The TEEB Report: inspiring conservation

1. The TEEB Report: inspiring conservation salman.hussain@sac.ac.uk 44 131 535 4307

2. TEEB: Overview • Inspiring change: Marine ecosystem services valuation for the UK Marine and Coastal Access Bill • TEEB: Interim Findings and next steps

3. TEEB - context “Potsdam Initiative – Biological Diversity 2010” 1) The economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity 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: Goals and aspirations To mainstream the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity To review extensively the current state of the science and economics of ecosystems and biodiversity, and recommend valuation and evaluation frameworks and methodologies To address the needs of the end-users

5. TEEB- Final Reports Science & Economics Foundations, Policy Costs & Costs of Inaction D0 Policy Evaluation for Policy-Makers D1 Decision Support for Administrators D2 Business Risks & Opportunities D3 Consumer Ownership D4

6. The UK Marine Bill – Marine Nature Conservation Proposals- valuing the benefitsPublished in Ecological Economics (Hussain et al., 2010) Dominic Moran Salman Hussain Abdulai Fofana Chris Frid Odette Paramour Leonie Robinson Alex Winrow-Giffin

7. Marine Protected Areas UN World Summit on Sustainable Development: requires the establishment of representative networks of marine protected areas (MPAs) by 2012 What is the economic rationale? Can such a policy intervention be substantiated? Does the extant literature allow us to do so? Where are the gaps in the evidence base?

8. Background to the study Different drivers impact on marine ecosystems Study in Science (Halpern et al.,2008) applies a multi-scale spatial model to analysis anthropogenic drivers of ecological change in 20 marine ecosystems. 41% are strongly affected by multiple drivers. These drivers stimulate a shift in the production of ecosystem goods and services (e.g. gas and climate regulation) These services can be valued According to study in Nature (Costanza et al., 1997) service provision by marine ecosystems constitutes around two-thirds of the global total

9. Anthropogenic impacts

10. Objectives of the study To estimate monetary economic benefits derived from the marine protected areas (MCZs) proposals being put forward as part of the Marine and Coastal Access Bill; Where agreed, to provide qualitative benefits where monetised values cannot be given; and To provide the necessary detail for Impact Assessment reporting

11. The three network scenarios selected by Defra from Kaiser et al. (2006)

12. UK MCZs/UK Continental Shelf limits

13. Management regimes defined by UK government (Defra)

14. Comparisons against the baseline status quo Ecosystem service A B C D MCZ inception 20 years Time

15. MA categories pertaining to terrestrial marine ecosystems

16. Synopsis of valuation literature

17. Methodological steps For one hectare of the habitat/landscape what is the extra provision of this ecosystem service brought about by Highly Restricted or Less Restricted as compared with the counterfactual? How many hectares are there in each network scenario A, G and J? What proportion is going to be protected under Highly Restricted and how much under Less Restricted? Summing across all habitats/landscapes and across all ecosystem services gives the total value of each network

18. UK Seabed Landscapes

19. Aphotic reef - UK

20. Aphotic reef – network scenario A

21. Landscapes – Scenario A

22. Apportioning total value of an ecosystem service across habitats/landscapes Code A: biological partitioning (area/impact per unit area) nutrient recycling bioremediation of waste gas and climate regulation food provision raw materials Code B: area only biologically mediated habitat resistance and resilience Code C: biological partitioning/location specific disturbance prevention and alleviation Code D: No biological basis for partitioning leisure and recreation cultural heritage and identity non-use/bequest value option use value cognitive values

23. Coding for extent of impacts from MCZ designation (compared with status quo) Interpretation of the impact coding for the valuation estimate

24. Coding for timing of impact – the benefits stream over the 20 year IA period Trajectories for impact path for 10/20 coding

25. Aggregation of on-site benefit from enhanced provision of ecosystem services Present values (£) for protecting the entire network under Highly Restricted Less Restricted (3.5% discounted rate)

26. Overall results With a 3.5% discount rate, the present value benefits range from £10.3 billion to £22.7 billion depending on network scenario/split between Highly and Less Restricted Sensitivity analysis: present value range falls to £6.4 billion to £15.1 billion Present value of costs£0.4 billion to £1.2 billion Mean annual undiscounted benefit range: £0.9 billion to £1.9 billion

27. Limitations No ‘network effect’ accounted for Exclusions/local conditionality for restrictions Apportioning of benefits crude Benefits Transfer – limited number of studies

28. Take home messages: MCZ study The estimated benefit range is £10.3 billion to £22.7 billion (at least seven times estimated costs) This is an under-estimate and does not include several benefit categories Importance of defining clear scenarios and counterfactual Ad hoc methodology – in the absence of production functions we have to make assumptions (score) about how designation produces goods and services Developments in FP7 project Options for Delivering Ecosystem-Based Marine Management [ODEMM]

29. TEEB and ‘operationalising’ the Ecosystem Approach Can such examples inspire change? Can we transfer benefit estimates? Can we understand the needs of different TEEB stakeholders at different levels?

30. TEEB D0 Chapter 7 Benefits Transfer database

31. The TEEB BT database Biome Marine Coral Reefs Coastal Mangroves Other Wetlands Fresh water Tropical Forest Other Forests Woodlands Ecosystem Service 1) Food provision 24 (6) 470 (22) 3.248 (12) 693 (8) 442 (16) 69 (3) 75 (19) 126 (8) 2.824 (5) 0 - 44 0 - 3.818 1 - 13.043 0 - 2.744 0 - 981 13 - 68 0 - 552 0 - 552 0 - 8.369 2) Water provision 1.413 (1) 1.990 (1) 2.739 (4) 1.864 (2) 143 (3) 148 (3) 15 - 5.210 1.110 - 2.619 6 - 411 0 - 442 3) Raw material provision 400 (5) 8 (4) 511 (5) 698 (12) 1 (1) 431 (26) 24 (6) 541 (9) 0 - 1.990 0 - 36 3 - 326 1 - 2.436 1 - 1.418 1 - 45 3 - 645 4) Provision of genetic 20.434 (1) 12 (1) 483 (4) 2 (1) resources 7 - 1.756 5) Provision of medicinal 92 (1) 181 (4) 11 (3) resources 11 - 562 0 - 11 6) Provision of ornamental 264 (3) 10 (1) 12 (1) resources 151 - 347 7) Air quality regulation 231 (1) 0 (1) 230 (2) 497 (2) 10 - 449 90 - 903 8) Climate regulation 56 (2) 648 (3) 5.926 (4) 468 (7) 59 (1) 1.965 (10) 257 (9) 219 (2) 2 - 54 2 - 646 2 - 10.407 3 - 1.285 10 - 3.218 2 - 1.447 3 434 9) Moderation of extreme events 25.200 (9) 37.339 (2) 515 (2) 3.544 (10) 14 (2) 52 (2) 3 - 34.408 700 - 73.979 37 - 993 238 - 10.264 6 - 8 0 - 104 10) Regulation of water flows 535 (2) 2.675 (6) 1 (2) 5 - 530 1 - 5.235 0 - 1 11) Waste treatment 42 (2) 11.576 (2) 3.586 (10) 1.221 (2) 177 (6) 15 (4) 262 (4) (esp. water purification) 3 - 81 2.334 - 9.242 42 - 9.368 105 - 2.337 0 - 506 0 - 68 0 - 786 12) Erosion prevention 189.470 (1) 448 (2) 89 (1) 694 (9) 2 (2) 55 (1) 141 - 756 7 - 1.084 0 - 3 13) Maintenance of soil fertility 84 (2) 3 (1) 19.368 (3) 220 (1) 634 (3) 1 (1) 508 (3) 3 - 165 2.002 - 29.520 31 - 344 1 - 501 14) Pollination 17 (1) 10 (2) 439 (1) 5 - 14 15) Biological control 4 (2) 4 (2) 55 (1) 16 (1) 9 (1) 16 (1) 0 - 7 0 7 16) Habitat for migratory species, 108 (2) 106 (3) 13 (1) 499 (1) incl. nursery 33 - 183 3 - 266 17) Maintenance of genetic 6 (2) 13.541 (7) 83 (1) 174 (2) 648 (9) 320 (1) 373 (12) 225 (7) 1 (1) diversity 1 - 11 0 - 57.133 27 - 321 0 - 2.247 3 - 5.151 0 - 2.504 18) Aesthetic information 0 (1) 7.425 (4) 3.733 (1) 0 - 27.484 19) Opportunities for recreation 76 (6) 79.099 (29) 13.780 (5) 1.128 (3) 950 (11) 649 (5) 381 (20) 758 (5) and tourism 0 - 511 0 - 1.063.946 70 - 40.268 493 - 713 1 - 3.715 322 - 1.166 1 - 1.171 1 - 2.934 20) Inspiration for culture and art 0 (2) 595 (1) 0 (1) 0 - 0 21) Spiritual experience 22) Information for cognitive 2.154 (4) 41 (1) development 0 - 6.461 TOTAL 250 (20) 129.245 (92) 73.852 (28) 21.077 (31) 14.245 (84) 3.803 (12) 8.338 (128) 1.618 (51) 4.343 (22) 230 studies 1.100 data-points Used so far: 522 Ongoing process … 7.4 Total value of ecosystem services (22) by biome (12)

32. TEEB database: ecosystem services Distribution of 522 data points over services Most data: Food Tourism Raw materials Least data Pollination Aesthetics Cultural insp. Spiritual

33. TEEB database: biomes Distribution of 522 data points over biomes Most data: Trop. Forest Wetlands Coral reefs Least data Marine Urban Desert Grey = used for Total Value Matrix

34. TEEB database: data sources Origin of values per continent (& country) Asia (148) :China (42); India (25); Philippines (24) Lat.Am. & Carib. :Brazil (25); Mexico (23); Ecuador (9) Africa : South africa (19); Tanzania (16); Uganda (13) Oceania :Australia (29); Samoa (25); New Zealand (4) Europe : Spain (12); Netherlands (9); Austria (7) Americas : USA (22); Canada (13); Costa Rica (2)

35. TEEB Quantitative Assessment • CHANGES TO PRODUCTION PRACTICES • Closing the agricultural yield gap versus failure to increase future yields • Liberalisation of trade in agricultural products • Aquaculture partly replacing marine capture fisheries • 4. Reducing post-harvest loss • CONSERVATION POLICIES • 5. Sustainable forest management • 6 Expansion of protected areas to 20% and 50% per biome per region • POLICIES TARGETED AT CLIMATE CHANGE MITIGATION • 7. Reducing emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) • 8. Climate change mitigation by bio-energy and forest plantations • CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR • 9. Dietary change (reducing / not increasing consumption of animal proteins, healthy diet)

36. Macro scaling: preliminary findings 50-year impact of inaction or ‘business as usual’ Source: Braat & ten Brink (Eds., 2008): Cost of Policy Inaction Welfare losses equivalent to 7 % of GDP, horizon 2050

37. TEEB: Benefit-Cost ratios (screened: 20.000 -> 95 relevant -> 18 used for TEEB) Assumptions: high cost scenario, average benefit scenario, time horizon = 40 years (including 10% annual operation costs; discount rate = 1 %)

38. TEEB - summary TEEB is meant to inspire and ‘operationalise’ change It is to be ‘field tested’ [TEEB D2] with stakeholders The report structure [TEEB D0-D4] is set up so as to facilitate engagement with and use of the end products