TEEB Manual for Cities

NATURE|Vol 435|16 June 2005NEWS & VIEWSBox 1 | How often do de novo insertions affect the function of a neuron?No insertionNeuronalprecursorcellL1 insertionIn a neuronallyexpressed geneIt is impossible to determine directly thefrequency of insertions that occur in vivo inhuman neuronal precursor cells (NPCs), andMuotri et al. 2 were not able to quantify thisnumber in transgenic mice. It seems, fromstained brain sections, that insertions do notoccur more often than once in 10 cells, perhapsonly occurring as rarely as once in 1,000 cells.Although a small fraction of cells may appear tohave new insertions, it is difficult to extrapolatethe activity of an unknown number of highlyactive L1 elements in a transgenic mouse to theactivity of a number of endogenous L1 elements.Most insertions will not occur in genes. If L1Not in geneIn a geneNormalfunctionNormalfunctionNormalfunctionNoeffectChange indifferentiation,cell death, etc.insertion is entirely random, the percentage ofinsertions into genes would be about 30% — thepercentage of the genome that is made up ofgenes (introns plus exons). Muotri et al. 2 havereason to believe that the percentage of geneinsertions may be higher than 30% because ofnon-random insertion. However, to affect neuralfunction, an insertion must occur in a neuronallyexpressed gene,and the insertion must have an effect on cellfate even when only one of the two copies of agene is disrupted. Insertions into a single copyof some neuronally expressed genes may haveno effect.E.M.O. & H.H.K.However, if the mechanism to create diversityis encoded in the germ line (for example, bythe number and activity level of mobile elements),and if diversity is favoured by naturalselection, then this mechanism can be maintainedthrough evolution.Time and further research will determinewhether McClintock’s hypothesis that mobileelements have a significant role in anorganism’s development can be extendedfrom maize to humans, and specifically to thefunction of human neurons.■Eric M. Ostertag and Haig H. Kazazian Jr arein the Department of Genetics, and Eric M.Ostertag is also in the Department of Pathology,University of Pennsylvania, School of Medicine,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104-6055, USA.e-mail: kazazian@mail.med.upenn.edu1. McClintock, B. Yb. Carnegie Inst. Wash. 48, 142–154(1949).2. Muotri, A. R. et al. Nature 435, 903–910 (2005).3. Dewannieux, M., Esnault, C. & Heidmann, T. Nature Genet.35, 41–48 (2003).4. Branciforte, D. & Martin, S. L. Mol. Cell Biol. 14, 2584–2592(1994).5. Ostertag, E. M. et al. Nature Genet. 32, 655–660 (2003).6. Prak, E. T., Dodson, A. W., Farkash, E. A. & Kazazian, H. H. JrProc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 1832–1837 (2003).7. Miki, Y. et al. Cancer Res. 52, 643–645 (1992).8. Turner, B. M. Cell 111, 285–291 (2002).9. Lander, E. S. et al. Nature 409, 860–921 (2001).10. Waterston, R. H. et al. Nature 420, 520–562 (2002).MALARIAFungal allies enlistedYannis Michalakis and François RenaudThe mosquito-killing capabilities of fungi can in principle be deployed inthe fight against malaria. But long experience of unfulfilled hopes in thiscomplex arena shows the need to proceed cautiously.Many malaria control measures have centredon the mosquito vector of the Plasmodiumparasite that causes the disease. Female mosquitoestransmit Plasmodium from human tohuman after feeding on the blood of aninfected person — hence the age-old use ofbednets, and the more recent attempts togenetically manipulate mosquitoes to makethem resistant to parasite infection, or toreduce mosquito populations with insecticides.Two papers in Science, by Blanford et al. 1and Scholte et al. 2 ,describe another approach— the deployment of mosquito-killing fungi.Using mouse malaria as a model system,Blanford and colleagues 1 studied the effects ofvarious isolates of these fungi on mosquitoes.Many isolates induced mosquito mortality ofmore than 80% within 14 days of infection,a period that corresponds to that in whichPlasmodium produce offspring in the mosquitothat are transmissible to humans.Further experiments with one of the fungalisolates, chosen because it is part of an existingagricultural pesticide, showed that the fungialso have a direct effect on the developmentof Plasmodium in mosquitoes: only 8% ofmosquitoes infected with both the parasiteand fungi contained transmissible parasiteoffspring 14 days after exposure to the fungi,compared with 35% infected with Plasmodiumalone. Putting the effects on mosquitoesand Plasmodium development together, fungicould reduce malaria transmission by approximately80-fold. The effect might be evengreater, given that fungal infection alsodecreases the propensity of infected females tofeed on blood.Blanford et al. carried out their experimentswith several isolates of two different species offungi and several malaria clones. They alsotested various fungus-containing formulations,applied on nets or solid surfaces for differentexposure times, and showed that theirconclusions still held. Nonetheless, mousemalaria may have different characteristicsfrom human malaria, and many different© 2005 Nature Publishing Groupfactors can come into play when applyingresearch findings in the field.Some of these issues were addressed byScholte et al. 2 , whose research involved trialswith cotton sheets impregnated with fungalspores in several dwellings in rural Tanzania.When such sheets are draped or hung in ahouse, mosquitoes will tend to rest on them— hence their designation as ‘resting’ sheets.The results confirm Blanford and colleagues’conclusions 1 that mosquito survival is significantlydecreased by fungal infection. WhenScholte et al. fed their data into an epidemiologicalmodel to calculate the effect on malariatransmission, the estimated number of infectivemosquito bites per person per yeardropped from 262 to 64. Increasing the coverageof mosquito resting sites could bring thisnumber down to 10.So far, so good. But what about the ecologicaland evolutionary issues that arise? The firstis fungal specificity — or lack of it. Two of theisolates used by Blanford et al. came frombeetles and moths, moth isolates also beingused by Scholte and colleagues. The fungi arelikely to kill pretty much any insect, andmaybe other organisms, that come into contactwith them. Although people would probablybe better off without most insect speciesthat get into houses, that may not be true for allof them. Lack of specificity might not be aproblem, but it merits further research.Second, there is the question of the possibledevelopment of resistance to the fungi. Use of891

TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementCoordinator: Augustin Berghöfer (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ)Core Team and Lead Authors : André Mader (ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability), Shela Patrickson (ICLEI – LocalGovernments for Sustainability), Elisa Calcaterra (International Union for the Conservation of Nature - IUCN), Jacques Smit (ICLEI– Local Governments for Sustainability)Contributing Authors: James Blignaut, Martin de Wit, Hugo van ZylReviewers: Thomas Elmqvist (Stockholm Resilience Centre), Heidi Wittmer (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research –UFZ), Holger Robrecht (ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability)This manual builds upon the report ‘TEEB for Local and Regional Policy Makers’ (2010), coordinated by Heidi Wittmerand Haripriya Gundimeda.TEEB Study Leader: Pavan Sukhdev (UNEP)TEEB Coordination Group: Pavan Sukhdev (UNEP), Aude Neuville (EC), Benjamin Simmons (UNEP), Francois Wakenhut (EC),Georgina Langdale (UNEP), Heidi Wittmer (UFZ), James Vause (Defra), Maria Berlekom (SIDA), Mark Schauer (UNEP), SylviaKaplan (BMU), Tone Solhaug (MD)TEEB Advisory Board: Joan Martinez-Alier, Giles Atkinson, Edward Barbier, Ahmed Djoghlaf, Jochen Flasbarth, YolandaKakabadse, Jacqueline McGlade, Karl-Göran Mäler, Julia Marton-Lefèvre, Peter May, Ladislav Miko, Herman Mulder, Walter Reid,Achim Steiner, Nicholas SternDisclaimer: The views expressed in this document are those of the authors alone and may not in any circumstances be regardedas stating an official position of the organizations involved.This document should be quoted as follows:TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2011). TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in UrbanManagement. www.teebweb.orgTEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (www.TEEBweb.org) is an international initiative to draw attentionto the global economic benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity, to highlight the growing costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystemdegradation, and to draw together expertise from the fields of science, economics and policy to enable practical actions movingforward.TEEB is hosted by the United Nations Environment Programme and supported by the European Commission and variousgovernments.

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementForewordWhen we published the TEEB for Local and Regional PolicyMakers report in 2010, we hoped we had provided an inspiringstarting point for thinking about policy in a new way, one whichdoes not take nature for granted. We are indebted to thecontributions of individuals and organisations, providing examplesof policy options, case studies and experience from around theworld. We could not hope to cover everything within a 200 pagereport, but we did hope that the report would stimulate others toapply relevant aspects of the content to their particular situation.ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability have done just thatby creating this, TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Servicesin Urban Management, in partnership with the TEEB for Localand Regional Policy Makers team. This is an excellent publicationthat builds upon the TEEB reports and tailors the informationspecifically for an urban context. It highlights how a focus onecosystem services and their valuation can create direct benefitsfor urban areas and can be performed even with limited resources.We congratulate the ICLEI Cities Biodiversity Center team for thisinitiative and we hope this handbook will take its place alongsidethe TEEB reports as an essential tool for local and regional policymakers everywhere.Heidi Wittmer and Haripriya GundimedaCoordinatorsTEEB for Local and Regional Policy MakersAcknowledgementsThe authors would especially like to thank:Gregg Oelofse, Patrick ten Brink and Heidi Wittmer.In addition, the authors would like to thank: José BernalStoopen, Kobie Brand, Marco Cerezo, Sabine Courcier, ThomasElmqvist, Leonardo C. Fleck, Johannes Főrster, Thomas Forster,Stephen Granger, Oliver Hillel, Daniel Hodder, Patricia Holmes,Georgina Langdale, Chris Manderson, Widar Narvelo, SusanneNolden, Patrick O’Farrell, Grant Pearsell, Leanne Raymond,Isabel Renner, Javier Riojas, Holger Robrecht, John Senior,Mark Shauer, Gabriel Valle and Johan Van Zoest.This TEEB Manual also draws on the expertise of ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability’s Local Action forBiodiversity (LAB) Programme, run in partnership with International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).i

City of Cape Town

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementContentsForeword and AcknowledgementsCONTENTSiiiiSection 1:An introduction to ecosystem services and cities 11.1 The Value of Nature for Cities 11.2 Ecosystem services: definitions and examples 31.3 A focus on ecosystem services: helping cities to achieve their goals 6Section 2:How to include ecosystem services in decision making and policy – The TEEB stepwise approach 11Step 1: Specify and agree on the problem or policy issue with stakeholders 12Step 2: Identify the most relevant ecosystem services that can help to solve the problem or policy issue 15Step 3: Determine what information is needed and select assessment methods 20Step 4: Assess (future changes in) ecosystem services 24Step 5: Identify and compare management/policy options 26Step 6: Assess the impacts of the policy options on the range of stakeholders 28Section 3:Applying the TEEB stepwise approach within city management 313.1 Communicating to decision makers and other line functions 323.2 Budget cycle 333.3 Spatial planning 343.4 Concluding remarks 37Glossary 38References and bibliography 39iii

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementSection 1:An introduction to ecosystem services and citiesOften ecoystem management in one location influences ecosystem services downstream - water supply is a clear example.1.1. The Value of Naturefor CitiesCities depend on a healthy naturalenvironment that continuously provides arange of benefits, known as ecosystemservices. Some examples of ecosystemservices include drinking water, cleanair, healthy food, and protection againstfloods.Healthy ecosystems are the foundationfor sustainable cities, influencing andaffecting human well-being and mosteconomic activity.This manual outlines how cities canincorporate a focus on ecosystemservices into city planning andmanagement. By considering ecosystemservices, cities have the opportunityto make some very positive changes,saving on municipal costs, boostinglocal economies, enhancing qualityof life and securing livelihoods. Thecritical role that ecosystem servicesplay in local economies is often takenfor granted, and the TEEB approachcan reveal the value of natural systems,highlighting opportunities and trade-offsbetween various policy options, planningproposals or infrastructure choices.Lack of information, understanding andplanning about the effects of decisionson the environment can lead to the lossof essential and beneficial ecosystemservices. From an economic point of view,this means the sub-optimal use of this‘natural capital’, resulting in unnecessarylosses in local welfare, city budgets andbusiness opportunities. It is necessary tomaintain a healthy environment becausethere is a point (known as the ‘tippingpoint’) at which a degraded ecosystemwill cease to supply the ecosystemservices that we rely upon, and it can beextremely expensive, time-consuming,or sometimes even impossible to restorethe ecosystems and/or find an alternativesolution. For that reason ecosystemsneed to be factored into city planning,management and budgets to outline thecosts and benefits of different policyoptions, and therefore make betterinformed decisions.By identifying the benefits that natureprovides, and by understanding thevalue of these benefits, planners,educators and managers can movetowards creating a sustainable city. Inthe long term, maintaining functioningecosystems is the most cost-effectivesolution to meeting human needs, and insome cases it is the only way of meetingNatural elements that were once seen as hurdles todevelopment, should be viewed as natural capitalinstead. Coastal ecosystems play a role in protectingsettlements from natural disasters.André Mader André MaderDefinitionsBiodiversity is the variety of life onearth – at the level of ecosystems, butalso at the level of the componentsof ecosystems (for example speciesand genetic material). Biodiversity ofecosystems and within ecosystemsis integral to their functioning and theprovision of ecosystem services.Ecosystem is a way of describingnature’s functioning and it consistsof components (plants, animals,microorganisms, water, air etc.) aswell as the interactions between thesecomponents. Functioning ecosystemsare the foundation of human wellbeingand most economic activity,because almost every resource thathumankind utilizes on a day-to-daybasis relies directly or indirectly onnature. The benefits that humans derivefrom nature are known as ecosystemservices. They can be dividedinto four categories: Provisioningservices, Regulating services,Habitat or Supporting services,and Cultural services. (MillenniumEcosystem assessment 2005; TEEBFoundations 2010)1

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Managementhuman needs if ecosystem services areirreplaceable.Consideration of nature’s value needs tobe integrated throughout local governmentdepartments because virtuallyevery line function’s work has potentialimpacts on, and alternative benefits to,the environment.André MaderDecentralisation of government is agrowing phenomenon worldwide andlocal authorities are therefore becomingresponsible for an increasing proportionof management at the local level includingservice delivery for their citizens(World Bank 2011). City administrationsin particular are facing increasinglycomplex challenges as more than 50%of the world’s population is now living inurban areas with predictions of a furtherincrease in the next decades (UNFPA2007; UN-HABITAT 2006). As succinctlyput in a study on ecosystem servicesvaluation in rural Africa: althoughcapacity and resource constraints posevery real challenges, local authoritiesare arguably the best agents of changewithin the environmental sector. This isbecause they generally manage substantialbudgets, they have strong executivepowers with relatively short commandstructures, and they operate at grassrootslevel (Golder Associates 2010).An understanding, considerationand valuation of ecosystem servicesis necessary for a well-managedenvironment as an obligation to futuregenerations and out of respect for oursurroundings; since ecosystem servicesoften provide the most sustainable,cost-effective solutions. The direct effectsof this approach are perhaps most easilyobserved when used to address thechallenges faced by poor communities.This manual has been compiled in orderto provide an easily understandableintroduction to the subject of ecosystemservices; how to determine their value;and, how to incorporate a considerationof ecosystem services into municipalfunctioning as a long-term investment toenhance existing municipal management.The focus of the manual is on cities,although the term ‘cities’ is used torepresent all forms of local government.The audience is practitioners and policymakersat the local level – includingthose directly responsible for biodiversitymanagement and those whose workis indirectly related to biodiversitymanagement (for example planners).Some ecosystem services are expensive, time consuming or are impossible to replace. Forests may takehundreds of years to regrow, for example.Education can play an important role in preserving ecosystem services. After all, human actions stronglyinfluence the systems that supply them with benefits.André Mader“The value of ecosystem services and natural capital deriving from our biodiversity sites, in underpinning theeconomy and sustainable development in Cape Town, should be recognized and communicated to all line functionsand politicians… so that sufficient investment is allocated to optimally manage these areas in perpetuity.”(City of Cape Town, Dr. Patricia Holmes, Biophysical Specialist)2

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management1.2. Ecosystem services: definitions and examplesEcosystem services can be divided into four categories: Provisioning services; Regulating services; Habitat or Supporting services;and, Cultural services. Table 1 presents the ecosystem services relevant to cities (illustrated by the TEEB ecosystem services icons)with examples of each.Table 1: Ecosystem categories and types relevant to cities.EcosystemServiceServiceIconService descriptionExampleProvisioning services: Ecosystem services that describe the material or energy outputs from ecosystems.FoodEcosystems provide the conditions for growing food. Foodcomes principally from managed agro-ecosystems, but marineand freshwater systems, forests and urban horticulture alsoprovide food for human consumption.In Havana, Cuba (1996), a significant proportion of the urbanpopulation’s food was produced within urban gardens, including8,500 tons of agricultural produce, 7.5 million eggs and 3,650 tonsof meat (according to a review by Altieri, 1999).Raw materialsEcosystems provide a great diversity of materials forconstruction and fuel including wood, biofuels and plant oilsthat are directly derived from wild and cultivated plant species.Non-timber forest products such as rubber, latex, rattan and plantoils are very important in trade and subsistence – the annualglobal trade in such products is estimated to amount to US$11billion (Roe et al. 2002).Fresh waterEcosystems play a vital role in providing cities with drinkingwater, as they ensure the flow, storage and purification ofwater. Vegetation and forests influence the quantity of wateravailable locally.Estimates of the value of the services of a South African mountainfynbos ecosystem with an area of only 4 km 2 indicated that waterproduction was the biggest contributor to the total value of thesystem. The value was estimated to range from approximatelyUS$4.2 million to 66.6 million in 1997, according to how well thesystem is managed (Higgens et al. 1997).MedicinalresourcesBiodiverse ecosystems provide many plants used astraditional medicines as well as providing raw materials for thepharmaceutical industry. All ecosystems are a potential sourceof medicinal resources.80% of the world`s people are still dependent on traditional herbalmedicine (WHO 2002), while the sale of medicines derived fromnatural materials amounts to US$57 billion per year (Kaimowitz2005).Regulating services: The services that ecosystems provide by regulating the quality of air and soil or providingflood and disease control, etc.Local climateand air qualityregulationTrees and green space lower the temperature in cities whilstforests influence rainfall and water availability both locallyand regionally. Trees or other plants also play an importantrole in regulating air quality by removing pollutants from theatmosphere.In Cascine Park in Florence, Italy, the urban park forest wasshown to have retained its pollutant removal capability of about72.4 kg per hectare per year (reducing by only 3.4 kg/ha to 69.0kg/ha after 19 years, despite some losses due to cutting andextreme climate events) (Paoletti et al. 2011). Harmful pollutantsremoved included O 3, CO, SO 2. NO 2, and particulate pollutants aswell as CO 2.Carbonsequestration andstorageEcosystems regulate the global climate by storing greenhousegases. As trees and plants grow, they remove carbon dioxidefrom the atmosphere and effectively lock it away in theirtissues; thus acting as carbon stores.Urban trees too, are important in carbon sequestration: in theUnited States, their annual gross carbon sequestration amountsto 22.8 million tons of carbon per year (as calculated in 2002)(Nowak and Crane 2002). This is equivalent to the entire USApopulation’s emissions in five days. This sequestration service isvalued at US$460 million per year, and US$14,300 million in total.Moderation ofextreme eventsEcosystems and living organisms create buffers againstnatural disasters, thereby preventing or reducing damage fromextreme weather events or natural hazards including floods,storms, tsunamis, avalanches and landslides. For example,plants stabilize slopes, while coral reefs and mangroves helpprotect coastlines from storm damage.In the case of the Californian Napa City, USA, the Napa river basinwas restored to its natural capacity by means of creating mudflats,marshes and wetlands around the city (TEEBcase by Almack2010). This has effectively controlled flooding to such an extent thata significant amount of money, property, and human lives could besaved.Waste-watertreatmentEcosystems such as wetlands filter effluents. Through thebiological activity of microorganisms in the soil, most waste isbroken down. Thereby pathogens (disease causing microbes)are eliminated, and the level of nutrients and pollution isreduced.In Louisiana, USA, it was found that wetlands could function asalternatives to conventional wastewater treatment, at an estimatedcost saving of between US$785 to 34,700 per hectare of wetland(in 1995) (Breaux et al. 1995).3

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementEcosystemServiceServiceIconService descriptionExampleRegulating services: ContinuedErosion preventionand maintenanceof soil fertilityPollinationSoil erosion is a key factor in the process of land degradation,desertification and hydroelectric capacity. Vegetation coverprovides a vital regulating service by preventing soil erosion.Soil fertility is essential for plant growth and agriculture andwell-functioning ecosystems supply soil with nutrients requiredto support plant growth.Insects and wind pollinate plants which is essential forthe development of fruits, vegetables and seeds. Animalpollination is an ecosystem service mainly provided by insectsbut also by some birds and bats.A study estimated that the total required investment to slowerosion to acceptable rates in the USA would amount to US$8.4billion, yet the damage caused by erosion amounted to US$44billion per year. This translates into a US$5.24 saving for everyUS$1 invested (Pimentel et al. 1995).Some 87 out of the 115 leading global food crops depend uponanimal pollination including important cash crops such as cocoaand coffee (Klein et al. 2007).Biological controlEcosystems are important for regulating pests and vectorborne diseases that attack plants, animals and people.Ecosystems regulate pests and diseases through the activitiesof predators and parasites. Birds, bats, flies, wasps, frogs andfungi all act as natural controls.Water hyacinth was brought under control in southern Benin usingthree natural enemies of that plant (De Groote et al. 2003). Whereasthe biological control project cost only US$2.09 million in presentvalue, its accumulated value is estimated to amount to US$260million in present value (assuming the benefits stay constant over thefollowing 20 years), representing a very favourable 124:1 benefit costratio.Habitat or Supporting services: These services underpin almost all other services. Ecosystems provide living spaces for plants oranimals: they also maintain a diversity of plants and animals.Habitats forspeciesHabitats provide everything that an individual plant or animalneeds to survive: food, water, and shelter. Each ecosystemprovides different habitats that can be essential for a species’lifecycle. Migratory species including birds, fish, mammalsand insects all depend upon different ecosystems during theirmovements.In a March 2010 article (IUCN 2010), IUCN reports that habitatloss is the single biggest threat to European butterflies, and maylead to the extinction of several species. Habitat loss was said tooccur most often as a result of changes in agricultural practice,climate change, forest fires, and expansion of tourism.Maintenance ofgenetic diversityGenetic diversity (the variety of genes between, and within,species populations) distinguishes different breeds or racesfrom each other, providing the basis for locally well-adaptedcultivars and a gene pool for developing commercial crops andlivestock. Some habitats have an exceptionally high numberof species which makes them more genetically diverse thanothers and are known as ‘biodiversity hotspots’.In the Philippines, an initiative to conserve local varieties of riceaided in the development of rice strains that are better adapted tolocal conditions - giving greater yield, a quality seed supply, anddecreasing dependence on plant breeders - at a much lower costthan that of formal plant breeding (SEARICE 2007).Cultural services: These include the non-material benefits people obtain from contact with ecosystems. They include aesthetic,spiritual and psychological benefits.Recreation andmental andphysical healthTourismWalking and playing sports in green space is a good formof physical exercise and helps people to relax. The role thatgreen space plays in maintaining mental and physical healthis increasingly becoming recognized, despite difficulties ofmeasurement.Ecosystems and biodiversity play an important role for manykinds of tourism which in turn provides considerable economicbenefits and is a vital source of income for many countries.In 2008 global earnings from tourism summed up to US$944billion. Cultural and eco-tourism can also educate peopleabout the importance of biological diversity.A review article examined the monetary value of ecosystemservices related to urban green space, based on 10 studies,including 9 cities from China and 1 from the USA (Elmqvist 2011).It reported that on average, ‘Recreation and Amenity’ and ‘Healtheffects’ contributed a value of US$5.882 and US$17.548 perhectare per year respectively to the total average of US$29.475per hectare per year provided by the seven identified ecosystemservices in the various studies.Based on the amounts of money people spent on travel andlocal expenditure in order to visit Coral reefs in Hawaii, it wasestimated that the value associated with these reefs amounted toUS$97 million per year (TEEBcase by van Beukering and Cesar2010). This implies that reef tourism resulted in significant incomegeneration for individuals, companies, and countries.Aestheticappreciation andinspiration forculture, art anddesignLanguage, knowledge and the natural environment have beenintimately related throughout human history. Biodiversity,ecosystems and natural landscapes have been the sourceof inspiration for much of our art, culture and increasingly forscience.Prehistoric rock art of southern Africa, Australia, and Europe, andother examples like them throughout the world, present evidence ofhow nature has inspired art and culture since very early in humanhistory. Contemporary culture, art and design are similarly inspired bynature.Spiritualexperience andsense of placeIn many parts of the world natural features such as specificforests, caves or mountains are considered sacred or have areligious meaning. Nature is a common element of all majorreligions and traditional knowledge, and associated customsare important for creating a sense of belonging.In the example of the Maronite church of Lebanon, the churchcommitted to protecting a hill in their possession, comprisingrare remainders of intact Mediterranean forest, independentof scientific and legal arguments, because this was in line withMaronite culture, theology and religion (Palmer and Finlay 2003).4

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementStephen GrangerCity of Cape TownCity of Cape TownNot all ecosystem services can be measured in monetary terms - some valuescan be as simple as the beauty of a butterfly in the garden.The medicinal plant, Sutherlandia frutescens, from southern Africa - the value ofnatural traditional medicines should not be underestimated.Environmentally based tourism can be a valuable source of revenue, as in this park in Croatia.5

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management1.3. A focus on ecosystem services: helping cities to achieve their goalsThis section examines how cities can benefit in various ways from a focus on ecosystem services, especially with regard to urbanplanning, budget allocations and municipal service delivery. The examples in this section show that such an approach can beeconomically viable and provide social benefits – arguments which are often vital in order to secure political commitment.A focus on ecosystem services cansupport the work of city authorities in atleast three ways:● Firstly, the benefits we derive from afunctioning environment becomevisible at the local level. If we adopt afocus on ecosystem services, theirrelation to municipal service deliverybecomes evident. For example, citiesare often responsible for the provisionof clean water to their citizens. A focuson the ecosystem services relevant towater provision can help identify thewater purification capacity of, forexample, nearby forests. Thepreservation of the forests cantherefore become an integral part ofthe strategy to provide clean water tolocal residents.● Secondly, focusing on ecosystemservices allows decision makers tobetter anticipate the consequences ofdecisions or policies. Ecosystemsgenerate multiple services and bylooking at ecosystem services thecosts and benefits of the choices canbe compared. For example, when aforested area that is valued by bothresidents and local decision makers forthe full range of services it provides, isthreatened by a new development, thiswill have to be considered in terms ofthe benefits which would be lost.● Thirdly, a focus on ecosystem servicesallows effective communication,between all line functions and with thegeneral public, about the environmentalconsequences and the wider economicand/or social implications of a decision.If a broad range of ecosystem servicesprovided is considered, in terms of thegain or loss of natural resources andbenefits, and these are communicatedeffectively to all stakeholders, it is likelythat the most desirable outcomes willbe achieved through effective decisionmaking.By focusing on ecosystem services, thevalue and multiple benefits of functioningecosystems will be recognized, and theconservation of natural resources will beimplicit as an effective means of creatingand maintaining sustainable and healthycities.An ecosystem services approach iscomplementary to other motivations toconserve nature, encouraging policyCity of Cape Townmakers to consider the connectionsbetween natural systems and humanwell-being through various policy andmanagement processes, includingplanning, budget allocations orinfrastructure. Focusing on ecosystemservices will help achieve abalance between developmental andenvironmental objectives. How doesthis focus on ecosystem serviceswork in practice? There is no ‘one-sizefits-all’solution, and it is criticalto develop a local approach, uniqueto each particular situation. The stepwiseapproach, outlined in Section 2,provides guidance on how to valueecosystem services in a city context.Ecosystem services are a cross-cuttingissue and there is often no need tointroduce new units or procedures, sincelocal management processes whichare in place could simply benefitfrom adopting an ecosystem servicesperspective. This can be a comprehensiveanalysis – as in the case of Cape Town(see case study section 2) – but maybe done with limited resources asa preliminary appraisal. Table 2 showsexamples of how a focus on ecosystemservices has helped cities invarious ways.City of Barcelona City of São PauloEnvironmental education will often contribute not only to a public understanding ofand appreciation for ecosystem services, but facilitate social upliftment as well.Alien plants threaten biodiversity and underpins many of the benefits of nature.6

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementWikimedia CommonsThe intense terracing in this picture is a reminder of how intimately society, economy and nature interact.Table 2: How can a focus on ecosystem services help city authorities?ExampleCanberra, Australia: Local authorities plant and maintain trees resultingin a variety of benefits. The 400,000 trees within the city limits regulate thecity climate, reducing air pollution as well as energy costs for air conditioning.Trees also sequester carbon and slow the run-off of precipitation. These benefitsare estimated to amount to around US$4 million annually in terms of the valuegenerated or savings incurred to the city (TEEBcase based on Brack 2002).Principal ecosystemservicesMunicipal tasks and objectives benefitting froma focus on ecosystem servicesAn assessment of the benefits of trees in urban areas can:● Inform planning and budget allocations for severalcity departments, including green spaces, housingand sewage.● Contribute to the provision of a healthy urbanenvironment (thereby increasing quality of life).● Identify savings for the city (e.g. cut in energy use).Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia: Mongolia’s capital and economic centre, Ulaanbaatarrelies on the watershed of the Upper Tuul valley, which is currently degrading.The future availability of water and other ecosystem services have been estimatedunder different scenarios. Compared to a sustainable management scenario,‘business as usual’ or increasing degradation, will be costly: More importantthan the direct losses (50-100 million US$ over 25 years), are the impacts oflost ecosystem services on industry and economic growth prospects for the city(300-500 million US$ over 25 years) (TEEBcase by Almack and Chatreaux 2010).An assessment of the benefits of a watershed can:● Reveal the city’s crucial dependence on onewatershed upstream.● Provide crucial information for land-use planning inthe relevant area (to ensure adequate water provisionfor the current and future generations).● Inform long term economic strategies.Melbourne, Australia: A world class network of regional parks, trails, foreshoresand waterways support and contribute significantly to Melbourne’s liveability andpublic health.Recognising the health benefits of access to natural areas hasrecently led protected area authorities to take this up as a central theme. ParksVictoria, and the People and Parks Foundation, have forged a partnership with amajor health insurer, investing over $1 million US$ in a program for health careprofessionals to encourage people to increase physical activity by visiting andengaging in activities in parks (Senior 2010).Assessing the health benefits of urban parks can:● Facilitate alliances with the health sector, as a meansof fostering preventive public health care.● Also support the biodiversity conservation agenda ofthe environmental department and park authorities.Limburg, Belgium: In this densely populated province, a local NGO convincedpolicy makers in 2006 with an economic argument (job creation) to createBelgium’s first national park: Apart from protecting biodiversity, the ‘Hoge KempenNational Park’ created some 400 jobs and stimulated private investment in tourismin this historically de-industrialised region. Tourists appreciate the recoveringnature in former coal mines for its particular landscape and biodiversity values.(TEEBcase by Schops 2011).Moyobamba, Peru: What can a city with 42,000 inhabitants and a smallbudget do to prevent water scarcity and further losses in water quality?The benefits of two small watersheds have been used to raise public awareness.Citizens agreed to pay an additional conservation levy on their water bill. Theydo so in order to restore the watersheds and secure the livelihoods of its ruralresidents as watershed stewards (TEEBcase by Renner 2010).An assessment of the value of protected areas for economicdevelopment can:● Ensure that policy makers of the surroundingmunicipalities consider the potential of their naturalassets for the promotion of sustainable economicdevelopment.● Show how natural assets contribute to job creation.● Make the case for development strategies which takenatural assets into account.A focus on ecosystem services helped city authorities to:● Gain broad public support and finance for welltargetedconservation measures to secure gooddrinking water for the city.● Design adequate planning processes and allocatebudget to watershed conservation.7

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementExampleDurban, South Africa: Durban examined the role of open spaces, especially interms of meeting the basic needs (e.g. water, firewood and food) of the poor, whodid not have access to adequate infrastructure or municipal services. Thanks to anassessment of ecosystem services, it was possible to demonstrate that the city’sopen space system significantly improved their quality of life and enhanced theirability to meet their basic needs (TEEBcase by Boon 2010).Principal ecosystemservicesMunicipal tasks and objectives benefitting froma focus on ecosystem servicesAn ecosystem service approach to planning was useful to:● Prioritise areas for urban development.● Make decision makers aware of the importance ofnature conservation, previously perceived as a luxury.● Motivate municipal leadership and local politiciansto take a number of tough decisions to protect theenvironment.Miami, USA: The city has used the CITYgreen tool for systematically including‘green infrastructure’ such as parks, urban forests and wetlands into urbanplanning. This is mainly for the purpose of storm water protection, enhancementof air- and water quality and climate regulation. As a result a riverine area wasrehabilitated which subsequently generated a range of positive side effects (e.g.recreational and property values) (TEEBcase by Főrster 2010).A focus on the benefits of green infrastructure can:● Support the effectiveness and efficiency of city effortsto regulate floods.● Help the city to ensure the quality of air and water.● Highlight the positive impact on property values.Vientiane, Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Frequent heavy rainfall resultsin overflowing drains and urban flooding at least 6 times annually, damagingbuildings and infrastructure. Several wetlands, however, absorb a proportionof the floodwater, dramatically reducing damages. The value of the ecosystemservices of the wetlands has been measured (using annual value of flood damagesavoided), calculating the value of the wetlands to be just under US$5 million peryear (TEEBcase by Gerrard 2010).A focus on the value of wetlands demonstrates:● The potential of natural retention areas for floodcontrol.● The savings which can be achieved by the city (e.g.less damage to infrastructure).● The importance of incorporating an ecosystemservice approach in spatial planning.Kampala, Uganda: At the outskirts of Uganda’s capital the Nakivubo Swampsprovide an important ecosystem service. The swamps treat and filter the biologicalwaste water from much of the city. Ideas to drain the wetland in order to gainagricultural land were dropped when an assessment of this service showed thatrunning a sewage treatment facility with the same capacity as the swamp wouldcost the city around 2 million US$ annually (TEEBcase by Almack 2010).An assessment of the value of the wetland means that:● City planners and the sanitation department maybenefit from detailed information.● City council can make informed decisions based onvarious cost estimates.● Informal land conversion of the wetland for agriculturecan be judged in the light of sewage treatmentcapacity lost.● Direct investment to maintain the wetland can beidentified as a cost-effective measure to ensure futurepurification benefits.City of Cape TownWater is perhaps one of the most obvious and sought after ecosystem services, yet ecosystem services are interrelated. It is good practice to consider an entire suiteof services rather than focus on only one service at the expense of others.8

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management9

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementStephen Granger10When identifying ecosystem services related to natural features, itis useful to consider the benefits associated with water bodies suchas tourism, leisure, water as an agricultural and industrial resource,and transport to name but a few.

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementSection 2:How to include ecosystem services in decision makingand policy – The TEEB stepwise approachThis section guides the reader through a set of steps that can be considered and adapted in the process of applying a focus onecosystem services in urban management. Examples illustrate the ways in which each step has been applied in real-life situations.Note that some examples are used to illustrate several steps. By considering each step, and noting how they have been approachedin the past, the reader can formulate an idea of how to approach the relevant step in each specific context.Briefly, the steps are as follows:Step 1: Specify and agree on the problem or policy issue with stakeholdersStep 2: Identify which ecosystem services are most relevantStep 3: Determine what information is needed and select assessment methodsStep 4: Assess (future changes in) ecosystem servicesStep 5: Identify and assess management/policy optionsStep 6: Assess the impact of the policy options on the range of stakeholdersThe explanation of the TEEB stepwise approach below draws on case studies to illustrate the practical implementation of a focus onecosystem services. The following describes the Cape Town context and its key characteristics that have shaped the implementationand successes of applying a focus on ecosystem services.City of Cape TownCape Town’s clear skies are often attributed to the “Cape Doctor”, the prevailing summer wind that helps remove air pollution. Doubtless, this is just one of countlessexamples of nature contributing to human health and quality of life.Case Study: Assessing the natural assets of Cape Town, South AfricaCape Town boasts enviable naturalassets including world-class mountains,beaches, green open spaces, wetlandsand marine life all within the limits ofa bustling metro of roughly 3.6 millionpeople. The city has a relativelywell-diversified economy and is aworld-renowned tourism destination. Inaddition, it enjoys the status of a ‘globalbiodiversity hotspot’ due to its locationin the Cape Floral Region. This broaderregion hosts almost 9,000 indigenousflowering plant species of which 70%are endemic.Cape Town’s latest State of theEnvironment report indicates that60% of its original natural areas havebeen lost and 30% of the remainingvegetation is considered to be eitherendangered or critically endangered.Its natural assets are under extremepressure primarily from land transformation,pollution and aggressive alieninvasive plant species and are in needof increased investment and managementeffort.Municipal budget allocations are heavilycontested in Cape Town especiallygiven the existence of often urgentand competing development needs. Inthis context, the City’s EnvironmentalManagement Department thought itwas important to be able to assess the‘business’ case for increased investmentin, and protection of, naturalassets. This exercise showed thehuge value of ecosystem services forthe City of Cape Town and highlightedtheir crucial role in a number of areas,ranging from tourism, where the link isobvious, to waste-water treatment andprotection from natural hazards, wherethe role of ecosystems can more easilygo unnoticed. One of the key lessons ofthis case is that, apart from the impressiveresults, it was the process of jointlyengaging in the analysis with variousmunicipal departments which was mostbeneficial.It was valuable to build a shared understandingof Cape Town’s ecosystems asnatural assets, and thereby prepare theground for future efforts to better securetheir maintenance and protection.Source: De Wit and van Zyl 2011; DeWit et al. 2009.11

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementStep 1Specify and agree on the problem or policy issue with stakeholdersTo apply a focus on ecosystemservices within city management, agood starting point is to consider aparticular management challenge thatrequires attention. Many of these challengeswill have economically viable,effective and sustainable solutionsbased on ecosystem services. Wheninitiating the process of identifyingthe challenge, it is essential to planahead to determine whether ecosystemswill contribute meaningfully toa solution. Some of the more obviousexamples might be food security, theneed to adapt to the impacts of climatechange, or, the provision of clean andsafe drinking water. It is important toconsider challenges that are criticallyimportant to ecosystem health andthose that are likely to stimulate broadinterest across other sectors.An ecosystem valuation approachneed not necessarily start with theidentification of a problem as such, butcan also be a way of improving a situationor avoiding a potential problem. Citiessuch as Montréal and Calgary in Canadaare considering the cognitive, social andhealth benefits of living in close proximity tonature. For example, when planning for theconstruction of a major residential projectfor the elderly, Montréal suggests thatcities could also consider creating a greenarea in the vicinity to respond to the specifichealth and social needs of their citizens(Daniel Hodder, City of Montreal; ChrisManderson, City of Calgary; and, GrantPearsell, City of Edmonton – Pers. Comm.).Engaging stakeholders at an early stagewill assist in identifying appropriateareas and challenges that need to beaddressed. For example, consult withpersonnel from different departmentsto determine what they consider to beimportant challenges, and discuss withecologists or conservationists whichof these can be addressed through anincreased focus on ecosystem services.Early engagement helps to avoidmisunderstandings; makes others awareCity of Cape TownThe Environmental Resource Management Department at the City of Cape Town engaged with other relevant departments around the valuation process of theCity’s natural assets.The City of Cape Town’s Ecosystem Services Valuation Exercise (continued)The City of Cape Town’s EnvironmentalResource Management Department setout to determine the economic value oftheir ecosystem services based on thechallenge of rapid biodiversity loss inperhaps the world’s most biodiverse andbiodiversity-threatened city. In order toinvolve stakeholders the Departmentactively engaged with all other Departmentswithin the City’s managementstructure that have responsibility for,or impact on, natural assets within theCity, including the Finance Department,involving them in the valuation process.This was done even before consultantswere hired to conduct the studyand involved a process of relationshipbuildingwith the other departments– something important not only for theparticular study but for general cooperativemanagement within the City.Source: De Wit and van Zyl 2011;De Wit et al. 2009.12

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Managementof the exercise from the start; providesa critical analysis of the challengefrom different perspectives; and, helpsto foster cooperation and consensus.If necessary, establish a core committee toguide and review the assessment process,to ensure the focus remains on the userand remains credible (O’Farrell andReyers 2011).Stakeholder engagement isa common thread throughout the six steps.The city administration is probablythe most important source of stakeholderswith which to engage – both officials andpolitical leadership. Other importantstakeholder groups include the generalpublic, often represented throughcommunity groups, who are alsooften willing to assist as volunteers.Research organizations and institutionsmay be willing and able to contributeexpertise, for example by indicatingwhether a particular challengeidentified is indeed relevant to ecosystemservices.The uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park case study illustrates the flexible approach of the TEEB steps, and how they can be adapted for particular situations.Ensuring that the natural assets benefit local communitiesin South AfricaThe uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park (UDP) was listed as a World Heritage Site bythe United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) inNovember 2000. The Drakensberg is the longest and highest mountain range insouthern Africa, containing unique and endangered biodiversity as well as a largequantity of rock art, one of the richest areas in the world in this regard. The culturalvalues, aesthetic appreciation and tourism, of this World Heritage Site are great,but the financial impacts on the local municipality and communities are limited, withthe main beneficiaries being private tourism operators. There are therefore fewincentives from a biodiversity and tourism perspective for the local municipality toprotect the environment and promote sustainable land-use options. Planning neededto incorporate priorities other than World Heritage status in order to ensure thatlocal communities benefit from local ecosystem services. An extremely effectivepolicy intervention was therefore to involve local stakeholders and reconcile theirneeds and aspirations with a range of conservation objectives. The identified priorityissues were: food, water and energy security. An economic development strategywas therefore identified, which embraces these issues in order to ensure sustainabledelivery of these ecosystem services.Source: Golder Associates 2010; Blignaut et al. 2011.Acknowledgement:The uThukela District Municipality sits on the Buffer Zone Steering Committee andthrough this position they made the funds available for the study. Ezemvelo KZNWildlife is driving the Buffer Zone process and established the Steering Committeeto bring key stakeholders on board. Through this mechanism, and its TechnicalCommittee, the project received significant support. Notably the Chair of the SteeringCommittee, Mr Oscar Mthimkhulu, needs to be acknowledged.Designating natural wealth by means of WorldHeritage Sites is one way of publicly recognisingecosystem service value.Stephen Granger Myles Mander13

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementGuidance on stakeholder engagementHaving initiated the stakeholder engagement process,consider the following points in a facilitated consultation:For each participatory process, organizers should specify:Who participates? On which terms? For what purpose?Stakeholders need to have a clear idea of what they canexpect from the process.Organizers should analyze (politically and in economicterms), interactions and power relations within the localcontext as well as between a locality and its wider structuralsetting. Examining the distribution of ecosystem servicesprovides important insights.If power relations are neglected, the process may be usedby those with the most power to capture additional benefits.Participation should include everyone directly affected bythe decision, as well as those relevant to implementation.Different actors will have different concerns, and bilateralmeetings, and an objective facilitator, can assist the process.The success of a participatory process largely depends onthe trust stakeholders place in it. For this reason, the reliabilityand transparency of the facilitator are key.Source: Berghőfer and Berghőfer 2006.Further reading:● For more general information on stakeholder involvement and support, see: ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability. 2010.Local Action for Biodiversity Guidebook: Biodiversity Management for Local Governments. Laros MT and Jones FE (Eds)(pg 33-34).● TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policymakers (2010) (pg 57-60) provides furtherdetail on ‘participatory appraisal’ – a variety of techniques that incorporate data relating to the interrelationships betweenpeople’s livelihoods and socioeconomic and ecological factors.● Richards C, Blackstock K and Carter C. 2004. Practical Approaches to Participation. SERG Policy Brief, Number 1.The Macauley Institute. www.macaulay.ac.uk/socioeconomics/research/SERPpb1.pdf, provides a hands-on overview toorganising stakeholder participation.● For further background on the City of Cape Town valuation study, specifically summarised for decision-makers, see: De Wit M,Van Zyl H, Crookes D, Blignaut J, Jayiya T, Goiset V and Mahumani B. 2009b. ‘Why investing in natural assets makes financialsense for the municipality of Cape Town: A summary for decision makers’. Cape Town.Stephen GrangerPolicy often has to mediate between competing stakeholders interests. However, often those stakeholders can be united and brought into discussions by virtue of theirshared need for the same resource, such as water.14

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementStep 2Identify the most relevant ecosystem services thatcan help to solve the problem or policy issueHaving identified a challenge that maybe solved through a consideration ofecosystem services, it is necessaryto identify and prioritize whichecosystem services are most relevant,i.e. those ecosystem services whichthe policy issues or problem dependsupon, or that support it. This includesecosystem services which areaffected, or impacted, by the problemor policy issue, since their futuresustainability will depend upon theirability to assist in dealing with thechallenges.To begin with, consider the fouroverarching questions along withcolleagues and other stakeholders(TEEB 2010b):● Which ecosystem services arecentral to the local/regional societyand economy?● Which stakeholders are mostdependent on these ecosystemservices?● Which ecosystem services areat risk?● How do the problems and policiesaffect them?The list of questions provided in Table4, pertaining to each of the ecosystemservices, will further help to stimulate abasic analysis of what is important in thecity and in particular, in relation to thespecific problem or policy issue. Consultwith the relevant stakeholders, sincetheir involvement at an early stage willbe more likely to ensure the maintenanceof their support throughout the process.Consider the potential for the provisionof each ecosystem service in the city,even if that ecosystem service does notcurrently play a significant role.City of EdmontonCity of Cape TownMonika Hachtel/ City of BonnMany species are sensitive to pollution, and are therefore useful as indicator species. This measure of environmental quality can itself be considered an ecosystem service.Property values are often increased by proximity to natural or semi-natural areas, and ecological restoration may in fact lead to an increase in adjacent property prices.15

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementMyles ManderThe various incentive options for the uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park were explored with all stakeholders.Investigating the value of Ecosystem Services in Rural South Africa (continued)Sometimes the TEEB stepwiseapproach may need to be applied ina different way as illustrated in thefollowing example: In South Africa’srural uThukela District Municipality(Blignaut et al. 2011; Golder Associates2010) a research team followed a slightlydifferent course: They examined the sizeand ecological condition of the area’s(natural and transformed) land coverand habitat types. From this they coulddraw conclusions about the current (andfuture) state of ecosystem services (step4). Combined with the number of usersof each service they could prioritizethose services in a critical condition(step 2). This in turn served to furtherspecify the problem (step 1).Source: Golder Associates 2010;Blignaut et al. 2011.After identifying the ecosystemservices, they should then be rankedaccording to specific relevance. Specialconsideration should be given to thoseupon which stakeholders rely, or wherestakeholders will be affected by changesin ecosystem service delivery. Oftenthe problem or policy issue (step 1) willdetermine the priority of the identifiedecosystem services. But if this is notthe case, look jointly at the levels ofdemand for each ecosystem serviceand their supply, using existing dataand experience-based knowledge.Table 3 provides an example of how toprioritise ecosystem services, andoffers a few aspects to consider whendoing so.Table 3: An example of how to prioritise ecosystem servicesLocal ecosystemservices in high demand(distinguish between local,national and global)Local ecosystemservices in low demand(distinguish between local,national and global)Second priority:Ensure that use levels are kept within thecurrent pressure/risk range. Apply caution.Be attentive to changes in external risks/pressures.Fourth priority:Check for unnecessary losses in naturalresources: A currently low demandmay lead to inadvertent losses ofsomething that in the future may be highlyappreciated (e.g. genetic diversity).Local ecosystem services underlow pressure/ at low riskFirst priority:If pressures are due to high demand, focus onsubstitutes, or on lowering demand.If pressures are external/unrelated to demand,join forces with service users against externalpressures.Third priority:Severe losses in one service may have anunprecedented effect on others. Consultexperts on ecosystem ‘tipping points’, whichonce reached may produce a change inecosystem functioning.Local ecosystem services underhigh pressure/ at high risk16

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementTable 4: Useful questions to identify relevant ecosystem services (Step 2)Ecosystem ServiceIs this ecosystem service relevant to municipal management or the specific problem at hand?Is farming (crops, stock or fisheries) one of the economic activities in the city; or are there communities that depend directlyon nature for their food?Are raw materials such as wood, biofuel or fibre, produced in the city; or are there communities that depend directly onnature for such materials?Are there water reservoirs, rivers or other water bodies in the city, that supply drinking or irrigation water? Are the catchment(watershed) areas feeding these water bodies located partly within the city?Are there populations of wild or domesticated plants or animals in the city, which have medicinal value or are likely to havemedicinal potential?Are trees and other vegetation in the city considered to be important for shade or more broadly for regulating the heatproduced in built-up areas?Are trees and other vegetation being planted and maintained in the city, especially in built-up areas?Does the city contain any wetlands, mangroves, coral reefs; or other ecosystems that can mediate the effect of extremeweather events such as drought, fire, floods and rough seas?Is the city reliant on water filtered through wetlands before entering reservoirs, thereby saving on costs of artificialpurification?Does the city contain steep slopes that have good vegetation cover to slow the flow of rainwater and protect the soil?In the city, is crop farming practiced, which relies on animals (insects in particular) for pollination (for example most fruits andvegetables)?Are species present in the city, which control pests that endanger human health; or are there any crops for which pest controlis delivered by predator species?Does the city contain ecosystems that are healthy enough to support a variety of wild species?Are there endemic species in your city which depend on ecosystems to maintain their genetic diversity, or are there typicalrare cultivars or local varieties of species grown in your city?Do many citizens regularly use nature (forests, parks, etc.) within the city for recreation; or, is there potential to develop suchnature-based recreation?Does the natural beauty of the city attract visitors to the area?Do the citizens appreciate the natural beauty of the area? This may be indicated by people enjoying natural areas respectfully;or taking photos or painting scenery.Are religions, practiced within the city, dependent on natural areas; or do any of these natural areas have particular religioussignificance?17

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementExamples of ecosystems and a few of the services they provideJan Sasse for TEEBAgriculture practices impact on, and are influenced by,the wider ecosystem and its servicesJan Sasse for TEEBJan Sasse for TEEB18

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementCity of Cape TownKey decision-makers were involved in the participatory process of identifying, selecting and prioritising ecosystem services for the City.Identifying and prioritising ecosystem services in Cape Town (continued)Based on the Millennium EcosystemAssessment (2005); different naturalassets, which provide ecosystemservices, were examined. This includeda participatory process with key decisionmakers focused on the identification,selection and prioritization of ecosystemservices. Personal interviews andfacilitated sessions were conductedwith invited City line function managersand senior staff, representing allfunctions related to the managementof ecosystem services in the City.The following steps were followed:a) Assessment of the relativeimportance of different naturalassets (e.g. nature reserves,wetlands, near shore environments,etc.) for the generation of ecosystemservices. This allowed a basicunderstanding of the relationshipsbetween natural assets andecosystem services flows in orderto appreciate which ones wereimportant and to prioritise underlyingassets for investment.b) Estimation of the importance ofecosystem services for users/beneficiaries. The number ofbeneficiaries, as well as estimateson the likely magnitude of value foreach of the ecosystem servicesto these beneficiaries, helped toidentify the highest ranked or mostimportant ecosystem service values.c) Assessment and qualitativeinformation of the broad linksbetween natural assets andeconomic development. Failure tolink investment in natural assets todesired developmental outcomesreduces the probability of increasedbudget allocations.d) Assessment of the City’sability to influence thevalue of ecosystem servicesthrough management.The assets and flows,which are completely outsideof the City’s control, may havehigh value but will generally beless important when motivatingfor an increased investmentfrom the City.e) Ranking of the ecosystem servicesaccording to the level of ecologicaland socio-economic risks theyface. This recognises that certainenvironments are likely to be morevulnerable to habitat loss anddegradation and are thereforefacing greater ecological risks.Source: De Wit and van Zyl 2011;De Wit et al. 2009.Further reading:● Slightly different terms might be used for ecosystem services, but the list is generally quite consistent between sources.This manual and the TEEB Reports provide a comprehensive list of ecosystem services, which is based on science and issimilar to that provided in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). For additional background on ecosystem servicesand their value, consult the MEA. In particular the MEA Biodiversity Synthesis Report (www.maweb.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf) is recommended for its brevity and specific focus (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005).●●●WRI. 2008. Ecosystem Services: A guide for decision makers. This easily accessible report frames the link betweendevelopment and ecosystem service, points out risk and opportunities and provides clear guidance for decision makers(www.wri.org/publication/ecosystem-services-a-guide-for-decision-makers).TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers (2010) provides morebackground information on relevant ecosystem services, especially Chapter 1 (www.teebweb.org/Portals/25/Documents/TEEB_D2_PartI-ForUpload%5B1%5D.pdf).For a comprehensive assessment of the fundamental ecological and economic principles of measuring and valuingecosystem services and biodiversity, and also showing how these can be mainstreamed into public policies, see:The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations (TEEB Foundations 2010).19

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementStep 3Determine what information is needed and select assessment methodsSome valuation methods work betterfor particular ecosystem services, andnot all methods are applicable for allecosystem services. At an early stageit is important to determine whetherthe method chosen requires statisticalanalysis (including computer softwareand skilled people).Consider what information is requiredfor conducting or commissioning anassessment of the prioritised ecosystemservices. The assessment must betailor-made for each unique situation,and meet the requirements as specifiedby stakeholder consultation, in order toavoid unnecessary time and expenditure.The chosen methodology will determinewhat data and skills are needed in orderto obtain useful information. Define themethods to use by looking at the problemor policy issue in four different ways:(i)What kind of questions need tobe answered by the assessment?How do they help tackle the decisionor policy issue?(ii) What is already known aboutthe problem or policy issue?What relevant data, knowledge,experience and expertise is alreadyavailable to the team or the stakeholders?(iii) What are the constraints in timing,capacity and financial resources?(iv) Which are the ‘low hanging fruits’?Which are the questions where alittle additional input can generatenew insights important to the issue?Discuss the study design with experts inorder to ascertain whether to concentrateon a broad range of ecosystem services,or to go into more detail with a few criticalones. Determine the timeframe over whichto consider the particular problem or policyissue. When deciding what kind of informationis required, select an appropriate typeof assessment (see box below).The particular nature of each situation will inform what kind of evaluation method for ecosystemservices is required.City of LeicesterTypes of assessment to consider when deciding onthe required information:a) Qualitative assessment: describing the importanceor judging the state of the relevant ecosystemservices, as well as showing the connectivity andinterrelations between ecosystems and social andeconomic systems on a spatial scale (this may serveas a communication and awareness-raising exercise,and highlight often-ignored, but important, ecosystemservices);b) Quantitative assessment: for example, indicatingthe increases/decreases in the flow of ecosystemservices expected to result from a certain policy; orestimating the number of jobs affected by a problemthat could be solved through preserving ecosystemservices;c) Monetary valuation: calculating the monetary value ofselected ecosystem services, or the value of increasein/loss of certain services under different scenarios.Ecosystem services such as the provisioningof food and raw materials arealready valued as part of the economicsystems dealt with daily (although theymay not be seen as such!). However,most ecosystem goods and servicesdo not have market prices that areeasy to calculate. In these cases onecan look at the cost of replacing theservice, or the costs saved throughprotection offered by the ecosystemservices (e.g. wetlands mediatingflooding). These methods can beuseful when an ecosystem servicehas an artificial alternative, the costof which can be calculated or obtainedfrom existing sources.For example, in a literature reviewconducted by the City of Montréal, itwas determined that there is a 5-20%increase in the value of property thatis within 30 meters of a park. Thisensures an increase in income tax forthe city for these properties, which arealso sold faster when in close proximityto a park (Ville de Montréal 2010).When such approaches are not viableand such information does not exist,one can consider investigating localcitizen’s preferences which can beindicated through willingness to pay(WTP) for ecosystem services. WTPinvolves interviewing people about howmuch they would be willing to pay for acertain amount of a particular ecosystemservice, while this method can beuseful, it does need to be approachedwith caution. Results from a WTP studyare often inaccurate due to the difficultyof judging hypothetical situations, andit works best where services can beeasily judged, such as entrance fees toa protected area, or higher security inwater delivery.20

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementCity of Cape Town Ecosystem Services Valuation Exercise (continued)City of Cape TownIn order to make a business case for the City of Cape Town’s ecosystem services, the economic values of biodiversityneeded to be determined.Consultants started with a literaturereview on ecosystem services (ES)and best practices to evaluate ES,and consulted individual valuationstudies that had already beendone in the city. The purposeand required outcomes weredetermined at the outset of thestudy, i.e. that the economic valuesof Cape Town’s ecosystem serviceswere needed to make a businesscase for biodiversity within the citymanagement and throughout therelevant line functions. the valueof ecosystem services from ananthropogenic perspective werestudied, and values that werepurely ecological or that wereindependent of humans, which arealso clearly important, were notconsidered in this specific study.Source: De Wit and van Zyl 2011;De Wit et al. 2009.Urban Managers are faced with reconciling competing needs for land by a growing population - as here in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Augustin Berghöfer21

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementTable 5: A comparison of monetary valuation methods (TEEB 2010)MethodsSummaryStatisticalanalysisWhich services valued?1. Direct market prices Market prices Observe market prices. Simple Provisioning services.2. Market alternative i. Replacement costs Finding a man-made solution as analternative to the ecosystem service.SimplePollination, water purification.ii. Damage cost avoidedHow much spending was avoidedbecause of the ecosystem serviceprovided?SimpleDamage mitigation, carbonsequestration.iii. Production functionHow much is the value-added by theecosystem service based on its input toproduction processes?ComplexWater purification, freshwateravailability, provisioning services.3. Surrogate markets i. Hedonic Price Method The extra amount paid for higherenvironmental quality.Very complexUse values only, recreation andleisure, air quality.ii. Travel Cost MethodCost of visiting a site: travel costs(fares, car use, etc.) and also value ofleisure time expended.ComplexUse values only, recreation andleisure.4. Stated preference i. Contingent valuationmethodHow much is the survey respondentwilling-to-pay to have more of aparticular ecosystem service?ComplexAll services.ii. Choice experimentsGiven a ‘menu’ of options with differinglevels of ecosystem services anddiffering costs, which is preferred?Very complexAll services.5. Participatory Participatory environmentalvaluationAsking members of a community todetermine the importance of a nonmarketedecosystem service relative togoods or services that are marketed.SimpleAll services.6. Benefits transfer Benefits transfer (meanvalue, adjusted meanvalue, benefit function)‘Borrowing’ or transferring a value froman existing study to provide a ballparkestimate for current decision.Can be simple,can be complexWhatever services were valued in theoriginal study.Opportunities to quantify the value of supporting ecosystem servicesIn the City of Abu Dhabi,United Arab Emirates (UAE),the wholesale value of fishlandings in 2008 was estimated at 1 millionAED (US$272,294) for the Inner IslandsLagoon and 104.8 million AED (US$28.5million) for the UAE as a whole (Hartmannet al. 2009). Mangroves provide animportant supporting service, the valueof which is easily determined through thevalue of the fishing landings, as nurserygrounds for several of these commerciallyimportant fish species, as well as for otherspecies which contribute to ecosystemfunctioning. By restoring and protectingmangroves, many other benefits are alsoafforded to the city, including protectionfrom storms and the control of soil erosion.Through the direct intervention in thelate 1970s of the former President of theUAE, Sheikh Zayed, mangrove replantingschemes were implemented adjacent tothe city, and currently the adverse effectsof recent development around the city havealso prompted the EAD and the UPC tomitigate the loss of mangroves by requiringdevelopers to replant lost mangroves. As aresult, in the Emirates as a whole, the areaof mangroves has actually increased.Source: Abu Dhabi City DraftBiodiversity Report 2011.The value of Abu Dhabi’s fishing industryhas long been known, and mangrovesprovide essential supporting and regulatingecosystem services for this industry.City of Abu Dhabi22

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementValuing Trees inEdmonton, CanadaIn 2009, the City of Edmonton analyzedthe environmental effects, value andstructure of Edmonton’s urban forestusing the ‘Urban Forest Effects Model’(www.nrs.fs.fed.us/tools/ufore/). Thismodelling software can approximatethe effectiveness of the urban forestin at least three ecosystem services:cleansing the air; sequestering carbon;and, reducing storm water in theCity. It relies on monetary values foreach service which have been takenfrom other contexts (benefit transfermethod) and can be quite uncertain.But the advantage of this method isthat it is comparatively easy to apply. Ifdone for similar (e.g. North American)contexts it can quickly deliver usefulfirst approximations.For the City of Edmonton, which has12.8 million trees, it was a sufficientlyrobust approach to understand, andto communicate to their Counciland citizens, some of the additionalservices offered by trees and how theuse of trees can save the City money.Financial benefits were tallied and thecost of their boulevard, centre medianand buffer trees calculated, focusing on:structure (species composition, extentand diversity); function (environmentaland aesthetic benefits); value (annualmonetary value of the benefits providedand costs accrued); and, managementneeds (diversity canopy cover, pruningneeded).It was found that the average benefitper tree in Edmonton’s urban forestwas US$74.73. The cost for caring foreach tree is US$18.38 resulting in a netbenefit of US$56.35.Source: Grant Pearsell, City ofEdmonton (pers. comm.).City of EdmontonFurther reading:● TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers. (2010) (page 43-49), foradditional details about the selection of methods provided in the Table above.● Pearce et al. 2002. Handbook of Biodiversity Valuation: A Guide for Policy Makers. This OECD handbook for practitionersprovides guidance on biodiversity valuation, points out tradeoffs and contrasts economic and non-economic valuation.● World Bank; IUCN; TNC (2004) How much is an ecosystem worth? Assessing the economic value of conservation.This brochure introduces the approach of ecosystem services and compares different valuation methods in an easilyaccessible format. biodiversityeconomics.org/document.rm?id=710● A easily understandable introduction on ecosystem service valuation, along with essentials, ‘the bigger picture’ and anoverview of existing valuation methods is available at www.ecosystemvaluation.org.● Bann C. 2003. The Economic Valuation of Mangroves: A Manual for Researchers. This academic ‘how-to’ guide points outhow to conduct a Cost-Benefit-Analysis of mangroves and presents possible management options. http://network.idrc.ca/uploads/user-S/10305674900acf30c.html.● Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). 2007. An introductory guide to valuing ecosystem services(http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/documents/eco-valuing.pdf) provides a good introduction tovaluation techniques.● Kumar P, Verma M, Wood MD and Negandhi D. 2010. Guidance manual for the valuation of regulating services.Ecosystem Services Economics (ESE) Working Paper Series. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi.● Building natural value for sustainable economic development: The green infrastructure valuation toolkit user guide(Green infrastructure Northwest 2011) (www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/Green_Infrastructure_Valuation_Toolkit_UserGuide.pdf) guides stakeholders to make good decisions about the decision options associated with a greeninfrastructure.● Turner RK, Georgiou S and Fisher B. 2008. Valuing Ecosystem Services (www.urbanforestrysouth.org/resources/library/valuing-ecosystem-services; www.earthscan.co.uk/?tabid=102770) provides guidance on the valuation of ecosystemservices, using multifunctional wetlands as an example.● The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in National and International Policy Making (2010), especially Chapter 4,explores a range of instruments to reward those offering ecosystem service benefits, to reduce the incentives of thoserunning down our natural capital, and to offer subsidies that respond to future priorities.23

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementStep 4Assess (future changes in) ecosystem servicesHaving determined the methodologyfor assessing the value of therelevant ecosystem services inStep 3, the logical next step is toconduct the valuation. This stepis, therefore, simply putting theselected methodology into practiceand assessing how the problem orpolicy issues will affect ecosystemservices. The examples belowillustrate some of the ways in whichthe methods, introduced above, havebeen implemented. This is the ‘study’component of the process, which canbe time consuming and often requiresvery specific expertise. It is thereforeusually worthwhile considering hiringexperts to undertake the assessmentdespite the cost.Ideally, this step in the process shouldconsider not only the current value ofecosystem services to the city, but alsohow those values have changed overtime and how they will change underdifferent scenarios – i.e. as a result ofthe problem or under different policydecisions. An integral component of thisassessment is understanding the driversof change. While it is not always possibleto include all of these issues into a singleassessment or valuation study – it isimportant to draw on whatever additionalinformation is available for designing theanalysis (step 3) and for interpreting itsresults (steps 4 and 5).City of Cape TownThe values of Cape Town’s ecosystem services were estimated by experts.City of Cape Town’s ecosystem services valuation process (continued)Expert advice was sought from a groupof experienced resource and environmentaleconomists on the consultingteam, and validated with experts outsidethe team. The valuation techniquesused and key results were as follows(all values based on 2007 data):Tourism:● Total tourism value: US$137 millionto US$418 million per annum; basedon the amount of revenue generatedby visitors who were travelling to, orin, the City in 2007; as a result of theattraction of natural features.Recreation:● Local recreational values: US$58million to US$70 million per annumbased on benefits transfer fromprevious valuation studies in CapeTown for recreation.Globally important biodiversity:● Donor funding of US$32 million forconservation has flowed to the regiongiving a proxy of value - it can easilybe argued that Cape Town is one ofthe most important cities in the worldfor biodiversity conservation.Aesthetic and sense of placerelated values:● Evidence shows that natural spacesplay an important role in improvinghealth and well-being in cities.● Natural assets help to attract skilledentrepreneurs and others that driveeconomic development. CapeTown’s branding is now stronglylinked to its natural assets.● Natural assets are a key driver of thefilm and advertising industry and arevalued between US$18.8 million andUS$56.4 million per annum, basedon industry expenditure ascribableto natural asset locations.● Cape Town boasts some of themost sought-after property, largelybecause of its natural assets. At asite specific scale, rehabilitation andrestoration projects have createdsignificant values.Natural hazard regulation:● US$650,000 to US$8.6 million perannum for natural hazard regulation(wildfires, floods and storm surge)based on estimates of the cost ofdamages avoided from buffering offires, flooding and storm surge bynatural assets.Water purification and wastetreatment, assimilation:● Case studies show values and risks.For example, the need to dredgeZeekoevlei Wetland for US$8.5– US$9.9 million represents theminimum clean-up costs needed forthe wetland to function normally andavoid ecosystem collapse.Source: De Wit and van Zyl 2011;De Wit et al. 2009.24

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementUsing the ‘BenefitTransfer Method’ inthe City of eThekwini(Durban)Richard BoonThe City of eThekwini (Durban) in SouthAfrica took advantage of a seminal studyof ecosystem valuation (Costanza et al.1997). This study broadly estimatedthe value of each of the world’s biomesaccording to the ecosystem servicesthey provided, justifying the obviousuncertainties involved by alwayschoosing conservative estimates. TheCity of eThekwini assigned values basedon the Constanza values, to vegetationtypes within their administration. Eachvegetation type corresponded to someextent with one of the biomes used byCostanza, but was adjusted for thelocal conditions and situation. Like thebiomes used in the international study,the vegetation types were thereforeused as surrogates for ecosystems, andthe values were based on values thathad already been determined by a teamof international scientists. Note that suchvalues are an estimate, and that cautionshould be taken when using this methodby, for example, underestimating thevalues when unsure.Source: EThekwini MunicipalityBiodiversity Report 2007.In order to capture past changes or anticipate future changes, it is imperative to start by asking the right questions. Apply thequestions below to each of the ecosystem services prioritised in step 2 (Sources: Ranganathan 2008, TEEB 2010):●●●How great is the city’s dependence on this ecosystem service? (i.e. High, Medium or Low)What are the recent trends in this ecosystem service? (i.e. Stable, Increasing, Decreasing)Identify the drivers (which includes threats to each ecosystem service) of these trends, and the level of their recentimpact. (High, Medium or Low impact; driven by, for example, land-use change, pollution, etc.)André Künzelmann/UFZStephen GrangerArtificial prevention of natural disasters is often more expensive and lesseffective than natural ecosystem-based buffers.Ecosystem services vary naturally over time, with the changes in seasons forexample, but also as a result of intentional or unintentional human influence. In orderto get the most out of our natural wealth, we must plan for and adapt to change, ormitigate it where necessary.25

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementStep 6Assess the impacts of the policy options on the range of stakeholdersBy assessing the social, economicand environmental impacts this stepensures that there are no unforeseenside effects, of a policy, programmeor project, which might affect a (sub-)group of stakeholders. The focus ison interviews, group consultationsand social indicators.A complementary way to assess social,economic and environmental impact isto identify changes in the distribution of,or access to, ecosystem services amongvarious stakeholder (sub-)groups, due tothe decision considered in step 5.The stakeholder impact need not bein monetary terms, social, economicand environmental costs and benefitscan be made visible in non-monetaryterms as well. Consider how differentstakeholders are impacted as a resultof each policy option, and whetherthe impact is negative or positive.Changes in availability or distributionof ecosystem services to stakeholdersas a result of the policy/decision canbe approximated first in a qualitativesense. Based on this, remediation orcompensation can be negotiated -and if more data is easily available,monetary estimates of such changes canbe helpful.Ecosystem services are a great source of wealth and well-being. It is important to consider how this wealth is distributed among stakeholders.To ensure continued delivery of ecosystem services, investment in public goods (such as communally owned ecosystems) is essential - a key role of local govermnents.City of Nagoya Michael Sondermann/City of Bonn28

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementMyles ManderInvestigating the value of ecosystem services in rural South Africa (continued)A series of targeted stakeholderworkshops were facilitated in orderto present the outcomes of the studyto stakeholders, and to facilitate theirinputs into the process. The workshopswere used to assess the responseof the various groupings to incentiveoptions; to include improvementsproposed; and, to enhance awarenessof the value of the diversity of relevantecosystem services. The ultimate aimof the workshops was to determinewhich of the incentive optionsavailable would be most useful to thevarious stakeholder groupings, withinwhich there was varying capacity forimplementation. From this the serviceswith the potential to deliver maximumnet social benefit, and for which therewere potential economic incentives toenhance or maintain service supply,were prioritised.What is quite remarkable is that whilethe demand for the study area; from anaesthetic, nature-based tourism point ofview; far outstripped the demand for anyother ecosystem service, the financialimpacts thereof on the local municipalityand its people are rather limited. Themoney flows that do occur are mainlytowards private tourism operators andnot to society in general. Also, the numberof incentive mechanisms from a tourismand biodiversity perspective to protectthe land and to promote sustainableland-use options is rather limited. Whatdid, however, emerge as arguably thebest policy intervention binding people’saspirations; and reconciling that witha range of conservation objectives,for which a large number of incentivemechanisms are available; was inthe promotion of food-, water- andenergy security. Food-, water- andenergy provision are some of the moreimportant ecosystem services. In mostcases they are also available on a locallevel and are national level priorities.Matching the demand for delivery ofthese ecosystem services with thesustainable supply thereof (whichrequires prudent land-use) and withthe resources available for deliveringsuch essential services from a nationalperspective, provided a ‘win-win-win’solution.Source: Golder Associates 2010;Blignaut et al. 2011.Further reading:● For additional general information on social impact assessment, see the United Nations Environmental Program: EIA TrainingResource Manual (UNEP 2002) - UNEP’s Economics and Trade Programme’s training manual for Social Impact Assessment(www.unep.ch/etu/publications/EIA_2ed/EIA_E_top13_body.PDF).● The Social Analysis Sourcebook published by the World Bank (Dani 2003) presents a conceptual framework for social analysisand describes how task teams can incorporate its principles into a project cycle (http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTSOCIALDEV/0,,contentMDK:21177387~pagePK:64168445~piPK:64168309~theSitePK:3177395,00.html).● For the social impact assessment of carbon projects, the manual for social impact assessment of land-based carbon projects byForest Trends (Richards and Panfil 2010), provides good guidance (www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2436.pdf)● TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers (2010), The Economics ofEcosystems and Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations (TEEB Foundations 2010), and TEEB – The Economics ofEcosystems and Biodiversity Report for Business - Executive Summary (2010) all contain additional information about valuingecosystem services.29

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementGoal:To ensure thatecosystem services become anintegral component of citymanagementNoStep 1:Specify and agree on the problem or policyissues with stakeholders.Is further assessment & understandingof associated ecosystem services necessary?YesStep 2:Identify which ecosystem services are mostrelevant.1. On which ecosystem services the problemis reliant2. Which ecosystem services the problemis impactingStep 4 may be performed in conjunction withStep 2, and then follow on with Step 3Use a relevant economicvaluation method to assessmonetary valueStakeholderparticipation andconsultation includingStep 6:Assess the impact of the policyoptions on the range ofstakeholdersStep 3:Determine what information is needed andselect assessment methods.Are monetary, quantitative or qualitativevalues required?MonetaryQuantitativeQualitativeLook at changesand trends in ecosystemservices, and theirdelivery/useStep 4:Assess future changes in ecosystemservices.Perform the valuation study to assess howecosystem services have been and will beaffected by the problem or policy.Use consultativetechniques with relevantstakeholdersStep 6 may be performed inconjunction with Step 5Step 5:Identify and assess management/policyoptionsDevelop/design policy tools, compare theoptions, costs and benefits, risks, etc..Figure 1: The TEEB stepwise approach is designed to be flexible, and can be adapted for each unique situation.This flow diagram shows how the steps can be linked, and that the order of the steps can be adjusted asnecessary.30

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementSection 3:Applying the TEEB stepwise approach within citymanagementIntegrating a focus on ecosystemservices is dependent on how a particularadministration works. Nevertheless thereare certain principles that are more orless universal. Environmental personnelare usually most directly responsible foradopting a focus on ecosystem services,but working alone they can only achievelimited objectives. More importantly,environmental personnel need to bethe drivers and champions behindsuch an approach for it to be adoptedwidely enough to have an impact. Thisrequires not only dedication but alsocommunication skills and a realizationthat other views need to be takenconsistently into account – hence thefocus in this publication on stakeholderinvolvement. Within local governmentadministrations, these stakeholders canbe roughly divided into officials (fromother departments or line functions)and elected officials or politicians (whoeffectively make decisions) based mostlyon what officials propose.Figure 2 illustrates where ecosystemservices and biodiversity can beintegrated into local policy-making anddecisions.Integrating Ecosystem Services and Biodiversityin Local & Regional Policy MakingManagement &RegulationPlanning &RegulationMarket BasedInstrumentsEnhancingwell-being incitiesManagingscarcityGuidingland–usedecisionsSafeguardingbiodiversityProvidingincentivesEnhancingproducts andservicesEcosystemServicesin Citiesand PublicManagement(TEEB 2010, Chap 4)EcosystemServices inRural Areasand NaturalResourceManagementSpatialPlanning andEnvironmentalAssessment(TEEB 2010, Chap 6)EcosystemServices andProtectedAreas(TEEB 2010, Chap 7)Payments forEcosystemServices andConservationBanking(TEEB 2010, Chap8)Certificationand Labeling(TEEB 2010, Chap 9)(TEEB 2010, Chap5)Figure 2: An illustration of the opportunities for integrating ecosystem services and biodiversity into localand regional policy (further reading can be found in TEEB 2010, the specific chapters are shown in brackets).Source: Adapted from TEEB 2010.31

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management3.1 Communicating to decision makers and other line functionsBudget decisions are inherently politicaland are subject to continuous lobbyingby competing interests. A focus onecosystem valuation can be particularlyvaluable because it translates naturalassets into the same ‘currency’ as othermunicipal concerns. When a monetaryestimate of ecosystem services isprovided, it draws attention to theimportance of ecosystems. Caution isnecessary here, because for any givenecosystem service, other alternatives(that do not benefit ecosystems) arelikely to yield more immediate gain (forexample, individual property prices arelikely to out-price ecosystem services).However, any given ecosystem providesmultiple benefits, though only one or twomay have had values assessed. Furtherbecause conserving ecosystems meansa continual flow of ecosystem servicesand not a once-off economic benefit, it ishard to compete with ecosystem serviceswhen it comes to a longer term return oninvestment.Ecosystems typically require very littleactual investment to continue provision ofbenefits; however the replacement costsare high.Furthermore, it is likely that even wheneconomic benefits cannot be quantified,social benefits are likely to be evidentand it may be useful to bring these factsto the attention of decision makers, sothat ecosystem services are stronglyconsidered when comparing policy andmanagement options. How this is donewill vary according to administration butcan be a part of the process from thestart, by meeting and presenting to therelevant politician; and, by presenting thecalculated values, or estimated worth,of ecosystems in project proposals orbudget applications.City of Cape Town’s ecosystem services valuation process (continued)City of Cape TownOne of the unforeseen benefits of the assessment and valuation of Cape Town’s ecosystem services was an increased partnership between the EnvironmentalResource Department and the Finance Department around the benefits of ecosystem services.In the case of the Cape Town study theresult was not quite what was intendedbut was nevertheless useful. Thestudy was conducted in the hope thatthe results – which were impressivelyin favour of an ecosystem-focusapproach – would be able to influencethe budget in the following budgetingcycle. However, it was discovered that itis difficult to make direct links betweenany study and increased budgetsgiven the large number of factors thatinfluence policy decisions. Equally,budget allocations do not changeimmediately in response to an issue,but tend to be delayed until largershifts occur as the importance of anissue is internalized and starts buildingmomentum. A better understandingabout the value of the City’s naturalassets was necessary, but not sufficientto bring an immediate shift in financialpolicy and budget allocations. To makematters more challenging, timing andcompeting demands were externalfactors that had an influence on theoutcome:●●Timing: results came out in themidst of the global recession.The Cape Town World CupSoccer Stadium had also justbeen completed significantly overbudget.Competing demands: servicedelivery is urgently requiredmaking it difficult to increaseenvironmental spending bydrawing from service deliverybudgets even though the benefitsof environmental investment canbe clearly shown.This study provided, in the words of theEnvironmental Resource ManagementDepartment, ‘a fantastic foundation’for the further development ofenvironmental fiscal reform strategiesin the City and turned out to be a longterminvestment. The EnvironmentalResource Department learnedinvaluable lessons from the otherdepartments with whom it engaged,especially the finance department; whileofficials from the other departments gota sense of the importance and value ofecosystems in the City for the first time.This is certain to prepare theground for future project proposals,budget allocations, etc. Furthermorethe study indicated the need and theviability for attaching payment forecosystem services to specific usergroups,and options are currentlybeing investigated.Source: De Wit and van Zyl 2011; DeWit et al. 2009.32

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementecoBudget: An ecosystem servicesbudget to set goals and keep trackof performanceecoBudget was developed by ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainabilityto explicitly address the integrationof ecosystem services in decisionmaking on a recurrent basis. It providesa method to plan, control, monitor,report on and evaluate the consumptionof natural resources (land, water,materials) and ecosystem services(such as climate stability and air quality).ecoBudget follows the cyclicalapproach of local financial budgeting,familiar to local decision makers.The traditional budgeting accountingsystem is complemented by an environmentalbudget, in which ecosystemservices or natural resources aremeasured in physical units instead ofmonetary value.The aim is to keep environmentalspending within limits of an environmental‘Master Budget’. After consultations,the Master Budget setsenvironmental targets which are ofgeneral priority and oriented to thesustainable management of the city’snatural capital. Once approved by theCouncil, the targets become politicallybinding. At year-end a ‘Budget Balance’indicates the city’s achievement againstits targets indicating, for example, howforest cover changed in the peri-urbanwatersheds or whether total greenspace was extended as per agreement,etc..A key feature in the ecoBudget cycleis systematic involvement of politicaldecision makers and urban managers,allowing political steering in the use ofenvironmental resources. ecoBudgetcan embrace all environmentalresources, not only the impact of deliveringmunicipal services, but environmentalspending by the entire communityincluding industries, households,education- and health institutions andtransport companies. More informationis available at www.ecobudget.org.Source TEEB 2010, chapter 4.Local governments must take the lead and set the example in environmental matters in order to preserve ecosystem services for all citizens.Michael Sondermann/City of Bonn3.2 Budget cycleIt was with good reason that the Cityof Cape Town focused on the budgetcycle in their study – and important thatthe results of the study could influencethe cycle in future because, in citiesaround the world, the budget allocationprocess has traditionally focused onlyon economic and human resources.It has often neglected the natural capitalcomponent precisely because theservices provided by natural resourceshave mostly been considered to be free;are taken for granted; or, have simplynever been identified.By identifying the benefits provided byecosystem services and their value forthe local population (both in monetaryand non-monetary terms) an assessmentcan provide solid guidance for budgetallocations. Once ecosystem servicesare incorporated into the budgeting cyclethis will ensure their consideration andprotection and ultimately the establishmentof a sustainable and healthy city.ecoBudget was developed by ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability,for and with local authorities, and is auseful tool for integrating ecosystemservices and informing policy making.33

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementCity Biodiversity Index: an urbanbiodiversity monitoring and selfassessment toolAn alternative approach is the CityBiodiversity Index (formerly known asSingapore Index), a monitoring andself-assessment tool which allowslocal authorities to keep track oftheir (i) biodiversity; (ii) ecosystemservices; and, (iii) environmental policyresponses.Twenty-five indicators have beendeveloped under three sub-headings:Native Biodiversity; Ecosystem Services;and Governance and Management.A description of each indicator is includedin the manual, as well as instructionson how to calculate the indicator.The results are scored and calculatedto provide a comparative output,which can be the basis of monitoringand evaluating local biodiversity.More information is available atwww.cbd.int/authorities/gettinginvolved/cbi.shtml.Integrating the value of ecosystem services into municipal budget cycles can leverage support for further investment in biodiversity assets which can yield significantbenefits in the long-term.3.3 Spatial planningA clear planning framework helps tocreate sustainable communities, and anecosystem perspective is increasinglyrecognized as being a key to effectivespatial planning. For example, effectiveplanning can be instrumental in reducinga city’s ecological footprint by increasinghousing density; no longer exportingwaste to surrounding areas; decreasingflood risk; or, by providing green space forrecreation. The challenge for the planneris to determine how to incorporate anecosystem perspective into city- andresource management. Ecosystems canbe represented spatially (on maps), and,in many parts of the world, data exist thatindicate what these ecosystems are –which in turn provides information aboutthe ecosystem services.One of the challenges is to ensure thatcommunication takes place betweenthe environmental- and planningdepartments and that information aboutthe ecosystems services is consideredas part of the planning process. Perhapsmost importantly, ecosystems datashould be made accessible to planners,for example, identifying the mostsensitive areas, and important areas forthe production of ecosystem services.As indicated in the City of Cape Townstudy, communication is essential andbuilding relationships with the planningdepartment is likely to be as fruitful asensuring continued political support.King County34

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementIn order to integrate ecosystem servicesinto spatial planning it is importantto develop a multi-scale approachto decision making, and ensure thatthis becomes part of socio-economicdecision making as a whole. At the localscale there are key policy issues whichwould benefit from better integration ofecosystem services into planning anddecision making:● Human health and quality of life(e.g. air pollution regulation by greeninfrastructure, “green lungs”, accessto safe drinking water and sanitation,and access to green spaces);● Water security, provision andpurification (e.g. forest designation,land restoration, land use practices,and potentially payments forecosystem services);● Climate adaptation, climate regulationand climate change mitigation (e.g.investment in green roofs , greenspaces and green road verges);● Flood control benefits (e.g. investmentsin green infrastructures,planning and zoning);● Energy security (e.g. biomass aroundcities and green infrastructures in cities);● Food security (e.g. soil quality anderosion control, genetic diversity);● Biodiversity (e.g. investment in greeninfrastructures, protected areas,wetlands and parks);● Recreation and tourism (e.g.protected areas, quality oflandscapes);● Transport and mobility (e.g.sustainable transport, and greening ofgrey infrastructure though green roadverges); and● Locational quality, competitivenessand attraction to inward investment(e.g. quality landscapes andamenities to attract business).Integrating ecosystem services into spatial planning plays an essential role in creating sustainable communities and cities.Michael Sondermann/City of Bonn35

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementIt is advisable to establish a legalframework which provides a statutorybasis for local plans to guidedevelopment and ensure that adverseeffects on ecosystem services canbe controlled and remediated (UN-HABITAT 2009). Very often ecosystemssuch as water catchments (and thereforeecosystem services) span municipalboundaries. It is therefore important todevelop a regional and national planningframework to implement plans acrossentire ecosystems. As has been a themethroughout this manual, stakeholder participationis critical for effective spatialFurther reading:●planning. Haines-Young and Potschin(2008) propose three differentapproaches to ecosystem services,which can be employed within planningsystems:● Place-based approach identifiesand evaluates the interrelationshipsbetween all services in a definedgeographical area. As politicaldecision making typically focuseson an area with specific boundaries,this is often the most effectiveapproach, and also encouragesconsideration of cross-sectoralissues, geographical scales andthe values and priorities of differentstakeholder groups;● Habitat approach focuses on unitsof habitat, which is valuable as it hasa clear relevance to policy, linkingecosystem services with biodiversityaction planning processes.● Services approach focuses on theecosystem services themselvesand is particularly effective inassessing regional and nationallevel services, such as waterbasin management – for examplewater supply and flood controlservices.TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policy Makers (2010), Chapter 6, providesmore information and details about considering ecosystem services in both spatial planning and environmental assessments.●Global Report on Human Settlements (2009) Planning Sustainable Cities. United Nations Human Settlements Programme(UN-HABITAT). This comprehensive report reviews recent urban planning practices and approaches, discusses constraintsand conflicts, and identifies innovative approaches to current challenges of urbanization. URL: www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/GRHS2009/GRHS.2009.pdf.Often protecting ecosystem services will have dual benefits - addressing the management or policy issue and protecting ecosystem services into the future.US Geological Survey36

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management3.4 Concluding remarksEcosystem services are essentialto cities. It has been shown throughresearch and through the practicalexamples provided in this manual,that incorporating ecosystem servicesinto city management is possible andextremely beneficial. Such a focus willreduce efforts and costs over the longterm,boost the local economy, andimprove the quality of life for all citizens.It is easy to begin the process of valuingecosystem services, for example, byidentifying an ecosystem service that hasnot previously been recognised, or bydrawing on studies from similar contexts.It is, however, important to considerthe larger context and the full range ofecosystem services across a spatial/geographic area, and not just examinean ecosystem service in isolation. Inmany cases, once a shift has been madein the way cities think about the localenvironment, the move to incorporatingthe ecosystem services concept willfollow easily.As mentioned throughout this manual,involving stakeholders (including thefinance and economic developmentdepartments) as key role players, at everystep of the process, is essential to build asense of awareness, understanding andownership.It is hoped that, above all, this manualwill inspire cities to start thinking abouthow a focus on ecosystem servicesand their valuation can be useful inthe local situation. This approachhas been demonstrated to be effectiveand valuable, and it can be easilyperformed even with limited resources –the fact of the matter is it is a long-terminvestment that will save resources intothe future.Incorporating ecosystem services into city management is possible and extremely beneficial.Stephen Granger37

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementGlossaryBiodiversity: the variability among living organisms, includingterrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems.Biodiversity includes diversity within species, betweenspecies, and between ecosystems.Biological diversity: see biodiversity.Biofuel: A fuel derived from biomass like plant matter instead offossil fuel resources such as mineral oil.Biological control: The use of natural enemies (diseases,parasites, predators) to regulate populations of pest species.Biome: A large geographic region, characterized by life formsthat develop in response to relatively uniform climaticconditions. Examples are tropical rain forest, savanna,desert and tundra.Carbon sequestration: The process by which plants take incarbon dioxide gas and convert it into solid carbon as partof their structural components, as they grow.Climate change: In the modern day context this usuallyrefers to human-induced change in the earth’s climate,caused mostly by the production of greenhouse gasessuch as carbon dioxide from engines (factories, cars, etc.).This change is happening at a rapid rate and poses a threatto both humankind and biodiversity.Conservation (also: biodiversity conservation):The preservation of biological units such as genes, species,populations and ecosystems to prevent their extinction.Degradation, Environmental: The process of loss of qualityof the environment, leading to a reduction in ecosystemfunction and loss of ecosystem services.Desertification: A form of environmental degradation that ischaracterised by a change in the natural landscape andenvironment to look more like a desert, with drier, dustierconditions. It can be caused by overgrazing, removal ofnatural vegetation, bad agricultural practices and drought.Diversity: The sum total of variety of biological units at variousscales, be it genes, species, populations, or ecosystems.Ecosystem health or Ecological stability: A description ofthe dynamic properties of an ecosystem. An ecosystemis considered stable or healthy if it returns to its originalstate after a disturbance, exhibits low temporal variabilitywith time, or does not change dramatically in the face ofdisturbance.Ecosystem: a dynamic complex of plant, animal andmicroorganism communities and their environmentinteracting as a functional unit.Ecosystem services: The direct and indirect contributions ofecosystems to human well-being. The concept ‘ecosystemgoods and services’ is synonymous with ecosystemservices.Ecotourism: Travel undertaken to visit natural sites or regionswithout harming them.Endemic / endemism: A species, or taxonomic group, that isrestricted to a particular geographic region.Extinct: A species no longer represented by living individuals.Microorganisms: Organisms which are so small that theyrequire a microscope to be seen.Organisms: Any individual life form that can react to stimuli,reproduce, grow, and maintain itself - plants, animals, fungi,viruses, bacteria and other forms of life.Parasite: The organism that benefits in an interspecificinteraction in which individuals of two species livesymbiotically with one organism benefitting and the otherbeing harmed. A parasite lives in intimate association withits host.Payment for Ecosystem Services: A mechanism wherebyfinancial, or other, compensation is used to promote theconservation of an ecosystem, or encourage restorationand rehabilitation of the ecosystem.Predator: An organism that benefits in an interspecificinteraction in which it kills and feeds on prey. A predatorlives in loose association with its prey.Resilience, ecosystem: The capacity of an ecosystem totolerate disturbance without collapsing.Restoration: In the biodiversity context, this refers to turningan area back to its natural state by, for example, re-plantingnative vegetation. It is also relevant when it refers to therepairing of buildings, as this can be done in such a way tobenefit biodiversity.Species: One of the basic units of biological classification, aspecies is often defined as a group of living things that arecapable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.Sustainability: Development and maintenance based on the useof resources that can be replaced or renewed and thereforenot depleted. Economic development is sustainable only ifit takes into account the limited resources of the biosphere.Vector: The means by which a pathogen, parasite or invasivealien species travels from one geographic area, or host, toanother. For example, the vector of the malaria parasite isthe Anopheles mosquito.38

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementReferences and bibliographySection 1:Altieri MA, Companioni N, Cañizares K, Murphy C, Rosset P,Bourque M and Nicholls CI. 1999. ‘The greening of the“barrios”: Urban agriculture for food security in Cuba’.Agriculture and Human Values 16(2), pp131-140.Boon R. 2010. Spatial Planning in eThekwini Municipality(Durban), South Africa. Available at: www.teebweb.org.Brack CL. 2002. Pollution mitigation and carbon sequestrationby an urban forest. Environmental Pollution 116(S1): 195-200.Breaux A, Farber S and Day J. 1995. ‘Using natural coastalwetlands systems for wastewater treatment: and economicbenefit analysis’. Journal of Environmental Management44, pp285-291.De Groote H, Ajuonu O, Attignon S, Djessou R andNeuenschwander P. 2003. ‘Economic impact of biologicalcontrol of water hyacinth in Southern Benin’. EcologicalEconomics 45(1), pp105-117.Elmqvist T, Setälä H, Handel S, van der Ploeg S and de GrootR. 2011 ‘Benefits of ecosystem services in cities’. Article tobe submitted formally.Gerrad P. 2010. Wetlands reduce damages to infrastructure,Lao People’s Democratic Republic. Available at: www.teebweb.org.Golder Associates. 2010. ‘Study to identify incentives tosecure the buffer zone of the uKhahlamba DrakensbergPark World Heritage Site’. Report Number: 12505-9244-1,submitted to uThukela District Municipality, August 2010.Higgens SI, Turpie JK, Costanza R, Cowling RM, Le MaitreDC, Marais C and Midgley GF. 1997. ‘An ecologicalsimulation model of mountain fynbos ecosystems:Dynamics, valuation and Management’. EcologicalEconomics 22, pp155-169.IUCN International news release: ‘Habitat loss blamed formore species decline’. URL: www.iucn.org/what/tpas/biodiversity/about/species_on_the_brink/?4896/Habitatloss-blamed-for-more-species-decline.Kaimowitz D. 2005. ‘Forests and Human Health: Some VitalConnections’. Swedish CGIAR, Bogor, Indonesia.Klein AM, Vaissière BE, Cane JH, Steffan-Dewenter I,Cunningham SA, Kremen C and Tscharntke T. 2007.‘Importance of pollinators in changing landscapes for worldcrops’. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: BiologicalSciences 274, pp303–313.Maas J, Verheij RA, de Vries S, Spreeuwenberg P, SchellevisFG and Groenewegen PP. 2009. ‘Morbidity is related toa green living environment’. Journal of Epidemiology andCommunity Health.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystemsand Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. WorldResources Institute, Washington, DC. URL: www.maweb.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf.Nowak JD and Crane DE. 2002. ‘Carbon storage andsequestration by urban trees in the USA’, EnvironmentalPollution 116(3), pp381-389.Palmer M and Finlay V. 2003. ‘Faith in Conservation: NewApproaches to Religions and the Environment’. WorldBank, Washington DC.Paoletti E, Bardelli T, Giovannini G and Pecchioli L. 2011.‘Air quality impact of an urban park over time’. ProcediaEnvironmental Sciences 4, pp10-16.Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resosudarmo P, Sinclair K, Kurz D,McNair M, Crist S, Shpritz L, Fitton L, Saffouri R andBlair R. 1995. ‘Environmental and economic costs of soilerosion and conservation benefits’. Science 267(5201),pp1117-1123.Renner I. 2010. Compensation scheme for upstream farmers inmunicipal protected area, Peru, Myomamba. Available at:www.teebweb.orgRoe D, Mulliken T, Milledge S, Mremi J, Mosha S and Grieg-Gran M. 2002. ‘Making a Killing or Making a Living?,Wildlife trade, trade controls and rural livelihoods’.Biodiversity and Livelihood Issues number 6, IIED andTRAFFIC, London and Cambridge, UK.SEARICE - Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for CommunityEmpowerment. 2007. Valuing Participatory Plant Breeding:A review of tools and methods, Manila, Philippines.Senior J. 2010. ‘An Example of recreational services by cityparks in Melbourne, Australia’. (Personal email).TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversityfor Local and Regional Policy Makers. Available at: www.teebweb.org.TEEBcase by Almack K and Chatreaux M. (UFZ) based onEmerton et al. (2009). 2010. Watershed services crucialfor economic development, Mongolia. Available at: www.teebweb.org.TEEBcase by Almack K. mainly based on Emerton et al.(1999). 2010. Protected wetland for securing wastewatertreatment, Uganda. Available at: www.teebweb.org.TEEBcase by Almack K. 2010. River restoration to avoid flooddamage, USA. Available at: www.teebweb.org/.TEEBcase by Förster J mainly based on American Forests(2008). 2010. Multiple benefits of urban ecosystems:spatial planning in Miami, USA. Available at: www.teebweb.org.TEEBcase by Schops I. 2011. Developing the first national parkin Belgium together with stakeholders. Available at: www.TEEBweb.org.TEEBcase by van Beukering P and Cesar H. 2010.Recreational value of coral reefs, Hawaii. Available at:www.teebweb.org/TEEB Foundations. 2010. ‘The Economics of Ecosystemsand Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations’.Kumar P (ed), Earthscan, London.UNEP, 2011. ‘Green Economy Report’. URL: www.unep.org/greeneconomy/GreenEconomyReport/tabid/29846/Default.aspx.UNFPA. 2007. ‘State of World Population 2007: Unleashing thePotential of Urban Growth’. URL: www.unfpa.org/webdav/site/global/shared/documents/publications/2007/695_filename_sowp2007_eng.pdf.UN-HABITAT. 2006. ‘State of the World’s Cities, 2006/2007- 30 Years of Shaping the Habitat Agenda’. Earthscan,London.WHO - World Health Organization. 2002. ‘WHO TraditionalMedicine Strategy 2002–2005’. World Health Organization,Geneva.World Bank. 2011. ‘Decentralisation: What, Why and Where’.URL: www1.worldbank.org/publicsector/decentralization/what.htm - accessed 30 March 2011.39

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementSection 2Abu Dhabi City. 2011. ‘Draft Biodiversity Report’.Berghőfer U and Berghőfer A. 2006. ‘Participation indevelopment thinking – coming to grips with truism and itscritiques’. In: Stoll-Kleeman S and Welp M. (Eds). 2006.Stakeholder dialogues in natural resources management,Springer, Heidelberg.Blignaut J, Zunckel K and Mander M. 2011. ‘Assessing thenatural assets of the uThukela District Municipality,South Africa, specifically considering a range ofincentive mechanisms to secure a buffer zone aroundthe uKhahlamba Drakensberg Park World Heritage Site’.Unpublished report based on a project conducted byGolder Associates (2010).Costanza R, d’Arge R, de Groot R, Farber S, Grasso M,Hannon B, Limburg K, Naeem S, O’Neill RV, Paruelo J,Raskin RG, Sutton P and van den Belt M. 1997. ‘The valueof the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital’.Nature, vol. 387, pp 253-260.Dani A (Ed). 2003. ‘Social Analysis Sourcebook –Incorporating social dimensions in bank-supportedprojects’. The World Bank, Washington DC.DEFRA. 2011. United Kingdom Department for Environment,Food and Rural Affairs: An introductory guide to valuingecosystem services. URL: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/policy/natural-environ/documents/ecovaluing.pdf.De Wit M. and van Zyl H. 2011. ‘Assessing the Natural Assetsof Cape Town, South Africa: Key lesson for practitioners inother cities’.De Wit M, Van Zyl H, Crookes D, Blignaut J, Jayiya T, Goiset Vand Mahumani B. 2009. ‘Investing in Natural assets.A Business Case for the Environment in the City of CapeTown’. Cape Town.De Wit M, Van Zyl H, Crookes D, Blignaut J, Jayiya T, Goiset Vand Mahumani B. 2009b. ‘Why investing in natural assetsmakes financial sense for the municipality of Cape Town:A summary for decision makers’. Cape Town.EThekwini Municipality. 2007. ‘Biodiversity Report’.Golder Associates. 2010. ‘Study to identify incentives tosecure the buffer zone of the uKhahlamba DrakensbergPark World Heritage Site’. Report Number: 12505-9244-1,submitted to uThukela District Municipality, August 2010.Green infrastructure Northwest. 2011. ‘Building naturalvalue for sustainable economic development - Thegreen infrastructure valuation toolkit user guide’. URL:www.greeninfrastructurenw.co.uk/resources/Green_Infrastructure_Valuation_Toolkit_UserGuide.pdf.Hartmann S, Al Abdessalaam TZ, Grandcourt E, AlShamsi H, Al Blooki A. and Al Zaabi M. 2009. ‘AnnualFisheries Statistics Report for Abu Dhabi Emirate 2009’.Environment Agency Abu Dhabi.ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability. 2010. ‘LocalAction for Biodiversity Guidebook: BiodiversityManagement for Local Governments’. Laros MT and JonesFE (Eds).Maloti Drakensberg Transfrontier Project, MDTP. 2007.‘Payment for Ecosystem Services: Developing anEcosystem Services Trading Model for the Mnweni/Cathedral Peak and Eastern Cape Drakensberg Areas.’.Mander M (Ed) INR Report IR281. Development Bank ofSouthern Africa, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry,Department of Environment Affairs and Tourism, EzemveloKZN Wildlife, South Africa.Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005. Ecosystemsand Human Well-being: Biodiversity Synthesis. WorldResources Institute, Washington, DC. URL: www.maweb.org/documents/document.354.aspx.pdf.O’Farrell P and Reyers B. 2011. ‘Assessing ecosystemservices at the local scale: a guide for practitioners’. CSIR(January 2011) (Draft).Ranganathan J, Audsepp-Hearne C, Lucas N, Irwin F, ZurekM, Bennett K, Ash N and West P. 2008. ‘EcosystemServices: A Guide for Decision Makers’. World ResourcesInstitute.Richards M and Panfil SN. 2010. ‘Manual for social impactassessment of land-based carbon projects’. Forest Trendsand the Climate Community and Biodiversity Alliance(CCBA). URL: www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2436.pdf.Richards C, Blackstock K. and Carter C. 2004. ‘Practicalapproaches to Participation’. (SERG Policy brief), seriesCarter C and Spash C (Eds), Macaulay Institute. URL:www.macaulay.ac.uk/socioeconomics/research/SERPpb1.pdf.TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversityfor Local and Regional Policy Makers. Available at: www.teebweb.org.TEEB. 2010b. ‘A Quick guide to the Economics of Ecosystemsand Biodiversity for Local and Regional Policymakers’.Available at: www.teebweb.org.TEEB. 2010. ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and BiodiversityReport for Business: Executive Summary’. Available at:www.teebweb.org.TEEB Foundations. 2010. ‘The Economics of Ecosystemsand Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations’.Kumar P (ed), Earthscan, London.TEEB. 2011. ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversityin National and International Policy Making’. ten Brink P(Ed), Earthscan, London.UNEP. 2002. ‘EIA Training Resource Manual’. (second edition),Topic 13: Social Impact Asessment. URL: www.unep.ch/etu/publications/EIA_2ed/EIA_E_top13_body.PDF.United States Department of Agriculture - Forest Service. 2011.UFORE tool, URL: www.nrs.fs.fed.us/tools/ufore/Ville de Montréal. 2010. ‘Direction des grands parcs et de lanature en ville - Impacts des espaces verts sur la valeurfoncière des résidences avoisinantes: conclusion à larevue de littérature et formulation de balises pour enestimer l’ampleur et la portée’. 12 pages.Section 3Haines-Young R and Potschin M. 2008. ‘England’s TerrestrialEcosystem Services and the Rationale for an EcosystemApproach: Full Technical Report’. DEFRA Project CodeNRO 107, pp89 with spreadsheet appendix.TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversityfor Local and Regional Policy Makers. Available at: www.teebweb.org.UN-HABITAT. 2009. ‘Planning Sustainable Cities — GlobalReport on Human Settlements 2009’. Earthscan.URL: www.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/GRHS2009/GRHS.2009.pdf.GlossaryStiling P. 2002. ‘Ecology - Theories and Application’. (4thedition), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New JerseyICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability (2010) ‘LocalAction for Biodiversity Guidebook: BiodiversityManagement for Local Governments’. Laros MT and JonesFE (Eds).TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversityfor Local and Regional Policy Makers. Available at: www.teebweb.org.40

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementThe TEEB Report for Local and, Regional PolicyMakers (September 2010)The TEEB for Local and Regional Policy Makers reportoutlines the value of nature for local well-being andregional development and suggests means of drawingon such insights to support policy making.The importance of maintaining and enhancingfunctioning natural systems is often ignored despite itsimportance, for example to the local economy, food orenergy security, and environmental sustainability. Whenlocal and regional strategies have included measuresto protect functioning natural systems or investmentsto enhance them, these have frequently been found todeliver robust and cost-effective solutions. The Reportexplores how considering ecosystem services can help:●●●●fine-tune by-laws and regulations for the effectivemanagement of natural resources, agriculture,fisheries, forestry, tourism, disaster mitigation andadaptation to climate change;improve performance in public management, spatialplanning and environmental assessments, and savecosts in municipal service delivery;identify who is affected by environmental change andhow they are affected (e.g. bringing local livelihoodsto the centre of policy discussions);better coordinate conservation efforts with localdevelopment aspirations; and,● design and apply market-based instrumentssuch as payments for ecosystem services (PES),conservation banking, certification and labelling.ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability andtheir Cities Biodiversity CenterICLEI’s mission is to build and serve a worldwidemovement of local governments to achieve tangibleimprovements in global sustainability with special focuson environmental conditions through cumulative localactions. ICLEI is an international association of localgovernments as well as national and regional localgovernment organizations committed to sustainabledevelopment. ICLEI provides technical consulting,training, and information services to build capacity,share knowledge, and support local government in theimplementation of sustainable development at the locallevel.ICLEI’s Cities Biodiversity Center runs the Local Actionfor Biodiversity (LAB) Programme in partnership withIUCN, which is a global urban biodiversity programmepiloted in 2006 with a select group of local and regionalauthorities from around the world. The LAB Programmehas expanded, and a variety of other projectsare being developed by ICLEI’s Biodiversity Center.The local authorities participating in these programmesand projects are international leaders in managing andconserving biodiversity at the local level.International Union for Conservation of Nature(IUCN)IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature,helps the world find pragmatic solutions to our mostpressing environment and development challenges. Itsupports scientific research, manages field projects allover the world and brings governments, non-governmentorganizations, United Nations agencies, companies andlocal communities together to develop and implementpolicy, laws and best practice.IUCN is the world’s oldest and largest globalenvironmental network - a democratic membership unionwith more than 1,000 government and NGO memberorganizations, and almost 11,000 volunteer scientists inmore than 160 countries.IUCN recognises the crucial importance of soundmanagement of biodiversity and ecosystems at the levelof local and regional authorities and is committed tomobilise its network to support local efforts.The Secretariat of the Convention on BiologicalDiversity (CBD)The Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity(CBD) was established to support the Convention onBiological Diversity, the reference global treaty on allissues related to the variety of forms of life and their use.The Convention was opened for signature on 5 June1992 at the Rio “Earth Summit”. 193 Parties have ratifiedthe agreement until 2011.The Secretariat organizes meetings, supports Parties,prepares documents and position papers and facilitatesthe flow of authoritative information on the implementationof the Convention. It also plays a significant role incoordinating the Convention’s work with that of otherrelevant institutions and Conventions, and representsthe Convention at meetings of relevant bodies.The Convention’s comprehensive and integratedapproach to biodiversity conservation and managementacts as a framework within which Parties candefine national policies, strategies and action planssubsequently implemented at the national, regional, subnationaland local levels. Since 2008, it also works withpartners like ICLEI to provide a platform for sub-nationaland local authorities to contribute to the Convention bydefining local policies and regulations. Guidance forthese activities lies in decisions of the Conference of theParties (COP), notably decisions IX/28 and X/22, on theengagement of cities and local authorities.41

Other TEEB references and key studies:TEEB. 2008. ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity:Interim Report’. URL: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/teeb_report.pdf.TEEB. 2009. ‘Climate Issues Update’. September 2009.Available at: www.teebweb.org.TEEB Foundations. 2010. ‘The Economics of Ecosystemsand Biodiversity: Ecological and Economic Foundations’.Kumar P (ed), Earthscan, London.TEEB. 2010. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity:Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesisof the approach, conclusions and recommendations ofTEEB. Available at: www.teebweb.org.TEEB. 2011. ‘The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversityin National and International Policy Making’. ten Brink P(Ed), Earthscan, London.TEEB in Business. 2011. ‘The Economics of Ecosystems andBiodiversity in Business and Enterprise’. Bishop J (Ed),Earthscan, London.TEEB in Local Policy. 2011. ‘The Economics of Ecosystemsand Biodiversity in Local and Regional Policy andManagement’. Wittmer H and Gundimeda H (Eds),Earthscan, London.

The TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban ManagementWhy and how can a focus on ecosystem services help cities achieve their goals? This manual guides practitioners anddecision makers in a stepwise approach towards counting on a city’s natural capital - and making it work for you. The conceptof ‘ecosystem services’ is key to this.This manual builds upon the report TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and biodiversity for Local and Regional PolicyMakers (2010) and draws on the combined expertise in sustainability management of participating local governments inICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability’s Local Action for Biodiversity Programme, run in partnership with the InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).Provisioning FoodRegulating PollinationProvisioning Raw MaterialsRegulating Biological ControlProvisioning Fresh WaterHabitats for SpeciesProvisioning Medicinal ResourcesHabitats for Genetic DiversityRegulating Local ClimateCultural Service: RecreationRegulating Carbon SequestrationCultural Service: TourismRegulating Extreme EventsCultural Service: Aesthetic appreciationRegulating Waste Water TreatmentCultural Service: Spiritual ExperienceRegulating Soil Erosion and FertilityIcons designed by Jan Sasse for TEEB, available fornon-commercial purposes, for details see teebweb.org