PtB of IEEP TEEB Nagoya results SP and ABS


Published on

Presentation by Patrick ten Brink of IEEP on CBD COP10 Nagoya results - the Strategic Plan and Access and Benefits Sharing (ABS) and TEEB contrext

1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

PtB of IEEP TEEB Nagoya results SP and ABS

  1. 1. Environmental Policy Forum:Global and European Biodiversity Policy after Nagoya: Achievements and Challenges Patrick ten Brink TEEB for Policy Makers Co-ordinator Head of Brussels Office Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) 25 January 2011, 12-14h Time: 16.30 – 18.00 Room 211A, Level 1, Building 2 Nagoya, Japan 1
  2. 2. Presentation overview Short Context: TEEB for Nagoya Achievements in Nagoya • Strategic Plan • Financing • Access and Benefits Sharing Making progress happen
  3. 3. TEEB origins Source: Bishop (2010) Presentation at BIOECON
  4. 4. TEEB’s Genesis and progress “Potsdam Initiative – Biological Diversity 2010” 1) The economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity Sweden Sept. 2009 Brussels 13 Nov 2009TEEB Interim London India, Brazil, Belgium,Report @ CBD COP- July 2009 Japan % South Africa9, Bonn, May 2008 Sept. 2010
  5. 5. Presentation overviewThe Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Policy Making The Global Biodiversity Crisis Measuring what we manage • Ecosystem service indicators • Accounts • Valuation and assessment Available Solutions • Rewarding benefits: PES, REDD+, fiscal transfers, Access and Benefits Sharing (ABS), markets, GPP et al • Subsidy reform • Addressing losses : Regulation legislation, liability, taxes & charges, offsets, banking • Protected Areas • Investment in natural capital Responding to the value of nature
  6. 6. Valuation and policy making: from valuing natural assets to decisions“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
  7. 7. Ecosystem Services and awareness of valuesProvisioning services Market values – known and generally taken into account in• Food, fibre and fuel decision making on land use decisions• Water provision ESS generally unpriced, often taken for granted, until service is lost`• Genetic resources ESS generally overlooked; some private sector exceptions; access payments & sharing of benefits rare / not providing incentives for conservationRegulating Services• Climate /climate change regulation Value long ignored, now being understood >> new instruments (e.g. PES), markets, investments• Water and waste purification• Air purification Value often appreciated only after service is• Erosion control degraded or gone > replacement, substitute costs• Natural hazards mitigation (e.g. Flood control) Value often appreciated only after service gone,• Pollination output lost and damage costs incurred• Biological controlCultural Services• Aesthetics, Landscape value, recreation and Sometimes value explicit / implicit in markets tourism (e.g. tourism spend / house prices)• Cultural values and inspirational services Values generally rarely calculatedSupporting Services - e.g. soil formationHabitat Services - e.g. nurseries The benefits to our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing have generally not been taken into account. There is, however, now+ Resilience - e.g. to climate change a new awareness of the value of ecosystem services and a growing use of instruments to reward benefits.
  8. 8. Valuation and policy making: from valuing natural assets to decisions“There is a renaissance underway, in which people are waking up to the tremendous values of natural capital and devisingingenious ways of incorporating these values into major resource decisions.” Gretchen Daily, Stanford University
  9. 9. The Evidence base on the value of natureAssessing the value of working with natural capital has helped determine whereecosystems can provide goods and services at lower cost than by man-madetechnological alternatives and where they can lead to significant savings• USA-NY: Catskills-Delaware watershed: PES/working with nature saves money (~5US$bn)• New Zealand: Te Papanui Park - water supply to hydro, Dunedin city, farmers (~$136m)• Mexico: PSAH to forest owners, aquifer recharge, water quality, deforestation, poverty (~US$303m)• France & Belgium: Vittel (Mineral water) PES and Rochefort (Beer) PES for water quality• Belgium: dikes + floodplains vs. storm surge barrier et al: 14 vs. 41 year payback•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%♀)• Germany : peatland restoration: avoidance cost of CO2 ~ 8 to 12 €/t CO2 (0-4 alt. land use) TEEB communicating the evidence base on the value of nature – aim to encourage action by taking the value of nature into accountSources: various. Mainly TEEB in National and International Policy Making 2011, TEEB for local and regional policy and TEEB cases
  10. 10. Presentation overview Short Context: TEEB for Nagoya Achievements in Nagoya • Strategic Plan • Financing • Access and Benefits Sharing Making progress happen
  11. 11. Presentation overviewAchievements in NagoyaAn interlinked package – Strategic Plan, Financial resource mobilisation strategy and ABS protocol.Negotiated in parallel – working groups on different aspects of the strategic plan, one dedicated to ABS, and also a “friends of the chair”“Brazil and others could not accept the adoption of a strategic plan and a financial resource mobilization strategy if no [ABS] protocol is put into place. We are not bluffing. We are very clear on this” Brazil - press conference Oct 2010.
  12. 12. The CBD Strategic Plan for the period 2011-2020 “Aïchi Protocol” Strategic goal A: Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss by mainstreaming biodiversity across government and society Strategic goal B: Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity and promote sustainable use Strategic goal C: To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguarding ecosystems, species and genetic diversity Strategic goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services Strategic goal E: Enhance implementation through participatory planning, knowledge management and capacity building CBD (2010); see also ten Brink, P., Eijs, A., Lehmann, M., Mazza, L., Ruhweza, A., and Shine, C., (2011). Transforming our approach to natural capital: the way forward. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International P olicy Making. Edited by Patrick ten Brink. Earthscan, London and Washington
  13. 13. Strategic goal A: Address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss bymainstreaming biodiversity across government and society Target 1: By 2020, at the latest, people are aware of the values of biodiversity and the steps they can take to conserve and use it sustainably. Target 2: By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems. Target 3: By 2020, at the latest, incentives, including subsidies, harmful to biodiversity are eliminated, phased out or reformed in order to minimize or avoid negative impacts, and positive incentives for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity are developed and applied, consistent and in harmony with the Convention and other relevant international obligations, taking into account national socio-economic conditions. Target 4: By 2020, at the latest, Governments, business and stakeholders at all levels have taken steps to achieve or have implemented plans for sustainable production and consumption and have kept the impacts of use of natural resources well within safe ecological limits. CBD (2010)
  14. 14. Strategic goal B: Reduce the direct pressures on biodiversity andpromote sustainable use Target 5: By 2020, the rate of loss of all natural habitats, including forests, is at least halved and where feasible brought close to zero, and degradation and fragmentation is significantly reduced. Target 6: By 2020 all fish and invertebrate stocks and aquatic plants are managed and harvested sustainably, legally and applying ecosystem based approaches, so that overfishing is avoided, recovery plans and measures are in place for all depleted species, fisheries have no significant adverse impacts on threatened species and vulnerable ecosystems and the impacts of fisheries on stocks, species and ecosystems are within safe ecological limits. Target 7: By 2020 areas under agriculture, aquaculture and forestry are managed sustainably, ensuring conservation of biodiversity. CBD (2010)
  15. 15. Strategic goal B: .cont. Target 8: By 2020, pollution, including from excess nutrients, has been brought to levels that are not detrimental to ecosystem function and biodiversity. Target 9: By 2020, invasive alien species and pathways are identified and prioritized, priority species are controlled or eradicated, and measures are in place to manage pathways to prevent their introduction and establishment. Target 10: By 2015, the multiple anthropogenic pressures on coral reefs, and other vulnerable ecosystems impacted by climate change or ocean acidification are minimized, so as to maintain their integrity and functioning. CBD (2010)
  16. 16. Strategic goal C: To improve the status of biodiversity by safeguardingecosystems, species and genetic diversity Target 11: By 2020, at least 17 per cent of terrestrial and inland water, and 10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and well connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascapes. Target 12: By 2020 the extinction of known threatened species has been prevented and their conservation status, particularly of those most in decline, has been improved and sustained. Target 13: By 2020, the genetic diversity of cultivated plants and farmed and domesticated animals and of wild relatives, including other socio-economically as well as culturally valuable species, is maintained, and strategies have been developed and implemented for minimizing genetic erosion and safeguarding their genetic diversity. CBD (2010)
  17. 17. Strategic goal D: Enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity andecosystem services Target 14: By 2020, ecosystems that provide essential services, including services related to water, and contribute to health, livelihoods and well-being, are restored and safeguarded, taking into account the needs of women, indigenous and local communities, and the poor and vulnerable. Target 15: By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification. Target 16: By 2015, the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization is in force and operational, consistent with national legislation. CBD (2010)
  18. 18. Strategic goal E: Enhance implementation throughparticipatory planning, knowledge management & capacity building Target 17: By 2015 each Party has developed, adopted as a policy instrument, and has commenced implementing an effective, participatory and updated national biodiversity strategy and action plan. Target 18: By 2020, the traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity, and their customary use of biological resources, are respected, subject to national legislation and relevant international obligations, and fully integrated and reflected in the implementation of the Convention with the full and effective participation of indigenous and local communities, at all relevant levels. Target 19: By 2020, knowledge, the science base and technologies relating to biodiversity, its values, functioning, status and trends, and the consequences of its loss, are improved, widely shared and transferred, and applied. Target 20: By 2020, at the latest, the mobilization of financial resources for effectively implementing the Strategic Plan 2011-2020 from all sources and in accordance with the consolidated and agreed process in the Strategy for Resource Mobilization should increase substantially from the current levels. This target will be subject to changes contingent to resources needs assessments to be developed and reported by Parties. CBD (2010)
  19. 19. Good PlanNow its all about Implementation
  20. 20. Presentation overview Short Context: TEEB for Nagoya Achievements in Nagoya • Strategic Plan • Financing • Access and Benefits Sharing Making progress happen
  21. 21. ABS (Access and benefits sharing)The fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the utilisation of genetic resourcesis one of the three objectives of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) - 1992/3 •This is desirable on equity grounds; and because it is • critical to ensure the more efficient management and utilization of genetic resources • In the interests of the “north” (access) and the “south” (benefits sharing) “My father said: You must never try to make all the money thats in a deal. Let the other fellow make some money too, because if you have a reputation for always making all the money, you wont have many deals.” J. Paul Getty 2010 - Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefit arising out of their Utilization - after seven years of negotiations, this sets out rules and procedures for implementing the Convention‟s third objective
  22. 22. ABS - Key questions for BusinessA key question from a business perspective is how much of the value of final products isattributable to genetic material and how much to other factors of production (labour,capital, local knowledge, etc.)?To answer this, we need to distinguish between:• what a producer of drugs or other products has to pay to obtain the genetic material; and• what the material is worth to the producer (i.e. the maximum that a company would pay –the so-called „willingness-to-pay‟).The difference between this maximum payment and the cost of obtaining the geneticmaterial is called its „rent‟.The other big question is who should receive what share of the “rent”? And how shouldthis be articulated/contractually supported?Source : Markandya and Nunes (2011) Sharing benefits derived from genetic resources. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity inNational and International Policy Making. Edited by Patrick ten Brink. Earthscan, London and Washington
  23. 23. Values of genetic resourcesA key early study (Simpson et al, 1996) calculated values of genetic resources in 1996prices at between US$0.20/ha (California), & US$20.60/ ha (Western Ecuador).These values are lower than some expected - reasons identified included the high cost ofdeveloping the final goods & bringing them to market, the long time lags involved &inefficiencies in the systems for exploiting genetic resources.Subsequent studies tried to improve on these estimates. Craft and Simpson (2001) arguedthat if we base calculations not on the price of final drugs but on the willingness-to-pay ofthose who benefit from lifesaving drugs, the rent could be two orders of magnitude higherthan the above estimates.There are now far more uses of genetic resources than covered in Simpson et al (1996),which should increase their net value. Finding more effective and cost-efficient ways tocollect information (e.g. Traditional knowledge) about and screen genetic materials canalso increase the rent. Rausser and Small (2000) estimated the possible increase as equalto one order of magnitude higher than the estimates in Simpson et al (1996).Source : Markandya and Nunes (2011) Sharing benefits derived from genetic resources. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity inNational and International Policy Making. Edited by Patrick ten Brink. Earthscan, London and Washington
  24. 24. Values of genetic resourcesSource : Markandya and Nunes (2011) Sharing benefits derived from genetic resources. In The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity inNational and International Policy Making. Edited by Patrick ten Brink. Earthscan, London and Washington
  25. 25. Access and Benefit Sharing agreements: Example: IndiaScientists at the Tropical Botanical Garden and Research Institute (TBGRI), a publicly-funded research institute based in Trivandrum, worked with the Kani tribals of Kerala toobtain traditional knowledge about medicinal use of the plant Arogyapaacha (Trichopuszeylanicus).TBGRI successfully developed a drug from the plant and sold the technology to aCoimbatore-based pharmaceutical company, which agreed to pay Rs.1 million and a twoper cent share in the royalty. These proceeds are being shared equally by TBGRI and thetribal community. Source : Markandya and Nunes (2011) in TEEB (2011)
  26. 26. ABS Example: KenyaIn May 2007 the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and Novozymes, a Danish biotech company,entered a five-year partnership for the collection, identification and characterization ofmicro-organisms from Kenya‟s national parks.The agreement was not driven from a particular interest on the part of Novozymesto undertake bioprospecting in the region, but rather to negotiate a benefit-sharingagreement for commercialization of much earlier collections made outside any agreement.One of these led to the development of a commercial product (pulpzyme) that reduces theamount of chlorine needed to bleach wood pulp.Under the agreement :• KWS will receive running royalties on any commercial product developed, as well as• An upfront payment to cover the costs of sample collections and laboratory work.• Training for KWS its staff.• Any intellectual property that comes out of the partnership will be co-owned.Source : Markandya and Nunes (2011) in TEEB (2011)
  27. 27. ABS Example: Ethiopia In 2004 a ten-year ABS agreement was concluded for the breeding and development of tef (Eragrostis tef) between the Institute for Biodiversity Conservation in Ethiopia, the Ethiopian Agrocultural Research Organization and a small Netherlands-based company, Health and Performance Food International (HPFI). Tef is one of the most significant cereal crop species in the region. Because it is gluten free it is increasingly in demand in Western markets. Benefit-sharing takes the form of an agreement: • HPFI to pay IBC a lump sum of profits arising from the use of tef genetic resources; • Royalties of 30 per cent of net profit from the sale of tef varieties; • a license fee linked to the amount of tef grown by HPFI to anybody supplied seed; and • contributions by HPFI of five per cent net profit, no less than €20,000 per year, to a fund named the Financial Resource Support for Tef (FiRST), established to improve the living conditions of local farming communities and for developing tef business in Ethiopia.Source : Markandya and Nunes (2011) in TEEB (2011)
  28. 28. A(B)S Example: Brazil In 1999, Glaxo Wellcome and Brazilian Extracta jointly signed a contract where Glaxo paid US$3.2 million for the right to screen 30,000 compounds of plant, fungus and bacterial origin from several regions in Brazilian forests. This however, relates to a payment for the permission to access, and is not strictly speaking about sharing benefits arising from the use of these compounds A(B)S Example: Costa Rica The best-known and most emblemmatic contract was signed between INBio (National Biodiversity Institute) and Merck Pharmaceutical Ltd. in 1991. INBio received US$1 million over two years and equipment for processing samples and scientific training from Merck.Source : Markandya and Nunes (2011) in TEEB (2011)
  29. 29. ABS Summary• A few agreements,• Few covering both access and benefits for new products• Conditions are generally less favourably for host countries• Some bio-piracy• Feeling of unfair terms as regards access and benefit sharing – hence need for protocol• Different interests/incentives for those hosting the biodiversity and those hoping toaccess and build on these resources has led to historical “no-progress” beyond a few adhoc agreements.
  30. 30. Valuation and policy making: from valuing natural assets to decisionsBreaking the deadlock – hard negotiations andrealisation that the time had comeA number of developing countries lead by the G77-China bloc hadrepeatedly stated that they would not settle for an agreement onfinancing and the strategic plan alone. “It was momentum we had to make use of. Not agreeing was not an option. It would have squashed whatever we had achieved by now,” government official - formal agreement on the ABS protocol was reached, a packageconsisting of the three main decisions was quickly sealed andadopted, accompanied by almost 50 specialised room documents.Delegates applauded COP 10 as a historic success.
  31. 31. Valuation and policy making: from valuing natural assets to decisions“The ABS Protocol is only a starting point. Whether it will result in theviable regime against bio-piracy now depends on theimplementation,”The African Group formally made a similar point in the closingplenary, stating for the record that the protocol was simply a first stepfor moving towards the implementation of the Convention‟s thirdobjective, the “fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out ofthe utilization of genetic resources.”Other countries called the protocol “imperfect” and “incomplete,”though nonetheless an “important step” and “milestoneachievement”.
  32. 32. Valuation and policy making: from valuing natural assets to decisionsSummary – Nagoya/CBD COP 10A success – in that agreements were reached for the overall packageA success – in that multilateral approach shown to still work.... (fear afterCopenhagen)Finance mobilisation – an agreement to come up with funding by 2012... enoughto avoid blocking progressButStrategic Plan – its success depends on national commitment and resultsFinance mobilisation – countries (EU et al) need to find the money...non-trivial inthese times of crisisABS – needs commitment in implementation.…a lot still needs to be done …hopefully the TEEB evidence base on the value of nature will help encourage action
  33. 33. Thank youTEEB 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.