Presentation summarising the key findings of TEEB Nordic study, funded by Nordic Council of Minister, carried out in the context of global TEEB initiative (www.teebweb.org)

1. Presentation of the key results

2. Outline
Context
Key results and findings
Policy recommendations
Outreach, visibility and influence

3. TEEB Nordic – the context

4. TEEB Nordic – the objective
- Preliminary synthesis of Nordic ecosystem
services and their socio-economic importance /
value
- Participatory process with an aim to facilitate
contacts between Nordic stakeholders
- Complementing global knowledge base with
Nordic information and examples

5. TEEB Nordic – the tasks
1. Identification and classification of ecosystem
services and their indicators
2. Synthesis of biophysical status and trends
(info, gaps, examples)
3. Synthesis of socio-economic importance and
value (info, gaps, examples)
4. Exploring policy responses (info, examples)

6. (A taste of) key results & findings

7. Nordic ecosystem services
- Nordic ecosystems provide the full range of
ecosystem services identified in global
assessments
- Nordic ‘specialities’: wood-based
bioenergy, reindeer herding (north), nontimber forest products (berries, mushrooms
and game), recreation and tourism, bioinnovations / bioeconomy, carbon storage
and sequestration, water
purification, nature-inspired arts and crafts /
fashion … …
- Status: several ecosystems and related
services know to be degraded, even though
no detailed (national) assessments exists
CORINE Land Cover (CLC) classifications in the Nordic
countries. Data source: EEA: Corine Land Cover 2006 raster data –
version 16 (04/2012). © SYKE, © European Environment Agency.

8. Nordic ecosystem services: identification and indicators
Key principles and general outcomes
- Identified ecosystem services: list of identified services
“Nordified” and detailed
- Identified indicators: every ES requires two different types
of indicators - 1) biofysical status and 2) socio-economic
value. Consequently, indicators identified systematically for
both.
- Evidence base: Due to significant gaps in the existing data
on the status and value of Nordic ES synthesis the
synthesised concrete evidence base does not cover the full
range of ecosystem services and indicators outlined.

9. Example: Identified Nordic ecosystem services

10. Example: Biophysical indicators for Nordic ES

11. Example: Biophysical indicators for Nordic ES

12. Nordic ecosystem services
← Versus →
CORINE Land Cover (CLC) classifications in the Nordic
countries. Data source: EEA: Corine Land Cover 2006 raster data –
version 16 (04/2012). © SYKE, © European Environment Agency.
Population densities in the Nordic countries. Data source:
Nordregio Nordic Centre for Spatial Development. ©
SYKE, © Nordregio

13. Example: fisheries
Data source: TEEB Nordic report

14. Example: recreational fishing
- Nordic countries: over six million recreational fishermen
- Finland, Sweden and Norway: 44%, 30% and 50% of the
population, respectively, reported having engaged in some
kind of fishing activity in the past year.
- Finland and Sweden: The size of catch by recreational
fishermen 48 million kg in Finland (1998) and 79 million kg in
Sweden (1995)
- Sweden: the net value of recreational fishing has been
estimated at almost 79.5 million EUR, exceeding the value of
commercial fishing.
Data sources: European Anglers Alliance 2002, Sievänen and Neuvonen 2010, Statistics Sweden 2012b and 2012c, Statistics Norway
2012, Toivonen et al. 2000, Garpe 2008 in TEEB Nordic report

15. Example: berries, mushrooms, game
Data source: TEEB Nordic report

16. Example: pollination
Relative pollinator abundance of
bumblebees in the Nordic countries
based on the models of the JRC (Maes
et al. 2012).
Data source: European Commission, Joint Research
Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. © European
Communities, 1995-2012.

17. Example: pollination
- Finland: the value of honeybee pollination service of selected
crops would be around 18 million EUR and of wild berries
(bilberry and lingonberry) 3.9 million EUR (Lehtonen 2012).
- Finland : estimated value of pollination (by honeybees) in
home gardens was 39 million EUR in Finland (Yläoutinen 1994, cited in
Lehtonen 2012).
- Denmark: the value of the general insect pollination service
was calculated to be worth 421 to 690 million DKK (~56.6 to
~92.8 million EUR) a year (Axelsen et al. 2011).
- Sweden: the value of honeybee pollination service was
calculated to be 189-325 million SEK (~21.5- ~37 million EUR)
(Pedersen 2009a).

18. Example: carbon storage
Soil organic carbon content based on
the models of JRC. (Maes et al. 2011a).
Carbon storage (above and below
ground) (tonnes / ha) based on the
models of JRC. (Maes et al. 2011a, 2011b).
Data source: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. © European Communities, 1995-2012.

19. Example: carbon sequestration
- Finland: the value of carbon sequestration of Finnish forest
trees to be 1 876 million EUR (Matero et al (2007)
- Sweden: the annual carbon sequestering value of Swedish
forest to be between 29-46 billion SEK (2001 SEK) (~3.3 – ~5.2
billion EUR) (Gren and Svensson 2004)

20. Example: water purification
Nitrogen retention capacity in the
Nordic countries based on the JRC
models. (Maes et al. 2011a, 2011b).
Data source: European Commission, Joint Research
Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. © European
Communities, 1995-2012.

21. Example: water purification
Data source: TEEB Nordic report

22. Examples: recreation and tourism
- Denmark: ~70 % of Danes visit green areas several times a
week (Schipperijn et al. 2010).
- Norway, hiking in forests or mountains is practised more than
twice a month by almost half of the population (i.e. around
2.4 million people) (Statistics Norway 2012).
-
- Finland: 1 EUR financial support for the management of
national parks provides 10 EUR return for the region (TEEB Nordic case
study by Kajala)
- Sweden, the value added from outdoor life expenditure was
calculated to be 34 331 million SEK (~3 918 million EUR) and
altogether spending on outdoor life would result in 75 637 job
opportunities (Fredman et al. 2010)

23. Gaps
- Biophysical indicators: reflecting the sustainability of provisioning
services, developing indicators for regulating services, role of
biodiversity in maintaining ES
- Socio-economic indicators: broader cultural and landscape
values, nature’s role in maintaining health, indirect employment
impacts of nature …
- Trade-offs between ES
- ES per ecosystems: marine ecosystem services other than fisheries
- Flow of ES: substitutability of ES via international trade – how does
this affect value?
- Long-term trends: development of ES values in the future

24. Conclusions & policy recommendations

25. Key conclusions
- Nature / natural capital is of high socio-economic significance
for the Nordic countries
→ Developing sustainable and greener Nordic economies need to integrate nature /
natural capital
→ Good examples already exist, it is time for mainstreaming !
- There is such a concept as “key Nordic ecosystem services” /
the Nordic way
→ It makes sense to consider ES also at the Nordic level, not only nationally
- There are significant gaps in the existing knowledge base
→ No ‘quick fix’ solutions but need to work systematically towards more
comprehensive information base to support decision-making in the upcoming years

26. cc
Benefits of creating natural / green infrastructure
– Vihti, Finland -
Results of wetland creation
- Water quality ↑ - cost-effective
way for managing water quality
- Recreational benefits
- Biodiversity benefits
Source: TEEB Nordic case by Salminen at al. 2013

27. cc
Payments for ecosystem services (PES):
Paying blue mussel farmers for improved water quality
- Lysekil, Sweden -
Results
© http://kodu.ut.ee/~olli/eutr/html/htmlBook_111.html
The use of mussels to clean the N
content of the municipal waste water
plant saves the municipality close to
100 000 EUR / year compared to using
a traditional technique

28. cc
Nordic bio-business innovations: bioremediation
Microbes from Svalbard (NO) and Northern
Arctic (FI) as possible tool to remove
ammonia & nitrate released in the
environment by mining operations.
Fungi Paecilomyces variotii used
commercially in Finland to turn paper mill
waste in protein biomass production.
Birch tar oil to form a basis for a natural
herbicide in Finland, currently exploring the
possibilities to develop into a commercial
product.

29. Policy recommendations
- Carry out national ecosystem service assessments
→ Need to develop ES indicators and elaborated (national) frameworks for the assessment of
ES: biophysical status and trends, and socio-economic importance and value
- Complement national assessment with problem- and/or
challenge-based assessments
→ Specific policy challenges – and immediate resources to address these challenges - vary
across the Nordic countries
- Address information gaps and needs
→ Biophysical ES indicators, broader cultural and landscape values, nature’s role in maintaining
health, indirect employment impacts of nature, trade-offs between ES, marine ecosystem
services other than fisheries, development of ES value in the future, substitutability of ES via
international trade … …

30. Policy recommendations
- Continue transition to truly ‘green’ green economy
→ Need to further develop enabling policy frameworks: secure good regulatory
baseline, reform of harmful subsidies, invest in natural capital (e.g. management of protected
areas), innovative solutions for eco-efficiency and decoupling of economy from resources
(e.g. via nature-based innovations and risk management)
- Development of accounting framework for natural capital / ES
→ Implement commitments to World Bank’s WAVES initiative, join forces with the European
Environment Agency (EEA)
- Nordic synergies and cooperation
→ Identifying and agreeing on key areas: compatible and comparable sets of (core) ES indicators
and frameworks for assessments, Baltic Sea and other marine areas, sustainable production
of forest-based biofuels, carbon stock and sequestration capacity at Nordic level … …
→ Dedicated ES working group under the Nordic Council of Ministers

31. Outreach, visibility and influence

32. TEEB Nordic – outreach, visibility, influence
TEEB Nordic / NCM has been a
part of broader TEEB visibility /
outreach
TEEB Nordic hoped to provide
support / information to national
assessments at Nordic level (e.g. FI, NO)

33. TEEB Nordic – outreach, visibility, influence
TEEB Nordic case studies will be
added to TEEBCases database.

34. TEEB Nordic – outreach, visibility, influence
Value of nature (inc. TEEB Nordic case
study on benefits of Vihti / Nummela
wetland) on
Fin national news.

35. TEEB Nordic – outreach, visibility, influence

36. A synthesis developed by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and Finnish Environment
Institute (SYKE) with contributions and support from a range of Nordic experts.
Carried out in the context of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) and funded by the Nordic
Council of Ministers in the context of the Finnish Presidency 2011.
Study and its summaries available at: http://www.ieep.eu/work-areas/biodiversity/financingbiodiversity/2013/01/socio-economic-socio-economic-importance-of-ecosystem-services-in-the-nordiccountries-synthesis
Stand-alone Nordic case studies available at: http://www.teebweb.org/resources/teeb-case-studies/

37. Marianne Kettunen
Senior policy analyst at Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) /
Guest researcher at Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)
www.ieep.eu
mkettunen@ieep.eu
Dr. Petteri Vihervaara
Senior researcher at Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)
www.ymparisto.fi/syke
petteri.vihervaara@ymparisto.fi