Scene-setting presentation by Paul EKINS, Professor, UCL Institute for Sustainable Resources, University College London (UCL); Co-Chair, GGKP Expert Working Group on Natural Capital

1. Natural Capital Measurement: conceptual basis,
results and policy uses
Presentation to the 2020 OECD Green Growth and
Sustainable Development Forum
Professor Paul Ekins, Co-Chair, Natural Capital Working Group
Professor of Resources and Environmental Policy
University College London

2. Measuring nature’s contribution to economic
development: Towards a framework of indicators
for natural capital reporting (1)
Figure 1: Information Pyramid
Source: Fairbrass et al. (2020a), citing https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/ceea/meetings/UNCEEA-8-9.pdf

3. Measuring nature’s contribution to economic
development: Towards a framework of indicators
for natural capital reporting (2)
Next steps
• Bids into research programmes to make the framework operational
• Source: A. Fairbrass,
G. Mace, P. Ekins, B.
Milligan 2020 ‘The
Natural Capital
Indicator Framework
(NCIF) for improved
national natural
capital reporting’,
Ecosystem Services
(in press)

4. Natural
Capital and
the SDGs:
estimating
the ‘natural
capital gap’
(1)
Source: Markandya
2020

5. Natural
Capital and
the SDGs:
estimating
the ‘natural
capital gap’
(2)
Source:
Markandya 2020

6. Natural
Capital and
the SDGs:
estimating
the ‘natural
capital gap’
(3)
Source:
Markandya 2020

7. Use of Natural Capital Analysis in
Policy: Publications
A literature search identified 340 documents reporting on how natural capital
had contributed to decision-making
Source:
Fairbrass et
al. 2020c

8. Use of Natural Capital Analysis in
Policy: Findings
Source: Fairbrass et al. 2020c
• A natural capital approach has been applied in some way to decision making in 22
countries, most often in relation to ecosystems [117] and using natural capital
accounting [78]. However, only 2 papers actually reported on the policy impact of the
use of natural capital information in decision-making.
• Papers were classified according to:
• Type of government decision (policy and planning [22 papers], regulatory [6], related to finance and
investment [18], operational [7], technical [67])
• Type of natural capital metrics and data
• Type of natural stocks, flows and associated human activities
• Further criteria developed during Stanford Workshop
• Impact potential and impact pathway
• Involvement of stakeholders
• Scalability
• Strength of narrative and its communication

9. Use of Natural Capital Analysis in
Policy: Conclusions
• The impact of natural capital information on government
decision-making is currently profoundly under-reported, so that
there is an acute knowledge gap in relation to the specific
impact(s) of natural capital indicators on decision-making.
• The public evidence base is dominated by reports of
opportunities for impact, but there is much less evidence of
realised impact reported, and the specific administrative or policy
contexts in which impact is realised.

10. Lessons from the two evaluations
Porras et al., ‘Learning from 20 years of payments for ecosystem services in Costa Rica’.
(International Institute for Environment and Development, London, 2013).
Verutes et al., ‘Integrated planning that safeguards ecosystems and balances multiple
objectives in coastal Belize’. International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services
& Management 13(3), 1-17 (2017)
• The institutional, governance and cultural contexts are critically important
• It is difficult to assess the impacts of natural capital projects on particular ecosystem services
• Natural capital interventions (NCI) and evaluations are complex, time-consuming and expensive,
and involve intensive stakeholder participation
• Sustainable resource management is easier where ecosystem services demonstrably result in
increased financial returns
• The money values associated with non-market ecosystem services can be uncertain, and it is
difficult to associate them with specific beneficiaries, who therefore do not perceive them to be
strongly in their self-interest
• In contrast, the opportunity costs of environmental protection may fall on powerful interests who
will oppose them
• The financial resources needed for the investment are real money often coming from scarce
public resources. The complexities of NCI can make these difficult to justify.

11. POLICY QUESTIONS
• a. What are the main challenges in measuring natural capital and
ecosystem services on water and on land?
• d. How can we ensure that data on natural capital and ecosystem
services are used for evidence-based policymaking?
• a1: The complexities of ecosystem service delivery and the difficulties
and uncertainties in valuing them
• a2: The cost of measurement and winning stakeholder acceptance of
the results
• d1: Make sure that the data is collected for indicators that have
resonance in the policy process
• d2: Work with policy makers to understand the questions they want
answers to and ensure that the data and indicators are oriented
towards these

12. GGKP papers published
https://www.greengrowthknowledge.org/working-group/natural-capital
• Data
• Ross, A., Vause, J. and Leach, K. 2020 ‘Natural Capital Platforms and Tools for
Green Growth Planning’, WCMC, Cambridge
• Metrics
• Fairbrass, A., Mace, G., Ekins, P. and Milligan, B. 2020a ‘Measuring nature’s
contribution to economic development: Towards a framework of indicators for
national natural capital reporting’, University College London
• Markandya, A. 2020 ‘Natural Capital and the SDGs’, Basque Centre for Climate
Change, Leioa, Spain
• Policy
• Fairbrass, A., Ekins, P. and Milligan, B. 2020b ‘Recognizing Natural Capital in Policy
Frameworks for Green Growth’, University College London
• Fairbrass, A., Hua, J., Ekins, P. and Milligan, B. 2020c ‘Practical Policy Use Cases for
Natural Capital Information: A review of evidence for the policy relevance and
impact of natural capital information’, University College London

13. Thank You
www.greengrowthknowledge.org
Thank you
p.ekins@ucl.ac.uk