The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Part A: Ecological losses to Economic losses (Issues and values in TEEB Phase I) Patrick ten Brink Senior Fellow and Head of Brussels Office Institute for European Environmental Policy

1
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
(TEEB) Part A Ecological losses to Economic
losses (Issues and values in TEEB Phase I)
Patrick ten BrinkSenior Fellow and Head of
Brussels OfficeInstitute for European
Environmental Policy (IEEP)Building on the work
of COPI Team Alterra, IEEP, MNP, Ecologic,
GHK, FEEM, WB, UNEP-WCMC, TEEB Core team
(Pavan Sukhdev, EC, BMU, EEA, UFZ, IEEP, UoL,
IIT)and other experts 22 September
2008Prague
ptenbrink_at_ieep.eu
2
Presentation Structure

• Biodiversity and Ecosystem losses The
  Ecological Case for the Urgency of Action
• Ecosystems and Ecosystem services benefitting
  society, the economy, business and individuals.
• The Valuation Challenge attributing monetary
  values to the value of ecosystem services
• COPI / TEEB Phase 1 numbers The Economic Case
  for the Urgency of Action
• Then

Presentation by Pavan Sukhdev, TEEB Study
Leader On TEEB Phase II The Aims Ambitions,
Focus and Process
3
The Urgency for Action
The Ecological Case
4
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 50of its
  wetlands. 2.
• Some 20 of the worlds 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.o
rg/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
5
Source MEA
6
Running down our natural capital The Demise of
Global Fisheries
Source Sea Around Us project
7
Substitution?
Source L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008
based on slide by D. Pauly
8
Biodiversity loss From 1700 to 2050
73
62
Richer Ecosystems
Poorer Ecosystems
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.
9
Changes in Ecosystem Services due to loss of
Biodiversity
Original species
Pristine forest
Extensive use
Extensive use
Subsistence agriculture
Plantation
Fossil fuel subsidized
Degraded land
Source L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008
on the COPI Study
10
Level of Biodiversity in the World in 2000 Using
Mean Species Abundance (MSA) indicator
Remaining MSA in
Source Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the
Workshop The Economics of the Global Loss of
Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels,
Belgium.
11
Level of Biodiversity in the World in 2050 One
Scenario of the future OECD/Globio
Remaining MSA in

• MSA loss from 71 to 60 - not evenly spread
• Natural Areas decline by 7.5 Million Sq. Km.
• Most lose the poor generally affected more
  strongly

Source Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the
Workshop The Economics of the Global Loss of
Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels,
Belgium.
12
The Global Loss of Biodiversity
2000
Source L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008
on the COPI Study building on MNP data
13
The Global Loss of Biodiversity
2050

• Europe at Risk

India - at Risk
Africa at Risk.
The World at Risk.
Source L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008
on the COPI Study building on MNP data
14
Ecosystems and Ecosystem services

• The Ecosystems in which we live and in which our
  economies operate, provide a range of services
  that benefit
• Individuals
• Society
• Firms
• The economy

15
Ecosystem Services - The Millennium Ecosystem
framework
Source MEA
16
Different Biomes, different (level) of services
Forests Boreal forest Temperate forests Mountain forests Etc. Provisioning services Food fibre, Water, Fuel (biofuel) Regulating services Air quality maintenance Climate regulation (local, regional, global) carbon storage Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, runoff ) Erosion control Natural hazards control (e.g. Fire resistance, storm avalanche protection Cultural Supporting services ALL (recreation, tourism et al)
Wetlands Coastal wetlands Floodplains Swaps, bogs, moors Etc. Provisioning services Food fibre, Water, Fuel Regulating services Climate regulation (local, regional, global) Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, runoff ) Water purification and waste management Erosion control Natural hazards control Cultural Supporting services ALL
Source From presentation by Marianne Kettunen of
IEEP based on MA 2005 classification
17
Ecosystems, land-use human well-being the
extent of this relationship
Source Jean-Louis Weber (EEA) presentation at
the Workshop The Economics of the Global Loss of
Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels,
Belgium
18
The link between biodiversity, ecosystems, their
services, and benefits to mankind
Maintenance and restoration costs
Biophysical Structure of process eg 1 woodland
habitat eg 2 net primary productivity)
Economic and social values ( market values)
Function eg 1 slow passage of water eg 2
biomass
Service eg 1 flood prevention eg 2 harvestable
products
Benefit (value) eg 1 willingness to pay for
woodland protection / avoided costs of
impacts eg 2 for more woodland harvestable
products
Source Building on presentation by Jean-Louis
Weber (EEA) presentation at the Workshop The
Economics of the Global Loss of Biological
Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium
19
Land-uses and trade offs for ecosystem services
Upon closer analysis Net value may be less
Source Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the
Workshop The Economics of the Global Loss of
Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels,
Belgium.
20
Ecosystem service production useIt can be a
complex relationship benefits sharing?
Source Andrew Balmford Ana Rodrigues 2008
Scoping the Science report. Contribution to TEEB
Report
21
ESS service provision spatial relation
Example carbon storage

• Production rates, flows and values all vary
  spatially
• Services produced and enjoyed in different
  places
• Costs and benefits of conserving services accrue
  in different places

Source Andrew Balmford Ana Rodrigues 2008
Presentation within the Scoping the Science work
22
The Evaluation Challenge
What should we measure to understand and
communicate the problem? How can we go about
doing this?
23
Measuring Benefits of Ecosystem services What can
be said in what terms and what was explored?
Non-Specified Benefits Increasing up the
benefits pyramid
Monetary eg avoided water purification costs,
avoided flood damage, tourist value, value of
medicines / pharmaceuticals from natural products
Monetary Value
Quantitative eg number people benefiting from
wood from forests, of avoided health impacts
number of visitors
The Benefits Pyramid
Quantitative Review of Effects
Type of benefits health benefits from clean air,
social benefits from recreation, income from
products, security, wellbeing.
Qualitative Review
Knowledge gaps The known-unknowns and
unknown-unknowns
Full range of ecosystem services from biodiversity
Source P. ten Brink presentation at March 2008
workshop Review of Economics of Biodiversity
Loss, Brussels
24
Interest and evidence
Level of information
Level of press/interest


Quantitative / qualitative
Monetary

• There are different audiences, and different
  messages are needed for each.
• Different types of messages have different power
  and different reach.

The overall aim is to get the message across to
the (range of) key audiences in a manner that
is representative of the facts and that engages
interest. Hence, we need to work out how best to
combine monetary and non-monetary information.
Source P. ten Brink presentation at March 2008
workshop Review of Economics of Biodiversity
Loss, Brussels
25
Press Echo to TEEB I, May 2008
Source Dr Carsten Neßhöver, Heidi Wittmer
Christoph Schröter-Schlaack, Presentation in
Vilm, 26.8.2008
26
COPI Results
Based on the Report to the European Commission,
May 29, 2008
27
Mapping changes from Biodiversity Ecosystems
to Economic Values
Source L. Braat P. ten Brink (eds.)
28
Biodiversity loss - 1700 to 2050
73
62
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.
29
Change of Landuse (area coverage) across all
biomes Global Total
Actual 2000 2050 Difference
Area million km2 million km2 2000 to 2050 
Natural areas 65.5 58.0 -11
Bare natural 3.3 3.0 -9
Forest managed 4.2 7.0 70
Extensive agriculture 5.0 3.0 -39
Intensive agriculture 11.0 15.8 44
Woody biofuels 0.1 0.5 626
Cultivated grazing 19.1 20.8 9
Artificial surfaces 0.2 0.2 0
World Total 108.4 108.4 0

• 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

Source L. Braat P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI
30
Loss of Quality Global total
Loss of quality - due to pollution,
fragmentation, infrastructure and climate
impacts (Global average all biomes) Mean Species
Abundance indicator
Mean species abundance change for different land use categories MSA loss 2000 to 2050
Natural areas 11
Bare natural 8
Forest managed 20
Extensive agriculture 8
Intensive agriculture -2
Woody biofuels 0
Cultivated grazing 14
World Total 18

Source L. Braat P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI
31
Valuation and 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.
Relative to 2000
Services that would have been there, had
biodiversity been halted.
A
Ecosystem service level
Losses continue into the future
2000
2050
2010
2030
Source P ten Brink in L. Braat P. ten Brink
(eds.) 2008 COPI Study
32
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 (1012) 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
33
Global COPI Loss of Ecosystem services from land
based ecosystems All land based biomes
  Relative to 2000 Relative to 2000
Area Billion EUR Equivalent to of GDP in 2050
Natural areas -15678 -7.97
Forest managed 1852 0.95
Extensive Agriculture -1109 -0.57
Intensive Agriculture 1303 0.67
Woody biofuels 381 0.19
Cultivated grazing -786 -0.40
World Total -13938 -7.1
Land based ecosystems only
The loss grows with each year of biodiversity and
ecosystem loss.
Source P ten Brink in L. Braat P. ten Brink
(eds.) 2008 COPI Study for DGENV
34
Global COPI Loss of Ecosystem services Forestry
biomes
Forest biomes Partial Estimation Fuller Estimation
Boreal forest -163 -1999
Tropical forest -536 -3362
Warm mixed forest -249 -2332
Temperate mixed forest -190 -1372
Cool coniferous forest -47 -701
Temperate deciduous forest -133 -1025
Forest Total -1317 -10791
Natural areas -1552 -12310
World GDP in 2050 (trillion (1012) EUR) 195.5
Losses of ESS from forests as share of GDP -0.7 -5.5
Losses of ESS from natural areas in forest biomes as share of GDP -0.8 -6.3 
Source P ten Brink in L. Braat P. ten Brink
(eds.) 2008 COPI Study Building on FEEM
forestry per hectare values
35
What ESS could already be included (forests)?
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 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
Source L. Braat P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI
Study
36
COPI Forestry Biome Different ways of
calculating the loss
A 50-year impact of inaction
B Natural Capital Loss every year
Lost Welfare equivalent to 5.5 of GDP (from
forest biomes overall) or
Natural Capital Lost from USD 1.35 x 10 12 to
3.10 x 10 12 (_at_ 4 Discount Rate) (_at_ 1
Discount Rate)
Source P ten Brink in L. Braat P. ten Brink
(eds.) 2008 COPI Study for DGENV
37
Valuation and Ecosystem service losses
GDP, with feedback on economic losses from
biodiversity losses integrated - illustrative
GDP (OECD Scenarios) 2.8/year
Relative to 2000
GDP 41.4 trillion (PPP) (1012)
Population 9100 million
GDP/capita 680 (PPP)
Population 6092 million
GDP adjusted for impact of biodiversity loss -
illustrative
Services that would have been there, had
biodiversity been halted
Ecosystem service level
2000
2050
Source Patrick ten Brink (IEEP), Leon Braat
(Alterra), Mark van Ooorshot (MNP), Matt Rayment
(GHK)
38
Summary
Biodiversity arguments for action eroding our
natural capital Social arguments for action
services lost hit all, and poor hardest. Economic
arguments for action we risk undermining future
growth and prosperity by undermining our natural
capital Need to understand and communicate the
Values of Ecosystems and Biodiversity and the
risk of their loss Need to understand and
communicate what can be done to respond more
effectively across all end user types.
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Phase II
Presentation by Pavan Sukhdev, TEEB Study Leader
39
Thank You Patrick ten Brink Institute for
European Environmental Policy (IEEP) ptenbrink_at_iee
p.eu www.ieep.eu
IEEP is an independent, not-for-profit institute
dedicated to the analysis, understanding and
promotion of policies for a sustainable
environment in Europe
Now to how the TEEB will respond to these
challenges Presentation by Pavan Sukhdev, TEEB
Study Leader
Brussels Office 55 Quai au Foin/Hooikaai B-1000
Brussels Belgium Tel [phone] Fax 32
(0) 2732 4004 www.ieep.eu

• London Office
• 15 Queen Anne's Gate,
• London SW1H 9BU
• UK
• Tel [phone]
• Fax [phone]

40
Study Authors and ContributorsCOPI, and Scoping
the Science Studies
41
Study Authors Contributors (cont.)