Romina Rodela Wageningen University and Research Centre

Presetnation given on April 10th 2014 at

Onderzoeksprogramma Biodiversiteit werkt

Universiteitsmuseum Utrecht, Lange Nieuwstraat 106, Utrecht

Integrating Valuations, Markets and Policies for

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services –

INVALUABLE project no. 2011-EBID-003

The issue at hand

http://osbsustainablefutures.files

.wordpress.com/2010/09/halsey

-article-figure-3.png

Humans depend on healthy andfunctioning natural systems, but theseare often under pressure and at risk.

- The concept of ecosystem services(ES) highlights the benefits humanshave from nature.

- The ES concept helps to value naturefor the purpose of management andconservation .

Images from: http://osbsustainablefuture.org

Main foucs and disciplinary context

The INVALUABLE project aims:

to study how market based instruments (MBIs) can contribute

at integrating biodiversity & ecosystem services (B&ES) into

institutional arrangements and public policies.

To this end it brings together knowledge from economics, law

and other social sciences for theoretical and empirical

investigations.

Research objectives

1. Clarify the nature and meaning of MBIs

2. Analyze societal discourses and theoretical foundations of MBIs

3. Investigate instruments of biodiversity offsets (BO) and payments for

ecosystem services (PES) in empirical case studies

4. Investigate Science-Policy Interfaces with a focus on the use of

scientific information for decision making

6. Study the role of legal / institutional frameworks in improving the use of

scientific information for better implementation of MBIs

Policy objective

to provide evidence and access to information for an informed use (and non-use) of

market-based instruments and of economic valuations for ecosystem services and

biodiversity.

Dissemination activities:

Web-page

Policy briefs, Working papers, Newsletter

Expert workshops and events (Barcelona,

Dec 2013 on Impact Evaluation

methodologies ; Freiburg, March 2014 on

SPI and DSS )

Report and scientific articles

Special sessions at scientific conferences

Networking

Stakeholder Engagement: Ministries, OECD, etc.

The partnership

France: Institut du Développement Durable et des Relations

Internationales (Lead Partner), Centre de coopération internationale

en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) and

Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD),

Spain: Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona

Germany: University of Freiburg

The Netherlands: Wageningen University

United Kingdom: Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)

Belgium: Université Catholique de Louvain, Matthieu Wemaëre Cabinet

d’Avocats

Preliminary results: WP1

an analysis of theories and discourses of MBIs in research and

political arenas (e.g. international conventions) showed terms being

overused and abused in contrasting policy instruments

a MBIs analytical typology was proposed.

results suggest PES (often a transaction with poverty alleviation

objectives) remain a bilateral relationship with no commoditization

PES feature as either negotiated agreements btw providers and

beneficiaries (Coasean-type agreements) or regulatory price changes

(e.g., subsidies for better practices)- with the latter as most frequent

→ suggesting for obstacles due to transactions costs

Preliminary results: WP2

an analysis of biodiversity compensation schemes (done by M.

Wemaëre) now emerging in France suggests these not being market-

based although they are often presented as such.

an empirical case on eco-accounts in Baden-Württemberg, done by

the IEEP team, suggest these resulting in larger compensation

measures compared to the size of the on-site compensation

measures which would have been implemented in the absence of the

eco-account schemes. These contribute to internalize external costs

linked to negative impacts of development on B&ES (Mazza and

Schiller, 2014)

Preliminary results: WP3

an analysis of scientific literature on Decision Support Systems, done

by WUR, suggests these being developed with little, or no stakeholder

involvement which hinders usefulness, relevance, legitimacy and up-

take by its potential users e.g., policy-makers (Rodela et al., in

preparation).

the WUR team has done two simulations where a DSS, the Quick

Scan tool, was used. Results suggests that QuickScan gives good

opportunities for knowledge integration and development of shared

understanding for the appraisal of alternative policy options.

QuickScan Tool

1. Difference map (linked views)

2. Multiple maps (linked views)

3. Area of qualitative categories in stacked charts

4. Quantities in bar charts

1 2

4

3

Future plans

Bring together the empirical research & cross-case comparison.

Finalize the theoretical studies.

Write a collective book.

Make research outcomes accessible to stakeholders.

Organize further stakeholder events.

Organize an end-of-project conference in Paris.

Deliver take-home messages to non-academic stakeholders

(e.g. CoP12 CBD in South Korea in October 14, the IUCN World Parks

Congress in Australia in November 14,conference for DGs in Brussels, etc.)

Thank you

for your attention !

For further information: romina.rodela@wur.nl

Acknowledgments:This research was funded by the ERA-Net BiodivERsA, with the national funder NWO as

part of the 2011 BiodivERsA call for research proposals. Detailed information on

BiodivERsA accessible at: http://www.biodiversa.org/