Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network

1. Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network Patrick ten Brink, Institute for European Environmental Policy On behalf of the wider team IEEP, Metroeconomica, GHK, Ecologic & EFTEC Inception Meeting - Brussels, 20 January 2011

2. Content of this presentation: • Aim & objectives of the study • Overview of tasks & approach (a) Task1 - Methodology (b) Task 2 - Assessment Overall; Provisioning & MPAs and Ag land within PAs; Water purification/provision; Natural hazard; Climate regulation; (c) Task 3 – Recommendations • Overview of team and planning • Questions for the other studies

3. Aim & objectives of the study 1) set out an economic evaluation approach that can be applied to the quantifiable benefits across the Natura 2000 network, by • defining a common typology of benefits • suggesting a valuation framework • describing the policy context (policy-on/policy off scenarios, baseline) • spatial provision of benefits   2) apply different approaches to develop overall, well justified, estimates of the economic benefits - whole Natura 2000 network. 3) provide recommendations assessing the progress achieved, identifying further challenges and formulating follow up steps for the Natura 2000 benefits recognition process.

4. Tasks • Task 1: Defining a common typology of benefits linked to Natura 2000, suggesting valuation frameworks within which analyses of benefits should be completed, describing the adopted assumptions and conditions(here: ‘Methodology’) • Task 2: Initial calculations of the overall benefits created by (connected with) the whole European Natura 2000 network, justification of both the achieved result and the methodology applied (here: ‘Assessment’) • Task 3: Recommendations for follow up (here: ‘Recommendations’)

5. Task 1: Typology of benefits Benefits typology : issue to bear in mind for benefits assessments • Private and public • Current and future • Local to global • Connectivity • Use and non use values • Real money – market values, lost output, damage cost, substitute cost • Welfare values – WTP, consumer surplus • Intrinsic values – biodiversity Different levels of data exist; different methods exist; there are different degrees of difficulty in taking the range of benefits into account.

6. Total Economic Value (TEV) Use Value Non-Use Value Indirect use Direct use Philanthropic value Bequest & Altruist Existence value Option Benefits from secondary goods and services (Including non consumptive use) Option for future use (direct or indirect) of goods & services Direct benefits from use of primary goods Bequest value (value for future generations) Altruist value (value for others) Value of existence without use / consumption of goods or services • Provisioning services: • Timber & Fuel wood • Food/fodder & other forest products (latex) • Bioprospecting : bio-chemicals, medicines • Fresh Water • Cultural services: • Recreation • Tourism • Education / science • Provisioning services: • Fresh Water • Regulating services: • Carbon storage • Air quality • Cultural services: • Scenery / landscape • Recreation, • Education / science • Supporting services: • Soil quality • Provisioning services: • Fresh Water • Bioprospecting • Regulating services: • Carbon storage • Air quality & water purification • Erosion control and • Natural hazards mgt • Cultural services: • Scenery, recreation, • Supporting services: • Soil quality • Cultural services: • Scenery / landscape, • Community identity/ integrity • Spiritual value • Wildlife / biodiversity • ` Valuation Framework: TEV

7. Illustrative schematic for analysing the value of protected areas over time: Policy Context Before designation as protected area Designation as protected area Policy On Additional benefits from designation, management and investment Risk of degradation and loss of value of services without protected area Policy Off … Ecological services that would have remained without protected area Time Cost of management, implementation, investment, control Opportunity Costs Costs

8. Forest in wider watershed Populated areas benefiting from services, but also directly impacting the ecosystem and its services (positively or negatively) Populated areas in watershed not benefitting from river related flow of services Flow of ecosystem services via river – from source ecosystem to beneficiaries Populated areas benefiting from fuller flow of services from Forest A Spatial Provision of Benefits: Mapping links between supply of ecosystem services and beneficiaries

9. Spatial Provision of Benefits: Local to Global Mainly local benefit Mainly global benefit Additional national benefit

10. Tasks 2: Assessment Task 2: • Initial calculations of the overall benefits created by (connected with) the whole European Natura 2000 network, • Range of services • justification of both the achieved result • Note assumptions, caveats, limitations, interpretations • and the methodology applied • different methods for different services • Top down and bottom up • Benefits transfer / scaling up methods • etc • Other methods available (cases & future focus...Task 3)

11. Market & Non-Market Valuation Methods: Landscape Types of Environmental Benefits Market Valuation Techniques Non-market Valuation Techniques Behavioural Linkages Physical Linkages Dose-response Functions Revealed Preference Stated Preference Change in Outputs (productivity) Hedonic Property Analysis Contingent Valuation Method Change in Inputs (production costs) Hedonic Wage-risk Analysis Conjoint Analysis (choice models) Avoided Damage Cost Travel Cost Method Replacement Cost Preventative Expenditure Benefits Transfer

12. Task 2: Benefits assessment coverage

13. Economic valuation methodologies for valuing the overall benefit of N2K sites Insights on the methodology for climate regulation Helen Ding

14. Valuation approach Identificationofland-usepatterns and ecosystemtypeswithin the N2K network Step1 Identification, selection and mappingof EGS Step2 Land-usechanges & bio-physicalassessmentsof the selected EGS Step3 EconomicValuationof the overall N2K benefits and reportingto the EC (e.g. GIS valuemaps) Step4 Source: TEEB (2008)

15. Economic valuation: methodological framework Ecosystem type Value type Examples Valuation methods Provisioning Services Regulating Services Cultural Services

16. Task 3 - Recommendations Task 3: Recommendations for follow up • What was possible to do • What could be possible to do in the future • What would we recommend being done and how Aim of task: provide methodological recommendation for future & put the results in context to help readers understand the final benefits of Natura 2000 report

17. Project planning

18. The project team

19. The project team - names IEEP - P ten Brink, S Bassi, S Gantioler, M Kettunen, L Mazza, K Hart GHK - M Rayment, M Pieterse and E Daly Ecologic - R Landgrebe, H Gerdes, S Naumann, M Lago Metroeconomica - P Nunes, H Ding, A Markandya EFTEC - R Tinch, I Dickie

20. Links to other studies • Major links 0073 – value of tourism/recreation (overall values and examples) a needed input to our study (our final report should provide an overall picture of the benefits of Natura 2000) • Important link 0072 – insights on measures and associated methods to help inform assessment approaches + useful data to help benefits transfer/scaling up & case examples • Will be key to have open communication and occasional meetings between study leads. • For mapping work it could be key to have EEA and JRC engagement

21. Thank you! www.ieep.eu Contacts: Patrick ten Brink ptenbrink@ieep.eu Samuela Bassi sbassi@ieep.eu IEEP is an independent not for profit institute dedicated to advancing an environmentally sustainable Europe through policy analysis, development and dissemination.