display
Shortly before midnight last Thursday evening, the Bundestag passed a joint proposal by the government groups to honor the ecosystem services of the forest.
The following day the Environment Ministers' Conference also spoke out in favor of this - two important milestones for Germany's forest owners in their political work.
In November last year, the Federal Ministry of Agriculture provided 500 million euros in aid for forest owners from the federal government's Corona stimulus package.
It should compensate for the constant stress that German forests have been suffering from for several years, said Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner (CDU).
Background to all considerations: Many forest owners can no longer cover their forest management costs from the sale of wood and will hardly be able to do so in the foreseeable future.
Because building climate-stable forests is cost-intensive, and damaged wood will continue to be sold only at low prices.
The disbursement of the aid money from the economic stimulus package is only tied to a few conditions: The forest owners must have more than one hectare of land and be certified.
Too much drought causes the oaks to die
Peter Spathelf from the University for Sustainable Development in Eberswalde explains the reasons for oaks to die in the video.
Source: Pascal Ertl / WELT
display
But is this allocation simply an area premium, as the WWF criticizes, or a compensation for services in the sustainable management of forests?
The services provided by forest owners for society are called ecosystem services (ES).
Just a few decades ago they were called the social functions of the forest and included the useful, protective and recreational functions.
The balanced pursuit of all forest functions is the basis of sustainable forest management - and a global model for success.
Actually, ecosystem functions arise from the existence of forests. Forests store CO2, filter water and improve the supply of drinking water. However, numerous services are only generated through management. Beautiful recreational forests, for example, require human intervention to maintain a diverse mix of tree species or to keep viewpoints free.
In 2005, a large-scale expert study on the location and threat to global ecosystems, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, was published.
The classification of ÖSL developed at that time distinguishes between three categories: supplying, regulating and cultural ÖSL.
The supplying ES includes the production of biomass, i.e. wood, but also non-wood forest products such as tree fruits, resin or medicinal plants.
Currently, regulating ES play a particularly prominent role: These include protection against erosion, regulation of the water cycle and water quality, and air purification.
More from Peter Spathelf
display
Cultural ecosystem services are initially aimed at the classic areas of recreation for people in forests such as walking, hiking or horse riding, and recently also forest bathing, but also include aesthetic-symbolic values of nature such as beauty and grandeur. The forest also becomes a place for esoteric fans who organize Germanic things games and commute their medicinal herbs in forest clearings.
In order to initiate an award at all, it must first be clarified what is actually being assessed - and how. The value of an oak veneer log or a cubic meter of pulp wood is easy to assess because they are marketable goods. It becomes more difficult with the value of medicinal plants from a tropical rainforest - the use of which by pharmaceutical companies is actually not allowed to take place without the consent and profit sharing with the affected indigenous communities or countries - or with regulating ecosystem services such as avalanche or soil protection.
Finally: How is the value of a visit to the forest or a spiritual experience in the forest measured?
To answer this question, environmental economists use a three-stage process: identify, record, evaluate.
Only then can money be discussed.
Often only a section of the range of services can really be assessed.
display
This approach is already used with success in nature conservation. It is not just about the famous “price tag” for services provided by nature or the “true” ecological costs of measures. Through the economic evaluation of environmental services, the real social costs and benefits of various natural use alternatives can be made transparent. The study “Natural Capital Germany - TEEB DE (2012–2015)” argues for greater consideration of the value of nature in political and private economic decisions. One of the best-known examples here are the eco-points that a private landowner can generate for the ecological upgrading of their own land and then sell to those who are specifically obliged to compensate.
How the ÖSL from the forest should be rewarded is currently being debated.
The German forest owners have presented a model that provides for a reward for the forest's CO2 storage function.
The proposal assumes that each hectare of forest is bound by 4.5 tonnes of CO2 per year.
This corresponds to the average annual increase that is not used for energy, around 4.5 cubic meters per year and hectare.
The CO₂ tax, which has been levied in Germany since January, is intended to finance this service.
The issuers pay and the forest owners receive compensation for a service.
This is what the markings on the trees mean
Peter Spathelf from the University for Sustainable Development in Eberswalde explains in the video what the different markings on trees mean.
Source: Pascal Ertl / WELT
The regulatory and cultural services provided by the forest enterprises are public goods for which there is no functioning market. The benefits of these services are, however, in the area of the value for wood production. The price for one ton of CO₂ is 25 euros in the first year and will rise to 55 euros by 2025. The ecosystem services from one hectare of forest are remunerated at 112.5 euros per year and at 247.5 euros in four years. For comparison: The net yield in private forests in Bavaria in 2018 and 2019 averaged around 180 euros per hectare for forest owners with predominantly spruce forests and 40 euros for forest owners with deciduous forests.
The design of this CO2 fee can only be a first step.
The payment is not linked to ecological conditions such as the creation of dead wood or the preservation of old forests.
The payment could also be linked to the existence of a forest certification, as is the case with the Corona premium for German forest owners.
The federal government has not yet made a decision.
Political sticking points are the participation of the large state forests as beneficiaries - Minister Klöckner does not want that, especially when the money comes from regular budget funds.
Equally controversial are deadweight effects without positive consequences for the forest conversion - that is what the Greens fear.
And what happens if the forest loses its function as a carbon sink?
Do you then have to repay?
A look at a working paper from the Thünen Institute shows how it could be done differently. In a two-stage process, supra-regional services such as biodiversity protection and climate protection are to be compensated. Germany has also entered into international commitments here. These forest services are not locally or regionally limited, but represent global public goods. In this first stage, success would be assessed, for example in the form of annual carbon sequestration or actual services for the protection of biodiversity. In the second stage, regional or local services for which there is a market, such as regional drinking water protection services, could be rewarded.
The assessment of drinking water protection performance, as the example of Remscheid in North Rhine-Westphalia shows, is complex.
According to EU regulations, drinking water must not contain more than 50 milligrams of nitrate per liter.
This limit value is often significantly exceeded through nitrate inputs from agriculture, mostly through fertilizers.
Forests filter nitrates out of the surface water, which is why limit values are usually adhered to there.
display
If drinking water remains a public good, it can be used by waterworks without paying for the cleaning service of the forest. The waterworks save the money, the technical filtering of the nitrate from the drinking water costs, depending on the process, between 0.08 and 0.82 euros per cubic meter. For nitrate purification in the drinking water protection area of Remscheid, this would amount to around 129,000 euros per year. So far, however, the city has not received any euro compensation for this.
Some progressive countries such as Costa Rica, Vietnam or Cambodia developed a long time ago models for rewarding ES (so-called “payment schemes for environmental services”).
In Costa Rica, landowners are rewarded who agree to work with clearly defined ecosystem services.
These include, for example, carbon storage through the reforestation of degraded pastures or the management of forests in water catchment areas.
How is the German forest doing?
The German forests are still not doing well.
Climate change and the destruction caused by the bark beetle are clearly visible.
Agriculture Minister Julia Klöckner presents the report on the state of the forests.
Source: WORLD
The difference between the carbon storage with the measure and a reference such as a degraded grassy landscape is rewarded in each case.
In total, more than $ 500 million has been distributed to date.
18,000 families benefited from this money and were able to improve their livelihoods. Indigenous communities also have access to the program.
Not even a start has been made in Germany, but climate change and its upheavals for forestry could accelerate the introduction of ESL remuneration, regardless of the model.
The author is a forest scientist and professor specializing in applied silviculture at the University for Sustainable Development in Eberswalde. He writes a series of texts about the forest for WELT.