teeb manual for cities ecosystem services for urban managment

8/4/2019 TEEB Manual for Cities Ecosystem Services for Urban Managment

1/48

TEEB Manual for CiTiEs:Ec y tem se v ce u b M geme t


2/48

TEEB Manual r Cities: Ec system Services in Urban Management

C rdinat r: Augustin Berghfer (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UFZ)

C re Team and Lead Auth rs : Andr Mader (ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability), Shela Patrickson (ICLEI Local

Governments for Sustainability), Elisa Calcaterra (International Union for the Conservation of Nature - IUCN), Jacques Smit (ICLEI

Local Governments for Sustainability)

C ntributing Auth rs: James Blignaut, Martin de Wit, Hugo van Zyl

Reviewers: Thomas Elmqvist (Stockholm Resilience Centre), Heidi Wittmer (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research

UFZ), Holger Robrecht (ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability)

This manual builds up n the rep rt TEEB r L cal and Regi nal P licy Makers (2010), c rdinated by Heidi Wittmer

and Haripriya Gundimeda.

TEEB Study Leader: Pavan Sukhdev (UNEP)

TEEB C rdinati n Gr up: Pavan Sukhdev (UNEP), Aude Neuville (EC), Benjamin Simmons (UNEP), Francois Wakenhut (EC),

Georgina Langdale (UNEP), Heidi Wittmer (UFZ), James Vause (Defra), Maria Berlekom (SIDA), Mark Schauer (UNEP), Sylvia

Kaplan (BMU), Tone Solhaug (MD)

TEEB Advis ry B ard: Joan Martinez-Alier, Giles Atkinson, Edward Barbier, Ahmed Djoghlaf, Jochen Flasbarth, Yolanda

Kakabadse, Jacqueline McGlade, Karl-Gran Mler, Julia Marton-Lefvre, Peter May, Ladislav Miko, Herman Mulder, Walter Reid,

Achim Steiner, Nicholas Stern

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this document are those of the authors alone and may not in any circumstances be regarded

as stating an official position of the organizations involved.

This d cument sh uld be qu ted as ll ws:

TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2011). TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban

Management. www.teebweb.org

TEEB - The Ec n mics Ec systems and Bi diversity (www.TEEBweb.org) is an international initiative to draw attention

to the global economic benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity, to highlight the growing costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem

degradation, and to draw together expertise from the fields of science, economics and policy to enable practical actions moving

forward.

TEEB is hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme and supported by the European Commission and various

governments.


3/48

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management

i

ForewordWhen we published the TEEB for Local and Regional PolicyMakers report in 2010, we hoped we had provided an inspiringstarting point for thinking about policy in a new way, one whichdoes not take nature for granted. We are indebted to thecontributions of individuals and organisations, providing examplesof policy options, case studies and experience from around theworld. We could not hope to cover everything within a 200 pagereport, but we did hope that the report would stimulate others toapply relevant aspects of the content to their particular situation.

ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability have done just thatby creating this, TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Servicesin Urban Management, in partnership with the TEEB for Localand Regional Policy Makers team. This is an excellent publicationthat builds upon the TEEB reports and tailors the informationspecifically for an urban context. It highlights how a focus onecosystem services and their valuation can create direct benefits

for urban areas and can be performed even with limited resources.

We congratulate the ICLEI Cities Biodiversity Center team for thisinitiative and we hope this handbook will take its place alongsidethe TEEB reports as an essential tool for local and regional policymakers everywhere.

Heidi Wittmer and Haripriya Gundimeda

CoordinatorsTEEB for Local and Regional Policy Makers

AcknowledgementsThe authors would especially like to thank:Gregg Oelofse, Patrick ten Brink and Heidi Wittmer.

In addition, the authors would like to thank: Jos BernalStoopen, Kobie Brand, Marco Cerezo, Sabine Courcier, ThomasElmqvist, Leonardo C. Fleck, Johannes Frster, Thomas Forster,Stephen Granger, Oliver Hillel, Daniel Hodder, Patricia Holmes,

Georgina Langdale, Chris Manderson, Widar Narvelo, SusanneNolden, Patrick OFarrell, Grant Pearsell, Leanne Raymond,Isabel Renner, Javier Riojas, Holger Robrecht, John Senior,Mark Shauer, Gabriel Valle and Johan Van Zoest.

This TEEB Manual als draws n the expertise ICLEI-L cal G vernments r Sustainabilitys L cal Acti n r Bi diversity (LAB) Pr gramme, run in partnership with Internati nal Uni n r C nservati n Nature (IUCN).


4/48

C i t y o f

C a p e

T o w n


5/48


iii

contentsForeword And Acknowledgements

contents

section 1:

An introduction to ecosystem services And cities 1

1.1 The Value of Nature for Cities 1

1.2 Ecosystem services: definitions and examples 3

1.3 A focus on ecosystem services: helping cities to achieve their goals 6

section 2:

How to include ecosystem services in decision mAking And policy tHe teeB stepwise ApproAcH 11

Step 1: Specify and agree on the problem or policy issue with stakeholders 12

Step 2: Identify the most relevant ecosystem services that can help to solve the problem or policy issue 15

Step 3: Determine what information is needed and select assessment methods 20

Step 4: Assess (future changes in) ecosystem services 24Step 5: Identify and compare management/policy options 26

Step 6: Assess the impacts of the policy options on the range of stakeholders 28

section 3:

Applying tHe teeB stepwise ApproAcH witHin city mAnAgement 31

3.1 Communicating to decision makers and other line functions 32

3.2 Budget cycle 33

3.3 Spatial planning 34

3.4 Concluding remarks 37

glossAry 38

reFerences And BiBliogrApHy 39


6/48

1


1.1. The Value Naturer Cities

Cities depend on a healthy naturalenvironment that continuously provides arange of benefits, known as ecosystemservices. Some examples of ecosystemservices include drinking water, cleanair, healthy food, and protection againstfloods.

Healthy ecosystems are the foundationfor sustainable cities, influencing andaffecting human well-being and mosteconomic activity.

This manual outlines how cities canincorporate a focus on ecosystemservices into city planning andmanagement. By considering ecosystemservices, cities have the opportunityto make some very positive changes,saving on municipal costs, boosting

local economies, enhancing qualityof life and securing livelihoods. Thecritical role that ecosystem servicesplay in local economies is often taken

for granted, and the TEEB approachcan reveal the value of natural systems,highlighting opportunities and trade-offsbetween various policy options, planningproposals or infrastructure choices.

Lack of information, understanding andplanning about the effects of decisionson the environment can lead to the lossof essential and beneficial ecosystemservices. From an economic point of view,this means the sub-optimal use of thisnatural capital, resulting in unnecessarylosses in local welfare, city budgets andbusiness opportunities. It is necessary tomaintain a healthy environment becausethere is a point (known as the tippingpoint) at which a degraded ecosystemwill cease to supply the ecosystemservices that we rely upon, and it can beextremely expensive, time-consuming,or sometimes even impossible to restorethe ecosystems and/or find an alternative

solution. For that reason ecosystemsneed to be factored into city planning,management and budgets to outline thecosts and benefits of different policy

options, and therefore make better informed decisions.

By identifying the benefits that natureprovides, and by understanding thevalue of these benefits, planners,educators and managers can movetowards creating a sustainable city. Inthe long term, maintaining functioningecosystems is the most cost-effective

solution to meeting human needs, and insome cases it is the only way of meeting

Often ecoystem management in one location influences ecosystem services downstream - water supply is a clear example.

section 1:An introduction to ecosystem services And cities

Natural elements that were once seen as hurdles todevelopment, should be viewed as natural capitalinstead. Coastal ecosystems play a role in protect-ing settlements from natural disasters.

A n d r

M a d e r

A n d r M a d e r

Bi diversity is the variety of life onearth at the level of ecosystems, butalso at the level of the componentsof ecosystems (for example speciesand genetic material). Biodiversity of ecosystems and within ecosystemsis integral to their functioning and theprovision of ecosystem services.

Ec system is a way of describingnatures functioning and it consistsof components (plants, animals,microorganisms, water, air etc.) aswell as the interactions between thesecomponents. Functioning ecosystemsare the foundation of human well-being and most economic activity,because almost every resource thathumankind utilizes on a day-to-day

basis relies directly or indirectly onnature. The bene ts that humans derivefrom nature are known as ec systemservices . They can be dividedinto four categories: Pr visi ningservices, Regulating services ,Habitat r Supp rting services ,and Cultural services . (MillenniumEcosystem assessment 2005; TEEBFoundations 2010)

DEfINITIoNS


7/48

2


human needs if ecosystem services areirreplaceable.

Consideration of natures value needs tobe integrated throughout local govern-ment departments because virtuallyevery line functions work has potential

impacts on, and alternative benefits to,the environment.

Decentralisation of government is agrowing phenomenon worldwide andlocal authorities are therefore becomingresponsible for an increasing proportionof management at the local level includ-ing service delivery for their citizens(World Bank 2011). City administra-tions in particular are facing increasinglycomplex challenges as more than 50%of the worlds population is now living inurban areas with predictions of a further increase in the next decades (UNFPA

2007; UN-HABITAT 2006). As succinctlyput in a study on ecosystem servicesvaluation in rural Africa: althoughcapacity and resource constraints posevery real challenges, local authoritiesare arguably the best agents of changewithin the environmental sector. This isbecause they generally manage substan-tial budgets, they have strong executivepowers with relatively short commandstructures, and they operate at grass-roots level (Golder Associates 2010).

An understanding, considerationand valuation of ecosystem servicesis necessary for a well-managedenvironment as an obligation to futuregenerations and out of respect for our surroundings; since ecosystem servicesoften provide the most sustainable,cost-effective solutions. The direct effectsof this approach are perhaps most easilyobserved when used to address thechallenges faced by poor communities.

This manual has been compiled in order to provide an easily understandableintroduction to the subject of ecosystemservices; how to determine their value;and, how to incorporate a considerationof ecosystem services into municipalfunctioning as a long-term investment toenhance existing municipal management.The focus of the manual is on cities,although the term cities is used torepresent all forms of local government.The audience is practitioners and policy-makers at the local level includingthose directly responsible for biodiversitymanagement and those whose workis indirectly related to biodiversitymanagement (for example planners).

The value of ecosystem services and natural capital deriving from our biodiversity sites, in underpinning theeconomy and sustainable development in Cape Town, should be recognized and communicated to all line functions

and politicians so that sufficient investment is allocated to optimally manage these areas in perpetuity. (City of Cape Town, Dr. Patricia Holmes, Biophysical Specialist)

Some ecosystem services are expensive, time consuming or are impossible to replace. Forests may takehundreds of years to regrow, for example.

A n d r

M a d e r

Education can play an important role in preserving ecosystem services. After all, human actions stronglyinfluence the systems that supply them with benefits.

A n d r

M a d e r


8/48

3


es

si s exa

p : e ha b h a a f .

Food Ecosystems provide the conditions for growing food. Foodcomes principally from managed agro-ecosystems, but marineand freshwater systems, forests and urban horticulture alsoprovide food for human consumption.

In Havana, Cuba (1996), a signi cant proportion of the urbanpopulations food was produced within urban gardens, including8,500 tons of agricultural produce, 7.5 million eggs and 3,650 tonsof meat (according to a review by Altieri, 1999).

Raw materials Ecosystems provide a great diversity of materials for construction and fuel including wood, biofuels and plant oilsthat are directly derived from wild and cultivated plant species.

Non-timber forest products such as rubber, latex, rattan and plantoils are very important in trade and subsistence the annualglobal trade in such products is estimated to amount to US$11

billion (Roe et al. 2002).

Fresh water Ecosystems play a vital role in providing cities with drinkingwater, as they ensure the ow, storage and puri cation of water. Vegetation and forests in uence the quantity of water available locally.

Estimates of the value of the services of a South African mountainfynbos ecosystem with an area of only 4 km2 indicated that water production was the biggest contributor to the total value of thesystem. The value was estimated to range from approximatelyUS$4.2 million to 66.6 million in 1997, according to how well thesystem is managed (Higgens et al. 1997).

Medicinalresources

Biodiverse ecosystems provide many plants used astraditional medicines as well as providing raw materials for thepharmaceutical industry. All ecosystems are a potential sourceof medicinal resources.

80% of the world`s people are still dependent on traditional herbalmedicine (WHO 2002), while the sale of medicines derived fromnatural materials amounts to US$57 billion per year (Kaimowitz2005).

r a : th ha b a h q a f a a ood and disease control, etc.

Local climateand air qualityregulation

Trees and green space lower the temperature in cities whilstforests in uence rainfall and water availability both locallyand regionally. Trees or other plants also play an importantrole in regulating air quality by removing pollutants from theatmosphere.

In Cascine Park in Florence, Italy, the urban park forest wasshown to have retained its pollutant removal capability of about72.4 kg per hectare per year (reducing by only 3.4 kg/ha to 69.0kg/ha after 19 years, despite some losses due to cutting andextreme climate events) (Paoletti et al. 2011). Harmful pollutantsremoved included O3, CO, SO2. NO2, and particulate pollutants aswell as CO2.

Carbonsequestration andstorage

Ecosystems regulate the global climate by storing greenhousegases. As trees and plants grow, they remove carbon dioxidefrom the atmosphere and effectively lock it away in their tissues; thus acting as carbon stores.

Urban trees too, are important in carbon sequestration: in theUnited States, their annual gross carbon sequestration amountsto 22.8 million tons of carbon per year (as calculated in 2002)(Nowak and Crane 2002). This is equivalent to the entire USApopulations emissions in ve days. This sequestration service isvalued at US$460 million per year, and US$14,300 million in total.

Moderation of extreme events

Ecosystems and living organisms create buffers againstnatural disasters, thereby preventing or reducing damage fromextreme weather events or natural hazards including oods,storms, tsunamis, avalanches and landslides. For example,plants stabilize slopes, while coral reefs and mangroves helpprotect coastlines from storm damage.

In the case of the Californian Napa City, USA, the Napa river basinwas restored to its natural capacity by means of creating mud ats,marshes and wetlands around the city (TEEBcase by Almack2010). This has effectively controlled ooding to such an extent thata signi cant amount of money, property, and human lives could besaved.

Waste-water treatment

Ecosystems such as wetlands lter ef uents. Through thebiological activity of microorganisms in the soil, most waste isbroken down. Thereby pathogens (disease causing microbes)are eliminated, and the level of nutrients and pollution is

reduced.

In Louisiana, USA, it was found that wetlands could function asalternatives to conventional wastewater treatment, at an estimatedcost saving of between US$785 to 34,700 per hectare of wetland(in 1995) (Breaux et al. 1995).

1.2. Ec system services: de initi ns and examplesEcosystem services can be divided into four categories: Provisioning services; Regulating services; Habitat or Supporting services;and, Cultural services. Table 1 presents the ecosystem services relevant to cities (illustrated by the TEEB ecosystem services icons)with examples of each.

Table 1: Ec system categ ries and types relevant t cities.


9/48

4


es

si s exa

r a : c

Erosion preventionand maintenanceof soil fertility

Soil erosion is a key factor in the process of land degradation,deserti cation and hydroelectric capacity. Vegetation cover provides a vital regulating service by preventing soil erosion.Soil fertility is essential for plant growth and agriculture andwell-functioning ecosystems supply soil with nutrients requiredto support plant growth.

A study estimated that the total required investment to slow

erosion to acceptable rates in the USA would amount to US$8.4billion, yet the damage caused by erosion amounted to US$44billion per year. This translates into a US$5.24 saving for everyUS$1 invested (Pimentel et al. 1995).

Pollination Insects and wind pollinate plants which is essential for the development of fruits, vegetables and seeds. Animalpollination is an ecosystem service mainly provided by insectsbut also by some birds and bats.

Some 87 out of the 115 leading global food crops depend uponanimal pollination including important cash crops such as cocoaand coffee (Klein et al. 2007).

Biological control Ecosystems are important for regulating pests and vector borne diseases that attack plants, animals and people.Ecosystems regulate pests and diseases through the activitiesof predators and parasites. Birds, bats, ies, wasps, frogs andfungi all act as natural controls.

Water hyacinth was brought under control in southern Benin usingthree natural enemies of that plant (De Groote et al. 2003). Whereasthe biological control project cost only US$2.09 million in presentvalue, its accumulated value is estimated to amount to US$260million in present value (assuming the bene ts stay constant over the

following 20 years), representing a very favourable 124:1 bene t costratio.

Habi a or suppor ing rvic : th rvic und rpin almo all o h r rvic . eco y m provid living pac for plan or animal : h y al o main ain a div r i y of plan and animal .

Habitats for species

Habitats provide everything that an individual plant or animalneeds to survive: food, water, and shelter. Each ecosystemprovides different habitats that can be essential for a specieslifecycle. Migratory species including birds, sh, mammalsand insects all depend upon different ecosystems during their movements.

In a March 2010 article (IUCN 2010), IUCN reports that habitatloss is the single biggest threat to European butter ies, and maylead to the extinction of several species. Habitat loss was said tooccur most often as a result of changes in agricultural practice,climate change, forest res, and expansion of tourism.

Maintenance of genetic diversity

Genetic diversity (the variety of genes between, and within,species populations) distinguishes different breeds or racesfrom each other, providing the basis for locally well-adaptedcultivars and a gene pool for developing commercial crops andlivestock. Some habitats have an exceptionally high number of species which makes them more genetically diverse thanothers and are known as biodiversity hotspots.

In the Philippines, an initiative to conserve local varieties of riceaided in the development of rice strains that are better adapted tolocal conditions - giving greater yield, a quality seed supply, anddecreasing dependence on plant breeders - at a much lower costthan that of formal plant breeding (SEARICE 2007).

Cultural services: These include the non-material bene ts people obtain from contact with ecosystems. They include aesthetic,spiritual and psychological bene ts.

Recreation andmental andphysical health

Walking and playing sports in green space is a good formof physical exercise and helps people to relax. The role thatgreen space plays in maintaining mental and physical healthis increasingly becoming recognized, despite dif culties of measurement.

A review article examined the monetary value of ecosystemservices related to urban green space, based on 10 studies,including 9 cities from China and 1 from the USA (Elmqvist 2011).It reported that on average, Recreation and Amenity and Healtheffects contributed a value of US$5.882 and US$17.548 per hectare per year respectively to the total average of US$29.475per hectare per year provided by the seven identi ed ecosystemservices in the various studies.

Tourism Ecosystems and biodiversity play an important role for manykinds of tourism which in turn provides considerable economicbene ts and is a vital source of income for many countries.In 2008 global earnings from tourism summed up to US$944billion. Cultural and eco-tourism can also educate peopleabout the importance of biological diversity.

Based on the amounts of money people spent on travel andlocal expenditure in order to visit Coral reefs in Hawaii, it wasestimated that the value associated with these reefs amounted toUS$97 million per year (TEEBcase by van Beukering and Cesar 2010). This implies that reef tourism resulted in signi cant incomegeneration for individuals, companies, and countries.

Aestheticappreciation andinspiration for culture, art anddesign

Language, knowledge and the natural environment have beenintimately related throughout human history. Biodiversity,ecosystems and natural landscapes have been the sourceof inspiration for much of our art, culture and increasingly for science.

Prehistoric rock art of southern Africa, Australia, and Europe, andother examples like them throughout the world, present evidence of how nature has inspired art and culture since very early in humanhistory. Contemporary culture, art and design are similarly inspired bynature.

Spiritualexperience andsense of place

In many parts of the world natural features such as speci cforests, caves or mountains are considered sacred or have areligious meaning. Nature is a common element of all major religions and traditional knowledge, and associated customs

are important for creating a sense of belonging.

In the example of the Maronite church of Lebanon, the churchcommitted to protecting a hill in their possession, comprisingrare remainders of intact Mediterranean forest, independentof scienti c and legal arguments, because this was in line with

Maronite culture, theology and religion (Palmer and Finlay 2003).


10/48

5


Environmentally based tourism can be a valuable source of revenue, as in this park in Croatia.

S t e p h e n

G r a n g e r

Not all ecosystem services can be measured in monetary terms - some valuescan be as simple as the beauty of a butterfly in the garden.

C i t y o f

C a p e

T o w n

The medicinal plant, Sutherlandia frutescens , from southern Africa - the value of natural traditional medicines should not be underestimated.

C i t y o f

C a p e

T o w n


11/48

6


1.3. A cus n ec system services: helping cities t achieve their g alsThis section examines how cities can benefit in various ways from a focus on ecosystem services, especially with regard to urbanplanning, budget allocations and municipal service delivery. The examples in this section show that such an approach can beeconomically viable and provide social benefits arguments which are often vital in order to secure political commitment.

A focus on ecosystem services cansupport the work of city authorities in atleast three ways:

Firstly, the benefits we derive from afunctioning environment becomevisible at the local level. If we adopt afocus on ecosystem services, their relation to municipal service deliverybecomes evident. For example, citiesare often responsible for the provisionof clean water to their citizens. A focuson the ecosystem services relevant towater provision can help identify thewater purification capacity of, for

example, nearby forests. Thepreservation of the forests cantherefore become an integral part of the strategy to provide clean water tolocal residents.

Secondly, focusing on ecosystemservices allows decision makers tobetter anticipate the consequences of decisions or policies. Ecosystemsgenerate multiple services and bylooking at ecosystem services thecosts and benefits of the choices canbe compared. For example, when aforested area that is valued by both

residents and local decision makers for

the full range of services it provides, isthreatened by a new development, thiswill have to be considered in terms of the benefits which would be lost.

Thirdly, a focus on ecosystem servicesallows effective communication,between all line functions and with thegeneral public, about the environmentalconsequences and the wider economicand/or social implications of a decision.If a broad range of ecosystem servicesprovided is considered, in terms of thegain or loss of natural resources andbenefits, and these are communicated

effectively to all stakeholders, it is likelythat the most desirable outcomes willbe achieved through effective decisionmaking.

By focusing on ecosystem services, thevalue and multiple benefits of functioningecosystems will be recognized, and theconservation of natural resources will beimplicit as an effective means of creatingand maintaining sustainable and healthycities.

An ecosystem services approach iscomplementary to other motivations to

conserve nature, encouraging policy

makers to consider the connectionsbetween natural systems and humanwell-being through various policy andmanagement processes, includingplanning, budget allocations or infrastructure. Focusing on eco-system services will help achieve abalance between developmental andenvironmental objectives. How doesthis focus on ecosystem serviceswork in practice? There is no one-size-fits-all solution, and it is criticalto develop a local approach, uniqueto each particular situation. The stepwiseapproach, outlined in Section 2,

provides guidance on how to valueecosystem services in a city context.Ecosystem services are a cross-cuttingissue and there is often no need tointroduce new units or procedures, sincelocal management processes whichare in place could simply benefitfrom adopting an ecosystem servicesperspective. This can be a comprehensiveanalysis as in the case of Cape Town(see case study section 2) but maybe done with limited resources asa preliminary appraisal. Table 2 showsexamples of how a focus on eco-system services has helped cities in

various ways.

Environmental education will often contribute not only to a public understanding of and appreciation for ecosystem services, but facilitate social upliftment as well.

Alien plants threaten biodiversity and underpins many of the benefit s of nature.

C i t y o f

C a p e

T o w n

C i t y o f

B a r c e

l o n a

C i t y o f

S o P a u

l o


12/48

7


Table 2: H w can a cus n ec system services help city auth rities?

exa p a Municipal tasks and objectives bene tting froma f

Canberra, Australia: Local authorities plant and maintain trees resultingin a variety of bene ts. The 400,000 trees within the city limits regulate thecity climate, reducing air pollution as well as energy costs for air conditioning.Trees also sequester carbon and slow the run-off of precipitation. These bene tsare estimated to amount to around US$4 million annually in terms of the valuegenerated or savings incurred to the city (TEEBcase based on Brack 2002).

An assessment of the bene ts of trees in urban areas can: Inform planning and budget allocations for several

city departments, including green spaces, housingand sewage.

Contribute to the provision of a healthy urbanenvironment (thereby increasing quality of life).

Identify savings for the city (e.g. cut in energy use).

Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Mongolias capital and economic centre, Ulaanbaatar relies on the watershed of the Upper Tuul valley, which is currently degrading.The future availability of water and other ecosystem services have been estimatedunder different scenarios. Compared to a sustainable management scenario,business as usual or increasing degradation, will be costly: More importantthan the direct losses (50-100 million US$ over 25 years), are the impacts of lost ecosystem services on industry and economic growth prospects for the city(300-500 million US$ over 25 years) (TEEBcase by Almack and Chatreaux 2010).

An assessment of the bene ts of a watershed can: Reveal the citys crucial dependence on one

watershed upstream. Provide crucial information for land-use planning in

the relevant area (to ensure adequate water provisionfor the current and future generations).

Inform long term economic strategies.

Melbourne, Australia: A world class network of regional parks, trails, foreshoresand waterways support and contribute signi cantly to Melbournes liveability andpublic health.Recognising the health bene ts of access to natural areas hasrecently led protected area authorities to take this up as a central theme. ParksVictoria, and the People and Parks Foundation, have forged a partnership with amajor health insurer, investing over $1 million US$ in a program for health careprofessionals to encourage people to increase physical activity by visiting and

engaging in activities in parks (Senior 2010).

Assessing the health bene ts of urban parks can: Facilitate alliances with the health sector, as a means

of fostering preventive public health care. Also support the biodiversity conservation agenda of

the environmental department and park authorities.

Limburg, Belgium: In this densely populated province, a local NGO convincedpolicy makers in 2006 with an economic argument (job creation) to createBelgiums rst national park: Apart from protecting biodiversity, the Hoge KempenNational Park created some 400 jobs and stimulated private investment in tourismin this historically de-industrialised region. Tourists appreciate the recoveringnature in former coal mines for its particular landscape and biodiversity values.(TEEBcase by Schops 2011).

An assessment of the value of protected areas for economicdevelopment can: Ensure that policy makers of the surrounding

municipalities consider the potential of their naturalassets for the promotion of sustainable economicdevelopment.

Show how natural assets contribute to job creation. Make the case for development strategies which take

natural assets into account.

Moyobamba, Peru: What can a city with 42,000 inhabitants and a smallbudget do to prevent water scarcity and further losses in water quality?The bene ts of two small watersheds have been used to raise public awareness.Citizens agreed to pay an additional conservation levy on their water bill. Theydo so in order to restore the watersheds and secure the livelihoods of its ruralresidents as watershed stewards (TEEBcase by Renner 2010).

A focus on ecosystem services helped city authorities to: Gain broad public support and nance for well-

targeted conservation measures to secure gooddrinking water for the city.

Design adequate planning processes and allocatebudget to watershed conservation.

The intense terracing in this picture is a reminder of how intimately society, economy and nature interact.

W i k i m e d

i a C o m m o n s


13/48

8


exa p a Municipal tasks and objectives bene tting froma f

Durban, South Africa: Durban examined the role of open spaces, especially interms of meeting the basic needs (e.g. water, rewood and food) of the poor, whodid not have access to adequate infrastructure or municipal services. Thanks to anassessment of ecosystem services, it was possible to demonstrate that the citysopen space system signi cantly improved their quality of life and enhanced their ability to meet their basic needs (TEEBcase by Boon 2010).

An ecosystem service approach to planning was useful to: Prioritise areas for urban development. Make decision makers aware of the importance of

nature conservation, previously perceived as a luxury. Motivate municipal leadership and local politicians

to take a number of tough decisions to protect theenvironment.

Miami, USA:The city has used the CITYgreen tool for systematically includinggreen infrastructure such as parks, urban forests and wetlands into urbanplanning. This is mainly for the purpose of storm water protection, enhancementof air- and water quality and climate regulation. As a result a riverine area wasrehabilitated which subsequently generated a range of positive side effects (e.g.recreational and property values) (TEEBcase by Frster 2010).

A focus on the bene ts of green infrastructure can: Support the effectiveness and ef ciency of city efforts

to regulate oods. Help the city to ensure the quality of air and water. Highlight the positive impact on property values.

Vientiane, Lao Peoples Democratic Republic: Frequent heavy rainfall resultsin over owing drains and urban ooding at least 6 times annually, damagingbuildings and infrastructure. Several wetlands, however, absorb a proportionof the oodwater, dramatically reducing damages. The value of the ecosystemservices of the wetlands has been measured (using annual value of ood damagesavoided), calculating the value of the wetlands to be just under US$5 million per year (TEEBcase by Gerrard 2010).

A focus on the value of wetlands demonstrates: The potential of natural retention areas for ood

control. The savings which can be achieved by the city (e.g.

less damage to infrastructure). The importance of incorporating an ecosystem

service approach in spatial planning.

Kampala, Uganda: At the outskirts of Ugandas capital the Nakivubo Swampsprovide an important ecosystem service. The swamps treat and lter the biologicalwaste water from much of the city. Ideas to drain the wetland in order to gainagricultural land were dropped when an assessment of this service showed thatrunning a sewage treatment facility with the same capacity as the swamp would

cost the city around 2 million US$ annually (TEEBcase by Almack 2010).

An assessment of the value of the wetland means that: City planners and the sanitation department may

bene t from detailed information. City council can make informed decisions based on

various cost estimates.

Informal land conversion of the wetland for agriculturecan be judged in the light of sewage treatmentcapacity lost.

Direct investment to maintain the wetland can beidenti ed as a cost-effective measure to ensure futurepuri cation bene ts.

Water is perhaps one of the most obvious and sought after ecosystem services, yet ecosystem services are interrelated. It is good practice to consider an entire suiteof services rather than focus on only one service at the expense of others.

C i t y o f C a p e

T o w n


14/48

9



15/48

10


When identifying ecosystem services related to natural features, itis useful to consider the benefits associated with water bodies suchas tourism, leisure, water as an agricultural and industrial resource,and transport to name but a few.

S t e p h e n

G r a n g e r


16/48

11


C i t y o f

C a p e

T o w n

section 2:How to include ecosystem services in decision mAkingAnd policy tHe teeB stepwise ApproAcHThis section guides the reader through a set of steps that can be considered and adapted in the process of applying a focus onecosystem services in urban management. Examples illustrate the ways in which each step has been applied in real-life situations.Note that some examples are used to illustrate several steps. By considering each step, and noting how they have been approachedin the past, the reader can formulate an idea of how to approach the relevant step in each specific context.

Briefly, the steps are as follows:Step 1: Speci y and agree n the pr blem r p licy issue with stakeh ldersStep 2: Identi y which ec system services are m st relevantStep 3: Determine what in rmati n is needed and select assessment meth dsStep 4: Assess ( uture changes in) ec system servicesStep 5: Identi y and assess management/p licy pti nsStep 6: Assess the impact the p licy pti ns n the range stakeh lders

The explanation of the TEEB stepwise approach below draws on case studies to illustrate the practical implementation of a focus onecosystem services. The following describes the Cape Town context and its key characteristics that have shaped the implementationand successes of applying a focus on ecosystem services.

Case Study: Assessing the natural assets Cape T wn, S uth A rica

Cape Towns clear skies are often attributed to the Cape Doctor, the prevailing summer wind that helps remove air pollution. Doubtless, this is just one of count-less examples of nature contributing to human health and quality of life.

Cape Town boasts enviable naturalassets including world-class mountains,beaches, green open spaces, wetlands

and marine life all within the limits of a bustling metro of roughly 3.6 millionpeople. The city has a relativelywell-diversified economy and is aworld-renowned tourism destination. Inaddition, it enjoys the status of a globalbiodiversity hotspot due to its locationin the Cape Floral Region. This broader region hosts almost 9,000 indigenousflowering plant species of which 70%are endemic. Cape Towns latest State of theEnvironment report indicates that60% of its original natural areas havebeen lost and 30% of the remainingvegetation is considered to be either

endangered or critically endangered.Its natural assets are under extremepressure primarily from land transfor-

mation, pollution and aggressive alieninvasive plant species and are in needof increased investment and manage-ment effort.

Municipal budget allocations are heavilycontested in Cape Town especiallygiven the existence of often urgentand competing development needs. Inthis context, the Citys EnvironmentalManagement Department thought itwas important to be able to assess thebusiness case for increased invest-ment in, and protection of, naturalassets. This exercise showed thehuge value of ecosystem services for the City of Cape Town and highlighted

their crucial role in a number of areas,ranging from tourism, where the link isobvious, to waste-water treatment and

protection from natural hazards, wherethe role of ecosystems can more easilygo unnoticed. One of the key lessons of this case is that, apart from the impres-sive results, it was the process of jointlyengaging in the analysis with variousmunicipal departments which was mostbeneficial.

It was valuable to build a shared under-standing of Cape Towns ecosystems asnatural assets, and thereby prepare theground for future efforts to better securetheir maintenance and protection.

S urce: De Wit and van Zyl 2011; DeWit et al. 2009.


17/48

12


T apply a cus n ec systemservices within city management, ag d starting p int is t c nsider aparticular management challenge thatrequires attenti n. Many these chal-lenges will have ec n mically viable,e ective and sustainable s luti nsbased n ec system services. Wheninitiating the pr cess identi yingthe challenge, it is essential t planahead t determine whether ec sys-tems will c ntribute meaning ully ta s luti n. S me the m re bvi us

examples might be d security, theneed t adapt t the impacts climatechange, r, the pr visi n clean andsa e drinking water. It is imp rtant t

c nsider challenges that are criticallyimp rtant t ec system health andth se that are likely t stimulate br adinterest acr ss ther sect rs.

An ecosystem valuation approachneed not necessarily start with theidentification of a problem as such, butcan also be a way of improving a situationor avoiding a potential problem. Citiessuch as Montral and Calgary in Canadaare considering the cognitive, social andhealth benefits of living in close proximity to

nature. For example, when planning for theconstruction of a major residential projectfor the elderly, Montral suggests thatcities could also consider creating a green

area in the vicinity to respond to the specifichealth and social needs of their citizens(Daniel Hodder, City of Montreal; ChrisManderson, City of Calgary; and, GrantPearsell, City of Edmonton Pers. Comm.).Engaging stakeholders at an early stagewill assist in identifying appropriateareas and challenges that need to beaddressed. For example, consult withpersonnel from different departmentsto determine what they consider to beimportant challenges, and discuss withecologists or conservationists which

of these can be addressed through anincreased focus on ecosystem services.Early engagement helps to avoidmisunderstandings; makes others aware

The City of Cape Towns EnvironmentalResource Management Department setout to determine the economic value of their ecosystem services based on thechallenge of rapid biodiversity loss inperhaps the worlds most biodiverse andbiodiversity-threatened city. In order toinvolve stakeholders the Department

actively engaged with all other Depart-ments within the Citys managementstructure that have responsibility for,or impact on, natural assets within theCity, including the Finance Department,involving them in the valuation process.This was done even before consul-tants were hired to conduct the study

and involved a process of relationship-building with the other departments

something important not only for theparticular study but for general cooper-ative management within the City.

S urce: De Wit and van Zyl 2011;De Wit et al. 2009.

The City Cape T wns Ec system Services Valuati n Exercise (c ntinued)

The Environmental Resource Management Department at the City of Cape Town engaged with other relevant departments around the valuation process of theCitys natural assets.

C i t y o f

C a p e

T o w n

STEP 1

Speci y and agree n the pr blem r p licy issue with stakeh lders


18/48

13


The uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park case study illustrates the flexible approach of the TEEB steps, and how they can be adapted for particular situations.

Ensuring that the natural assets bene it l cal c mmunitiesin S uth A rica

The uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park (UDP) was listed as a World Heritage Site bythe United Nations Educational, Scienti c and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) inNovember 2000. The Drakensberg is the longest and highest mountain range insouthern Africa, containing unique and endangered biodiversity as well as a largequantity of rock art, one of the richest areas in the world in this regard. The culturalvalues, aesthetic appreciation and tourism, of this World Heritage Site are great,but the nancial impacts on the local municipality and communities are limited, withthe main bene ciaries being private tourism operators. There are therefore fewincentives from a biodiversity and tourism perspective for the local municipality toprotect the environment and promote sustainable land-use options. Planning needed

to incorporate priorities other than World Heritage status in order to ensure thatlocal communities bene t from local ecosystem services. An extremely effectivepolicy intervention was therefore to involve local stakeholders and reconcile their needs and aspirations with a range of conservation objectives. The identi ed priorityissues were: food, water and energy security. An economic development strategywas therefore identi ed, which embraces these issues in order to ensure sustainabledelivery of these ecosystem services.

S urce: G lder Ass ciates 2010; Blignaut et al. 2011.

Ackn wledgement:The uThukela District Municipality sits on the Buffer Zone Steering Committee andthrough this position they made the funds available for the study. Ezemvelo KZNWildlife is driving the Buffer Zone process and established the Steering Committeeto bring key stakeholders on board. Through this mechanism, and its TechnicalCommittee, the project received significant support. Notably the Chair of the SteeringCommittee, Mr Oscar Mthimkhulu, needs to be acknowledged.

Designating natural wealth by means of WorldHeritage Sites is one way of publicly recognisingecosystem service value.

S t e p h e n

G r a n g e r

M y l e s

M a n

d e r

of the exercise from the start; providesa critical analysis of the challengefrom different perspectives; and, helpsto foster cooperation and consensus.If necessary, establish a core committee toguide and review the assessment process,to ensure the focus remains on the user and remains credible (OFarrell and

Reyers 2011).Stakeholder engagement isa common thread throughout the six steps.The city administration is probablythe most important source of stakeholderswith which to engage both officials andpolitical leadership. Other importantstakeholder groups include the generalpublic, often represented through

community groups, who are alsooften willing to assist as volunteers.Research organizations and institutionsmay be willing and able to contributeexpertise, for example by indicat-ing whether a particular challengeidentified is indeed relevant to ecosystemservices.


19/48

14


Policy often has to mediate between competing stakeholders interests. However, often those stakeholders can be united and brought into discussions by virtue of their shared need for the same resource, such as water.

S t e p h e n

G r a n g e r

Having initiated the stakeh lder engagement pr cess,c nsider the ll wing p ints in a acilitated c nsultati n:

For each participatory process, organizers should specify:Who participates? On which terms? For what purpose?Stakeholders need to have a clear idea of what they canexpect from the process.

Organizers should analyze (politically and in economicterms), interactions and power relations within the localcontext as well as between a locality and its wider structuralsetting. Examining the distribution of ecosystem servicesprovides important insights.

If power relations are neglected, the process may be usedby those with the most power to capture additional bene ts.

Participation should include everyone directly affected bythe decision, as well as those relevant to implementation.Different actors will have different concerns, and bilateralmeetings, and an objective facilitator, can assist the process.

The success of a participatory process largely depends onthe trust stakeholders place in it. For this reason, the reliabilityand transparency of the facilitator are key. Source: Berghfer and Berghfer 2006.

fURTHER READING: For more general information on stakeholder involvement and support, see: ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability. 2010.

Local Action for Biodiversity Guidebook: Biodiversity Management for Local Governments. Laros MT and Jones FE (Eds)(pg 33-34).

TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policymakers (2010) (pg 57-60) provides further detail on participatory appraisal a variety of techniques that incorporate data relating to the interrelationships betweenpeoples livelihoods and socioeconomic and ecological factors.

Richards C, Blackstock K and Carter C. 2004. Practical Approaches to Participation. SERG Policy Brief, Number 1.The Macauley Institute. www.macaulay.ac.uk/socioeconomics/research/SERPpb1.pdf, provides a hands-on overview toorganising stakeholder participation.

For further background on the City of Cape Town valuation study, specifically summarised for decision-makers, see: De Wit M,Van Zyl H, Crookes D, Blignaut J, Jayiya T, Goiset V and Mahumani B. 2009b. Why investing in natural assets makes financialsense for the municipality of Cape Town: A summary for decision makers. Cape Town.

g a a h a


20/48

15


Property values are often increased by proximity to natural or semi-natural areas, and ecological restoration may in fact lead to an increase in adjacent proper ty prices.

C i t y o f

E d m o n

t o n

Having identi ied a challenge that maybe s lved thr ugh a c nsiderati n ec system services, it is necessaryt identi y and pri ritize whichec system services are m st relevant,i.e. th se ec system services whichthe p licy issues r pr blem dependsup n, r that supp rt it. This includesec system services which area ected, r impacted, by the pr blem

r p licy issue, since their uturesustainability will depend up n their ability t assist in dealing with thechallenges.

To begin with, consider the four overarching questions along withcolleagues and other stakeholders(TEEB 2010b): Which ecosystem services are

central to the local/regional societyand economy?

Which stakeholders are mostdependent on these ecosystemservices?

Which ecosystem services areat risk?

How do the problems and policiesaffect them?

The list of questions provided in Table4, pertaining to each of the ecosystemservices, will further help to stimulate abasic analysis of what is important in thecity and in particular, in relation to thespecific problem or policy issue. Consultwith the relevant stakeholders, sincetheir involvement at an early stage willbe more likely to ensure the maintenanceof their support throughout the process.Consider the potential for the provisionof each ecosystem service in the city,even if that ecosystem service does notcurrently play a significant role.

STEP 2

Identi y the m st relevant ec system services thatcan help t s lve the pr blem r p licy issue

Many species are sensitive to pollution, and are therefore useful as indicator species. This measure of environmental quality can itself be considered an ecosystem service.

C i t y o f

C a p e

T o w n

M o n

i k a

H a c

h t e l

/ C i t y o f

B o n n


21/48

16


L cal ec systemservices in high demand(distinguish between local,national and global)

Sec nd pri rity:Ensure that use levels are kept within thecurrent pressure/risk range. Apply caution.Be attentive to changes in external risks/pressures.

first pri rity:If pressures are due to high demand, focus onsubstitutes, or on lowering demand.If pressures are external/unrelated to demand,

join forces with service users against externalpressures.

L cal ec systemservices in l w demand(distinguish between local,national and global)

f urth pri rity:Check for unnecessary losses in naturalresources: A currently low demandmay lead to inadvertent losses of something that in the future may be highlyappreciated (e.g. genetic diversity).

Third pri rity:Severe losses in one service may have anunprecedented effect on others. Consultexperts on ecosystem tipping points, whichonce reached may produce a change inecosystem functioning.

L cal ec system services under l w pressure/ at l w risk

L cal ec system services under high pressure/ at high risk

S metimes the TEEB stepwiseappr ach may need t be applied ina di erent way as illustrated in the

ll wing example: In South Africasrural uThukela District Municipality(Blignaut et al. 2011; Golder Associates2010) a research team followed a slightly

different course: They examined the sizeand ecological condition of the areas(natural and transformed) land cover and habitat types. From this they coulddraw conclusions about the current (andfuture) state of ecosystem services (step4). Combined with the number of users

of each service they could prioritizethose services in a critical condition(step 2). This in turn served to further specify the problem (step 1).

S urce: G lder Ass ciates 2010;Blignaut et al. 2011.

Investigating the value Ec system Services in Rural S uth A rica (c ntinued)

M y l e s

M a n

d e r

The various incentive options for the uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park were explored with all stakeholders.

Table 3: An example h w t pri ritise ec system services

After identifying the ecosystemservices, they should then be rankedaccording to specific relevance. Specialconsideration should be given to thoseupon which stakeholders rely, or wherestakeholders will be affected by changes

in ecosystem service delivery. Oftenthe problem or policy issue (step 1) willdetermine the priority of the identifiedecosystem services. But if this is notthe case, look jointly at the levels of demand for each ecosystem service

and their supply, using existing dataand experience-based knowledge.Table 3 provides an example of how toprioritise ecosystem services, andoffers a few aspects to consider whendoing so.


22/48

17


Table 4: Use ul questi ns t identi y relevant ec system services (Step 2)

Ec system Service Is this ecosystem service relevant to municipal management or the speci c problem at hand?

Is farming (crops, stock or sheries) one of the economic activities in the city; or are there communities that depend directly a f h f ?

Are raw materials such as wood, biofuel or bre, produced in the city; or are there communities that depend directly ona f h a a ?

Are there water reservoirs, rivers or other water bodies in the city, that supply drinking or irrigation water? Are the catchment(watershed) areas feeding these water bodies located partly within the city?

Are there populations of wild or domesticated plants or animals in the city, which have medicinal value or are likely to havea a ?

A a h a h b a f ha b a f a h b - a a ?

Are trees and other vegetation being planted and maintained in the city, especially in built-up areas?

Does the city contain any wetlands, mangroves, coral reefs; or other ecosystems that can mediate the effect of extremeweather events such as drought, re, oods and rough seas?

Is the city reliant on water ltered through wetlands before entering reservoirs, thereby saving on costs of arti cialpuri cation?

Does the city contain steep slopes that have good vegetation cover to slow the ow of rainwater and protect the soil?

In the city, is crop farming practiced, which relies on animals (insects in particular) for pollination (for example most fruits andvegetables)?

Are species present in the city, which control pests that endanger human health; or are there any crops for which pest control b a ?

Does the city contain ecosystems that are healthy enough to support a variety of wild species?

Are there endemic species in your city which depend on ecosystems to maintain their genetic diversity, or are there typicalrare cultivars or local varieties of species grown in your city?

Do many citizens regularly use nature (forests, parks, etc.) within the city for recreation; or, is there potential to develop sucha -ba a ?

d h a a b a f h a a h a a?

Do the citizens appreciate the natural beauty of the area? This may be indicated by people enjoying natural areas respectfully; a h a .

Are religions, practiced within the city, dependent on natural areas; or do any of these natural areas have particular religioussigni cance?


23/48

18


J a n

S a s s e

f o r T

E E B

Examples ec systems and a ew the services they pr vide

Agriculture practices impact on, and are influenced by,the wider ecosystem and its services

J a n

S a s s e

f o r T

E E B

J a n

S a s s e

f o r

T E E B


24/48

19


Key decision-makers were involved in the participatory process of identifying, selecting and prioritising ecosystem services for the City.

C i t y o f

C a p e

T o w n

fURTHER READING: Slightly different terms might be used for ecosystem services, but the list is generally quite consistent between sources.

This manual and the TEEB Reports provide a comprehensive list of ecosystem services, which is based on science and issimilar to that provided in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). For additional background on ecosystem servicesand their value, consult the MEA. In particular the MEA Biodiversity Synthesis Report (www.maweb.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf) is recommended for its brevity and specific focus (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).

WRI. 2008. Ecosystem Services: A guide for decision makers. This easily accessible report frames the link betweendevelopment and ecosystem service, points out risk and opportunities and provides clear guidance for decision makers(www.wri.org/publication/ecosystem-services-a-guide-for-decision-makers).

TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers (2010) provides morebackground information on relevant ecosystem services, especially Chapter 1 (www.teebweb.org/Portals/25/Documents/TEEB_D2_PartI-ForUpload%5B1%5D.pdf).

For a comprehensive assessment of the fundamental ecological and economic principles of measuring and valuingecosystem services and biodiversity, and also showing how these can be mainstreamed into public policies, see:The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations (TEEB Foundations 2010).

Based on the Millennium EcosystemAssessment (2005); different naturalassets, which provide ecosystemservices, were examined. This includeda participatory process with key decisionmakers focused on the identification,selection and prioritization of ecosystemservices. Personal interviews andfacilitated sessions were conducted

with invited City line function managersand senior staff, representing allfunctions related to the managementof ecosystem services in the City.The following steps were followed:

a) Assessment of the relativeimportance of dif ferent naturalassets (e.g. nature reserves,wetlands, near shore environments,etc.) for the generation of ecosystemservices. This allowed a basicunderstanding of the relationshipsbetween natural assets and

ecosystem services flows in order to appreciate which ones wereimportant and to prioritise underlyingassets for investment.

b) Estimation of the importance of ecosystem services for users/beneficiaries. The number of beneficiaries, as well as estimates

on the likely magnitude of value for each of the ecosystem servicesto these beneficiaries, helped toidentify the highest ranked or mostimportant ecosystem service values.

c) Assessment and qualitativeinformation of the broad linksbetween natural assets andeconomic development. Failure tolink investment in natural assets todesired developmental outcomesreduces the probability of increasedbudget allocations.

d) Assessment of the Citysability to influence thevalue of ecosystem servicesthrough management.The assets and flows,which are completely outsideof the Citys control, may havehigh value but will generally beless important when motivating

for an increased investmentfrom the City.

e) Ranking of the ecosystem servicesaccording to the level of ecologicaland socio-economic risks theyface. This recognises that certainenvironments are likely to be morevulnerable to habitat loss anddegradation and are thereforefacing greater ecological risks.


Identi ying and pri ritising ec system services in Cape T wn (c ntinued)


25/48

20


STEP 3

Determine what in rmati n is needed and select assessment meth dsS me valuati n meth ds w rk better

r particular ec system services, andn t all meth ds are applicable r allec system services. At an early stageit is imp rtant t determine whether the meth d ch sen requires statisticalanalysis (including c mputer s twareand skilled pe ple).

Consider what information is requiredfor conducting or commissioning anassessment of the prioritised ecosys-tem services. The assessment must be

tailor-made for each unique situation,and meet the requirements as specifiedby stakeholder consultation, in order toavoid unnecessary time and expenditure.

The chosen methodology will determinewhat data and skills are needed in order to obtain useful information. Define themethods to use by looking at the problemor policy issue in four different ways:

(i) What kind of questions need tobe answered by the assessment?How do they help tackle the decisionor policy issue?

(ii) What is already known aboutthe problem or policy issue?

What relevant data, knowledge,experience and expertise is alreadyavailable to the team or the stake-holders?

(iii) What are the constraints in timing,capacity and f inancial resources?

(iv) Which are the low hanging fruits?

Which are the questions where alittle additional input can generatenew insights important to the issue?

Discuss the study design with experts inorder to ascertain whether to concentrateon a broad range of ecosystem services,or to go into more detail with a few criticalones. Determine the timeframe over which

to consider the particular problem or policyissue. When deciding what kind of informa-tion is required, select an appropriate typeof assessment (see box below).

Ecosystem services such as the provi-sioning of food and raw materials arealready valued as part of the economicsystems dealt with daily (although theymay not be seen as such!). However,most ecosystem goods and servicesdo not have market prices that areeasy to calculate. In these cases onecan look at the cost of replacing theservice, or the costs saved throughprotection offered by the ecosystemservices (e.g. wetlands mediatingflooding). These methods can beuseful when an ecosystem servicehas an artificial alternative, the cost

of which can be calculated or obtainedfrom existing sources.

For example, in a literature reviewconducted by the City of Montral, itwas determined that there is a 5-20%increase in the value of property thatis within 30 meters of a park. Thisensures an increase in income tax for the city for these properties, which arealso sold faster when in close proxim-ity to a park (Ville de Montral 2010).When such approaches are not viableand such information does not exist,one can consider investigating local

citizens preferences which can beindicated through willingness to pay(WTP) for ecosystem services. WTPinvolves interviewing people about howmuch they would be willing to pay for acertain amount of a particular ecosys-tem service, while this method can beuseful, it does need to be approachedwith caution. Results from a WTP studyare often inaccurate due to the difficultyof judging hypothetical situations, andit works best where services can beeasily judged, such as entrance fees toa protected area, or higher security inwater delivery.

The particular nature of each situation will inform what kind of evaluation method for ecosystem

services is required.

C i t y o f

L e i c e s

t e r

Types assessment t c nsider when deciding nthe required in rmati n:

a) Qualitative assessment: describing the importanceor judging the state of the relevant ecosystemservices, as well as showing the connectivity andinterrelations between ecosystems and social andeconomic systems on a spatial scale (this may serve

as a communication and awareness-raising exercise,and highlight often-ignored, but important, ecosystemservices);

b) Quantitative assessment: for example, indicatingthe increases/decreases in the flow of ecosystemservices expected to result from a certain policy; or estimating the number of jobs affected by a problemthat could be solved through preserving ecosystemservices;

c) Monetary valuation: calculating the monetary value of selected ecosystem services, or the value of increasein/loss of certain services under different scenarios.


26/48

21


In order to make a business case for the City of Cape Towns ecosystem services, the economic values of biodiversityneeded to be determined.

C i t y o f

C a p e

T o w n

Consultants started with a literaturereview on ecosystem services (ES)and best practices to evaluate ES,and consulted individual valuationstudies that had already beendone in the city. The purposeand required outcomes weredetermined at the outset of the

study, i.e. that the economic valuesof Cape Towns ecosystem serviceswere needed to make a businesscase for biodiversity within the citymanagement and throughout therelevant line functions. the valueof ecosystem services from ananthropogenic perspective were

studied, and values that werepurely ecological or that wereindependent of humans, which arealso clearly important, were notconsidered in this specific study.


City of Cape Town Ecosystem Services Valuation Exercise (continued)

A u g u s

t i n B e r g h

f e r

Urban Managers are faced with reconciling competing needs for land by a growing population - as here in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.


27/48

22


The value of Abu Dhabis fishing industryhas long been known, and mangrovesprovide essential supporting and regulating

ecosystem services for this industry.

o q a f h a f

Table 5: A c mparis n m netary valuati n meth ds (TEEB 2010)

Meth ds Summary Statisticalanalysis Which services valued?

1. Direct market prices Market prices Observe market prices. Simple Provisioning services.

2. Market alternative i. Replacement costs Finding a man-made solution as analternative to the ecosystem service.

Simple Pollination, water puri cation.

ii. Damage cost avoided How much spending was avoidedbecause of the ecosystem serviceprovided?

Simple Damage mitigation, carbonsequestration.

iii. Production function How much is the value-added by theecosystem service based on its input toproduction processes?

Complex Water puri cation, freshwater availability, provisioning services.

3. Surrogate markets i. Hedonic Price Method The extra amount paid for higher environmental quality.

Very complex Use values only, recreation andleisure, air quality.

ii. Travel Cost Method Cost of visiting a site: travel costs(fares, car use, etc.) and also value of leisure time expended.

Complex Use values only, recreation andleisure.

4. Stated preference i. Contingent valuationmethod

How much is the survey respondentwilling-to-pay to have more of aparticular ecosystem service?

Complex All services.

ii. Choice experiments Given a menu of options with differinglevels of ecosystem services anddiffering costs, which is preferred?

Very complex All services.

5. Participatory Participatory environmentalvaluation

Asking members of a community todetermine the importance of a non-marketed ecosystem service relative togoods or services that are marketed.

Simple All services.

6. Bene ts transfer Bene ts transfer (meanvalue, adjusted meanvalue, bene t function)

Borrowing or transferring a value froman existing study to provide a ballparkestimate for current decision.

Can be simple,can be complex

Whatever services were valued in theoriginal study.

C i t y o f

A b u D h a b i

In the City of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE),

the wholesale value of fishlandings in 2008 was estimated at 1 millionAED (US$272,294) for the Inner IslandsLagoon and 104.8 million AED (US$28.5million) for the UAE as a whole (Hartmannet al. 2009). Mangroves provide animportant supporting service, the valueof which is easily determined through thevalue of the fishing landings, as nurserygrounds for several of these commerciallyimportant fish species, as well as for other species which contribute to ecosystemfunctioning. By restoring and protectingmangroves, many other benefits are also

afforded to the city, including protectionfrom storms and the control of soil erosion.

Through the direct intervention in thelate 1970s of the former President of theUAE, Sheikh Zayed, mangrove replantingschemes were implemented adjacent tothe city, and currently the adverse effectsof recent development around the city havealso prompted the EAD and the UPC tomitigate the loss of mangroves by requiringdevelopers to replant lost mangroves. As aresult, in the Emirates as a whole, the areaof mangroves has actually increased.

S urce: Abu Dhabi City Dra tBi diversity Rep rt 2011.


28/48

23


fURTHER READING: TEEB The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers. (2010) (page 43-49), for

additional details about the selection of methods provided in the Table above. Pearce et al. 2002. Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation: A Guide for Policy Makers. This OECD handbook for practitioners

provides guidance on biodiversity valuation, points out tradeoffs and contrasts economic and non-economic valuation. World Bank; IUCN; TNC (2004) How much is an ecosystem worth? Assessing the economic value of conservation.

This brochure introduces the approach of ecosystem services and compares different valuation methods in an easilyaccessible format. biodiversityeconomics.org/document.rm?id=710

A easily understandable introduction on ecosystem service valuation, along with essentials, the bigger picture and anoverview of existing valuation methods is available at www.ecosystemvaluation.org.

Bann C. 2003. The Economic Valuation of Mangroves: A Manual for Researchers. This academic how-to guide points outhow to conduct a Cost-Benefit-Analysis of mangroves and presents possible management options. http://network.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10305674900acf30c.html.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2007. An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services(http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/documents/eco-valuing.pdf) provides a good introduction tovaluation techniques.

Kumar P, Verma M, Wood MD and Negandhi D. 2010. Guidance manual for the valuation of regulating services.Ecosystem Services Economics (ESE) Working Paper Series. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.

Building natural value for sustainable economic development: The green infrastructure valuation toolkit user guide(Green infrastructure Northwest 2011) (www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/Green_Infrastructure_Valuation_ Toolkit_UserGuide.pdf) guides stakeholders to make good decisions about the decision options associated with a greeninfrastructure.

Turner RK, Georgiou S and Fisher B. 2008. Valuing Ecosystem Services ( www.urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/library/valuing-ecosystem-services; www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=102770) provides guidance on the valuation of ecosystem

services, using multifunctional wetlands as an example. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making (2010), especially Chapter 4,

explores a range of instruments to reward those offering ecosystem service benefits, to reduce the incentives of thoserunning down our natural capital, and to offer subsidies that respond to future priorities.

and buffer trees calculated, focusing on:structure (species composition, extentand diversity); function (environmentaland aesthetic benefits); value (annualmonetary value of the benefits providedand costs accrued); and, managementneeds (diversity canopy cover, pruningneeded).

It was found that the average benefitper tree in Edmontons urban forestwas US$74.73. The cost for caring for each tree is US$18.38 resulting in a netbenefit of US$56.35.

S urce: Grant Pearsell, City Edm nt n (pers. c mm.).

Valuing Trees inEdm nt n, Canada In 2009, the City of Edmonton analyzedthe environmental effects, value andstructure of Edmontons urban forestusing the Urban Forest Effects Model(www.nrs.fs.fed.us/tools/ufore/). Thismodelling software can approximatethe effectiveness of the urban forestin at least three ecosystem services:cleansing the air; sequestering carbon;and, reducing storm water in theCity. It relies on monetary values for each service which have been takenfrom other contexts (benefit transfer method) and can be quite uncertain.But the advantage of this method isthat it is comparatively easy to apply. If done for similar (e.g. North American)

contexts it can quickly deliver usefulfirst approximations.

For the City of Edmonton, which has12.8 million trees, it was a sufficientlyrobust approach to understand, andto communicate to their Counciland citizens, some of the additionalservices offered by trees and how theuse of trees can save the City money.Financial benefits were tallied and thecost of their boulevard, centre median

C i t y o f

E d m o n

t o n


29/48

24


STEP 4

Assess ( uture changes in) ec system servicesHaving determined the meth d l gy

r assessing the value therelevant ec system services inStep 3, the l gical next step is tc nduct the valuati n. This stepis, there re, simply putting theselected meth d l gy int practiceand assessing h w the pr blem r p licy issues will a ect ec systemservices. The examples bel willustrate s me the ways in whichthe meth ds, intr duced ab ve, have

been implemented. This is the studyc mp nent the pr cess, which canbe time c nsuming and ten requiresvery speci ic expertise. It is there reusually w rthwhile c nsidering hiringexperts t undertake the assessmentdespite the c st.

Ideally, this step in the process shouldconsider not only the current value of ecosystem services to the city, but alsohow those values have changed over

time and how they will change under different scenarios i.e. as a result of the problem or under different policydecisions. An integral component of thisassessment is understanding the driversof change. While it is not always possibleto include all of these issues into a singleassessment or valuation study it isimportant to draw on whatever additionalinformation is available for designing theanalysis (step 3) and for interpreting itsresults (steps 4 and 5).

Expert advice was sought from a groupof experienced resource and environ-mental economists on the consultingteam, and validated with experts out-side the team. The valuation techniquesused and key results were as follows(all values based on 2007 data):

T urism: Total tourism value: US$137 millionto US$418 million per annum; basedon the amount of revenue generatedby visitors who were travelling to, or in, the City in 2007; as a result of theattraction of natural features.

Recreati n: Local recreational values: US$58

million to US$70 million per annumbased on benefits transfer fromprevious valuation studies in CapeTown for recreation.

Gl bally imp rtant bi diversity: Donor funding of US$32 million for

conservation has flowed to the regiongiving a proxy of value - it can easilybe argued that Cape Town is one of the most important cities in the worldfor biodiversity conservation.

Aesthetic and sense placerelated values:

Evidence shows that natural spacesplay an important role in improvinghealth and well-being in cities.

Natural assets help to attract skilledentrepreneurs and others that driveeconomic development. CapeTowns branding is now stronglylinked to its natural assets.

Natural assets are a key driver of thefilm and advertising industry and arevalued between US$18.8 million andUS$56.4 million per annum, basedon industry expenditure ascribableto natural asset locations.

Cape Town boasts some of the

most sought-after property, largelybecause of its natural assets. At a

site specific scale, rehabilitation andrestoration projects have createdsignificant values.

Natural hazard regulati n: US$650,000 to US$8.6 million per

annum for natural hazard regulation(wildfires, floods and storm surge)

based on estimates of the cost of damages avoided from buffering of fires, flooding and storm surge bynatural assets.

Water puri icati n and wastetreatment, assimilati n: Case studies show values and risks.

For example, the need to dredgeZeekoevlei Wetland for US$8.5

US$9.9 million represents theminimum clean-up costs needed for the wetland to function normally andavoid ecosystem collapse.


The values of Cape Towns ecosystem services were estimated by experts.

C i t y o f

C a p e

T o w n

City Cape T wns ec system services valuati n pr cess (c ntinued)


30/48

25


Ecosystem services vary naturally over time, with the changes in seasons for example, but also as a result of intentional or unintentional human influence. In order to get the most out of our natural wealth, we must plan for and adapt to change, or mitigate it where necessary.

Artificial prevention of natural disasters is often more expensive and lesseffective than natural ecosystem-based buffers.

A n d r

K n z e

l m a n n /

U F Z

Using the Bene itTrans er Meth d inthe City eThekwini(Durban)The City of eThekwini (Durban) in South

Africa took advantage of a seminal studyof ecosystem valuation (Costanza et al.1997). This study broadly estimatedthe value of each of the worlds biomesaccording to the ecosystem servicesthey provided, justifying the obviousuncertainties involved by alwayschoosing conservative estimates. TheCity of eThekwini assigned values basedon the Constanza values, to vegetationtypes within their administration. Eachvegetation type corresponded to someextent with one of the biomes used byCostanza, but was adjusted for thelocal conditions and situation. Like the

biomes used in the international study,the vegetation types were thereforeused as surrogates for ecosystems, andthe values were based on values thathad already been determined by a teamof international scientists. Note that suchvalues are an estimate, and that cautionshould be taken when using this methodby, for example, underestimating thevalues when unsure.

S urce: EThekwini MunicipalityBi diversity Rep rt 2007.

In order to capture past changes or anticipate future changes, it is imperative to start by asking the right questions. Apply thequestions below to each of the ecosystem services prioritised in step 2 (Sources: Ranganathan 2008, TEEB 2010):

How great is the citys dependence on this ecosystem service? (i.e. High, Medium or Low)

What are the recent trends in this ecosystem service? (i.e. Stable, Increasing, Decreasing)

Identify the drivers (which includes threats to each ecosystem service) of these trends, and the level of their recentimpact. (High, Medium or Low impact; driven by, for example, land-use change, pollution, etc.)

S t e p h e n

G r a n g e r

R i c h a r d

B o o n


31/48

26


City Cape T wnsec system servicesvaluati n pr cess(c ntinued)

The evaluation undertaken by theCity of Cape Town was integratedinto the wider business case and anassessment of additional policy optionswas undertaken. An estimate of theeconomic value of ecosystem servicesdoes not present a complete case for increased investment in itself.

Investment in ecosystem servicescan be viewed as investments in thelocal economy and the ratio betweenthese investments and the grossgeographical product (GGP) in the Cityeconomy provides a rough measure of a municipalities leverage on the localeconomy. This ratio was calculated for the City as a whole, and compared tothe ratio between City investments

in natural assets specifically andthe expected value-added flowing

from this investment in the form of anenhanced flow of ecosystem services.It was estimated that the ratio indicatingthe relationship between the publicvalue generation and public expenditurefor the environment sector exceeds thatof the general city economy by between1.2 and 2 times.

Another indicator that was used tocommunicate the business case wasthe Unit Reference Value (URV), or the expenditure that is required togenerate one Rands worth of benefits.

URV for Cape Towns natural capitalassets was calculated at a valueof 0.16 South African Rand (ZAR),compared to between ZAR2 andZAR5 for investments in water supplyinfrastructure. In summary, it wascalculated that the return on investingin Cape Towns natural assets wasproportionately high, because thisensured the provision of valuableecosystem services.

S urce: De Wit and van Zyl 2011;De Wit et al. 200 9.

Armed with in rmati n n theavailability, value and/ r the changes

the relevant ec system services itis p ssible t identi y and c mparedi erent pti ns addressing thepr blem, arriving at the m st e ectiveand use ul s luti n and meth d implementati n.

From an ecosystems perspective, themanagement or policy options can bebroadly divided into three options:

1. Do nothing at all about the problem;2. Use solutions that do not involveecosystems; and

3. Use solutions that allow theecosystem to assist in solving theproblem.

The following will assist in how to assesswhich management option or policyresponse is the best solution: Firstly, incorporate the new insights

from the study into discussions intechnical planning sessions, councilmeetings and public consultations,

as important information in (re-)shaping positions and arguments.The benefits of the naturalresources (i.e. the ecosystemservices) are therefore captured inthe decision-making process.

Secondly, incorporate these insightsregarding the value of ecosystemservic