Assessment of ecosystem services of water resources of port water areas by the amount of water rent

DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2022-2-28-510-522

View or download the article (Eng)

About the Authors

Olga E. Medvedeva

State University of Management,
Ryazansky Ave., 99, 1, 109542, Moscow, Russia;
E-mail: medvedeva_o@list.ru

Vladimir S. Tikunov

Lomonosov Moscow State University,
Leninskie Gory, 1, 119991, Moscow, Russia;
E-mail: vstikunov@yandex.ru

Andrey A. Artemenkov

Westminster International University,
Istiqbol Str., 12, 100047, Tashkent, Uzbekistan;
E-mail: achudakhin02@gmail.com

Abstract

Ecosystem services of the marine environment can be considered as ecological, economic and social components of sustainable development, but at present, they are not fully evaluated. In this regard, the article sets the task of identifying and valuing ecosystem services in port waters. As a result of the study, the attribution of the benefits created by the port waters to the ecosystem services of the marine environment is justified, their division into two categories is carried out—into providing and supporting services, a methodology for their cost estimation is proposed. It is proposed to calculate ecosystem services by the amount of port water rent, which is understood as the residual income in port activities after deducting from it all costs and profit margins on fixed assets of port infrastructure. According to this methodology, calculations of the total cost of ecosystem services of port water areas for Russia as a whole and specific values of the cost of ecosystem services per 1 km² of port water area for all seaports of the country were carried out. Supporting services are proposed to be assessed by the rent of assimilation potential formed when compensatory measures are not carried out for environmental damage caused by port activity. According to the results of calculations, it was revealed that the total port rent is approximately 33–38 billion rubles. At the same time, payments for the use of water resources in the waters of seaports entering the budget system amount to an insignificant part of this value—0.17 %, which indicates the inefficiency of the current payment system. To correct the situation, an algorithm for calculating fees for ecosystem services in port waters with the inclusion of an environmental component is proposed, the maximum share of port water rent (10 %) is justified, without disturbing the balance between the state and private structures. The significance of the work carried out is to substantiate a new category of ecosystem services of the marine environment, ecosystem services of port waters, and to show the possibility of using their valuation for management purposes, including through the formation of additional budget revenues.

Keywords

ecosystem services, assessment, port water areas, port water rent

References

  1. Bobylev S.N., Goryacheva A.A. Identification and assessment of ecosystem services: international context. Bulletin of International Organizations. 2019. Vol. 14. No. 1. P. 225–236. Web resource: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/identifikatsiya-i-otsenka-ekosistemnyh-uslug-mezhdunarodnyy-kontekst/viewer (accessed 09.11.2020) (in Russian).
  2. de Boer W.P., Slinger J.H., wa Kangeri A.K., Vreugdenhil H.S.I., Taneja P., Appeaning Addo K., Vellinga T. Identifying Ecosystem-Based Alternatives for the Design of a Seaport’s Marine Infrastructure: The Case of Tema Port Expansion in Ghana. Sustainability. 2019. No. 11. 6633. 19 p. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su11236633. Web resource: https://ocw.tudelft.nl/wp-content/uploads/de_Boer_et_al_2019_Ecosystem-based_ alternatives.pdf (accessed 04.11.2020).
  3. Ecosystem assessment at the turn of the millennium. Ecosystems and human well-being: an assessment framework. Washington: Island Press, 2005. P. 133–154. Web resource: https://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/MA_A%20framework%20for%20Assessment_RUS.pdf (accessed 17.10.2020).
  4. Filchenkova O.A., Medvedeva O.E., Artemenkov A.I. Valuation of water resources for the System of National Accounts purposes under the rent-based approach: Methodology & Experimental estimates obtained for Russia. European Journal of Natural History. 2019. No. 4. P. 3–15.
  5. Fisher B., Costanza R., Turner R.K., Morling P. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. CSERGE Working Paper EDM, 2007. No. 07-04. 20 p. Web resource: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/80264/1/571829937.pdf (accessed 09.11.2020).
  6. Glazyev S.Yu. On urgent measures to strengthen Russia’s economic security and put the Russian economy on a trajectory of advanced development. Report. Moscow: Institute of Economic Strategies, Russian Biographical Institute. 2015. 60 p. Web resource: http://spkurdyumov.ru/uploads/2015/10/doklad-o-neotlozhnyx-merax-po-ukrepleniyu-ekonomicheskoi-bezopasnosti-rossii.pdf (accessed 09.11.2020) (in Russian).
  7. Gusev A.A. The assimilation potential of the environment and the system of ownership of natural resources. Journal of Economics and Mathematical Methods (EMM). 1997. Vol. 33. Iss. 3.
  8. Haines-Young R., Potschin M. Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). Consultation on Version 4, August–December, 2012. EEA Framework Contract No. EEA/IEA/09/003. 2013. Web resource: www.cices.eu (accessed 09.11.2020).
  9. Mangos A., Bassino J-P., Sauzade D. The Economic Value of Sustainable Benefits Rendered by the Mediterranean Marine Ecosystems. Plan Bleu Papers 8. 2010. P. 23, 47.
  10. Martin-Ortega J., Ferrier R.C., Gordon I.J., Khan S. Water Ecosystem Services. A Global Perspective. International Hydrology Series, UNESCO. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. 191 p. Web resource: https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000244743 (accessed 17.10.2020).
  11. (a) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Current State and Trends Assessment. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005. P. 516.
  12. (b) Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005. 139 p. Web resource: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40119375_Millenium_Ecosystem_Assessment_Synthesis_Report#fullTextFileContent (accessed 11.04.2020).
  13. Ojea E., Martin-Ortega J., Chiabai A. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for economic valuation: the case of forest water services. Environmental Science & Policy, May–June. 2012. Vol. 19–20. P. 1–15. Web resource: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901112000226 (accessed 09.11.2020).
  14. System of Environmental Economic Accounting 2012—Central Framework. United Nations. New York, 2014. Web resource: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/seearev/seea_cf_final_en.pdf (accessed 09.11.2020).
  15. System of National Accounts 2008. New York, 2012. Web resource: https://unstats.un.org/unsd/nationalaccount/docs/SNA2008RussianWC.pdf (accessed 09.11.2020).
  16. Valuing Marine Ecosystem services. Taking into account the value of ecosystem benefits in the Blue Economy. EP Intergroup Seas, Rivers, Islands & Coastal Areas. 2019. Web resource: http://www.searica.eu/events/conference/valuing-marine-ecosystem-services-taking-into-account-the-value-of-ecosystem-benefits-in-the-blue-economy (accessed 17.10.2020).
  17. van Oudenhoven A.P.E., Petz K., Alkemade R., Hein L., de Groot R.S. Framework for systematic indicator selection to assess effects of land management on ecosystem services. Ecological Indicators. 2012. Vol. 21. P. 110–122. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.01.012.

For citation: Medvedeva O.E., Tikunov V.S., Artemenkov A.A. Assessment of ecosystem services of water resources of port water areas by the amount of water rent. InterCarto. InterGIS. GI support of sustainable development of territories: Proceedings of the International conference. Moscow: MSU, Faculty of Geography, 2022. V. 28. Part 2. P. 510–522. DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2022-2-28-510-522