TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity)

& IPBES

Input from the environmental economics sciences

Patrick ten Brink TEEB for Policy Makers Co-ordinator

Senior Fellow and Head of Environmental Economics Programme

Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)

EPBRS

The thematic content of the first IPBES work programme University of Copenhagen, 16-18 January 2012

Presentation overview

TEEB ambitions, process and outputs

TEEB & IPBES

TEEB’s Genesis, Aims and progress

“Potsdam Initiative – Biological Diversity 2010”

1) The economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity

Importance of recognising, demonstrating & responding to values of nature

Engagement: ~500 authors, reviewers & cases from across the globe

Interim

Report

Belgium 2009, UK 2010

India, Brazil, Belgium,

Japan & South Africa 2010

TEEB

Synthesis

Climate

Issues Update

Ecol./Env. Economics literature

G8+5

Potsdam

TEEB end-user

Reports

CBD COP 9

Bonn 2008 Input to

UNFCCC 2009 BD COP 10

Nagoya

TEEB

Books

CBD COP11

Delhi

National

TEEBs Netherlands

Nordics

Norway

Brazil

India

…

Sectoral

TEEB

work

Water

NC for GE

Rio+20

Brazil

Case Studies

2010, 2011 +

TEEB Architecture (Phase 1 and 2)

Deliverables End-user focus

TEEB Coordinators P. Kumar, P. ten Brink, H. Wittmer, H. Gundimeda & J. Bishop & G. Langdale

Core teams: across wide range of organisations / expertise areas

Authors & Contributors: open architecture, invaluable contributions

Reviewers: important process re QA, engagement, buy-in

Study Leader (Pavan Sukhdev)

TEEB4me

Comm’s

& Outreach

Scientific coordination (H. Wittmer, UFZ)

Coordination group: Initiators / sponsors Vision + demand driven: growing country engagement

Open Architecture, (aim for) global representation/relevance & contributions. Dynamic process: country engagement. Over 500 contributors, all continents

Advisory Board

“I believe that the great part of miseries of mankind are brought upon them by false estimates they have made of the value of things.”

Benjamin Franklin, 1706-1790

Source: FAO 2005a: 7

Source: Nellemann et al 2008: 22

TEEB Built on the wealth of information on the state of the environment and projections already available from range of sources

The value of biodiversity and ecosystem services are not fully reflected in the

markets, in price signals, and policies

Decision making (at company, policy & citizen level) still too often fails to take into

account the local to global benefits, contributing to a loss of biodiversity and

ecosystem services.

Critical issues

Assessing ecosystem service benefits (and links to biodiversity and

ecosystem functions) and identifying who benefits from what natural capital

is critical for policy focus, interest and instrument choice, design and

implementation.

There is a growing recognition of the need to improve and invest political

capital in natural capital accounts and integrated environmental and

economic accounts. This is a seen as a ‘slow fuse’ investment, but one that

can lead to a paradigm shift in governance.

Sou

rce

: A

da

pte

d fro

m B

raa

t a

nd

te

n B

rink e

t a

l (2

00

8)

Range of data and indicators (BD,ESS)

Already useful and evolving range of tools

Major challenge in ensuring sufficient data, understanding the data & interactions between elements to develop robust pictures of developments and implications.

Reporting / accounts e.g. SEEA

Natural capital accounts

From (policy) drivers to impacts to values

Diversity/variety – e.g. pharmaceuticals, food security, biomimicry;

E.g. genetic resources: > than

Quantity – e.g. timber, carbon storage, fish stock, flood control, water retention

E.g. for fish production: > than

Quality – e.g landscape & tourism, ecosystems & water filtration, resilience

(to climate change, IAS)

Biodiversity (genes, species, ecosystems) & its value is about

Bu

ildin

g o

n B

alm

ford

an

d R

od

rig

ue

z

et a

l (2

00

9)

Sco

pin

g th

e S

cie

nce

Need investment into biodiversity indicators and mapping

Many ecosystem services from the same piece of land

Benefits local to global

Benefits are spatially dependent

TEEB built mainly on existing valuation studies; some new assessments (COPI, QA)

though not primary research in first phases), ongoing TEEBs offering helpful

advances here (e.g. TEEB NL)

Benefits are time dependent and differ across stakeholder types

Biodiversity ‘values’: What can you know; wish to know

The Benefits Pyramid

To get the full picture one needs

mix of monetary, quantitative,

spatial, and qualitative

information / understanding

Valuation tends to build on

physical assessment

The Evidence Base

and Demand

Monetary

Quantitative

/ qualitative

Available

information

Press

interest

Policy

needs

The Global Biodiversity Crisis • Nature’s assets & biodiversity loss

• Economic values and loss

• Social dimension

Transforming our approach to natural capital

Available Solutions • PES (e.g. water), PES: REDD+

• Markets, GPP

• Subsidy reform

• Legislation, liability, taxes & charges

• Protected Areas

• Investment in natural capital (restoration et al)

Measuring what we manage • Indicators

• Accounts (SEEA/Waves)

• Valuation

• Assessment

http://www.teebweb.org/

TEEB for Policy Makers

Evidence base - Assessing values and actions

Assessments can identify where ecosystems can provide goods and services at

lower cost than by man-made technological alternatives >> significant savings

• USA-NY: Catskills-Delaware watershed for NY: PES/working with nature saves money (~5US$bn)

• New Zealand: Te Papanui Park - water supply to hydropower, Dunedin city, farmers (~$136m)

• Mexico: PSAH to forest owners, aquifer recharge, water quality, deforestation, poverty (~US$303m)

• France & Belgium: Priv. Sector: Vittel (Mineral water) PES & Rochefort (Beer) PES for water quality

• Venezuela: PA helps avoid potential replacement costs of hydro dams (~US$90-$134m over 30yr)

• Vietnam restoring/investing in Mangroves - cheaper than dyke maintenance (~US$: 1m to 7m/yr)

• South Africa: WfW public PES to address IAS, avoids costs and provides jobs (~20,000; 52%♀)

• Germany : peatland restoration: avoidance cost of CO2 ~ 8 to 12 €/t CO2 (0-4 alt. land use)

Sources: various. Mainly in TEEB for National and International Policy Makers, TEEB for local and regional policy and TEEB cases

Critical to assess where working with nature saves money for public (city, region,

national), private sector, communities and citizens & who can make it happen

Beneficiaries:

Public sector (e.g. water – national & municipalities),

Public goods (e.g forests, biodiversity, climate),

Private sector (e.g. water, beer, energy, agriculture),

Citizens (e.g. water quantity, quality, price, security, health) and

Communities (e.g. payments, livelihoods/jobs, ecological assets & “GDP of the poor”)

Decisions: conservation / restoration investment, PES / public programmes, protected areas

Policy synergies: Water – availability/quantity, quality,

Climate - mitigation (green carbon) and (ecosystem based) adaptation to CC

Job creation and livelihoods

Security - natural hazards (e.g. flooding), water, energy

Finances - public sector budget savings (Nat. gov’t, public services, municipalities)

Industrial policy – energy, water, forestry, agriculture...

Consumer affordability

Poverty

Health and in each case : biodiversity.

TEEB implementation: understand beneficiaries, appreciate synergies – build on both

CBD COP 10 Nagoya: Strategic Plan 2011-20

5 strategic goals & 20 headline targets ….extracts…

Strategic goal A: Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming

biodiversity across government and society

Target 1:… people aware of the values of biodiversity …..

Target 2: …. biodiversity values have been integrated ….into strategies… planning … national accounting…. reporting systems.

Evidence on values of biodiversity can also support many other targets e.g. On sustainable fisheries, agriculture, forestry, sustainable use …

Strategic goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services

Target 14: … ecosystems that provide essential services…. restored and safeguarded

Target 15: … contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced…

Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization;

DG Env Presentation at

´‘Investing in Peattlands‘

Sterling 2011.

Actions

EU Biodiversity Strategy

Action 5: Improve Knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the EU. Member Sates,

with the assistance of the Commission, will map and assess the state of ecosystems and their

services in their national territory by 2014, assess the economic value of such services, and promote

the integration of these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national level by 2020

Lessons from Evaluation – Tools, their application and

evolution, the use of results and road map for development

Nature of result Method and its application: robustness and use

Experimental Experimental methods; useful to explore ways forward; help learning.

Do not use the results for decision making;

Indicative/illustrative Valuable illustrative/indicative numbers to give order of magnitude results.

Helps scale an issue and identify importance. Already useful for policy reflections.

Robust in part; not yet

precise

Fairly robust tools leading to Illustrative/indicative – useable with due caveats, Valuable

in impact assessment, with transparent presentation of limits and what the numbers

mean. Wide ranges

Robust and more

precise

Robust method – should lead to robust numbers, fine for publication, citation,

without need for significant context. Ranges more precise (though still ranges)

Now (2012) 2014 (Biodiversity strategy target)

2020

(BD strategy and CBD Strategic Plan target year)

2030

Over time

• More physical data

• Better monitoring (e.g. GIS)

• Better indicators & time

series

• More valuation cases

• Method evolution

• Learning from others

Road Map

Fit for purpose: what level of precision is needed?

EU Policy Making – if benefits an order of magnitude > costs (or vice

versa), then clear signal for need for policy action (or not). Precision less

critical in Impact Assessment (IA) - robust order of magnitude can suffice.

Instrument Design – eg PES, REDD+, ETS – greater precision needed

to get the design right (e.g. what level of payments, defining additionality &

conditionality) + confidence in instrument

In project and permit assessment – as precise an answer is needed

where possible, but whole picture also needed

In compliance checking (e.g. performance under PES/REDD) – as

precise an answer as possible is needed. Verifiability.

Fit for purpose: Policy needs & context defines the level of robustness and precision needed

Good governance only requires answers fit for purpose – proportionality principle

TEEB Implementation – some post Nagoya steps

TEEB Brazil, TEEB India, TEEB NL, Nordics, Germany, Flanders, Norway …..interest from many other countries and regions (e.g. Caucuses)

World Bank et al WAVES initiative on National accounts …

TEEB & Water & Wetlands, TEEB and GE ….

Rio+20

CBD COP11

SEEA 2012

CBD SP: 2020

Parallel track: Similar type work independent of TEEB

Many initiatives that focus on (responding to) the value of nature e.g. UK NEA, EU Natura 2000

Support for business and biodiversity (indicators, valuation reporting)

Quantitative assessment, valuation, Green infrastructure etc.

TEEB Country & Regional Studies

Initiatives building on TEEB recommendations

TEEB Integration

Science / Economics evidence base

RAMSAR

COP 2012

2014,2020 targets

Part 1: Summary TEEB

Knowledge synthesis/generation – helping Making Natures Values

Visible: improved evidence base for improved governance, awareness for action – government (all levels), business, people

Assessment: do assessments, show how they provide improved evidence,

offer method insights, and encourage move towards a culture of assessment

Capacity Building: policy makers, local/regional decisions makers, business, cities, citizens

Policy support tools: Insights, cases on valuation on decision making on

policy tools, methods recommendations re assessment, policy action

Mutual learning / mutual encouragement: TEEB initiatives, process,

links, and learning by doing.

Communication /outreach proved critical

Common ambitions to IPBES….. Links to IPBES?

Part 2

TEEB ambitions, process and outputs

TEEB & IPBES

TEEB, TEEB-like and IPBES

TEEB Country Studies: TEEB Brazil, India, NL, Nordics, Norway, Germany..+ other countries

TEEB outreach/capacity building: DGENV/UNDP, Defra TEEB follow on, DGENV, D…

TEEB issues papers/reports: NC for Green Economy, TEEB Water & Wetlands? + others?

TEEB for business initiative

World Bank et al WAVES initiative on National accounts …

European Commission: Green Infrastructure

Parallel track: Similar type work independent of TEEB

Many initiatives that focus on (responding to) the value of nature e.g. UK NEA, Natura 2000

TEEB Studies (Phase 3 +)

Initiatives „building on“ / in same direction as TEEB recommendations

?

IPBES

?

?

TEEB & IPBES : commonalities

Knowledge synthesis/generation: on ecosystem services, their relation to biodiversity, and the benefits to society/economy and their value

Assessment: Encouragement of bottom up action within wider global context

Capacity Building: / Mutual learning / mutual encouragement: TEEB initiatives, process, links, and learning by doing

Policy support tools and recommendations: assessment tools and recommendations at global to local to business to community and citizen level (depending on the level of assessment)

Ambitions: beyond conservation only – not just halting BD loss, but also aims for promoting ecosystem services (that help with water security, food security, poverty/development, climate mitigation/adaptation etc.)

Aiming for mainstreaming: beyond biodiversity community only

Engagement of wide set of stakeholders and use of interdisciplinary teams

TEEB and IPBES: Linkage Options

Parallel track: Similar type work independent of TEEB

TEEB

Other initiatives: WAVES et al

?

IPBES

?

?

1. Full integration : TEEB becomes a

core thread of IPBES

2. Light integration: TEEB given a formal role / place in the structure, but many bottom up initiatives ‘outside’, some guidance by IPBES re priority areas

3. Independence & co-ordination: Regular points to feed in assessments, lessons/learning et al

4. Evolving engagement: integration over time: 3 > 2 > 1?

over time as evolution makes sense

So which is best? Criteria for the choice ?

Potential TEEB-IPBES - what criteria can help discuss what may be best / offer greatest added value?

Meeting needs & objectives: CBD Strategic Plan targets, EU Biodiversity

Strategy, local to national to global needs, public goods, private interests? Halt BD loss, safeguard/promote ESS in BD area + integration (UNFCCC, UNCCD and wider).

Legitimacy & credibility: global, formal, ability to engage stakeholders

Effectiveness and efficiency: Motivation for action: new assessments

Obtain synergies and avoid duplication

Access to information/knowledge – inc. bottom-up re nat. assessments

Level of mutual learning

Flexibility, speed/responsiveness, momentum

Good governance: structure, principles, procedures, stakeholder roles et al

Engagement/buy-in/ownership: Leadership, brand image, credibility,

participation of experts, independence (avoiding ‘capture’ ).

Performance against criteria depend on final IPBES operationalisation – architecture, actors, engagement, activities

Clear rationale for cooperation, Many arguments for integration. But what level, for what elements, over what timescale? What TEEB-like issues could/should IPBES usefully do?

Too early to conclude definitively?

TEEB identified needs: IPBES activities/products ?

UNFCCC links: thematic assessments on

• Ecosystem based adaptation to climate change: major need to clarify areas,

cost savings, ESS benefits and wider community benefits

• REDD+ Mapping/Assessment of wider ESS and community benefits/losses

Wider Sector integration studies/assessments

• Financial services: insurance, rating agencies, ethical investment funds; assessment, capacity building re risk assessment, management tools etc.

• Water: ecosystem based clean water provision, water stress, health, crops, savings

• Agriculture & pollination: specific thematic assessment. Food security, sector resilience

UNCCD links: thematic assessments on

• Land degradation, desertification, loss of services, impacts on poverty & MDGs,

need for investment in natural capital.

CBD links: thematic assessments on

• Fisheries and marine environment: resource efficiency, ESS, community

impacts, limits of substitution.

• Coral reefs: Critical natural capital at threat: BD, services, communities

• Assessment/evaluation of how ESS values assessed and taken into account

- in different socio-economic contexts. E.g. 2015 to give time for 2020

IPBES: Linkage Options over time: Core IPBES, within “coordination orbit” and outside not a formal TEEB position: a “straw man” to build on?

Core IPBES

Monetary evaluation

Monetary evaluation

Thematic Assessments

UNFCCC / UNCCD

Climate adaptation &

REDD+ assessments

National TEEBs & support for development

Regional Assessments

Partnership agreement ?

Partnership agreement ?

Thematic Assessments Thematic

Assessments

2019? Global Assessment

Land degradation & desertification assessments

WAVES and SEEA

ESS value & accounting 2015?

Monetary evaluation

‘coordination

orbit’

Part 2: Summary TEEB & IPBES

Similar Ambitions, many similar foci, compatible products

TEEB: dynamic, flexible demand driven process, open architecture,

contribution to policy processes; useful brand value. But despite efforts still seen as European by many; changing slowly (e.g. via TEEB India, Brazil).

IPBES: major benefit re global legitimacy, long term viability, buy-in, global

governance, facility to make links to other processes, long term value added

Move to integrate many aspects of TEEB into IPBES makes sense: but monetary valuation side might be phased in later?

Some TEEB elements remain outside: Eg support for national TEEB

initiatives - though links for outputs and tools and mutual learning

Exploring further the partnership / collaboration modalities: discuss with TEEB Co-ordination Group meetings

Questions for the future

Q1: What do you see as on-going needs for assessing the value of

biodiversity and ecosystem services (mix of quantitative value and monetary

value)

Q2: How much should / will IPBES do on (monetary) values?

Q3: What would be the pros and cons of different types of TEEB-IPBES

linkage?

Q4: Any useful lessons from TEEB architecture & process for IPBES ?

Thank you

TEEB Reports available on http://www.teebweb.org/

See also www.teeb4me.com

Patrick ten Brink

ptenbrink@ieep.eu

IEEP is an independent, not-for-profit institute dedicated to the analysis, understanding and promotion of

policies for a sustainable environment. www.ieep.eu

See also IEEP’s award winning Manual of European Environmental Policy

http://www.ieep.eu/the-manual/introduction/ http://www.europeanenvironmentalpolicy.eu/