Interim Report - TEEB

More documents

Recommendations

Info

www.eoearth.org/article/Marine_biodiversity_and_foo d_security (last access 5 May 2008). FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2008) World Food Situation: Food Price Index (April 2008). Available at www.fao.org/ worldfoodsituation/FoodPricesIndex (last access 8 May 2008). FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2007) The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2006. Rome. Available at ftp://ftp.fao. org/docrep/fao/009/a0699e/a0699e.pdf (last access 8 May 2008). FAO – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2006) Livestock’s Long Shadow. Available at http://virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_ pub/longshad/a0701e/A0701E00.pdf (last access 8 May 2008). Goldman Sachs (2007) BRICs and Beyond, Chapter 8: Why the BRICS dream should be green. Available at www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/brics/book/BRICs- Chapter8.pdf (last access 8 May 2008). Hawken, P., Lovins, A. and Lovins, H. (1999) Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Little, Brown & Company, Boston. Hawkins, B. (2008) Plants for Life: Medicinal Plant Conservation and Botanic Gardens. Botanic Gardens Conservation International, Richmond, UK. Hughes, T.P., Baird, A.H., Bellwood, D.R., Card, M., Connolly, S.R., Folke, C., Grosberg, R., Hoegh- Guldberg, O., Jackson, J.B.C., Kleypas, J., Lough, J.M., Marshall, P., Nyström, M., Palumbi, S.R., Pandolfi, J.M., Rosen, B., Roughgarden, J. (2003) Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs, Science 301(5635): 929-933. IMF – International Monetary Fund (2008) World Economic Outlook April 2008: Housing and the Business Cycle. Available at: www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2008/01/pdf/text.p df (last access 8 May 2008). IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) Climate Change 2007: Synthesis <strong>Report</strong>. Available at www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessmentreport/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf (last access: 8 May 2008). IUCN – International Union for the Conservation of Nature (2008) 2007 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Available at www.iucnredlist.org/ (last access 8 May 2008). Ki-moon, Ban (2008) A green future: The right war, Time, 28 April 2008. Available at www.time.com/time/ specials/2007/article/0,28804,1730759_1731383_17 31345,00.html (last access 8 May 2008). Kier, G., Mutke, J., Dinerstein, E., Ricketts, T. H., Kuper, W., Kreft, H., and Barthlott, W. (2005) Global patterns of plant diversity and floristic knowledge. Journal of Biogeography 32: 1107-1116. McNeill, J.R. and McNeill, W.H. (2003) The Human Web: A Bird’s-Eye View of World History. W.W. Norton & Company, New York. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005a) General Synthesis <strong>Report</strong>. Island Press, Washington DC. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005b) Living Beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-being. Island Press, Washington DC. MNP/OECD (2007) Background report to the OECD Environmental Outlook to 2030. Overviews, details and methodology of model-based analysis. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Bilthoven, The Netherlands and Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France. Newman, D. and Cragg, G. (2007) Natural products as sources of new drugs over the last 25 years, Journal of Natural Products 70(3): 461-477. Pearce, D., Barbier, E. and Makandya, A. (1989) Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan, London. Rabbinge, R. and Wall, D. (2005) Implications for MDGs, in: Chopra, K., Leemans, R., Kumar, P. and Simons, H. (eds.) Findings of the Responses Working Group, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington DC. Available at www.millennium assessment.org/documents/document.324.aspx.pdf (last access 8 May 2008). Srinivasan, T., Carey, S. P., Hallstein, E., Higgins, P.A.T., Kerr, A.C., Koteen, L.E., Smith, A.B., Watson, R., Harte, J. and Norgaard, R.B. (2008) The debt of nations and the distribution of ecological impacts from human activities, PNAS – Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America 105(5): 1768-1773. UNDP – United Nations Development Programme (2008) About the MDGs: Basics – What are the Millennium Development Goals? Available at www.undp.org/ mdg/basics.shtml (last access 8 May 2008). United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs/Population Division (2008) World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision. Available at www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2007/20 07WUP_Highlights_web.pdf (last access 8 May 2008). UNEP – United Nations Environment Programme (2008) Environment Alert Bulletin: Coastal degradation leaves the Caribbean in troubled waters. www.grid.unep.ch/product/publication/download/ew_c aribbean_runoffs.en.pdf (last access 18 May 2008). US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (2008) NOAA El Nino Page. Available at: www.elnino.noaa.gov/ (last access 8 May 2008). Worm, B., Barbier, E.B., Beaumont, N., Duffy, J.E., Folke, C., Halpern, B.S., Jackson, J.B.C., Lotze, H.K., Micheli, F., Palumbi, S.R., Sala, E., Selkoe, K.A., Stachowicz, J.J. and Watson, R. (2006) Impacts of biodiversity loss on ocean ecosystem services, Science 314: 787-790. 26 The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity
3TOWARDS A VALUATION FRAMEWORK The previous chapter demonstrated the many dimensions of the continuing decline of ecosystems and biodiversity, its significant human impact and the urgent need for action. Here we consider how the failure to recognize the economic value of wild nature has contributed to this continuing decline. We evaluate the challenges of placing economic values on the benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity that are not currently captured, and consider vital issues of ethics and equity which need to be at the heart of such evaluation. This chapter identifies the difficulties in evaluating ecosystem services and the main aspects of work we will carry out in Phase II, when we will focus on addressing these difficulties while firming up both a preferred framework and methodologies for estimating ecosystem and biodiversity values. MANY FAILURES, ONE PROBLEM Biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation continue, despite the fact that policy makers, administrators, NGOs and businesses around the world have been seeking ways to stem the tide. There are many reasons for this, but perverse economic drivers as well as failures in markets, information and policy are significant factors. Markets tend not to assign economic values to the largely public benefits of conservation, while assigning value to the private goods and services the production of which may result in ecosystem damage. The term market failure can cover anything from the lack of markets for public goods and services (called public goods failure, e.g. absence of “markets” for species conservation or for most of the regulating and supporting services of ecosystems) to imperfections in structure or process around markets which cause inefficiency and distortions (e.g. it can be argued that some price distortions in today’s carbon markets are attributable to timid emissions caps). Furthermore, there is potential for market-based instruments to produce results that are socially unacceptable – carbon markets could be said to have helped legitimize global greenhouse gas emission levels (42 billion tonnes), that are perhaps five times the Earth’s ability to absorb such gases (Stern 2006). The size of the challenge of market failure should not be underestimated: for some services (e.g. scenic beauty, hydrological functions and nutrient cycling) it is difficult even to obtain a profile of demand and supply. There is an element of information failure here which leads to market failure. There are many cases across the globe where information failure is overcome by measures such as environmental impact assessments (EIA). They can provide arguments that lead to less destructive options being taken. The viability of road-building projects connecting Mexico and Guatemala through the Mayan forest (see Box 3.1) was challenged on economic grounds. In India, information provided to the Indian Supreme Court on the value of ecosystems and biodiversity helped enshrine rates of compensation for forest conversion that will make it more difficult for approving authorities to take decisions that destroy public value. Nevertheless, information failure is common. For example, local authorities grant land conversion permits that lead to the fragmentation of habitats or damage to ecosystems for marginal private economic gain. Decision makers often have insufficient facts, tools, arguments or support to take a different decision and avoid biodiversity loss. This is particularly unfortunate since much of the lost biodiversity was of greater benefit to the region than the private gains. There are many cases of local economy and local societal losses in the interests of short-term private gain. Lack of secure property rights is another cause of market failure. Many people in developing countries may have weak Box 3.1: Mayan Forest Road Projects: market failure from information failure Road-building projects in the Mayan Biosphere Reserve to connect Mexico and Guatemala were subjected to a cost-benefit evaluation. Up to an estimated 311,000 hectares of jaguar habitat were found to be at risk of deforestation due to these projects. Some of the projects were shown to have negative rates of return on investment on the basis of project economics, whilst others would be negative if only the carbon dioxide emissions (225 million tonnes over 30 years) were accounted for. A fuller evaluation including biodiversity values would have tilted the conclusions more firmly in the direction of continued conservation rather than road development. Dalia Amor Conde, Duke University, personal communication, 27 April 2008 Towards a valuation framework 27
Page 1 and 2: T h e e c o n o m i c s o f e c o s
Page 3 and 4: T h e e c o n o m i c s o f e c o s
Page 5 and 6: F O R E W O R D Biological diversit
Page 7 and 8: engagement we have received from su
Page 9 and 10: TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S Forewo
Page 11 and 12: E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y Nat
Page 13 and 14: 1B I O D I V E R S I T Y A N D E C
Page 15 and 16: Map 1.1: Environmental conflicts Co
Page 17 and 18: 2B I O D I V E R S I T Y, E C O S Y
Page 19 and 20: European Community reversible, sinc
Page 21 and 22: Map 2.1: Plant species per ecoregio
Page 23 and 24: Table 2.1: Ecosystem services and t
Page 25 and 26: Inaction (COPI) study is measured b
Page 27: WHAT NEXT? Managing humanity’s de
Page 31 and 32: RECOGNIZING RISKS AND UNCERTAINTY T
Page 33 and 34: which are growing in quantity (henc
Page 35 and 36: Figure 3.2: Valuing ecosystem servi
Page 37 and 38: The scenario used was largely devel
Page 39 and 40: value of the watershed protection p
Page 41 and 42: Figure 3.4: Proposed valuation fram
Page 43 and 44: Figure 3.5: Ecosystem benefits from
Page 45 and 46: vation of tropical forest catchment
Page 47 and 48: forest reserve obligations: a simul
Page 49 and 50: 4FROM ECONOMICS TO POLICIES Society
Page 51 and 52: Klaus Henle, UFZ Payments can be in
Page 53 and 54: European Commission - LIFE05 NAT/SK
Page 55 and 56: In Europe, Portugal has led the use
Page 57 and 58: sustainability reporting. The Carbo
Page 59 and 60: Benefits: Selected Studies. Paris.
Page 61 and 62: 4 Policy toolkit: recognizing the c
Page 63 and 64: eview; they cannot all be mentioned
Page 65 and 66: S Y N O P S E S O F S T U D I E S C
Page 67 and 68: C O R R I G E N D U M Chapter 1 Pag

Interim Report - TEEB

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?