Interim Report - TEEB

attempts (Pattanayak and Kramer 2001, Gueorguieva and
Bolt 2003, Munasinghe 2001, Benhin and Barbier 2001), this
is still very much an area of ongoing research. Secondly, most
of the valuation evidence comes from individual case studies
concerning a particular ecosystem or species. Some studies
have tried to make a global assessment of the world’s
ecosystem services (e.g. Costanza et al. 1997) but, while
they have been useful in raising attention and discussion,
their results are controversial. Others focus at species or
genera levels (Craft and Simpson 2001, Godoy et al. 2000,
Pearce 2005, Small 2000). Any integral assessment on a
broad scale raises substantial difficulties: how to define a
coherent framework; how to deal with limitations in data; how
to aggregate values to estimate the global impacts of largescale
changes in ecosystems.
In Phase II, we expect to rely on “benefit transfer” logic, i.e.
using a value estimated in a particular site as an approximation
of the value of the same ecosystem services in
another site. Benefit transfer is easier for some homogeneous
values (such as carbon absorption, which is a global good),
than for others that are site-specific or context-dependent
(such as watershed protection). However, we must recognize
the trade-off between providing incomplete assessment on
the one hand, and using inferred estimates (rather than
primary research-based estimates) on the other.
For both ecological and economic reasons, caution is
needed when scaling up and aggregating values estimated
from small marginal changes to assess the effects of large
changes. Ecosystems often respond to stress in a non-linear
fashion. Large changes in ecosystem size or condition may
have abrupt effects on their functioning, which may not be
extrapolated easily from the effect of small changes.
Generally, as some ecosystem services decline substantially
as we continue to use them, extrapolation of benefits should
recognize and be limited by the “law of diminishing returns”.
THE COSTS OF BIODIVERSITY LOSS
There is a substantial body of evidence on the monetary
values attached to biodiversity and ecosystems, and thus on
the costs of their loss. A number of recent case studies and
more general contributions have been received in reply to a
call for evidence (see TEEB website http://ec.europa.eu/
Table 3.3: Projection of total benefits of carbon
storage in European forests
Latitude
35-45 45-55 55-65 65-71
Value 728.56 1,272.85 468.60 253.33
per hectare
(US$, 2005)
Source: ten Brink and Bräuer 2008, Braat, ten Brink et al. 2008
Box 3.6: The multiple values of coral reefs
Coral reefs provide a wide range of services to
around 500 million people. Some 9-12% of the
world’s fisheries are based directly on reefs
(Mumby et al. 2007), while a large number of offshore
fisheries also rely on them as breeding,
nursery or feeding grounds (Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment 2005c). Tourism generally is the dominant
benefit. Reef recreation has been estimated at
US$ 184 per visit globally (Brander et al. 2007), at
US$ 231-2,700 per hectare per year in Southeast
Asia (Burke et al. 2002) and at US$ 1,654 per
hectare per year in the Caribbean (Chong et al.
2003). Coral reefs provide genetic resources for
medical research, and ornamental fish and pearl
culture are extremely important for the economies
of some insular states, such as French Polynesia.
The reefs protect coastal areas in many islands:
this vital service has been estimated to be worth
US$ 55-1,100 per hectare per year in Southeast
Asia (Burke et al. 2002).
Sources: Ministère de l’Ecologie, du Développement et de
l’Aménagement durables 2008, Braat, ten Brink
et al. 2008, Balmford et al. 2008.
environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/index_en.htm for
a list of submissions and a synthesis report).
Our Phase I report COPI (Costs of Policy Inaction, Braat, ten
Brink et al. 2008) made a first review of the general valuation
literature and databases and tried to build up a global
quantitative picture of biodiversity loss in biophysical and
monetary terms (see Box 3.5, p36). A more targeted review
of valuation case studies concerning forest ecosystems has
also been made (IUCN 2008).
The existing valuation studies vary in their scope, quality,
methodology, and suitability for use in a large-scale
assessment. Often the estimated economic values are not
comparable as they may be of a different nature or be
expressed in different units, or the estimates may not be
clearly related to a specific service or an area.
A particular effort is needed to assess indirect use values,
especially those of regulating services, which are receiving
increasing attention as a consequence of the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment. For carbon sequestration, substantial
values have often been found, although they vary
depending on the type of forest – for example deciduous or
coniferous – and their geographical location.
Some significant values have been estimated for water
regulation, although they are highly context-specific. The
36 The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity