involved at Moeyungyi WWS was then convened on 6 and 7 February 2015. The
participants included government staff from the Environmental Conservation Department,
Irrigation Department, Department of Agriculture, Department of Fisheries, Moeyungyi Park
Warden Office (under management of the Nature and Wildlife Conservation Division; NWCD of theForest Department, the Township Administrative Office of Bago and Waw Township andrepresentatives from eight of the 17 villages around Moeyungyi WWS. This scoping exercise
identified the main ecosystem services provided by Moeyungyi WWS as (1) global climate change
mitigation in terms of carbon storage; (2) nature-based recreation; (3) flood protection; (4)provisioning of water; (5) provisioning of wild goods; and (6) rice production during the dry season.
General information on fishing activities and rice cultivation was then gathered by using
questionnaire form provided by TESSA.

36

Preliminary scoping workshop

Group discussion in the workshop

6.3.2 Alternative state
To understand the benefit that Moeyungyi WWS provides through ecosystems services it isnecessary to compare these services to those that would be provided if the WWS was somehow
different. This can be referred to as the ‘plausible alternative state’ and is specific to the local
situation at the site.
At Moeyungyi WWS, the Irrigation Department releases water from the wetland to thedownstream area around Bago for irrigation in December each year (Figure 2). This enables 16,520
ha of rice paddy to be cultivated in this area during the dry season. The flow of water into
Moeyungyi WWS from the upstream catchment maintains the water level of the permanent
Moeyungyi lake at 7m.
Given the aspiration of Myanmar to become a major rice exporting nation (Pratruangkrai 2015), theIrrigation Department has the intention to increase the export of water from Moeyungyi WWS forrice cultivation (Myint Soe, U., Irrigation Department,
pers comm). It is likely that the area of paddy
supported by the water from Moeyungyi WWS will
be doubled in the near future. In consultation withlocal stakeholders, we therefore anticipate that themost plausible alternative state for the WWS would
be the increase in area of paddy cultivation
downstream at Bago by 100% (i.e. to 33,040 ha).

Figure 2. Location of Bago town in relation to
the Moeyungyi WWS. Water is released in
December each year via the Bago-Sittuang canal.

Assuming a constant in-flow from upstream, the levelof the Moeyungyi Lake would be likely to decrease
under this alternative state. This is based on an event
which occurred in 2013, when a major in-flow canal
was blocked by soil erosion, leading to a fall of waterlevels to 5.8 m while the Irrigation Department
maintained the annual supply of water for irrigation
outside Moeyungyi WWS during that year. Some
conservation practitioners and staff from the Nature37and Wildlife Conservation Division have raised their concern that the newly-exposed marshland
aggravated by the reduction of water is likely to attract further rice paddy cultivation. Therefore, acomparative assessment of the ecosystem services provided by Moeyungyi WWS in its current stateand in its most likely alternative state was carried out, in order to elucidate the trade-offs between
the increased provisioning of water for irrigation downstream and the current management regime.

6.3.3 Field work and data collection
Based on the expert opinion of BANCA staff and the preliminary scoping workshop, harvested wild
goods (fish, aquatic plants for buffalo grazing, molluscs and lotus stalks), water provision (fordomestic use and irrigation), flood protection, nature-based recreation and global climate change
mitigation in terms of carbon storage were identified as key ecosystem services to measure. These
services delivered by Moeyungyi WWS in its current state (i.e. with the present irrigation regime)
and in its alternative state with more water use for irrigation (referred to as ‘alternative irrigation
regime’) were assessed by using TESSA. Thus, the evaluation of the alternative state includes all
ecosystem services measured in the current state, as well as significant increase in some services
that the alternative would provide (e.g. use of water for irrigation and rice production). All values
were estimated in 2014 US dollars using an exchange rate of 1000 Burmese Kyat = 1 USD.
Using a topographic map of Moeyungyi WWS, stakeholders estimated how the land use within thewetland would change if the rice paddies irrigated by the water from the wetland were to be
doubled, from 16,520 ha to 33,040 ha, during the dry season (Table 1 on p.32). They reported that
1,100 ha of the newly-exposed marshland caused by the drop in water levels would be converted torice paddy. To measure the rice production that would be delivered under this alternative state,paddies around the wetland were selected, as they best represented the paddies within thewetland. In consultation with BANCA, two villages were selected for the household surveys togather data on the quantity and net value of fish and rice harvest: (1) Pyin Pon Gyi, locatednorthwest of Moeyungyi WWS and (2) Kapin, northeast of Moeyungyi WWS. These villages – wherea majority of households either harvest fish from the wetland or grow rice – reflected the socioeconomic characteristics of all 17 villages around the wetland. Information on other harvested wild
goods (buffalo grazing, molluscs and lotus harvesting) was provided by staff of NWCD.

Gathering of villagers for household
questionnaire survey

Reporting of results from the focus group
discussions38

6.3.4 Economic Valuation
Global climate change mitigation
Global climate change mitigation was estimated based on changes in carbon stocks between thetwo states (current irrigation regime; alternative irrigation regime). The total areas of different
habitat types in both the current and alternative state were identified through consultation withlocal experts. Estimates of carbon stocks in the above-ground biomass, below-ground biomass,
litter and dead wood for paddy and marshes were taken from Anderson-Teixeira and DeLucia(2010). The substrate at the bottom of the open water body and the soils of paddy and marshes
were considered as inland wetland mineral soils, ‘gleysols’ (IPCC, 2013) and their unit value forcarbon stocks was from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tier 1 database(IPCC, 2013). The total carbon stock of the wetland was estimated to be the weighted average ofthe values between the dry (eight months) and the wet seasons (four months). The overall
economic value of these carbon stocks and how it differed between states was estimated using the
US Government social cost value of carbon from 2007 (Greenspan Bell and Callan 2011) at $88.50
MgC and adjusted to 2014 prices based on the GDP deflator index given by the International
Monetary Fund (2015).
Carbon storage in the current state is estimated at over 1.03 million tonnes (Mg) for Moeyungyi
WWS (based on weighted average between dry and wet seasons). As a result of conversion ofmarshes to paddy in the alternative state, carbon storage would decrease by an estimated 2% to1.02 million Mg which results in the potential loss in stock value of $1.60 million.
Nevertheless, the estimates of carbon stocks for the current and alternative states were subject towide nominal errors, and the broad estimate ranges do not indicate the significance of the change.
Therefore, no benefit of avoided carbon loss is assumed under the current state.

Greenhouse gases emission costs
Greenhouse gases emissions (carbon dioxide, CO2; methane, CH4; and nitrous oxide, N2O) for thewetland under the current and alternative irrigation regimes were assessed based on unit values
from Anderson-Teixeira and DeLucia (2010), Kemenes et al. (2011) and Soumis et al. (2004). The net
emission of each gas (in tonnes ha-1 y-1) was converted to tonnes CO2 equivalents (CO2eq) ha-1 y-1.
The sum of all CO2, CH4 and N2O emitted by the wetland and CH4 from buffalo in the wetland gave a
net global warming potential (over 100 years – GWP100) ha-1 y-1 under each state. These values arealso expressed as a total value of tonnes CO2eq y-1 for the whole wetland. The standard conventionof positive values indicating net atmospheric warming was applied. A monetary value of overall
greenhouse gas fluxes was then estimated using a range of carbon values and presented here using
the US Government social cost value of carbon from 2007 (Greenspan Bell and Callan 2011) at$88.50 Mg-1C, adjusted to 2014 prices based on the GDP deflator index given by the International
Monetary Fund (2015).
Net greenhouse gases emitted in the current state are estimated at 130,000 Mg CO2eq annually(based on weighted average between dry and wet seasons; for these values). In the alternative39

state, net emissions of greenhouse gases would increase by an estimated 0.5%. Given the wide
nominal errors of the estimates of net greenhouse gases emissions for both states, it isconservatively assumed that there was no benefit of avoided greenhouse gases emissions under
the current state.

Water provisionDomestic use

Previous surveys conducted by BANCA (2014) found that 52% of the households in 8 villages aroundthe wetland used the water directly from Moeyungyi WWS for domestic purposes. Therefore it wasestimated that 6,240 households around Moeyungyi WWS rely on the water from the wetland.
Household questionnaires were conducted across two villages to gather data on the quantity ofwater from the wetland used directly for domestic purposes (for interview questions was preparedbased on the form provided TESSA). In total 22 interviews were conducted.
The annual amount of water from Moeyungyi WWS collected by an average household fordomestic use was estimated at 145,513 (±24,938) litters. The mean annual value of this benefit wascalculated as $1,280 (± 219) per household, based on the price of water sold in the village ($0.04
per gallon). Hence the annual net economic value of water from the wetland for domestic use wasestimated to be $7.99 million. All respondents reported that water from the wetland is abundant
throughout the year, and that they have never experienced any shortage of this resource.
Therefore, based on our assumptions, we don’t expect the alternative irrigation scheme to have asignificant impact on the current water supply from the wetland and its value for domestic use.



Irrigation

An important function of Moeyungyi WWS is to store water for the irrigation of rice paddies aroundthe region. During the dry period each year, the wetland supports one season of rice farming in
16,520 ha of paddies. In addition, the wetland also irrigates the rice paddies within the site (800ha). We estimated its value as the cost for irrigating these paddies if the water from the wetland
were not available. Based on the price of water for irrigation from a nearby dam, we estimated theannual net benefit of irrigation as $83,400. With an expansion of rice paddies both within (1,100 ha)
and outside the wetland (33,039 ha), the annual net benefit was estimated to be $164,000 under
the alternative state.

Flood mitigation

The low-lying paddies adjacent to Moeyungyi WWS are at risk of serious floods if the embankments
fail during the wet season from June to September. Rice paddies have no flood storage capacity but
the wetland was built with a storage capacity of 17.3 million m3 (Irrigation Department, 2015).
According to the Irrigation Department, the flood storage capacity of Moeyungyi WWS has thepotential to protect 16,200 ha of rice paddies in the area. The total annual value of flood protection
benefit was estimated as the annual value of the avoided damage to wet season rice paddies. No
property would be directly affected by flood damage as houses are built on stilts or above flood

40

water level. Hence we multiplied the mean net value per ha for one season of rice cultivation by the
total area protected from floods used for wet season paddy and deducted the costs of annual
maintenance of the embankments ($32,000 annually according to staff from the Irrigation
Department) to estimate the net annual flood protection benefit as $458,000. The alternative stateof the wetland would provide the same flood protection benefit.

Harvested wild goodsFishing

At the preliminary scoping workshop, the village representatives identified fish as the mostimportant wild product harvested from the wetland at community level. Thirty-three household
questionnaires (the interview questions were prepared based on TESSA) were conducted acrosstwo villages to gather data on the quantity and net value of harvest from fishing activities. The
participating households with income derived mainly from fishing activities within the wetland
were randomly chosen by the village chiefs. The mean net value per household for fishing was
calculated, and then applied to the estimated total number of households that harvest fish fromthe wetland. The opportunity cost of family labour was valued at ‘market rate’ since there was ahigh seasonal demand for labour.
The mean net value of fish per household was estimated as $3,360 (± 300). The mean net value offish per household was not significantly different between the two villages. Based on Park Warden
Office data, there were 4577 households around Moeyungyi WWS harvesting fish at the wetland.
Hence the annual net economic benefit from fish harvesting was estimated as $15.4 million. The
annual net benefit of fish harvesting under the alternative state is assumed to remain the same as
the drop in water level is unlikely to be significant enough to change the fish population.



Lotus harvesting

Each day over a period of nine months a year, a total of 20 people are allowed to harvest lotus
stalks in Moeyungyi WWS; this takes place from July to March. Data on the annual net value of
harvest was gathered from staff of Moeyungyi WWS Park Warden Office. We estimated that 4.86
million lotus stalks were harvested annually from the wetland. As the harvesting method is simple
and the stalks are processed locally, the costs of harvesting and transport were valued at zero. The
annual net benefit of lotus harvesting was estimated as $19,400 for both current and alternative
states.



Molluscs

Based on the data from Park Warden Office, a total of 34,200 ducks are allowed to feed on themolluscs in Moeyungyi WWS throughout the year. We estimated its value as the annual cost of themolluscs consumed by these ducks. Based on information of the total amount of molluscs(expressed in terms of bags) required by 1,000 ducks per day and the cost per bag from the same
source, the annual net benefit of duck feeding on the wetland was estimated as $74,900. There is41

no difference in the annual net benefit provided by the molluscs in the wetland for the alternative
state.



Buffalo grazing

Buffalo grazing is carried out in Moeyungyi WWS for eight months from October to May. Based ondata from the Park Warden Office, a total of 5,375 buffalo grazed on the wetland annually. We
estimated its value as the annual cost of the grass consumed by these buffalo. Based on
information from Moeyungyi staff, the amount of grass (expressed in terms of bundles) a buffalo
consumes daily and the cost per bundle, the annual net benefit of grazing on the wetland wasestimated as $774,000. The same annual net benefit of buffalo grazing was also associated with thealternative state as the number of grazing buffalo allowed to graze into the wetland would bemaintained.

Duck rearing on the lake

Buffalo inside the wetland

Nature-based recreation
The opportunity to view wetland birds, to walk on the board walk in the marshes and to take a boatride into the open lake attracts domestic visitors and international tourists to Moeyungyi WWS. The
annual value of nature-based recreation was estimated from the direct expenditure by visitors to
the site and the 2012-2013 records of visitor numbers from the Park Warden Office. We carried out
a field survey at the entrance of the sanctuary on four days (5 – 8 February 2015) during dry season.
We used a questionnaire survey to obtain information on distance travelled, mode of transport,
accommodation, and expenditure in the shop and restaurant (interview questions were preparedbased on the form provided in TESSA).
We interviewed 47 individuals and counted a total of 274 visitors. Most of the visitors (97%) weredomestic day-trippers from within the region and international tourists represented 3% only. Basedon the data from the Moeyungyi WWS Park Warden Office, a total of 7,334 people visited
Moeyungyi WWS in 2012-2013 (7,031 domestic visitors; 303 international tourists).
From the total reported expenditure on travel, food and drinks, the annual recreation revenue fromthe national visitors was estimated to be $19,300. The annual recreation revenue from theinternational tourists was estimated as $54,200. The overall annual recreation revenue was42estimated at $74,000 with the majority of the annual revenue (74%) from the international tourists.
Note that this is likely to be a conservative estimate of the actual tourism value of the wetland as
we did not include a willingness-to-pay survey in this assessment which would identify theadditional value (beyond actual amount of money spent) that people attribute to the site for the
benefit of nature-based recreation. It was assumed that all respondents would visit the area if it
was under the alternative state – as the area affected by the paddy encroachment was relatively
small and remote.

Rice cultivation
At the preliminary scoping workshop, rice was identified to be the only cultivated product in thearea. Twelve household questionnaires (for the interview questions, we used the TESSA form) wereconducted across two villages to gather data on the quantity and net value of harvest for the paddy
adjacent to the wetland. The respondents from these farming households were randomly selectedby the village chiefs. The mean net value for rice was calculated and applied to the total harvested
area in the current state and the expected harvested area in the alternative state. Costs for water,
equipment and processing were subtracted from the total and the opportunity cost of family labour
was valued at ‘market rate’ since there was a high seasonal demand for labour.
Based on a previous survey conducted by BANCA (BANCA, 2014), it was estimated that 27%(weighted mean of eight villages) of the households farm paddies. The mean net value of ricecultivation adjacent to the wetland was estimated as $548 (± 114) per ha. The areas within thewetland encroached by rice paddies during dry season under the current and alternative states
were estimated as 800 ha and 1,100 ha, respectively. The annual net economic benefit from ricecultivation within the wetland under the current management regime was estimated as $438,000
whilst the annual net benefit of farming rice within the wetland under the alternative management
regime was $603,000.

Management costs
Information on annual management costs of Moeyungyi WWS which included salaries for 12 fulltime and three part-time staff, and operational costs was obtained from Moeyungyi WWS Park
Warden Office. This on-going management cost of the wetland was estimated to be a total of$22,300 y-1.

6.4 Limitations
Given that rapid nature of this study, there are several limitations of the study.
 Firstly, it should be noted that the overall valuation will be conservative. We have included only
a limited range of services that could be easily measured. Therefore we had to omit benefits
such as those relating to health, or cultural services (exception of recreation) that are likely tobe provided by Moeyungyi WWS simply because we could not measure them.
 One of the most significant omissions is the valuation of water quality. Local rice farmers apply
fertilisers and pesticides and the input of agrochemicals to the surface water is likely to be
impacting on the overall water quality of the wetland, though we were unable to explore this43

because the wetland has numerous tributaries upstream which makes water quality studies
complex to undertake when there are time and budget limitations.
 We were also unable to make an assessment of the sustainability of the current rate ofharvesting of wild goods from the wetland. Although data from BANCA’s assessment in 2014
suggests that overall biodiversity is relatively stable, this has not been directly assessed interms of the quantity and quality of harvested goods over time. Additionally, illegal harvesting
methods – such as electric shock fishing – are reported to be having devastating effects on
certain populations (BANCA, 2014).
 The valuation of nature-based recreation is a conservative estimate as we looked only at theactual spend of visitors (revealed preference) and did not include a willingness to pay survey(which would provide information on additional value not currently captured). It is also possiblethat the value of nature-based recreation will increase over time due to the increasing numberof tourists visiting Myanmar. However, with the increased benefits may also come some costs
as uncontrolled tourism can have negative impacts on habitats and species. Our study did notassess this aspect of change over time.
 Finally, the results have varying levels of uncertainty related to the accuracy and precision of
the data. More surveys would improve this estimate.

6.5 Conclusion
The overall net benefit generated from annual ecosystem service flows at Moeyungyi WWS, minus
management costs, is estimated at $22,100,000. The carbon stock is estimated at $91,600,000. The
overall net benefit generated from annual ecosystem service flows (water for irrigation and riceproduction) associated with an increase in water use for irrigation, minus the management costs,
was $245,000 (see table 2 on p.32). According to our estimates, and the limited scope of this study,
the alternative irrigation regime would not reduce benefits to local people or global beneficiaries.
However, this initial result should be considered with caution due to a number of impacts that
could occur outside of the wetland and the limitation mentioned in Section 6.4. The recharge of thewater in Moeyungyi depends on the constant in-flow of water from natural creeks and upstream
dams. Land use change upstream, such as logging, could cause siltation in the tributaries upstream;
which in turn would reduce the in-flow rate. If more water is being extracted for irrigation
downstream, it will be challenging to maintain the water level. Similarly, land clearing upstream
also causes serious soil erosion that could block the major in-flow canal, as happened in 2013. If thiswere to occur again under the alternative irrigation regime, the water could drop to an
unprecedented low level which may be harmful to the flora and fauna. There would also be asignificant increase in carbon emissions resulting from the expansion of rice cultivation downstream
in Bago township. Since we were just looking at the economic valuation of the WWS this impact
was not included as part of the study, but is an important consideration from a landscapeperspective. Therefore, the broader implications of the potential to increase withdrawal of waterfrom Moeyungyi WWS associated with agro-irrigation need to be assessed in relation to land use
management in the wider landscape.
This is the first study to estimate some of the economic values provided by the Moeyungyi wetlandand perhaps the first such assessment of a wetland in Myanmar. It demonstrates the vital44

importance of conserving this wetland for the 12,000 households that derive direct benefits from it(food, fibre, irrigation water, free grazing land), the users downstream to whom water is released in
the dry season for rice paddy cultivation, and the global community in terms of its role incontributing to global climate regulation and the tourism and recreation values associated withviewing the unique biodiversity.
This approach was chosen for its relatively simple methods, which enable rapid collection of locallyrelevant, site-scale data – relevant to decisions being made regarding the management of thewetland (such as by the Irrigation Department of the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation and the
MOECAF). The results should be viewed as a rapid, preliminary assessment only. The overall
objective was to highlight the benefits that the Moeyungyi WWS provides to people for the
purposes of raising awareness about the importance of the wetland. It also demonstrates that
there are important values that need to be incorporated into any future decision-making about thewetland and wider landscape development activities that may impact upon it.

45GLOSSARY
Biodiversity (a contraction of ‘biological diversity’) – The variability among livingorganisms, including those that inhabit terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems,
and the ecological interactions of which they are a part. Biodiversity includes diversity
within species, between species, and between ecosystems.
Biomass – The mass of tissues in living organisms in a population, ecosystem, or spatial
unit.
Carbon – A non-metallic element existing in different forms and occurring in carbon
dioxide, coal, oil, and all organic compounds.
Carbon sequestration – The process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir
other than the atmosphere.
Cultural (ecosystem) services – The non-material benefits people obtain fromecosystems, for example through spiritual enrichment, cognitive development,
reflection, recreation and aesthetic experience, including e.g. knowledge systems, social
relations, and aesthetic values.
Economic valuation – Economic value is measured by the most someone is willing togive up in other goods and services in order to obtain a good, service, or state of theworld.
Ecosystem – A dynamic complex of living communities and their non-living
environmental components, interacting as a functional unit.
Ecosystem service – ‘the aspects of ecosystems utilized (actively and passively) to
produce human well-being’ (Fisher et al. 2009). These include provisioning services suchas food and water; regulating services such as flood and disease control; cultural services
such as spiritual, recreational, and cultural benefits; and supporting services (such as
nutrient cycling) that maintain the conditions for life on Earth. The concept of‘ecosystem goods and services’ is synonymous with ecosystem services.
Gross value – The total value without deductions; such as the amount of sales, salary,
profit, etc. before taking deductions for expenses, taxes, or other costs (as distinct fromnet value).

46

Important Bird and Biodiversity area (IBA) – IBAs are identified using internationallyagreed criteria applied locally by BirdLife Partners and other experts for globally andregionally threatened species, species with highly restricted ranges, bird communities
restricted to biomes and internationally important congregations of birds.
Net value –Refers to the amount left after all deductions are made. For example, the net
value of wheat would be the price obtained from sale minus the costs for production,marketing, transport and labour plus any other subtractions (such as subsidies).
Stakeholder – A person, group or organisation that has a stake (interest), investment orshare in something (e.g. local community, site managers, NGOs, government, farmers,
traders etc.). In this context this would be in relation to the decisions and activities
surrounding a particular site.
Sustainable – (in relation to the environment) Capable of being maintained at a steadylevel without exhausting natural resources so that an ecosystem may yield continuous
benefits to present populations and future generations without causing ecologicaldamage. Thus, sustainability is a characteristic or state whereby the needs of thepresent and local population can be met without compromising the ability of future
generations or populations in other locations to meet their needs.
Valuation – The process of expressing a value for a particular service in a certain context(e.g. of decision-making) usually in terms of something that can be counted, oftenmoney, but also through methods and measures from other disciplines (e.g. sociology,
ecology). See also Value.
Value – The contribution of an action or object to user specific goals, objectives, orconditions. See also Valuation.
-The definitions are quoted from TESSA (Peh et al. 2014)47

REFERENCES
Anderson-Teixeira K.J. and De Lucia E.H. 2010. The greenhouse gas value of ecosystems. Global Change
Biology, 17, 425-438.
Bagstad, K.J., D. Semmens, S. Waage, and R. Winthrop. (2013) A comparative assessment of tools forecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosystem Services e5: 27-39
Balmford, A., Rodrigues, A.S.L., Walpole, M., ten Brink, P., Kettunen, M., Braat, L., de Groot, R., 2008. The
Economics of Biodiversity and Ecosystems: Scoping the Science. Cambridge, UK: European Commission.
BANCA. 2014. Biodiversity and Socio-Economic Assessment on Moeyungyi Wetland Wildlife Sanctuary.
BirdLife International. 2005. Important Bird Areas and potential Ramsar Sites in Asia. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife
International.
BirdLife International. 2015. Important Bird & Biodiversity Area monitoring data: Moyingyi (Myanmar).
Downloaded from WBDB (internal BirdLife database) on 11/03/2015 (see also public IBA factsheet at
http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/site/search).
Davidoson, N. 2014. How much wetland has the world lost? Long-term and recent trends in global wetlandarea. Marine and Freshwater Research, 65(10), 934-942
Finlayson, C. M., Davidson, N. C., Spiers, A. G. and Stevenson, N. J. 1999. Global wetland inventory – current
status and future priorities Marine and Freshwater Research 50(8) 717 – 727
Fisher, B., Costanza, R., Turner, R.K. and Morling, P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for
decision making. Ecological Economics 68 643-653
Greenspan Bell R. and Callan D. 2011. More than meets the eye: the social cost of carbon in U.S. climate
policy, in plain English. Policy brief. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC.

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. “Case study: Mangrove
plantation in Viet Nam: measuring impact and cost benefit” Available at
http://www.ifrc.org/Global/Publications/disasters/reducing_risks/Case-study-Vietnam.pdf (accessed 2
November 2015)
International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database 2015. Available at
http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/weodata/index.aspx (accessed 5 March 2015).
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Adoption and Acceptance of the “2013 Supplement to
the 20006 Guidelines” – Accepted report. Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories of the IPCC,
WMO and UNEP.
Irrigation Department. 2015. Mo Yin Gyi Lake. Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation, Bago region, Bago.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water. Available
at http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.358.aspx.pdf [Accessed 24 March 2016]
Mitsch, W.J., & Gosselink, J.G. 2000. The value of wetlands: importance of scale and landscape setting
Ecological Economics 35 (1) p 25-33.

48

Peh, K. S.-H., Balmford, A. P., Bradbury, R. B., Brown, C., Butchart, S. H. M., Hughes, F. M. R., Stattersfield, A.
J., Thomas, D. H. L., Walpole, M. and Birch, J. C. 2014. Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessments(TESSA). Version 1.2 Available at: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/estoolkit.
Peh K.S.-H., Balmford A.P., Bradbury R.B., Brown C., Butchart S.H.M., Hughes F.M.R. et al. 2014. TESSA: atoolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity importance. Ecosystem Services, 5,51-57.
Pratruangkrai P. 2015. Investors eye Myanmar’s rich potential for rice growing. The Nation. Porritt, J., 2007.
Capitalism as if the World Matters. Earthscan.
Russi D., ten Brink P., Farmer A., Badura, T., Coates D., Förster J., Kumar R. and Davidson N. 2013. The
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Water and Wetlands. IEEP, London and Brussels; Ramsar
Secretariat, Gland.
Samonte-Tan G. 2007. Economic Valuation of Coastal and Marine Resources: Bohol Marine Triangle,
Philippines, Coastal Management, 35: p319–338
Schuyt, K., And Brander, L. 2004. The Economic Values of the World’s Wetlands. Gland/Amsterdam, WWF.
Available at http://www.unwater.org/downloads/wetlandsbrochurefinal.pdf [Accessed 15 March 2016]
Soumis N. , Duchemin É., Canuel R. and Lucotte M. 2004. Greenhouse gas emissions from reservoirs of thewestern United States. Global Biochemical Cycles, 18, GB3022.
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A
synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
Turner, R. K., Georgiou, S. and Fisher, B. 2008. Valuing ecosystem services: the case of multi-functional
wetlands. Earthscan. London.
UNWWAP (United Nations World Water Assessment Programme). 2003. Water for People, Water for Life.
Available at: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001297/129726e.pdf [Accessed on 05 March 2015]

49

APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Example questionnaire form for harvesting wild goods*Please use these questions for guidance only. Depending on the site, you may need to change thespecifics. The symbol  indicates items necessary to be filled out with full, clear answers.
Name/number of respondent
Date
Location/name of village
Are the questions being answered per individual, household orbusiness?
Name of product (if more than 3 products, use additional forms)
Quantity and value of producta. Total quantity collected from the site in last 12 months* 
b. Local Unit 
c. Conversion to metric unit (local units per kg) 
d. Percentage for own use
e. Percentage sold/ barteredf. Average price obtained per unit** 
Family labour
g. Annual time taken by respondent and family members(unpaid) to harvest and process the product (person days)* 
Hired labourh. Annual input of hired labour for harvesting and processing(person days)* i.

Typical daily wage rate paid for hired labour

Equipment costs***
j. What capital items (tools, materials, equipment) do you
need for harvesting and processing this product? k. How long do you expect each of these tools etc. to last? l.

How much did each item cost to buy? Transport and marketing costs
m. What are the annual costs of transporting and marketing
this product?* 50

* If respondents find it difficult to recall accurately the harvest for the past 12 months, then breakthese questions down. For example, ask for the harvest on a monthly basis (and then add thesefigures up yourself, to get an annual total). Do the same for each of these questions (price, inputsof labour, costs of equipment and other inputs, etc.).
** If the individual respondent does not sell the product they gather, but others do, then apply themean price recorded from other respondents.
*** If any tools or equipment have a lifetime of more than one year, divide the initial purchase costby their expected lifetime and add typical repair/maintenance costs. If tools are not specificallyused/purchased for this product but are for general use, apply a sensible percentage of theircost/maintenance.
Feed for respondent’s own livestock
If wild harvested feed for harvesters’ own livestock was identified as one of the most important
harvested wild goods then ask each respondent the following questions.
The value of the service that the land provides to livestock is determined from the value of the feed
it provides for them. Here we are focus only on wild harvested feed (not cultivated feed).
In the last 12 months, did you feed any livestock with wild harvested feed
obtained from the site? 
If yes, what and how many
animals do you own(sheep, goats, cows, chickens,etc.)? For each animal type, approximately
what percentage of their feed
did you obtain from wild harvest
at the site? What is the estimated value ofthat feed?
(i.e. how much would it cost you
to replace that feed if you had tobuy it from someone else, or if
you had to replace it withanother kind of animal feed?) 51Appendix 2. Example questionnaire form for cultivated goods*Please use these questions for guidance only. Depending on the site, you may need to change thespecifics. The symbol  indicates items necessary to be filled out with full, clear answers.
General information
Name/number of respondent
If appropriate include one or more questions which allow you to differentiate respondents
according to the key factors affecting receipt of benefits. You may want to ask this at the end of thequestionnaire, once they feel more comfortable about the content of the questionnaire.
E.g.
Household size / Education / Ethnicity / Age / Marital status / Wealth status
Date
Location/name of village
Are the questions being answered per individual,
or household, or business?
Crops
It is important here that you only focus on up to five cultivated goods identified as most importantin the stakeholder workshop. If any livestock are among the top five cultivated goods thencomplete section 3.
What is your total size of the land you
farm in the area (use local units of area
if appropriate):
Which of the top five cultivated goods doyou grow? Please answer the column of questions
for each one in turn, giving answers forthe past year and all the land you farm in
the area.*
Unit of measurement for that crop 
Last year, how much of that crop did you
produce? Last year, what was the average priceobtained per unit**?
Percentage for own use
Percentage sold/ bartered

52

Did you, or family members, spend(unpaid) time cultivating / harvesting /processing this crop? (Yes/No)
If yes, how many person-days did you or
your family spend cultivating /harvesting/ processing this crop last year*?
Did you hire people to cultivate / harvest/ process this crop? (Yes/No)
If yes, how many person-days did hired
people spend cultivating / harvesting /processing this crop last year*? What is the average daily wage rate you
paid these hired people (outside of any
reciprocal arrangements)?
What is the cost of other inputs for thiscrop (seed, fertiliser, pesticide, water,fuel for machinery)*? 
What capital items (tools, materials or
equipment) do you need for cultivating/harvesting/ processing this crop? (e.g.
tools, machinery)? How long do you expect each of thesetools / machines to last (years)***? How much did each tool / machine costto buy? 
Last year, what was spent on transportingand marketing this crop*?
If the crop is a perennial crop (e.g. fruit trees, vines, nut bushes, perennial herbs) ask thefollowing:
How much did it cost to establish thecrop (e.g. plants, stakes, labour)? For how many years will the crop remain
productive? 53Livestock****It is important to find out the value of livestock as a contribution to cultivated goods. The value ofthe service that the land provides to livestock is determined from the value of all the feed it
provides them.
Do you have any livestock?
If yes, what? How many of each type did you have on
average last year*? What percentage of the total food thatthese animals needed last year* camefrom the area*****? Think about all thefood they ate (including pasture, fodder
crops, hay, food waste, etc.)
What is the value of that feed? (i.e. howmuch would it cost you to replace thatfeed with purchased alternatives?) * If respondents find it difficult to recall cultivation details accurately for the past 12 months or for
all the land they farm in the area, then break these questions down. For example, ask about theharvest on a monthly basis, and ask how many months the harvest lasts (and then add these figures
up yourself, to get an annual total). If necessary you could do the same for each field the cultivator
uses, and then add the answers up to get a total for their entire farm.
** If the individual respondent does not sell what they cultivate but others do, then apply the mean
price recorded from other respondents.
*** If any tools or equipment have a lifetime of more than one year, divide the initial purchasecost by their expected lifetime and add typical repair/maintenance costs. If tools are notspecifically used/purchased for producing this particular good but are for general use, apply asensible percentage to their purchase and maintenance cost.
**** Only complete this section for livestock whose feed is identified as among the top 5 mostimportant cultivated goods. Complete a separate column for each form of livestock which is among
these top 5.
***** Here you are asking the respondent about all the animal feed they obtain from the current
area or the alternative state that you are studying, i.e. not just from their farm. This may include
cultivated feed crops, crop residues, pasture, browse cut from hedgerows and field margins.

54Appendix 3. Example questionnaire form for water use*Please use these questions for guidance only. Depending on the site, you may need to change thespecifics.
1. Personal information
Occupation:

Age:

Number of people in household:adults ____
children_______
2. Source, use and importance of freshwater
2.1) Where does your water [Respondent to list all the sources. Interviewer to assign to thecome from?
categories below]
Gender:Note: Answer will tell us ifwater used by the Household(HH) comes from site ofinterest

From springs, well, borehole
From a piped supply or tap
From rainwater
From river, stream, dam, lake, pond
Other (please specify)

Determine here, using theinformation supplied in 2.1,
whether the source of waterused at the HH is from thesite2.2) Which of the above
sources do you use foreach of your uses?

☐ water is supplied by the site
☐ water is not supplied by the site*☐ don’t know
*Do not continue with the questionnaire if this is the caseNote: If there are several
sources for each use, record
the details, e.g. seasonality

Water for livestock

Main uses (tick all that Sources
apply)(In wet season)
Irrigation of crops

Sources(In dry season)

Drinking (domestic use)
Cooking & washing(domestic use)
Sanitation (domestic use)

Other uses
(please specify) ...............
2.3) For each of the water Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
sources mentioned above,
how does the provision ofwater meet your demand on amonth by month basis?
Use the following keys:+ more water than is needed– not enough water
O about right55

Nov Dec

2.4) If your usual source of Main uses (tick all that Alternative
sourceswater runs dry or becomes apply)(In wet season)
unavailable, what are thealternative sources of supply? Irrigation of crops(State ‘none’ if this is the case)
Water for livestock
Note: Refer to question 2.2
for regular sources of supply
Drinking (domestic use)
in wet and dry season
Cooking & washing(domestic use)
Sanitation (domestic use)

2.5) What is your mostimportant water supply
source and what is it used
for?
Note: Main reason is crucial.
E.g. a source can beimportant because there is
no alternative supply

Alternative
sources(In dry season)

Other uses
(please specify) .................
[Refer to list above and ask respondent to name one and its main
reason]3. Freshwater quantity and seasonal use
3.1) Do you know how much
YES / NO
water you use permonth/day for each of the
If no go to 3.2
uses mentioned above?
If yes go to 3.4
3.2) How many buckets orcontainers do you use perday (wet season)?
What size are these?
3.3) If you have no watersupply in your home, howmuch time do you spend
collecting water each time
you draw some off/visit thesource?
3.4) How much water do youuse (litres or other statedunit) for each of the uses
listed above?

Total quantity (ask first)
Breakdown for each use (if known - %, proportion, fraction…..)

563.5) Does your household
use less water in dry
seasons?
If yes, how much less?

o Yes, we use.... [enter an actual amount or proportion or
percentage]o
No

4. Payment for water
4.1) Do you pay for your water?

4.2) How much do you pay?
Note:
You can potentially use this in two ways - toput an economic value on water use, towork out what quantity of water is used.

YES / NOIf no, go to section 5.
For drinking water supply (per month/per unit).........................
For HEP energy (per month)..........................................
For other use (please specify).......................................

4.3) Do you pay a fixed price per unit used, [If unknown by HH, ask water company – if there isor per year, or other?
one supplying this HH)
What is the price?
5. Land use change and resulting impacts on water-related ecosystem services
5.1) Have you ever had problems of too [describe when – year, month, duration – cause andlittle water since living in this area?
effect]In your opinion, what was the cause?
What was the impact of this?

5.2) Have you ever had problems of too [describe when – year, month, duration – cause andmuch water since living in this area?
effect]In your opinion, what was the cause?
What was the impact of this?
5.3) If the amount of water in the rivers
supplied by the site of interest was toincrease, how would this affect you?
Indicate whether there are any increased
expenditures or increased time spent; andif possible, quantify how much.

575.4) Have you ever had problems with the Odour / Taste / Illness
water quality of your drinking water supply
since living here?
Others (please specify)...............................................
In your opinion, what was the cause?
[describe when – year, month, duration – cause andWhat was the impact of this? Indicate effect]whether there are any increased
expenditures or increased time spent; andif possible, quantify how much.

5.5) Have you noticed any change in the [Increased, no change or decreased]
colour or amount of sediment in the water [describe when – year, month, duration – cause andduring the time you have lived here?
effect]In your opinion, what was the cause?
What was the impact of this? Indicate
whether there are any increased
expenditures or increased time spent; andif possible, quantify how much.
5.6) If the amount of sediment in the rivers
supplied by the site of interest was toincrease, how would this affect you?
5.7) Have you noticed any change in thewater availability in the time you have lived
here?
In your opinion, what was the cause?
What was the impact of this? Indicate
whether there are any increased
expenditures, or increased time spent, andif possible, quantify how much.

58

Appendix 4. Example questionnaire form for nature-based
recreation*Please use these questions for guidance only. Depending on the site, you may need to change thespecifics. The symbol  indicates items necessary to be filled out with full, clear answers.
Site nameRespondent number
Date
Location interviewed (e.g. entrance gate)
If appropriate include one or more questions which allow you to differentiate respondents
according to the key factors affecting receipt of benefits. You may want to ask this at the end of thequestionnaire once they feel more comfortable about the content of the questionnaire.
E.g.Income / Education / Ethnicity / Age / Marital status
What kind of visitor?

International tourist

National visitor

Sex

Male

FemaleAge<1818-29 30-49

50-69

70+

How far away do you live? [Either a place or a distancein miles or km]

Foreign country (please indicate whichcountry)
International tourists onlya. How many days will you spend away from homewhilst on this trip? b. How many people are you travelling with in yourgroup? 
c. In total, how much money do you expect to spend (per person or per group – state which)on the whole of your trip - locally (within 10 km of
the site), elsewhere in the country, and in other Local spend
countries? Include your travel costs of getting National spend
here. International59

d. How many days will you spend at this site during
your trip? e. Please rank the activities listed in order of Viewing/appreciating forest, nature or
importance as your reason for visiting this site 
wildlife _____(1 = highest importance)

Cultural, spiritual (visiting religious or
spiritual sites, museums, etc.) ____
Exercise or sport ____
Time with family or friends _____
Other (please specify) _____(e.g. picnic, education…)

f. Imagine if the site was arable farmland with noremaining trees other than the small hedges
separating fields. Would you still come here forthese activities?
National visitors onlyg. How many times have you visited this site in thelast year?  __________
h. How many people are you travelling with in yourgroup? i.

j.

In total, how much money do you expect to spend
on the whole of your trip – locally (within 10 km of
the site), and elsewhere in the country? Include
things like entrance fees, food, accommodation,transport and fuel. 
Please rank the activities listed in order ofimportance as your reason for visiting this site (1 = highest importance)(per person or per group – state which)Local spend
National spend
Viewing/appreciating forest, nature or
wildlife _____
Cultural, spiritual (visiting religious or
spiritual sites, museums, etc.) ____
Exercise or sport ____
Time with family or friends _____
Other (please specify) _____(e.g. picnic, education…)

k. Imagine if the site was arable farmland with noremaining trees other than the small hedges Yes
separating fields. Would you still come here forthese activities?
Reliability of respondent/other notes

60

NoMinistry of the Environment, Japan 2016