TEEB biodiversity and Water Patrick ten Brink of IEEP presentation at water day CBD COP10 Nagoya 22 Oct 2010
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Biodiversity and Water Patrick ten Brink TEEB for Policy Makers Co-ordinator Head of Brussels Office Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) CBD COP 10 Water Ecosystems and Climate Change Room 211A level 1B 16:30 17:45 22 October 2010 Nagoya, Japan 1
TEEB origins Source: Bishop (2010) Presentation at BIOECON
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
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 Ecosystem service generally unpriced, often taken for granted, Genetic resources until service is lostRegulating 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 and damage done >> damage costs Biological controlCultural Services Aesthetics, Landscape value, recreation Sometimes value explicit / implicit in markets and 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.
We never know the worth of water til the well is dry . English proverbMen do not value a good deed unless it brings a reward Ovid, B.C. 43 18 A.D., Roman Poet
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, 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 http://www.teebweb.org/
Valuation and policy making:from valuing natural assets to decisions To underline the value of natural assets & help determine where ecosystemservices can be provided at lower cost than man-made technological alternativese.g. water purification and provision, flood control Conservation / restoration and other Investments decisions PES instruments at different scales and by different stakeholdersAvoided cost of alternative water purification and provisione.g. USA-NY Catskills-Delaware watershede.g. New Zealand Te Papanui Park - watere.g. Mexico PSAH nationally, and local application eg Saltillo City, Zapaliname mountainsAvoided loss of output e.g. Venezuela: PAs to avoid sedimentation & loss of hydro outputLower cost of flood controle.g. Vietnam and restoring/investing in Mangroves - cheaper than dyke maintenancee.g. Belgium Schelde river: natural flood defence - cheaper than man-made infrastructure
Valuation and policy making: from valuing natural assets to decisionsInform land-use decision - Creating and improved evidence baseExample: India: Floodplain between Yamuna River and Delhi.Choice: convert floodplain / embankment plan or notEvidence showed that ecosystem benefits exceeded opportunity costs of conversion.Decision: Delhi government halted embankment plan of Yamuna until further order. Avoid socially less good investment decisions
PES: They exist, they work (though lots of lessons to learn)Instrument growing in applications 300 PES programmes globally, range of ecosystem services (Blackman & Woodward, 2010) Broad estimate for global value: USD 8.2 billion (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2008) USD 6.53 billion in China, Costa Rica, Mexico, the UK and the US alone. (OECD 2010) increasing by 10-20% per year (Karousakis, 2010)For Specific services - e.g. provision of quality water (NY), protect groundwaters (J, D),cleanse coastal waters (Sw), carbon Storage (NZ, Uganda), invasive alien species (SA - WfW),biodiversity (EU)Multiple services: e.g Costa Rica s PSA - carbon, hydrological services preserving biodiversityand landscape beauty.Multiple objectives - e.g. Mexico s PSAH hydrological services, deforestation, povertyBig and small E.g. 496 ha being protected in an upper watershed in northern Ecuador eg. 4.9 million ha sloped land being reforested by paying landowners China.Public (municipal, regional, national) and private (eg Vittel (Fr), Rochefort (B) for quality waterLocal and national and international - e.g. REDD+ for forest carbon plus See also Chapter 5 TEEB for Policy Makers
Multiple Objectives : PSAH MexicoPES to forest owners to preserve forestManage and not convert forest e.g. cloud forest US$ 40 per ha/year; e.g. other tree-covered land US$ 30 per ha/yearHydrological services: Aquifer Recharge;Improved surface water quality,Reduce frequency & damage from flooding Reduce Deforestation Address Poverty Munoz 2010); Muñoz-Piña et al. 2008; Muñoz-Piña et al. 2007.
Multiple Objectives : PSAH MexicoBalance of priorities varied over time AquifersAn instrument can evolve and respond tochanging needs A Poverty Water scarcityP WS Deforestation D Munoz 2010); Muñoz-Piña et al. 2008
PSAH Mexico Results: PSAH reduced the rate of deforestation from 1.6 % to 0.6 %. 18.3 thousand hectares of avoided deforestation Avoided GHG emissions this equates 3.2 million tCO2e. Year in which forest is 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Totalsigned into the programSurface incorporated into 127 184 169 118 546 654 567 2,365the program ( ooo ha)Forest owners participating 272 352 257 193 816 765 711 3,366(individuals + collectives)Total payment to be made 17.5 26.0 23.5 17.2 84.2 100.9 87.4 303over 5 years (US$ m)Source Munoz 2010); Muñoz-Piña et al. 2008
Multiple Benefits: at the Urban level City of Toronto Estimating the value of the Greenbelt for the City of Toronto The greenbelt around Toronto offers $ 2.7 billion worth of non-market ecological services with an average value of $ 3, 571 / ha. Implication re: future management of the greater city area ? Ecosystem Annual Value Valuation Benefits (2005, CDN $) Carbon Values 366 million Air Protection Values 69 million Watershed Values 409 million Pollination Values 360 million Biodiversity Value 98 million Recreation Value 95 million Agricultural Land 329 million ValueSource: Wilson, S. J. (2008)Map: http://greenbeltalliance.ca/images/Greebelt_2_update.jpg
The Social Dimension: Jobs: Working for Water WfW is a public works programme in South Africa which protects water resources by stopping the spread of invasive plants. Municipal government contracting workers to manage public land sustainablyResults - More than 300 projects in all nine South African provinces. Employed around 20,000 people per year, 52 per cent of them women4, and also provided skills training, health and HIV/AIDS education to participants. costs to rehabilitate catchments range from 200-700 EUR/ha (Turpie et al. 2008) benefits may reach a 40 year NPV of 47,000 EUR/ha (see TEEB Foundations, 2010)Wunder et al 2008a; http://www.dwaf.gov.za/wfw/
WfW: The Manalana wetland (near Bushbuckridge, Mpumalanga) severely degraded by erosion that threatened to consume the entire system WfW public works programme intervened in 2006 to reduce the erosion and improve the wetland s ability to continue providing its beneficial servicesResults The value of livelihood benefits from degraded wetland was just 34 % of whatcould be achieved after investment in ecosystem rehabilitation; Rehabilitated wetland now contributes provisioning services at a net returnof 297 EUR/household/year; Livelihood benefits ~ 182,000 EUR by the rehabilitated wetland; x2 costs is The Manalana wetland acts as a safety net for households. Sources: Pollard et al. 2008 ; Wunder et al 2008a; http://www.dwaf.gov.za/wfw/
Security and meeting objectives working with nature:Flood Control and the Schelde : Belgium Major infrastructural works were planned - deepening fairway to the harbour of Antwerp and complementary measures to protect the land from storm floods CBA carried out, including ecosystem services (recreational value) of new floodplains. Evaluation Result: an intelligent combination of dikes and floodplains can offer more benefits at lower cost than more drastic measures such as a storm surge barrier near Antwerp. 14 vs 41 year payback Policy Response / Action: The Dutch & Flemish gov ts approved an integrated management plan consisting of the restoration of approximately 2500 ha of intertidal and 3000 ha of non-tidal areasUniversity of Antwerp and VITO (2004) in TEEB in National Policy (2011)
Table 4.2 Different alternatives for flood protection in the CBA (Phase 1: different measures; Phase 2 optimization) Security and meeting objectives working with nature: Flood Control and the Schelde : BelgiumPhase 1 2Measurements Storm Over- Dykes Floodplains Floodplains Floodplains surge Schelde (340km) (CIA, 1800 (RTA, 1800 (1325 ha) + barrier ha) ha) dykes (24 km)Investment andmaintenance costs 387 1.597 241 140 151 132Loss of agriculture 16 19 12Flood protection benefits 727 759 691 648 648 737Ecological benefits 8 56 9Other impacts:- shipping -1 -3 -3 -5- visual intrusionTotal net benefits 339 -837 451 498 530 596Payback period (years) 41 / 27 17 14 14 University of Antwerp and VITO (2004) in TEEB in National Policy (2011)
Private Sector Interests: Water: Vittel (France)Vittel mineral water, France Perrot-Maître 2006; Wunder and Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2009 Since 1993, PES programme in its 5100 ha catchment in the Vosges Mountains. 26 farmers paid to adopt best low-impact practices in dairy farmingPayment levels Ave. payments are EUR 200 ha/year over a five year transition period and up to 150,000 EUR per farm to cover costs of new equipment. Contracts are long-term (18-30 years), with payments adjusted to opportunity costs on a farm-by-farm basis.Making it Happen built on a 4-years research by the France s INRA (National Institute for Agricultural Research ) took 10 years to become operational Success because of economic rationale + tenacity of Vittel Similar case for Beer ! Rochefort, Belgium . What cases do you know of ?
Natural resource management & spatial planning Flooding of River Elbe, Germany (2002) Damage over EUR 2 billion Assessment that flood damage (+ cost of dams) by far exceed costs of upstream flooding arrangements with land holders The value of upstream ecosystems in regulating floods was re-discovered ! Local authorities start changing spatial planning & seeking arrangements upstream
Thank you TEEB Reports available on http://www.teebweb.org/& TEEB in Policy Making will come out as an Earthscan book in March 2011 See also www.teeb4me.com Patrick ten Brink, email@example.com IEEP is an independent, not-for-profit institute dedicated to the analysis, understanding and promotion of policies for a sustainable environment www.ieep.eu Manual of EU Environmental Policy: http://www.earthscan.co.uk/JournalsHome/MEEP/tabid/102319/Default.aspx