Economic Valuation as a Tool to Bridge the Science-Policy Gap


Published on

7th GEF Biennial International Waters Conference in Barbados Presentation on reporting back from outbreak session by Edi Interwies, Intersus

Published in: Technology, Economy & Finance
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Economic Valuation as a Tool to Bridge the Science-Policy Gap

  1. 1. [ Slide Title ] 7th Biennial GEF International Waters Conference Bridgetown, Barbados Targeted Workshops Economic Valuation as a Tool to Bridge the Science-Policy Gap Session II: Reporting back from breakout session Edi Interwies, InterSus
  2. 2. KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS 1. What are the main uses of economic valuation of ecosystem services for decision-making? • Awareness (e.g. transboundary impacts) & communication • Supporting improved decision making: • Recognizing different ES service values (esp. for certain ones, e.g. future generations) • Show choices of management, incl. trade-offs • Influence policy & regulatory frameworks • Influence allocation of financial resources/investments by internalizing externalities into CBA • Short and long-term planning for sustainability – leverage resources • Integrating TEV into decision making • Information for mitigation and litigation/compensation • Better governance (consensus, conflict resolution)
  3. 3. KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS 1. main uses: • Fears: • “scary” • broader perspective needed – sometimes other issues more important • Limited & expensive: narrow it down to specific context • “should not be the sole driving force for future (GEF) projects OVERALL: • For fixing the problems: should be one method/tool out of many • Socio-economic assessments needed – valuation only part of it • Chose the scale of valuation depending on the scale of question you re addressing
  4. 4. KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS 2. What methods seem most appropriate/usable? • • Be clear on what you what to answer first! “Quick” and rough for overall scale, more detailed for specific issue • Very case specific – depends on available resources, data and political environment • Ensure that human wellbeing is adequately covered • Issues of replicability - comparability • Difficult to quantify, e.g. religious/aestetic: qualitative elements, too  Method selection should be “purpose driven, objective specific”: what stakeholder/sector, policy, scale, timeline relevant
  5. 5. KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS 3. What are the main difficulties in increasing the use of economic valuation of ES for decision making? • Lack of: • Capacity/resources (data gaps, costly, limited long-term/robust data) – in the projects but also in managing institutions • Awareness/understanding (inability to communicate results in a non-technical manner) & appreciation (of ES required by others) & visualisation • Integration (e.g. inter-agency dialogue)
  6. 6. KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS 3. Main difficulties in increasing the use: • Lack of: • Political will (Gov will not always chose the most appropriate policy intervention) – vested interests (competing world views – bias through strong lobby groups) • Ownership (by involvement of decision makers – key stakeholders); not demand driven • Trust in the approach (human centered) & results („we don t believe the answers“) • Historical: GEF does not focus on socio-economic components…
  7. 7. KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS 4. and 5. How to overcome them? GEF-action points focus (TDA-SAP) • Identify possible policy decisions – target evaluation to answering specific question; explore PPP • Reasonable simplification of EV to minimize costs • Improve data availability/accessability of information for EV (“do it quicker and easier”) • Increasing buy-in for EV: • Conduct overall LME/RB ES-valuation studies (“quick and dirty”) for initial awareness raising • Success stories (case studies – evidence of advocacy of approach) • Improve decision maker and stakeholder dialogue & their incorporation in the EV-process (also inter-agency) • Show short/long term benefits • Use language decision makers understand • Inclusion in GEF and national planning processes (use their own methods – challenge back)
  8. 8. 4&5: GEF-action points focus (TDA-SAP) • Capacity building - improving capacity (at early stage: GEF-projects, but also users/authorities) – create a critical mass of expertise – professionalization – community of practice • GEF: Develop Guidance/guidelines/practical manual: show EV-need & success stories (being flexible, not all aspects to be suited to all projects), lessons learned Inclusion of EV in TDA –SAP framework & documents: NEEDS TO BE INTEGRAL PART OF ALL STEPS! • Ecosystem diagnostic analysis (including valuation): for each member country (communication issues, collecting information/data) undertake individual evaluation and then bring together in TDA or SAP – deliverable of PCU, then get financing • Causal chain analysis (between TDA and SAP: assessment of options) to see if/what kind of ES valuation is necessary – when identifying the problems (to see what you need to focus on) • Include in TDA-SAP national action plans
  9. 9. 4&5: GEF-action points focus (TDA-SAP) • Include values of large ecosystem assets - add information on economic impacts of options - use CBA (total economic costs) of options - for strategic action development • Pilot projects - Demonstration projects: Hot-spot and small demonstration projects in SAP formulation (feedback loop: go back from CS to TDA) • Better links to indicators: Include socio-economic indicators (but linked to data access and availability) & baseline/trends in GEF-SAP results framework Broad(er) approach: incorporate all relevant aspects of social, economic data/analysis in TDA-SAP – incorporate into effective governance (“addressing the problems should remain the focus of GEF-projects)” [Fear: GEF assessors need to be pragmatic in terms of project design & timing – „just too many hoops to jump through“]