Abstract. 1. The DEFRA ecosystem services framework was implemented in an entomological context to provide preliminary estimates of the economic value of four key ecosystem service benefits delivered by dung beetles (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae, Geotrupidae) to the U.K. cattle industry and individual cattle farmers. These benefits included (i) reduced pest flies; (ii) reduced gastrointestinal parasites; (iii) reduced pasture fouling and (iv) increased soil nutrients.2. A mesocosm experiment was carried out to quantify the impacts of anthelmintic treatment on dung removal by dung beetles when (i) cattle were excreting anthelmintics (which affect dung beetles) in a sufficient concentration to impact dung beetles and (ii) when cattle were not excreting dung containing anthelmintics (which affect dung beetles) in a sufficient concentration to impact dung beetles.3. Inferring from our mesocosm experiment and existing data, the value of the benefits of dung beetles under current farming practices (and current anthelmintic usage) was estimated. We estimated the potential economic benefits if dung beetles were protected (i) under all entry-level agri-environment schemes; (ii) under organic schemes; or (iii) if farmers stopped treating adult cattle with anthelmintics during the grazing season.4. While these estimates are preliminary, and should not be treated as definitive values, we suggest that dung beetles may be currently saving the U.K. cattle industry c. £367 million each year: c. £354 million in conventional systems and c. £13 million in organic systems. Annual benefits per cow are greater in organic systems (£43.47) compared with conventional systems (£37.42).5. Protecting dung beetles under agri-environment schemes could save the U.K. cattle industry an additional £40.2 million year −1 (£4.36 per cow), while protecting dung beetles under organic schemes could save £378 k year −1 (£1.26 per cow). The cessation of, largely unnecessary, treatment of adult cattle with anthelmintics could save the U.K. cattle industry an additional £6.2 million year −1 (£1.40 per cow) in addition to savings on the anthelmintics themselves.6. These estimates are based on a large number of underlying assumptions and, thus, may be overestimating or underestimating the economic value of ecosystem services delivered by dung beetles.7. The potential for using the DEFRA ecosystem services framework in an entomological context is highlighted. These estimates emphasise the contribution of dung beetles as key Ecosystem Service Providers (ESP's) within the U.K. cattle sector and, by extension, emphasise the importance of valuing supporting ecosystem services derived from invertebrates.

a b s t r a c tThis paper reports the results of a choice experiment (CE) that values the ecosystem service benefits from extending the current network of marine protected areas (MPAs) in St Vincent and the Grenadines (SVG), Caribbean. We considered two future options: an 'improved' scenario in which marine protection is increased, and a 'decline' scenario in which current protection mechanisms are removed. The CE was administered at two sites (the degraded St Vincent South Coast and the pristine Tobago Cays) and to tourists and local residents. Results suggest that both groups value health protection, fishing, coastal protection, ecosystem resilience, and diving/snorkelling. Values are higher for the 'decline' scenario compared to the 'improved' scenario. Also, tourists had significantly higher WTP values than locals. Our analysis also enabled an evaluation of the benefits derived from alternative policy interventions that may be used to protect and enhance SVG's marine parks. Stopping pollution from agriculture run-off and sewage was found to generate the highest ecosystem service benefits, with restricting over-fishing and bad fishing practices also being important. We demonstrate how economic valuation of marine ecosystem service might be used to design and target marine conservation policies that maximise welfare benefits.

Crop wild relatives (CWR) are a globally threatened group of plants, harbouring valuable genes that are sometimes used to enhance commercial crop varieties and landraces. A lack of recognition in national planning for biodiversity conservation has resulted in inadequate CWR conservation strategies, particularly in situ. There is little information on in situ conservation costs, and this paper uses a payment for agrobiodiversity conservation services (PACS) approach to estimate the in situ costs of conserving CWR in Zambia, where 30 CWR have been prioritised for conservation (of which nine are present in our sample). Competitive tender bid offers were elicited from farmers willing to accept compensation for providing a CWR conservation service. Using data from 26 communities we determined the on-farm cost of conserving CWR, specifically in field margins/borders. Heterogeneity was evident in farmer bid offers, suggesting discriminatory price mechanisms can potentially deliver cost savings over uniform payment rules. Selection of bid offers under four different conservation goals using a binary linear programming (BLP) model reveals conservation costs ranging from US$ 23 to 91/ha per year. An untargeted area goal provided a least-cost procurement of conservation services ($ 2.3 k per year), followed by a targeted area goal ($ 5.9 k per year). The cost of selecting conservation sites increased when other constraints were added to the BLP model, including those concerning social equity ($ 6.4 k per year), and diversity ($ 9.2 k per year) goals. Overall, the findings suggest the use of competitive tenders, coupled with CWR data and BLP modelling, can potentially add much to improve the efficiency of in situ CWR conservation.

No abstract