TEEB. Patrick ten Brink TEEB for Policy Makers Co-ordinator Senior Fellow and Head of Environmental Economics Programme

Transcription

1 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, January 2012

2 Presentation overview TEEB ambitions, process and outputs TEEB & IPBES

3 TEEB s Genesis, Aims and progress G8+5 Potsdam Potsdam Initiative Biological Diversity ) 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 Ecol./Env. Economics literature Interim Report Climate Issues Update TEEB end-user Reports TEEB Synthesis TEEB Books CBD COP11 Delhi National TEEBs Netherlands Nordics Norway Brazil India CBD COP 9 Bonn 2008 Input to UNFCCC 2009 Belgium 2009, UK 2010 India, Brazil, Belgium, Japan & South Africa 2010 BD COP 10 Nagoya Sectoral TEEB work Water NC for GE Case Studies 2010, Rio+20 Brazil

4 TEEB Architecture (Phase 1 and 2) Coordination group: Initiators / sponsors Vision + demand driven: growing country engagement Advisory Board Study Leader (Pavan Sukhdev) Scientific coordination (H. Wittmer, UFZ) 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 Deliverables End-user focus TEEB4me Comm s & Outreach Open Architecture, (aim for) global representation/relevance & contributions. Dynamic process: country engagement. Over 500 contributors, all continents

5 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, 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

6 Critical issues 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. 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.

7 Major challenge in ensuring sufficient data, understanding the data & interactions between elements to develop robust pictures of developments and implications. Source: Adapted from Braat and ten Brink et al (2008) From (policy) drivers to impacts to values Range of data and indicators (BD,ESS) Already useful and evolving range of tools Natural capital accounts Reporting / accounts e.g. SEEA

8 Building on Balmford and Rodriguez et al (2009) Scoping the Science Biodiversity (genes, species, ecosystems) & its value is about 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) Need investment into biodiversity indicators and mapping

9 Many ecosystem services from the same piece of land Benefits local to global Benefits are spatially dependent Benefits are time dependent and differ across stakeholder types 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)

10 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 Available information Press interest Policy needs The Evidence Base and Demand Quantitative / qualitative Monetary

11 TEEB for Policy Makers The Global Biodiversity Crisis Nature s assets & biodiversity loss Economic values and loss Social dimension Measuring what we manage Indicators Accounts (SEEA/Waves) Valuation Assessment 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) Transforming our approach to natural capital

12 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 CO 2 (0-4 alt. land use) Critical to assess where working with nature saves money for public (city, region, national), private sector, communities and citizens & who can make it happen Sources: various. Mainly in TEEB for National and International Policy Makers, TEEB for local and regional policy and TEEB cases

13 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

14 CBD COP 10 Nagoya: Strategic Plan 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. 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; Evidence on values of biodiversity can also support many other targets e.g. On sustainable fisheries, agriculture, forestry, sustainable use

15 EU Biodiversity Strategy DG Env Presentation at Investing in Peattlands Sterling Actions 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

16 Lessons from Evaluation Tools, their application and evolution, the use of results and road map for development Nature of result Experimental Indicative/illustrative Robust in part; not yet precise Robust and more precise Method and its application: robustness and use Experimental methods; useful to explore ways forward; help learning. Do not use the results for decision making; Valuable illustrative/indicative numbers to give order of magnitude results. Helps scale an issue and identify importance. Already useful for policy reflections. 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 method should lead to robust numbers, fine for publication, citation, without need for significant context. Ranges more precise (though still ranges) Over time Road Map More physical data Better monitoring (e.g. GIS) Better indicators & time series More valuation cases Method evolution Learning from others Now (2012) 2014 (Biodiversity strategy target) 2020 (BD strategy and CBD Strategic Plan target year) 2030

17 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

18 TEEB Implementation some post Nagoya steps TEEB Country & Regional Studies TEEB Brazil, TEEB India, TEEB NL, Nordics, Germany, Flanders, Norway..interest from many other countries and regions (e.g. Caucuses) Rio+20 CBD COP ,2020 targets TEEB Integration Support for business and biodiversity (indicators, valuation reporting) TEEB & Water & Wetlands, TEEB and GE. RAMSAR COP 2012 Initiatives building on TEEB recommendations World Bank et al WAVES initiative on National accounts SEEA 2012 CBD SP: 2020 Science / Economics evidence base Quantitative assessment, valuation, Green infrastructure etc. 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

19 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?

20 Part 2 TEEB ambitions, process and outputs TEEB & IPBES

21 TEEB, TEEB-like and IPBES TEEB Studies (Phase 3 +)?? 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 Initiatives building on / in same direction as TEEB recommendations? World Bank et al WAVES initiative on National accounts European Commission: Green Infrastructure IPBES 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

22 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

23 TEEB and IPBES: Linkage Options TEEB?? 1. Full integration : TEEB becomes a core thread of IPBES Other initiatives: WAVES et al IPBES Parallel track: Similar type work independent of TEEB? 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?

24 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 ).

25 Performance against criteria depend on final IPBES operationalisation architecture, actors, engagement, activities Too early to conclude definitively? 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?

26 TEEB identified needs: IPBES activities/products? 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 to give time for 2020 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 UNCCD links: thematic assessments on Land degradation, desertification, loss of services, impacts on poverty & MDGs, need for investment in natural capital. 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

27 IPBES: Linkage Options over time: Core IPBES, within coordination orbit and outside not a formal TEEB position: a straw man to build on? WAVES and SEEA National TEEBs & support for development Monetary evaluation Regional Assessments Partnership agreement? Thematic Assessments Thematic Assessments Thematic Assessments ESS value & accounting 2015? Monetary evaluation Core IPBES Climate adaptation & REDD+ assessments Partnership agreement? 2019? Global Assessment Land degradation & desertification assessments Monetary evaluation coordination orbit UNFCCC / UNCCD

28 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

29 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?

30 Thank you TEEB Reports available on See also Patrick ten Brink IEEP is an independent, not-for-profit institute dedicated to the analysis, understanding and promotion of policies for a sustainable environment. See also IEEP s award winning Manual of European Environmental Policy