Interim Report - TEEB

2008) 1 and the issues of ethics, equity and the discount rate
discussed earlier.
These are the key elements of our proposed framework:
• Examine the causes of biodiversity loss: designing
appropriate scenarios to evaluate the consequences
of biodiversity loss means incorporating information on
the drivers of this loss. For example, loss of marine
fisheries is driven by overfishing, so it would be
appropriate to compare a scenario of business-asusual
(continued overfishing) with one where fisheries
are sustainably managed. Evidence suggests that
biodiversity is often being lost even where it would be
socially more advantageous to preserve it. Identifying
the market, information and policy failures can help us
identify policy solutions.
• Evaluate alternative policies and strategies that
decision makers are confronted with: the analysis
needs to contrast two or more “states” or scenarios that
correspond to alternative action (or inaction) to reduce
biodiversity and ecosystem loss (World A and World B).
This approach is also used in impact assessments and
cost-benefit analyses to ensure that decision makers can
make informed decisions on the basis of a systematic
analysis of all the implications of various policy choices.
• Assess the costs and benefits of actions to conserve
biodiversity: the analysis will need to address both
differences in benefits obtained from biodiversity conservation
(e.g. water purification obtained by protecting
forests) and in the costs incurred (e.g. foregone benefits
from conversion of the forest to agriculture).
• Identify risks and uncertainties: there is much that
we do not know about how biodiversity is valuable
to us, but that does not mean that what is not known
has no value – we risk losing very important, but still
unrecognized, ecosystem services. The analysis needs
to identify these uncertainties and assess the risks.
• Be spatially explicit: economic valuation needs to be
spatially explicit because both the natural productivity of
ecosystems and the value of their services vary across
space. Furthermore, benefits may be enjoyed in very
different places from where they are produced. For
example, the forests of Madagascar have produced
anti-cancer drugs that save lives all over the world.
Besides, the relative scarcity of a service, as well as
local socio-economic factors, may substantially affect
the values. Taking into account the spatial dimension
also allows for better understanding of the impacts of
conservation on development goals, and for the
exploration of trade-offs between the benefits and
costs of different options, highlighting regions that may
be cost-effective investments for conservation.
• Consider the distribution of impacts of biodiversity
loss and conservation: the beneficiaries of ecosystem
services are often not the same as those who incur
the costs of conservation. Mismatches can lead to
decisions being taken that are right for some people
locally, but wrong for others and for society as a whole.
Effective and equitable policies will recognize these
spatial dimensions and correct them with appropriate
tools, such as payments for ecosystem services.
Figures 3.5 and 3.6 illustrate the multi-scale dimension of
ecosystem services and thus the need to account for the
spatial pattern in their production and use. Even large cities
like London depend on a diversity of benefits produced by
ecosystems and biodiversity, often at a considerable
distance.
This framework will be used during Phase II but it will not be
possible to collect information for the elaboration of detailed
maps for all types of ecosystem services and biomes. Thus
the evaluation will also largely rely on “benefits transfer”,
making clear the assumptions and defining carefully the
conditions for extrapolating from limited data, taking into
account the scale and distance-dependency of the various
services. Spatial data bases will be used, highlighting where
data gaps need to be filled.
BRINGING TOGETHER THE ECOLOGICAL
AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS IN OUR
VALUATION FRAMEWORK
Valuing ecosystems requires integration of ecology and
economics in an interdisciplinary framework. Ecology should
provide the necessary information on the generation of
ecosystem services, while economics would bring the tools
for estimating their values (see Figure 3.4).
Valuation of regulating ecosystem services and some provisioning
services must be based on an understanding of
the underlying biological and physical processes that lead to
their provision. For example, to be able to valuate the water
regulation provided by a forest, it is first necessary to have
information about the land use, the hydrology of the area and
other characteristics, in order to make a biophysical assessment
of the service provided.
Such an understanding makes it possible to estimate
economic value, but there are some challenges which need
to be addressed:
• Measuring the quantity and quality of services provided
by ecosystems and biodiversity in various possible
states is a key challenge, and also an opportunity, to
avoid the pitfalls of generalization. Valuation is best
applied to alternative states or scenarios (e.g. services
provided under differing land-use practices reflecting
different policy scenarios). For example, the conser-
40 The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity