teeb phase 2 introduction by patrick ten brink of ieep at the eeb biodiversity seminar 11 dec 08
Upload: patrick-ten-brink-of-the-institute-for-european-environmental-policy
Post on 17-Jan-2015
1.770 views
DESCRIPTION
TEEB Phase 2 Introduction by Patrick ten Brink of IEEP at the EEB Biodiversity Seminar 11 Dec 08TRANSCRIPT
1
Second phase of the TEEB Initiative
Presentation to the EEB Biodiversity SeminarThursday 11 December 2008
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)
Patrick ten Brink,
Head of Brussels Office, IEEP
TEEB D1 Co-ordinator
D1
An initiative of the
G8+5, BMU (D) & the European Commission
Supported by
Defra (UK), UNEP, the EEA, OECD and the CBD Secretariat
Building on and borrowing from the work & insights of the wider TEEB team and contributors of supporting studies, call for evidence and other contributions
2
Presentation Structure
1. TEEB Background and Aims
2. TEEB Phase 1: Recap on results & impacts from phase 1
3. TEEB Phase 2: Ambitions, Activities, Content and Process
4. TEEB and some reflections
1. Role of NGOs
2. Communication
3. TEEB and the financial crisis
3
Background: TEEB’s Genesis
Potsdam 2007: meeting of the environment
ministers of the G8 countries and the five
major newly industrialising countries
“Potsdam Initiative – Biological Diversity 2010”
1) The economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity
In a global study we will initiate the process of analysing
the global economic benefit of biological diversity,
the costs of the loss of biodiversity and
the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation.
4
TEEB’s Goals
• Assess and communicate the urgency of action to address ecosystems and biodiversity loss – by presenting the economic, societal and human value of the benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity, and the scale of the benefits lost,
• Show how we (can) take into account the value of ecosystems and biodiversity in our decisions and choices,
• Address the needs of policy-makers, local administrators, business and citizens (the “end-users”) – interests, opportunities, & responsibilities.
Phase 1 (2007-2008):
• Preliminary scoping work,
• Some first analysis,
• Clarification as to how to address the wider goals,
• Preliminary identification of experts and organisations to contribute
Phase 2 (2008-2010):
• Additional analysis within wider Valuation framework
• Broaden the scope of studies (methods; ecosystem services (ESS) and biomes)
• Focus on End-user products
• Stronger Involvement from different experts & organisations
Source: adapted from Pavan Sukhdev
5
Recap: why the concern?Past Losses
� Global Forest Area has shrunk by approximately 40% since 1700. Forests have completely disappeared in 25 countries [1].
� Since 1900, the world has lost about 50%of its wetlands. [2].
� Some 20% of the world’s coral reefs - have been effectively destroyed by fishing, pollution, disease and coral bleaching and approximately 24% of the remaining reefs in the world are under imminent risk of collapse through human pressures.[3]
� In the past two decades, 35% of mangroves have disappeared. Some countries have lost up to 80% through conversion for aquaculture, overexploitation and storms.[4]
� The rate of species extinction is estimated to be 100 to 1,000 times more rapid than the “natural” extinction rate (MA 2005).
[1] United Nations Forest and Agriculture Organisation, 2001.Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000; United Nations Forest and Agriculture Organisation, 2006 Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005.[2] http://www.ramsar.org/about/about_wetland_loss.htm[3] Wilkinson C., 2004: Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004 report [4] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Global Assessment Report 1: Current State & Trends Assessment. Island Press, Washington DC. Detail: Chapter 19 Coastal Systems. Coordinating lead authors: Tundi Agardy and Jacqueline Alder. Original reference: 35%: Valiela et al. 2001; 80% reference: Spalding et al. 1997
6
Biodiversity loss - 1700 to 2050
Source: building on Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium.
73%
62%
MSA statistics indicate that in the “Policy Inaction” scenario : � Global objective (significant reduction in rate of loss) unlikely by 2050 � Stricter European goal (halting further loss ) unlikely by 2050 � CBD goals (for 2010) unlikely over short term
7
2000The Global Loss of Biodiversity
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008 on the COPI Study; building on MNP data
8
2050The Global Loss of Biodiversity
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008 on the COPI Study; building on MNP data
� Europe – at Risk
India - at Risk
Africa – at Risk.
The World – at Risk.
9
Mapping changes : from Biodiversity & Ecosystems to Economic Values
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.)
Change inEconomicValue
Policies Nat. Reg. Loc. Int.
Changein
Land use,Climate,Pollution,Water use
(Human)Drivers
ChangeIn
EcosystemServices
Changein
Biodiversity
Changein
Ecosystemfunctions
Natural Drivers
10
Valuation & Ecosystem service losses COPI calculation: A
Annual Loss of economic value of ecosystem services that would have been
available had biodiversity remained at 2000 levels. Estimate for 2050.
2000 20502010 2030
Services that `would
have been there,
had biodiversity
been halted.Ecosystem
service level
Relative to 2000
A
Losses
continue
into the
future
Source: P ten Brink in L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI Study
11
TEEB – Interim ReportCOP-9, Bonn, May 2008
Economic Size & Welfare Impact of Losses is enormous
Strong Links betweenPoverty / MDG’s & Biodiversity Losses
Discount Rates are an ethical choice
Key Messages from the Interim Report…..
MDG1: Eradicateextreme povertyand hunger
MDG5: Improvematerial health
MDG4: Reducechild mortality
Source: Pavan Sukhdev
12
Change of Landuse (area coverage) across all biomes – Global Total
0%108.4108.4World Total *
0%0.20.2Artificial surfaces
9%20.819.1Cultivated grazing
626%0.50.1Woody biofuels
44%15.811.0Intensive agriculture
-39%3.05.0Extensive agriculture
70%7.04.2Forest managed
-9%3.03.3Bare natural
-11%58.065.5Natural areas
2000 to 2050million km2million km2Area
Difference 20502000Actual
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI
� Natural areas loss is 7.5m km2 - broadly equivalent to the area of the Australia.
�Losses: natural, bare natural areas & extensive agriculture broadly equals the USA
13
Loss of Quality / DegradationGlobal total
Loss of quality - due to pollution, fragmentation, infrastructure and climate
impacts (Global average all biomes)
Mean Species Abundance indicator
18%World Total
14%Cultivated grazing
0%Woody biofuels
-2%Intensive agriculture
8%Extensive agriculture
20%Forest managed
8%Bare natural
11%Natural areas
MSA loss 2000 to 2050
Mean species abundance change for different land
use categories
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI
14
COPI - Some key results
• The welfare loss grows with each year of biodiversity and ecosystem loss.
• Over the period 2000 to 2010 this amounts to around 50 billion Euros extra loss
per year, every year.
• By 2010 the welfare losses from the loss of ecosystem services amount to 545
billion EUR in 2010 or just under 1% of world GDP.
• The value of the amount lost every year rises, until it is around 275bn
EUR/yr in 2050.
• The loss of welfare in 2050 from the cumulative loss of ecosystem services
between now and then amounts to 14 trillion (10^12) Euros under the fuller
estimation scenario
• This is equivalent in scale to 7% of projected global GDP for 2050 – across
land-based biomes
Source: P ten Brink in L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI Study
15
The loss grows with each year of biodiversity and ecosystem loss.
Land based ecosystems only
-7.1%-13938World Total
-0.40%-786Cultivated grazing
0.19%381Woody biofuels
0.67%1303Intensive Agriculture
-0.57%-1109Extensive Agriculture
0.95%1852Forest managed
-7.97%-15678Natural areas
Equivalent to %
of GDP in 2050Billion EURArea
Relative to 2000Relative to 2000
Global COPI Loss of Ecosystem services
from land based ecosystems
Source: P ten Brink et al in L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI Study for DGENV
Other biomes - need for complementary focus in Phase 2
16
-6.3%-0.8%
Losses of ESS from natural areas in forest biomes as share
of % GDP
195.5World GDP in 2050 (trillion (10^12) EUR)*
-12310-1552Natural areas
-5.5%-0.7%Losses of ESS from forests as share of % GDP
-10791-1317Forest Total
-1025-133Temperate deciduous forest
-701-47Cool coniferous forest
-1372-190Temperate mixed forest
-2332-249Warm mixed forest
-3362-536Tropical forest
-1999-163Boreal forest
Fuller Estimation
Partial
EstimationForest biomes
Global COPI Loss of Ecosystem services
Forestry biomes
Source: P ten Brink et al in L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI Study Building on FEEM forestry per hectare values
17
What ESS could already be included (forests)?
Not included - (10 services)
Provisioning services
� Biochemicals, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals
� Ornamental resources
� Fresh water
Regulating services
� Temperature regulation, precipitation
� Erosion control
� Technology development from nature
� Regulation of human diseases
� Biological control and pollination
� Natural hazards control / mitigation
Cultural services
• Living comfort due to environmental amenities
Included - (8 services)
Provisioning services
� Food, fiber, fuel
Regulating services
� Air quality maintenance
� Soil quality maintenance
� Climate regulation (i.e. carbon storage)
�Water regulation (i.e. flood prevention,,
aquifer recharge etc.)
�Water purification and waste management
Cultural services
� Cultural diversity, spiritual and religious
values, educational values, aesthetic and
cultural
� Recreation and ecotourism
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI Study
Need for focus in Phase 2
18
A : 50-year impact of inaction B : Natural Capital Loss every year
Lost Welfare equivalentto 5.5 % of GDP (from forest biomes overall) … or…
Natural Capital Lost fromUSD 1.35 x 10 12 to 3.10 x 10 12(@ 4% Discount Rate) (@ 1% Discount Rate)
COPI – Forestry Biome Different ways of calculating the loss
Source: P ten Brink in L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI Study for DGENV
19
Impacts of Phase 1
Impacts of Phase 1
• Press coverage and visibility – the buzz
• Awareness and understanding – broadening the audience & new perceptions
• Formal Engagement by other into the TEEB process – voting with their feet/pockets
• Integration of TEEB into other processes and activities – others are listening
• Policy debate – TEEB in the corridors of power
And in TEEB phase II, the above +
• Policy influence – Realising commitments +Words turn to commitment
• Practical influence – Action on the ground
20
Press Echo to TEEB I, May 2008
Source: Dr Carsten Neßhöver, Heidi Wittmer & Christoph Schröter-Schlaack, Presentation in Vilm, 26.8.2008
21
Awareness & understanding –broadening the audience & new
perceptions
Broadening the audience & high level access….
• Into realms of Economics and Finance experts – nature: natural capital: value
• Other Government departments reaches - reaches the parts of government that other studies cannot reach
• other sectors “integration” – understanding of value of nature and need to safeguard inputs
• Court of auditors: national responsibility of dealing with limited resources.
New Perceptions (in some quarters) / strengthened perceptions
• The dangers of discounting as done to date / dispute the dogma
• New understanding of reliance, resilience and risk
• GDP of the Poor
• Not Economy vs Ecology, but ecology underpins much of the economy
• Nature is fundamental to welfare and wellbeing
• Need to re-orientate the signals within our economies/societies
• Need to reward practice that offers benefits,
• Ensure responsibility for damages
22
� “India” Example (from GIST’s Green Accounting for Indian States
Project, 2002-03 data)
� 480 Million people in small farming, animal husbandry, informal forestry, fisheries….
� ESS add “only 7.3%” to classical GDP
or
� ESS add 57 % to “GDP of the Poor”
Deep Links with Poverty “GDP of the Poor” most seriously impacted by ecosystem losses…
Source: Pavan Sukhdev
23
Ethics of discountingThree hidden stories
1. Declining Growth Paths in the per-capita flow of nature’s services …imply that discount rates should be negative
2. Marginal Utility of $1 to the Rich vs Poor … is too different to merit the same discounting treatment
3. Inter-generational Equity … following ‘market practice’ means valuing nature’s utility to your grandchild at one-seventh of your own !
Most of the 29 valuation studies in our meta-study of forest valuationsuse discount rates between 3%-5%
1,000,0000 %1,000,000
608,0391 %1,000,000
371,3282 %1,000,000
140,7134 %1,000,000
Presentvalue of
the futurecash flow
Annualdiscount
rate
Cash flow50 years in the future
Source: Pavan Sukhdev
24
GDP & natural capital loss How they (don’t) fit
2000 2050
Services that would have been there, had biodiversity been
halted
Ecosystem service level
Population 9100 million
GDP (OECD Scenarios) 2.8%/year
GDP, with feedback on economic losses from
biodiversity losses integrated -illustrative
Relative to 2000
Population: 6092 million
GDP: 41.4$ trillion (PPP) (10^12)
GDP/capita: 680$ (PPP)
GDP adjusted for well-being impact of biodiversity loss - illustrative
Source: Patrick ten Brink (IEEP), Leon Braat (Alterra), Mark van Ooorshot (MNP), Matt Rayment (GHK)
If we measure it right – we are most probably going in the wrong direction
The assumption of continued economic
group will be compromised by eroding our natural
capital
25
..some quotes…
Simon Kuznets - GDP's creator – already in 1934 said that “The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income”.
& after almost 30 years further thought, added“Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of growth, between its costs and return, and between the short and the long term. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of what and for what.”
On GDP and natural resourcesA country could cut down all its forests and deplete its naturalresources and this would show only as a positive gain to GDP despite of the loss of capital.
Source: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 2005 see http://www.millenniumassessment.org
26Source: Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6
March 2008, Brussels, Belgium. Original source: Pauly (UBC, Canada)
� Half of wild marine fisheries are fully exploited, with a further quarter already over-exploited
� at risk : $ 80-100 billion income from the sector
� at risk : est. 27 million jobs
� but most important of all…..
At risk : over a billion people rely on fish as their main or sole source
of animal protein, especially in developing countries.
Global Loss of Fisheries……Human Welfare Impact
We are fishing down the food web to ever smaller species…
Perverse Subsidies are a key driver of the loss of fisheries : Need for new policy orientation?
27
Impacts of Phase 1Engagement into the Process
• Formal Engagement by other into the TEEB process - voting with their feet/pockets/time
Engagement in TEEB• CBD support TEEB formally• UNEP on board - thematic/expert input, not just secretariat• UK on board to support TEEB Phase II• German government (not just initiators and funders, but also going to do TEEB Germany)• European Parliament Interest• …..
Links of TEEB to others – TEEB is seeking to build links and wider engagement. • UNDP : Latin America…• Ecosystem value work in China….• Japan – building• USA - building • VROM et al workshop on IPES (February 2009)• CBD workshop on perverse incentives (..maybe May 2009) • EEB Biodiversity seminars! (tip of the iceberg)
What potential links are there that you recommend TEEB make?
28
TEEB Phase 2: Ambitions, Process and milestones
• Overview
• D0
• D1
• D2
• D3
• D4
D0
D4
D3
D2
D1
29
TEEB – Final ReportsSep 2009 - June 2010
Citizen / ConsumerOwnership
Business Risks & Opportunities
Decision Supportfor Local Administrators
Policy opportunities for National & International Policy-Makers
Science & EconomicsFoundations, Policy Costs & Costs of Inaction
D0
D4
D3
D2
D1
Source: Pavan Sukhdev
30
The Process for TEEB Phase 2
Inputs from Science and Economicsexperts through the Call for Evidence, participation in Working Groups, etc
D0
2008 2009 2010
Continuous involvement of End-User Groups
D4
D3
D2
D1
Val‘n Framework, Methodologies, Cost Analyses
TEEB for Policy-Makers
TEEB for Citizens/Consumers
TEEB for Business
TEEB for Administrators
End-User Outreach
CBD COP10 Nagoya, Japan
CBD COP9 -Bonn, Germany
D0
D4
D3
D2
D1
Source: adapted from Pavan Sukhdev
31
The Operational Framework of TEEB – Phase II
E4E2 E3E1
Workshops – Call for Evidence – Synthesis Papers – etc….
D1: Policy- Maker
D2: Administrator
D3: Business
D4:Citizen/consumer
Study Leader Group Advisory Board
Peer Review Group
E13 E14E10 E11 E12E8 E9E6 E7
D0: Science & Economics
E5
Workshops – Call for Evidence –Synthesis Papers – etc….
Scientific Coordination
Group
TEEB Secretariat
Source: Pavan Sukhdev
32
TEEB Phase 2D0: Valuation Framework, Methodologies,
Cost Analyses - Scientific Challenges
• The scientific tome / basis of the wider TEEB work
• Solid, referenced analysis on TEEB issues, building on
• Phase 1 TEEB work and supporting effort
• Existing work across the world
• Contributions from across the planet - “big names” & other committed
• New work launched within the D0 context
• European Commission
• Others (Germany, UK, UNDP, etc)
• Develop further the TEEB valuation framework / guidelines to facilitate others doing similar work.
D0
33
TEEB Phase 2D0: Valuation Framework, Methodologies,
Cost Analyses - Scientific Challenges
• Develop further the TEEB valuation framework, e.g.
• further develop the framework of ecosystem services and benefits,
• investigate the state of knowledge on ecosystem dynamics,
• exploring how to reflect thresholds
• Recommend valuation methodology and do TEEB analysis, e.g.
• examine further some values not addressed in depth during Phase I (e.g. resilience values of biodiversity, option values such as bio-prospecting, non-use values such as bequest & existence values),
• address additional biomes (e.g, oceans, poles)
• Evaluation of policy costs
• the costs and opportunity costs of conservation policies versus the costs of ‘business-as-usual’ within an existing policy framework (e.g. agriculture, fisheries, infrastructure, climate change, etc)
D0
Source: adapted from Pushpam Kumar
34
TEEB for Policy MakersObjectives and Outcomes:
• Raise awareness of policy makers across the globe of the importance and
urgency of action to address ecosystems degradation and biodiversity loss.
• Help improve the understanding of the benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity
and the risk and costs of losing these benefits.
• Inform about the consequences of international and national policies on
biodiversity and ecosystems (i.e. subsidies, trading rules, benefits sharing).
• Identification of opportunities for action, such as applying new or reforming
existing policy tools; improve the way we measure our societal and economic
wellbeing taking account of ecosystem benefits and losses
• Support policy action, by providing information and tools to help provide
information that can be integrated into decision making.
D1
35
Structure and content being developed continuously taking into account insights & suggestions –detailed wireframe on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/d1.pdf
The D1 (Policy Level) TEEB Report: Structuring the issues
(The “wireframe”)D1
What package of instruments and responses do we need
to respond to the challenge?Using the whole Policy Toolkit to address the challenge 9
Protected areas, and addressing the financing and
implementation challengeProtecting areas, ecosystems, habitats and species8
What instruments and market signals can help ensure
that the polluter pays ?Policies to Address the Losses of Biodiversity7
Can we save money and avoid the destruction of
biodiversity?Aligning Today’s Subsidies to Tomorrow’s Priorities 6
What policy instruments can help and how to make the
markets give the right signals?Policies to Reward (unrecognised) Benefits of
Ecosystems and Biodiversity
5
What tools work, what needs and opportunities are there
for their use?Evaluation Tools that (can) Integrate the Value of
Biodiversity
4
What should we measure to ensure a proper stewardship
of our natural capital?Measuring to Manage our Natural Capital 3
Who can take up the biodiversity challenge; what tools
can help ?Policy Responses: Actors and instruments 2
Why is there Urgency for Action to address biodiversity
loss?The Biodiversity Policy Challenge 1
Questions being addressedTitleCh
36
Examples of issues of particular interestWhere can TEEB help ?
Working suggestions of areas where particular focus in TEEB is valuable -due to value of good practice and/or need for new initiatives or progress:
• Integrated policy making – the costs and benefits of losing biodiversity
• Payments for Environmental Services (PES)
• REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation)
• Environmental Harmful Subsidy (EHS) reform
• Adjusted national income accounting
• Ecological footprints
• (Criminal) Liability for damages
• …
• …
What areas do you see as particularly important to give due focus to?
D1
37
Deep Links with PovertyExamples Rewarding Unrecognized Benefits
� Panama Canal : Insurance firms and shipping companies are financing
a 25-year project to reforest the water catchment of the canal to restore freshwater flow to its locks… the fear of loss due to closures of the Canal had been making shipping insurance premiums mount.
�Costa Rican PES : Payments for Environmental Services are virtually
a national strategy for forest and biodiversity conservation and sustainable development
�Guyana : A Private Equity firm recently bought the rights to environmental
services from a 370,000 hectare rainforest reserve in Guyana anticipating that its services (water storage, biodiversity maintenance, rainfall regulation, etc) will gain value. Revenues will be shared 80% with the local community. Benefits sharing
Source: Pavan Sukhdev
38
TEEB D1 Organisation and Process
D1 Core Group
Call for Evidence
Direct contributions: advice on content + contributions of
ideas, insights, recommendations and material (text,
data, maps, case examples, quotes, messages, photos)
+ Peer Review
Thematic Workshops
D1 “wireframe” – The “contents of D1”
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/call_evidence.htm
Advisors & Authors / Contributors & Peer Reviewers
D1 Report
Co-ordinate process + develop
“wireframe” + substantial
content contributions +
responsible for overall output &
“make it happen”
On-line
Sept’ 09
January to May 09
Peer ReviewJune 09
Oct to Jan 08 for D1
Focused on policy makers.
Expectation: 150-200 pages
39
TEEB Phase 2D2: TEEB for Local Administration
Still being developed
Aim: support awareness of the implications/trade-offs in local decisions &
• Provide tools and information to local administrations to help them in their practical work – permit decisions, inspection, enforcement, court cases, setting local taxes/charges/fines (if and where possible) etc
Topics to be addressed:
• Tools to help local authorities with permit decisions (eg land conversion requests)
– eg clarify ecosystem services that should not be ignored,
– seek to provide some indicative values for potential use / benchmark,
– provide examples to demonstrate precedent.
• Help provide information to local authorities to help with conflict resolution over protected areas.
• Information to support local courts
– Eg to support implementation of liability cases / criminal law for environmental damage
What areas do you see as particularly important to give due focus to?
D2
40
TEEB Phase 2D3: TEEB for Businesses
Topics to be addressed:
• Tools to help business managers identify biodiversity risks and liabilities
– Value of biodiversity ecosystem services as an input to their processes, dependence and need to safeguard the inputs.
– Potential liabilities – damages, costs (fees/charges).
• The concept of “no net loss” or “net positive impact” on biodiversity and implications for business accounting systems
• New biodiversity business opportunities, including bio-friendly segments within established sectors, e.g. eco-agriculture, eco-tourism, certified forestry, as well as new sectors, e.g. biocarbon, biodiversity banking
• How to make business assets / capacities / skills more relevant to conservation through public-private partnerships
• Mainstreaming ecosystem indicators and values in corporate management and annual reporting systems
• The role of environmental regulation and market structures in pricing ecosystem assets and liabilities
• How business can help build a green economy and green jobs
D3
Source: adapted from Joshua Bishop
41
TEEB Phase 2D4: TEEB for Citizens/Consumers
Still being developed – balance of citizen focus and consumer focus open
Re Consumers, need for:
• Information on impact of consumer choices on biodiversity / ecosystems – eg the food we eat, clothes we buy, cars we drive (& the fuel), house we live in (and heat), and holidays we take..
• Tools to help consumers measure their impacts so as to respond to a need for responsibility.– Eg food miles or footprints or rucksacks?
– Benefits of organic for health and for the environment
• Examples of policies to help consumers - from different countries
Re Citizens & peoples, arguably need for:
• Rights, ethics and responsibility (and potential roles – eg spot the impact eg IAS)
• Realities for forest peoples
• GDP of the poor
• Ethics – who reaps the ecosystem services (eg biofuels-food tension)
D4
What do you see as particularly important to give due focus to?
42
TEEB and NGOs
1. Opportunity to get your messages across – for policy makers (D1),
administration (D2), for business (D3) and for individuals (D4)
2. There is no “TEEB for NGOs”, as NGOs have something to say for the 4
end user groups. Opportunity for engagement in Ds (contributors,
advisors, core group)
3. From NGOs, TEEB needs messages, insights, data, case examples,
photos, maps and quotes – we need global representation. Help with
practice in Latin America, Africa, and Asia most welcome – examples
and names of experts who know.
4. NGOs invaluable in getting the communication “buzz” in the
public/press + issues into the policy corridors.
43
TEEB and Communication – how to get the messages across
The challenge – not just identifying the message, but getting it across and being
taken seriously – into agendas, into action.
� TEEB: 5 deliverables, including 4 specific end user focused products
� Pavan Sukhdev (and others): wide range of high level presentations
� Big numbers and the press
� National/local numbers and country relevance
� Wide Engagement and involvement of into the process
� Clarifying links between high level issues - climate change, financial losses
� Case examples, interesting facts, quotes, lessons/insights + spotting the
needs and opportunities.
What do you see as initiatives that TEEB should focus on ?
44
TEEB and Communication – how to get the messages across
Eg: how to get companies to use values for “green
accounting”?
Underline the material benefits of ecosystem services to their
operations (ie dependency on ecosystem inputs?)
+ underline the risks / liabilities of loss of inputs, or damage to
ecosystems
+ clarify economic opportunities and competitiveness advantages.
+underline the long term context – the financial crisis gives a new
hope for moving away from short-termism?.
D3
D0 D3D2D1 D4
“No one would look just at a firm’s revenues to assess how well it was doing. Far more relevant is the balance sheet, which shows assets and liability. That is also true for a country.”
Joseph Stiglitz, 2005 in Foreign Affairs, see http://www.foreignaffairs.org/.html
45
TEEB and Communication – how to get the messages across
Eg: how to get countries to use values for “green
accounting”?
Underline the importance of ecosystem services to the economy and
societies wellbeing/development.
Demonstrate the benefits of using a more complete evidence base
Demonstrate the linkage of TEEB issues to others they recognise
intuitively or already commit to addressing (natural hazards,
food dependency, climate change, migration, development etc)
A country could cut down all its forests and deplete its naturalresources and this would show only as a positive gain to GDP despite of the loss of capital.
Source: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 2005 see http://www.millenniumassessment.org
46
TEEB and the Financial Crisis parallels and differences
1. The loss of natural capital is losing us more money than the stock
market collapse
2. The risk of natural capital loss is hardly factored in – has been off the
decision makers’ radar….
3. Running down natural capital is like running down out savings – and
when our savings run out, the situation is fragile, explosive, implosive
4. Short termism rules the decision (eg discount rate, quarterly
objectives) - the long term again not in our economic compass.
5. The market signals have often encouraged loss of natural capital – a
loss in the faith in markets… need to fix the compass
1. The loss of natural capital is losing us more money than the stock market collapse
2. Ecological losses have been leading to human disasters (starvation, not making ends meet (…suicides by Indian farmers), migrations) but not taken as seriously as banking losses
3. The risk of natural capital loss - to the economy to societies - is hardly factored in – has been off the decision makers’ radar….
4. Running down natural capital is like running down out savings – and when our savings run out, the situation is fragile, explosive, implosive
5. The insurance market will not be able to cope with the losses
6. Short termism rules the decision (eg discount rate, quarterly objectives) - the long term again not in our economic compass.
7. The market signals have often encouraged loss of natural capital – a loss in the faith in markets… need to fix the compass
4747
According to various estimates, these conservation areas produce some $4-5 trillion of utility per year from various ecosystem services
Approximately 60% (15 out of 24) of the ecosystem services evaluated in this assessment are being degraded or used unsustainably-MA,2005
Any Rescue Action/ Plan for Ecological Crisis?
International Financial Crisis and Rescue Action (Source: BBC, Oct 2008)
Global Ecological Crisis
Rescues committed to and rescues still to be committed to…
Source: Pavan Sukhdev
48
Summary
• Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services cannot continue into the future without undermining wellbeing and welfare of societies, economies and individuals.
• Sustainable progress needs a reorientation of market signals and a revision of policies in light of a greater appreciation of the role / importance of ecosystems and biodiversity to societies.
• TEEB is a response to the need and Phase 1 has launched the issues
• TEEB Phase 2 has a lot to do - to clarify the messages, ensure ownership and visibility of the messages and that they are heard and responded to. Contribute to a Green New Deal
• This requires engagement by all end-users and NGOs have an important contribution to make.
• Without rising to the challenge we are creating a basis for a crisis much beyond the current financial turned economic turned social crisis.
49
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/index_en.htm
or google „TEEB Europa“ TEEB website will be up soon
For contributions
• Call-for-Evidence http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/call_evidence.htm
• Other contributions/engagement – please contact TEEB core teams/coordinators
• DO: Pushpam Kumar; D1: Patrick ten Brink; D3: Joshua Bishop
Wider TEEB Contact (and also cc generally):
TEEB Scientific Coordination via [email protected]
TEEB is currently funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety and the EU Commission, Directorate General for the
Environment, with additional contributions from other partners.
Thank you! - Further information….