Policy Changes and Emerging “Ecosystems Services Forestry (ESF)” & “Forest Services Industry (FSI)” in Japan

Shingo ShibataFaculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University

/Graduate School of Global Environmental Studies, Sophia University

February, 2020/Governing Multiple Ecosystem Services, Bonn

Contents

1.Changing Social values and Emerging ES-based Forest Policies in Japan

2. Vision of “Ecosystem Services Forestry(ESF)” as a Catalystfor Nature Based Solutions (NBS)

3. Emerging “Forest Service Industry (FSI)”/ ESF in Japan

4. Conclusion

Landscape in EchigotsumariPhoto byShibata

1.Changing Social values and Emerging ES-based Forest Policies in Japan

-Very Mountainous-High Forest Cover rate ( 67 %)(recovered from denuded situation in 1950’ by intensive planting)-High Plantation forest rate ( 40%, and half of them were converted from natural forests after 1960’s)-Concentration of population in metropolitan areas, and depopulation in rural towns-Disappearing Satoyama practice-Decreasing contacts of forests/Nature by urban residents/-Increasing/diversifying recreation demands

National Forest

Private Forest

-Basic Features of Japan’s Forest

-Disappearing Satoyama Practice(Miyoshi Town/Saitama Pref. nearTokyo)

• Recycling Agriculture (Combination of Houses, Farm lands and Woodlands/Utilization of fallen leaves for fertilization of Sweet Potato, Rich biodiversity: eg. Beetles) dates back to the Edo era (300 years ago).

• However, due to development pressure, woodland/farm land areas have been decreasing due to development pressure(woodland: 1952: 100→2003: 45, farm land: 1961:100→1997:84).

-Production Trends of Timber and Cultivated NWFP

9,8918,145 7,918

6,405 6,9655,326

2,739 2,169 2,055 2,183

4421,114 1,677

1,9432,396

2,331

1,9242,071 2,047 2,110

10,5529,394 9,717

8,485 9,5557,837

4,7504,319 4,363

94％ 87% 84%

81% 75％73％

68％

58％

50％49％

50％

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011

Others

Grown mushroom production

Wood production

Share of wood production (right axis)

（100 million yean） （%）1980

11,582

（Year）2015

4,166

Domestic supply rate rebounded to 33.2% in 2015, up from the bottom of 18.8% in 2002. Gov’t aims to increase this to 50% by year 2030. Gross forestry production is 436 billion yen (approx. 4.4 B USD, Wood: 2.2 B, Cultivated Mushroom: 2.1 B) (2015). Three rapidly evolving item: CLT/Biomass Power Plants/Cellulose Nano Fiber

[Source: Annual Report of Forest and Forestry, 2017]

✓ In 2015, the value ofgross forestry productionwas 436.3 billion yen,with 3 % decrease fromthe previous year. It hasa declining trend in along term since the peakin 1980.

✓ The volume of domesticroundwood productionbottomed out at 15.09million m3 in 2002 and ithas increased to 20.05million m3 in 2015.

-Changing Public Expectations of Forests: Survey Result of Three Most Expected Functions from Forest by the Public(Changes bet.1980-2015)[Source: Forestry Agency 2016]

Disaster Prevention

Mitigation of Global Warming

Water Resource

Timber

Wildlife Habitat

Education

Recreation

Amenity

NWFP

-Three Most Expected Functions from Forests of Tokyo (Survey conducted in 2017 targeting 500 Tokyo Metropolitan Policy Monitors)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

水質浄化・水資源

地球温暖化緩和

野生動植物の生息

山地災害防止

自然体験や環境学習

大気浄化

木材生産

その他

期待しない

東京都の森林に期待する機能・役割

出典：森づくりフォーラムシンポジウム資料.(平成２９年度第１回都政モニター「東京の森林・林業と水産業」調査結果の一部抜粋)（470名/５００名が回答）Q2. 東京の森林に期待する機能や役割を３つ回答)

Disaster Prevention

Water Resource

Mitigation of Global Warming

Wildlife Habitat

Nature Experience and Education

Purification of Air

Timber Production

Other

Do not expect any

-Estimated Economic Values of Selected Ecosystem Services (Conducted by Japan Academic Society in 2001) (Source: Annual Report of Forest and Forestry, 2017)

Functions (ES category) Services (*estimated monetary value, Yen)

Production (provisional) Timber, food, material

Biodiversity Conservation (supporting) Genetic/species/ecosystem conservation

Global Environmental Conservation (regulatory)

Mitigation of climate change, ⑥Sequestration of CO2 (124 B), ④Alternative of fossil fuel (226 B), stabilization of global climate

Disaster Prevention/Soil Conservation (regulatory)

①Prevention of surface erosion (2,827 B), Surface soil conservation (844 B), other disaster prevention, avalanche prevention, wind prevention, snow prevention

Watershed Conservation (regulatory) ③Flood mitigation (647 B), Water storage (874 B), regulation of waterquantity, ②Purification of water (1,464 B)

Amenity (regulatory) Climate mitigation, clean air, creating comfortable living environment

Recreation (cultural) Therapy, ⑤Recreation (225 B), leisure, sports

Culture (cultural) Landscape, education, art, religion, heritage, local diversity

-Brief History of PES-like Schemes in Japan

• 1786: Oldest PES case in Japan (Upstream Mizuno Village agreed to stop charcoal production with 25 downstream villages as a conflict resolution)

• 1900 (Meiji 33th): Inuyama Ward (Shiga Pref.) established upstream plantation area by lease contract of 100 year for flood protection/provision of water purposes (Timber Revenue share scheme at harvesting= 9:1).

• 1916: Yokohama City purchased upstream Doshi-village Watershed Forest

• After 1955 (Showa 30’s): Prefectural initiative in reforestation by establishment of forest public corporation; cost-share arrangement between upstream and downstream beneficiaries (Shiga, Kiso-3 Rivers, etc.).

• After 1970’s: A number of Watershed Funds/Partnerships emerged (mainly on metropolitan areas) Examples:

-1972：Kanagawa Pref. Vision to Create “Greens” (Vision of Establishment of Watershed Forest through Cost-sharing of downstream, proposed 2 Yen/1 m3)

-1978: Yahagi River Watershed Fund（20 municipalities of the watershed)(Aichi Pref.)

-1979: Tochigi Pref. Watershed Forest Establishment through the Fund

-1990: Kanagawa Pref. Forest Fund

-1991: Establishment of Yahagi Watershed Development and Exchange Organization (Aichi Pref.)

-1994: Toyota City Tap Water Conservation Fund (Aichi Pref.)

-1997: Kanagawa Pref. Watershed Forest Activities (Prefectural initiative)

-1997: Fukuoka City Watershed Fund (Fukuoka Pref.)

• 1984～1985: National Watershed Tax Proposal by Forestry Agency (1 Yen/1 m3 target tax proposed, but not materialized due to the government’s no tax increase policy )

• 1989: “Tree Planting Movement to Increase Fish” by Hokkaido Pref./Similar Fishermen’ Foresting Activities initiated in many places

• 2002: Ten Year Action Plan for Forest Carbon Sink

• 2003: First Forest Environmental Tax (Kochi Pref.) followed by other prefectures in later years /Increasing CSR Forest Management Activities by Private Companies and NPOs

・2007: Kanagawa Pref.: Citizen’s Conference For Watershed Forest Restoration

・2008: Kanagawa Pref.: Subsidy for Citizen proposed enterprises

・2009: Yokohama City: Green Tax

• 2011: Farmer Individual Compensation Scheme/Environmentally Friendly Agriculture Payment Scheme

• 2013: J-Credit Scheme

• 2018: Decision of Levying National-level Forest Environmental Transfer Tax/Forest Environmental Tax

• 2019: Forest Environmental Transfer Tax started.

• (2024: Actual Collection of Forest Environmental Tax plans to start)

-Prevailing Unmanaged, Unhealthy Plantations (2 photos left)

← Densely planted, but

without proper tending

Chamaecyparis Obutusa[MAFF website]

Well-Cared Plantation

Richer Mixed Natural Forest

- National Basic Plan on Forests and Forestry (revised in 2016) Foresee Increases of Multiple storied forests

1,379 1,339

101 160

1,029 1,009

195

218

0

50

100

150

200

250

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Mar.31,2012 Mar.31,2029

Single storied forests

Multiple storied forest

Natural forest

Growing stock in forest

per 1ha （right axis）

（m3/ha）（10,000 ha）

Source: Annual Report of Forest and Forestry, 2017

Ultimate State

-Prefectural Forest Environmental Tax

2003: 1 (Kochi)

2004: 1 (Okayama)

2005: 6 (Tottori, Shimane, Yamaguchi, Ehime, Kumamoto,

Kagoshima)

2006: 8 (Iwate, Fukushima, Shizuoka, Shiga, Hyogo, Nara, Oita,

Miyazaki)

2007: 7 (Yamagata, Toyama, Kanagawa, Ishikawa, Wakayama,

Hiroshima, Nagasaki)

2008: 6 (Akita, Ibaragi, Tochigi, Nagano, Fukuoka, Saga)

2009: 1 (Aichi)

2011: 1 (Miyagi)

2012 : 2 (Yamanashi, Gifu)

2016: (Kyoto, Osaka)

Since Kochi Pref.’s first adoption in 2003, 37

prefectures have established the similar tax to date.

Typically 500 -1,000 yen/year・person, to be

utilized for forest management activities.

Also, Yokohama City adopts the similar system in

2009.

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

20082009

Year adopted

-National-level Forest Environment Tax

• In 2018, The GOJ decided to impose National-level “Forest Environment Tax (provisionalname)”/ “Forest Environmental Transfer Tax (provisional name)” to collect 1,000 yen from allcitizens so that municipalities can conduct appropriate management of abandoned privateforest lands.

• According to Forestry Agency, (through the establishment of the taxes) all citizens can enjoy multiple functions of forests such as land conservation, watershed conservation, and mitigation of climate change among others. The new tax is established with the idea that all citizens should equally support Japan’s forest.

• According to the questionnaire survey conducted by the Forestry Agency, 80% of municipalities replied that their private forests are not properly managed, and it is estimated that 1/3 of private plantation forests are not properly managed and to be converted back to the natural forests.

• Tax revenue will be utilized targeting such areas to conduct proper management activities such as thinning or conversion to mixed forests, and also for forestry extension, educational activities and even wood utilization campaign (any activities related to forestry). These activities will be conducted by municipalities on behalf of forest owners. Estimated tax revenue amounts to be 62 billion yen/year.

2. Vision of Broader Ecosystem Services Forestry (ESF) as a Catalyst for Nature-Based Solutions (NBS)

-Changing Social Demands on Forests/Forester：From “Production/Logger” to “Provision of Multiple Ecosystem Services/Ecosystem (Services) Manager”

• Major Social Concern (After 20th

Century until mid 1980’):

Timber Famine

・Social Demand on Forester

= Timber Manager/Logger

・Prevailing Role ＝Logger “Provision of Timber and Other Values (Secondary)”

・Prevailing Attitude：Often times, Look at Trees, but do not look at

Forests (Wald) and People

・Major Social Concern (Current):

Nature Famine, Sustainability, SDGs, Nature-based Solutions

・Social Demand on Forester=Multifaceted Forester: Ecosystem (Services) Manager

・Required Role= “Conservator/Provider of Multiple Ecosystem Services (including Timber/Bioeconomy)”

・Required Attitude：Look at Trees, and also

Forests and People= Inclusive Collaboration with a Society which has diverse values

- A Fresh Terminology of Forest-related Broader ES-Based Enterprises needed?

Diverse ES on forests/ecosystem are increasingly demanded by the public,

and publicly appealing name to indicate broader forest-related ES-Based

Enterprises which pursue provision of various ES is needed, instead of

“Forestry”, which often sounds narrow logger or timber production.

Ecological Forestry ---Close-to Nature Forestry/Continuous Cover

Forestry---Holistic Forestry --

--Green Jobs ---Landscape Management

Rewilding --- Natural Capital-- Nature’s Services

-----Ecosystem Services Market--- Multifunctional Forestry ----

-Ecosystem Service Forestry

--- Ecosystem Services Enterprises

-Forest Service Industry

森林

林業

森林業

-Revenue Stream Development Potentials from Broad Forest-related Ecosystem Service/Values

出典：modifying 柴田. 2017

Env.Ed.BDC/W.HRec./TourLand.Con.T.B.FNWFPCar.Seq.Wat.ConDis.Mit

Magnitude of economic transaction

・Sustainable Community/Regional Development

・Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) for-Climate Change-Biodiversity Losses-Water Pollutions-Water Shortages-Disaster Risk-Depopulation-Loss of Nature Contacts/health Problems ………

MonocultureIntensive Plantation

Ecosystem-based, Less Intensive Managed Forest/LandscapeClose-To-Nature-Forestry/Continuous Cover/Ecosystem Management

-Comparison of Traditional Production Forestry (PF) and Ecosystem Services Forestry(ESF)

Objectives Targeting Resources

Constraints Managementsystem

Revenue Image Other Consideration

PF SustainableTimber/fiberProduction

Timber and fiber products

Non-timbervalues (legal, and certificationrequirement)

Often even-agedplantation of fast growing species

Timber (and some NWFP)

Timber factory

Inventory of timber resource and market survey of timber/fiber

ESF SustainableProvision of ES

All or Multiple ES

Trade-offconsideration of ES,minimum requirement of ES, sustainability of ecosystem

Often Continuous Cover Forestry (CCF), Richer/ Diverse Landscape, Intervention to enhance some ES beyond BAU (additionality)

Payment or credit for selected ES.Timber, NWFP

Provision of various ES, through integrated management

Intensive Inventory of ES, Market Survey of ES Demands, and CollaborativeManagement with stakeholders

Ecosystem Service Forestry (ESF)“A broader, innovative, and transformative forestry perspective/framework to sustainably achieve myriad ecosystem services as objectives rather than constraints, in addition to traditional timber.[Shibata.2017]”This is a holistic forestry to pursue diverse ES values sustainably and more than co-benefits or minimum requirement level by forest certification, etc. Accordingly, provide balanced set of values/services to the society, and also enhance revenue streams by actively pursuing revenue from selected ES[Shibata.2017].

-ESF as a catalyst for NBS: Ecosystem Services Forestry (ESF) →Realization of Broad ESs at the local level→ Solving Various Social Problems (Nature Based Solutions)+ Sustainable Regional Development

●Proposed Redefinition of Ecosystem Services Forestry (ESF)

・Holistic and sustainable investment/enterprise of forest environment so thatbroad ecosystem services values such as wild/biological products (including timber), recreation, water, carbon, soil, biodiversity, landscape beauty, etc are conserved. Revenues/payments are sought through marketing of new products and services, PES and other innovative trading mechanisms/institutions.

・Through the activities, broader bundles of ecosystem services will be realized and contribute sustainable region/local area/community development.

・They also provide Nature Based Solutions (NBS) to mitigate/solve various social and environmental problems such as Climate Change, Biodiversity Losses, Water Pollutions, Water Shortages, Disaster Risks, Depopulation, Loss of Nature Contacts/Health Problems.

Cf. Definition of Ecosystem Services Market : “One or more parties restoring or maintaining valuable ecosystems and the services that they deliver to society in exchange for financial compensation [Bennett et al. 2016]”

Timber

Wildlife Habitat

Timber

Water

Recreation Recreation

Water

Wildlife Habitat

Disaster Mitg.Disaster Mitg.

Carbon Seq.Carbon Seq

Env. EduEnv. Edu

LandscapeLandscape

Production Forestry Ecosystem Services Forestry (ESF)

柴田.2019.amend

A A

BB

NWFPNWFP

-Comparative image of bundles of services provided by Production Forestry vs Ecosystem Services Forestry(ESF)Based on lessons of 20th century forest management (US Committee of Scientists, 1998), We should never pursue to maximize a particular service; whether it is timber, carbon or whatever, since such an approach can never achieve sustainability.

Land Sharing Approach/Multifunctional ForestryLand Sparing Approach

AN

C

W

HR/E

T T

T

T

A

A

A

N

N

N

C

C

W

W

W

H

H

R/E

R/E

C

HR/E

Diverse Forms of ESF: Bundled/Stacked ES under different management system

By management action- enhance some ES value (additionality)- receive payment/market(T: Timber, A: Amenity, N: NWFP, C: Carbon, W: Water, H: Wildlife Habitat, R/E: Recreation/Eco-tourism)

I: Timber Production Forestry

II: Multiple-Use Forestry

III: ESF(Diverse forms)

Paid Service (Revenue)

Unpaid ServiceValue

Explore More Efficient and Balanced Set of Values/Services

[Shibata. 2017]

3. Emerging “Forest Service Industry (FSI)”/ESF in Japan

-What is ”Forest Services Industry (FSI)”?

• ”Forest Services Industry (FSI)”FSI is defined, proposed & currently studied by the Forestry Agency.According to the agency, it means new services industry to utilizeforest spaces for various human uses such as human Health, Tourismand Education.FSI is a similar concept of Ecosystem Services Forestry (ESF), butnarrower than ESF, because FSI mainly focus on cultural services, sonot much attention on Ecosystem Services Market or PES related toregulation services, or provisional services such as NWFPs .

• Examples: Forest therapy, forest bathing, forest kindergarten, forest adventure, satellite office/telework, “workation”

・

Timber

Wood Products

Forest Services Industry

Medical/Welfare

Tourism/Travel

Amusement

Education/Study Assistance

(Bioeconomy)

REF: Current industry market size (Yen): Timber production 200 Billion, Wood Products 2,700 Billion,

cf. Medical/Welfare 85,000 Billion, Tourism/Travel 21,000 Billion, Amusement 22,000 Billion, Education/Study Assistance 14,000 Billion

-Selected Image Photos of Forest Service Industry

Photos[木下.2018]

Photos[木下.2018]

-Example of Medical/Welfare –Forest bathing & Therapy• The term: forest bathing was invented by Forestry Agency in 1980’, and the

sterilization effects of phytoncide emitted by the plants were started to be recognized. Some medical doctors started research, jointly with foresters, on effects of forest bathing on physical and mental human health.

• After 1990’, new term: forest therapy started to be used, and draw attention of the wider public. NPO Forest Therapy Society started to certify forest therapy roads since 2006, and there are 63 certified ones as of today.

• For example, Shinano Town therapy enterprise’s total economic effects, added value effects, tax revenue effects were calculated as 309.72 M Yen, 159.37 M Yen, 2.82 M Yen respectively [Yokoyama et.al. 2018].

• Also, National Forest has promoted the visitation of their Recreational Forest. Recreational Forest System of national forest are categorized into Nature Leisure Forest(established since 1968), Nature Observation Educational Forest, Landscape Forest, Sports Forest, Outdoor Sports Area and Landscape Observation Forest, and there are 983 locations nationwide encompassing 370,000 ha, annual visitation number is over 120 M.

-Example of Bioeconomy (Case of ESF)-Wild NWFP (Tree Leaves)

• Irodori Company in Kamikatsu Town, Tokushima Pref. (Small isolated, mountainous town: population: 1662 (in 2015), aged population rate: 51%))

• Started Tree Leaves business in 1986, Town women collect and selling them for KaisekiDish, etc. Some old women earn more than 0.1 M yen/year.

• Current annual sales: 260 Million Yen [IrodoriCompany Website]

Source: KamikatsuTown Tourist Website

Photo: Kaiseki Dish by Shibata

-Example of Bioeconomy (Case of ESF)–Timber+Energy+NWFP+CarbonShimokawa Town/Hokkaido-Population: 3,383 (2016)(Aged population: 40%)-Area: 644 km2, Forest cover rate: 88%, Climate: Summer +30, Winter -30) -Designated as “Future Environment Town”(2011), A leading town pursuing sustainable development of forested areas (Key is Sustainable Development balancing three pillars and coping with aging society)-Key activities: 1. Forest-based economy, 2. Energy supply by forest biomass: currently 45%, aiming 100% in the future, 3. Establish model to revive community

All forests (private and public) are certified by FSC, forest residues are used for biomass energy, aiming sustainable society by establishing SDGs Shimokawaversion 2030, promoting partnerships with companies and other organizations.

- Gross Sales of Timber, etc.: 2.9 Billion yen /year (2016), (cf. 4.0 Billion in 1996)- Aroma oil (photo): 10 M yen/year(Voluntary) - Carbon credit: 10-20 M/year (jointly with neighboring 3 towns, credit earned for thinning of plantation

・Landscape Art Festival conducted utilizing rural landscapes comprised of forests and rice terrace fields as a campus.

・Echigotsumari, Niigata Pref.

- Landscape PES Example (Land art festival )

-Tourism/Recreation Example -Entrance Fees for Recreation/Guided Ecotours

• Total Annual Travel Expenditure by Japanese tourists approx. 20,000 Billion yen, foreign tourist 4,000 Billion yen (Foreign tourist demand expected to increase).

• Entrance Fee: This practice is yet not common, except at special places such as world heritage sites, etc. (Two Battling ground bet. Harvesting vs. Preservation in 1980’ became World Heritage Site of Nature: Shiretoko and Shiragami)

• For example, Mt. Fuji (World cultural heritage site) started collection of voluntary contribution fees (1,000 yen/person) recently. Also, Forest Union of Narusawa village collect entrance fee from recreational mushroom collectors.

Shiretoko World Natural Heritage Site has separated fee-based guided tour routes and free walkway (photo)

-Recreation/Tourism -Bioeconomy + Educational trail + Cottage management (Case of FSI/ESF)

• A forest owner close to Tokyo conducts holistic management of timber, fuelwood, and cabin by establishing a open educational trail in well managed forest.

-Recreation/Tourism Wild NWFPPicking (Foraging), Inherited local Tradition/Fee-based recreation rare • Wild Vegetables and Mushroom

Traditionally utilized locally, mostly for household

consumptions except for some valuable ones which are sold at local markets.

Recently, wild vegetable/mushroom picking also become a

Popular recreational activity, and some conflicts arise

between local population and urban recreationist. Urban

recreationists are generally not allowed to pick at local

commons. Some fee-based recreation attempts are initiated,

but still rare.

• Some forest owners obtain revenues of more than 0.1 M

USD/year by Matsutake mushroom, but prices/harvests

fluctuate annually.

Ostrich fern, Matteuccia struthiopteris (Kogomi)

Nameko Mushroom

REF: Treasure land of wild products: Yuzawa, Niigata Pref.Early Spring, upon snow melting

• Petasites japonicus（Fukinoto）

• Ostrich fern, Matteuccia struthiopteris (Kogomi)

• Akebia quinata (kinome)

• Aralia cordata(Udo)

• Smilax(Shiode)

Spring

• Bracken(Warabi)

• Osmunda japonica(Zenmai)

• Sasa kurilensis(Bamboo shoot)

Autumn

• Vitis coignetiae(Yamabudo)

• Actinidia polygama (matatabi)

• Chestnut (kuri)

• Various mushrooms Looking for Petasites japonicus（Fukinoto）

Aralia cordata(Udo)

Smilax(Shiode)

-Tourism/Recreation PES Example-Visitor Giving Scheme (VGS) Research Exp. in Yuzawa (2019-2022)

・Yuzawa/Niigata Pref. is located 70 minutes from Tokyo by a bullet train. Yuzawa has rich forests designated as national park, many ski resorts/condomiums and mountain climbing bases with hot springs, and many recreationists & tourists visits annually.・In 2019, Experiment started to encourage voluntary purchase of stickers by recreationist/tourists, and pooling the money as Nature Conservation Fund, to utilize various conservation measures including repairing trails, conservation of wildlife.・Payment can be designed so that people can pay by

using smartphone QR code.・Currently, summarizing 2019’s results and plan for coming years. In 2020, involvement of local companies (appointing them as ambassadors) planned. Also, introduction of ticket system of wild products such as bracken and bamboo shoots under consideration.

Distributed poster to Explain the activities andsmartphone QR code for voluntary contribution.

Contributors purchasebelow stickers for the minimum payment of 200 yen

-Substantial part of Japan’s monoculture based plantation area is politically planned to be converted to be more complex and diverse structured forests. Particularly, prevailing abandoned plantation areas are aimed to be converted back to the natural forests through recently introduced National Forest Environmental Tax (as well as the Prefectural-level tax) funds.-This is a good opportunity to seek sustainable Ecosystem Service based, less intensive, but much more diverse management such as Forest Service Industry/Ecosystem Services Forestry/Ecosystem Services Market/Businesses, to meet diverse social needs, in such forests and abandoned Satoyama landscapes.- As seen from the recent introduction of PES-like scheme (Forest Environmental Tax, entrance fees of national parks, etc.), citizens’ attitudes for the payment for the unpriced Ecosystem Services valuesare slowly changing.

4. Conclusion

Thank You For Your Kind Attention.