• Like
Patrick ten Brink of IEEP TEEB Natura 2000 and Nature & Green Economy EP 3 Dec 2012 final
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Patrick ten Brink of IEEP TEEB Natura 2000 and Nature & Green Economy EP 3 Dec 2012 final

  • 309 views
Published

Patrick ten Brink of IEEP TEEB Natura 2000 and Nature & Green Economy EP 3 Dec 2012 final

Patrick ten Brink of IEEP TEEB Natura 2000 and Nature & Green Economy EP 3 Dec 2012 final

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
309
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: EU nature conservation & Nature and the Green Economy Patrick ten Brink Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) Public Hearing Protected areas and green employment Monday 3.12.12, 14.00-17.00 European Parliament, room PHS 6B054, Brussels
  • 2. Presentation overviewPart A: Mainstreaming the Economics of Naturea) TEEB for Policy Makers and the EUb) Benefits of Natura 2000Part B: Nature and the green economyc) Nature and GE
  • 3. “I believe that the great part of miseries of mankind arebrought upon them by false estimates they have made of the value of things.” Benjamin Franklin, 1706-1790
  • 4. Biodiversity loss Species extinction ~ 100 to 1,000 times more rapid than “natural” extinction rate (MA 2005) Since 1900, global loss ~ 50%of its wetlands. [2]. Coral Reefs ~ 20% of the world’s coral reefs loss -effectively destroyed by fishing, pollution, disease and coralbleaching~ 24% of remaining reefs under imminentrisk of collapse through human Source: Nellemann et al 2008: 22pressures.[3] [2] http://www.ramsar.org/about/about_wetland_loss.htm [3] Wilkinson C., 2004: Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004 report
  • 5. Forests Global Forest Area has shrunk by approximately 40% since 1700. Forests have completely disappeared in 25 countries [1]. Mangroves  In the past two decades, 35% of mangroves have disappeared.  Some countries have lost up to 80% through conversion for aquaculture, overexploitation and storms.[4] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/World_map_mangrove_distribution.png[1] United Nations FAO, 2001.Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000; United Nations Forest and Agriculture Organisation, 2006 Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005[4] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Global Assessment Report 1: Current State & Trends Assessment. Island Press, Washington DC. Detail: Chapter 19 Coastal Systems. Coordinatinglead authors: Tundi Agardy and Jacqueline Alder. Original reference: 35%: Valiela et al. 2001; 80% reference: Spalding et al. 1997
  • 6. Fisheries Worlds Fisheries : overexploited 40 % $50 bn/yr lost econ. value, over exploitation (World Bank 2008) 40 % Collapse of fisheries: loss of 20 % livelihoods 2010 Source: Sea Around Us projectLake Karla, Greece: 1300fishermen lost their jobs due to thedegradation of the former LakeKarla in Greece and impacts oncommercial fisheries. (Zalidis andGerakis, 1999) Source: FAO 2005a: 7
  • 7. Ecosystem services Provisioning services Food, fibre and fuel Water provision Genetic resources Regulating Services Climate /climate change regulation Water and waste purification Air purification Erosion control Biological control Cultural Services Aesthetics, landscape, recreation & tourism Cultural values and inspirational services Supporting Services: Soil formation & fertility, photosynthesis, nutrient cycle et al
  • 8. TEEB’s Genesis and Developments TEEB End User Nature & Green Economy Reports Brussels TEEB Water & Wetlands Interim Climate TEEB Oceans 2009, London 2010 Report Issues Update TEEB TEEB Synthesis BooksEcol./Env.Economics CBD COP 9 Input toliterature Bonn 2008 UNFCCC 2009 India, Brazil, Belgium, Japan & South Africa TEEB studies Sept. 2010 The Netherlands, Germany, Nordics, BD COP 10 Norway, India, Brazil, Nagoya, Oct 2010 South-East Asia
  • 9. TEEB for Policy Makers The Global Biodiversity Crisis Measuring what we manage 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 http://www.teebweb.org/
  • 10. Biodiversity (genes, species, ecosystems) & its value is aboutDiversity/variety – e.g. pharmaceuticals, food security, biomimicry; Building on Balmford and Rodriguez et al (2009) Scoping the ScienceE.g. genetic resources: > thanQuantity – e.g. timber, carbon storage, fish stock, flood control, water retentionE.g. for fish production: > thanQuality – e.g landscape & tourism, ecosystems & water filtration, resilience(to climate change, IAS)
  • 11. Values of Working with Nature – evidence base• Germany : peatland restoration: avoidance cost of CO2 ~ 8 to 12 €/t CO2 (0-4 alt. land use)• USA-NY: Catskills-Delaware watershed for NY: PES/working with nature saves money (~5US$bn)• 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-$134m over 30yr)• South Africa: WfW public PES to address IAS, avoids costs and provides jobs (~20,000; 52%♀) Range of policy synergies of Biodiversity: with Water security, climate change, jobs, health, public and private finance Sources: various. Mainly in TEEB for National and International Policy Makers, TEEB for local and regional policy and TEEB cases
  • 12. JobsEU: 14.6 million jobs (7% employment) highly dependent on ecosystem services(Nunes et al, 2011)USA: Nature-based recreation. Wildlife-related recreational activities ~ US$ 122 billion– just under 1% of GDP in 2006 (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2007).New Zealand’s South Island (West Coast Region)- additional 1,814 jobs (15% of total jobs in2004) and extra spending US$ 221m/yr (10% of total spending), mainly from tourismrelated to conservation lands (Butcher Partners 2004).Black Sea and job losses: invasion by a non native comb jellyfish in late 1980s led tocollapse of the fishing industry with a loss of 150,000 jobs. (Lubschenco, 1997)
  • 13. CBD COP 10 Nagoya: Strategic Plan 2011-20 5 strategic goals & 20 headline targets ….extracts…Target 1: “… people aware of the values of biodiversity …..”Target 2: “…. biodiversity values have been integrated ….into strategies… planning … national accounting…. reporting systems.”……Target 11: “By 2020, at least 17% cover of terrestrial and inland water and 10% coastal and marine areas …. are conserved through effectively and equitably managed... systems of protected areas”
  • 14. Protected Areas - “crown jewels” of biodiversityCurrent status: ~12.9% terrestrial; 6.3% territorial seas, <1% openseas (IUCN and UNEP-WCMC 2010)Intrinsic valueAlso: food securityWater security (supply & quality)Climate mitigation & adaptation,Knowledge,CultureRecreation and tourism Dudley and Stolton, 2010And other ecosystem services
  • 15. Investment in natural infrastructureEcological (green) infrastructure is key for adaptation to climate change• Afforestation: carbon store+ reduced risk of soil erosion & landslides• Wetlands and forests and reduced risk of flooding impacts• Restore Forests, lakes and wetlands to address water scarcity• PAs & connectivity to facilitate resilience of ecosystems and speciesCan help adapt to climate change at lower cost than man-made technological solutionsAdaptation to climate change will receive hundreds of US$ billions in coming years/decades. Critically important that this be cost-effective.Support for identifying where natural capital solutions are appropriate & mobilise resources
  • 16. Eroding Natural Capital Base & Tools for an Alternative Development Path, Towards a Green Economy Alternative natural capital development path: Meeting biodiversity objectives, investing in natural capital Past loss/ degradation No net loss from current levels Investment in Instruments & measures – illustrative Halting biodiversity loss natural capital; Restoration & offsets; Trading and new markets; PES, REDD, ABS; Charges, taxes, fines, fees, liability, subsidy reform; Sustainable production and consumption, Slowing markets, certification/logos, innovation & GPP; biodiversity loss Better regulation, assessment, accounting, integration, monitoring, enforcement; Protected areas; Regulation & Baseline: Future loss of biodiversity, natural capital standards. (schematic) – with no additional policy action Today 2020 2050 Need multi-level governance & engagement (government, business, communities, citizens) & integration.Source: Patrick ten Brink, own representation
  • 17. Part A: SummaryMainstream the economics of nature – …is this enough to work out what to do? Making Nature’s Values Visible: across sectors, across policies, seek synergies across disciplines.Protected areas: biodiversity riches that can also offer value for money, recreation and cultural identity, tourism.Ecological infrastructure and benefits: climate change (mitigation/adaptation), air pollution & health et alChanging the incentives: payments, taxes, charges, …always better to look at subsidy reform, markets the whole board And engage the full set of players
  • 18. Part A:Mainstreaming theEconomics of NatureBenefits of Natura 2000
  • 19. Natura 2000 Birds Directive 2009/147/EC in 1979 Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC in 1992. 26,000 sites ~ 18 % of EU Terrestrial SCIs/SACs: ~ 59 million ha, Terrestrial SPAs: ~ 49 million ha (Natura 2000 Barometer, 2010). Marine protected area (MPA) network – ~14.5 million ha2
  • 20. Natura 2000 Conservation Status Remaining ChallengeFunding a challengeCosts ~ 5.8 bnEUR/yrSource: Gantioler et al 2010But also benefits
  • 21. Illustrative schematic for analysing the value of PAsBENEFITS Before First year after A decade in… designation as designation as protected area protected area Management and investment Risk of degradation without PA measures Ecological services that would have remained without protected area TIME Opportunity Costs Cost of management, COSTSSource: Patrick ten Brink, own representation in TEEB 2011
  • 22. Natura 2000 : An first Economic Assessment Benefit Numbers ~ €200 - 300 bn/yearNatura 2000 network Building on 3 estimates (different assumptions): total benefits €223 – 314 bn /yr (a) €251 – 360 bn /yr (b) €189 – 308 bn /yr (c) Current Stock: €600 bn - €1130 bnCarbon sequestration Annual Sequestration Benefits: / storage €79-88 bn increase to 2020 if ecosystem quality is improved; €82-92 bn to 2020 if a 10% increase: forest area. Source: ten Brink et al 2010 ~€ 50-85 billion /year for 1.7 billion visitor days (~466,000Tourism expenditures visitors/day average) ~€ 9-20 billion/year directly for Natura 2000 Recreation ~€ 5-9 billion/year for Natura 2000 (4 € / visit ) (non market benefits)
  • 23. Natura 2000 Benefits: jobs Spain: The implementation of Natura 2000 network > positive impacts on GDP (0.1 - 0.26 per cent at national level). Network estimated to generate an additional 12,792 jobs. Andalucía, Aragon and the Canarias islands - benefit most from Natura 2000: 0.26 - 0.44 per cent increase in their GDP and between 1346 - 5957 additional jobs created. (Fernandez et al 2008 in Gantioler et al 2010) Germany: national park Wattenmeer in Germany is responsible of around 23 per cent of total tourists in the region, with associated gross economic income of over €100 million in 2003 (Neidlein and Walser, 2005) Finland: The Total annual revenue linked with the visitor spending in national parks was €70.1 million and supported local employment by creating 893 person-years. In general, it was estimated that €1 public investment to protected areas provided €20 return. (Metsahallitus, 2009).
  • 24. Natura 2000 Benefits: interpreting the results • A first estimate • Methodological issues • Impossible to attribute EU wide numbers to all services – eg water, pollination, natural hazards, HNV farming…. • Whole picture of benefits is needed • For robust value focus at site level assessments • EU wide assessment to communicate the benefits beyond intrinsic values • Useful to attract funding, encourage restoration, wise use & management
  • 25. Part B: Nature and the greeneconomyChallenges• Feeding the 9 billion; Water; Poverty alleviation, Urbanisation, Jobs, Climate change, Financial crisis etc• The rising level of consumption and production will put increasing stress on the planet’s resources and ecosystems – limits, scarcity, price volatility, critical (ecological and social) thresholds...
  • 26. Nature and the Transition to a Green Economy• Need for a transition towards a “green” economy that promotes social equity, poverty eradication and human well-being.• Increasing appreciation of biodiversity and ecosystem services and the value of nature.• Healthy and resilient ecosystems are necessary for long-term socio-economic development• Efforts to build a green economy should be based on an appreciation of the values of nature.
  • 27. The Greening EconomyEnvironment / Nature Society The Economy Domestic Natural Capital Economic Sectors Exports (examples) Minerals, Energy € - Agriculture, hunting, forestry & fishing - Oil and Gas; Mining & quarrying Water, Land € - Wood and wood products Public Products & Services - Food products, beverages & tobacco € Timber, Fish, Ag € Sector - Pulp, paper & paper products Other Biodiversity - Research & development Outputs: € - Hotels & restaurants (genes, species, - Chemicals - Pharmaceuticals ecosystems) Ecosystem service flows - Recycling - Manufacturing - Electricity - Water supply - Education - Finance & insurance Private € € Imported natural Sector Outputs from one sector can be capital Timber, Human & intermediate inputs to another Food , Primary materials Social Capital € € & Inputs: embedded labour, skills, Man-made capital Waste / House- Biodiversity, knowledge, (inc. financial capital) pollution Water, holds Carbon institutions, in products culture Social impact Natural Impacts on environment capitalSource: ten Brink, Russi and Mazza, 2012 building on ten Brink et al. 2011
  • 28. The Transition to a Green Economy Current Situation Building Blocks in the Ambitions for the Future Transition to a Green Economy A Green Economy Declining Sustainability in a Brown Economy Improved human well-being and Business-as-Usual social equity, while significantly Approaches reducing environmental risks and Resource over-exploitation & pollution pressures Avoiding Unsustainable Trade- ecological scarcities offs Climate Change + Staying within a ‘safe operating Environmental compliance & space’: using resources within the Biodiversity and natural infrastructure planet’s regenerative capacities & Good governance Good Governance capital loss avoiding critical ecological + thresholds Critical ecological and Active environmental resource thresholds passed management No net loss of biodiversity and or at risk climate change within ‘acceptable’ Active Risk Management limits Resource scarcity and limited + access to a clean Proactive Investment in Natural Sustainability for future environment Capital generations and business: available natural capital and a + clean environment Health impacts and man- made natural disasters Pursuing environmental sustainability Health and livelihoods for citizens An economy that is not Eco-efficiency and communities resource efficient, low carbon + An economy decoupled from and socially inclusive Decoupling via Radical environmental impacts andSource: Patrick ten Brink & Leonardo Innovation & Demand change resource useMazza, own representation
  • 29. Building Blocks in the Transition to a Green Economy Examples of actions Business-as-Usual Approaches A: Assessment to understand winners/losers, impacts & A. Avoiding Unsustainable responses Trade-offs + B: Investment in water and waste infrastructures B. Environmental compliance & infrastructure + GovernanceG. Good Active environmental C: Flood risk mapping, taxonomy & pathways for IAS management C. Active Risk Management D: Restoration of ecological infrastructure & Conservation, + protected area management D. Proactive Investment in Natural Capital + Pursuing environmental E: EHS reform, positive incentives, polluter pays sustainability E. Eco-efficiency F: R&D for new products/applications + Information / + engagement for demand changes F. Decoupling via Radical Innovation & Demand change G: Indicators and Environmental accounts
  • 30. Conclusions 1. Nature provides a wide range of benefits and values to society and the economy. 2. A green economy aims to incorporate these values into decision-making across all levels of governance. 3. There are major opportunities to be realised and also trade-offs. Transition management is critical for success. 4. Protected areas are a key element of the transition to a green economy.
  • 31. Additional information sourcesThe Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) in National and International Policy Making (ed.Patrick ten Brink) www.teebweb.org or via www.ieep.euEstimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network (ten Brinket al 2011) http://www.ieep.eu/publications/2012/06/estimating-the-overall-economic-value-of-the-benefits-provided-by-the-natura-2000-networkCosts and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network (Gantioler et al 2010)http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdfGreen Infrastructure options (Mazza et al, 2010))http://www.ieep.eu/assets/898/Green_Infrastructure_Implementation_and_Efficiency.pdfNature in the Transition to a Green Economy (ten Brink et al 2012)http://www.ieep.eu/newsletter/summer-2012/nature-in-the-transition-to-a-green-economy/The Social Dimension of Biodiversity Policy: Final Report (Nunes et al 2011)http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/biodiversity/pdf/Social%20Dimension%20of%20Biodiversity.pdfRecognising the value of protected areas (Kettunen et al 2011) www.cbd.int/database/attachment/?id=1408The Social and Economic Benefits of Protected Areas: an Assessment Guide (Kettunen and ten Brinkeds 2013 forthcoming) http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415632843/
  • 32. Thank you for your attention ! Patrick ten Brink ptenbrink@ieep.eu IEEP is an independent not for profit institute dedicated to advancing an environmentally sustainable Europe through policy analysis, development and dissemination. For further information see: http://www.ieep.eu Follow us on twitter: IEEP_EUFor more information about IEEP’s work on Nature and the Green Economy visit www.ieep.eu and for TEEB also www.teebweb.org
  • 33. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)• IEEP is an independent research organisation concerned with policies affecting the environment in Europe and beyond • Research and consultancy on the development, implementation and evaluation of environmental and environment-related policies in Europe • Policy advise and intelligence • Capacity-building• Interdisciplinary staff including natural and social scientists, lawyers and economists• Key research areas: • Governance • Agriculture and land management • Biodiversity • Climate change and energy • Resources use, waste and chemicals • Water, marine and fisheries; and • Environmental Economics (green economy, value of nature, EHS/MBI et al,)