Patrick ten Brink of IEEP Business and Biodiversity TEEB ENCA presentation 24 September 2012

1. Business and Biodiversity: Opportunities,
conflicts and ways forward
Patrick ten Brink
Head of Brussels Office; Head of Environmental Economics Programme
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)
Building on joint paper with AJ McConville
Block 3: EU Policy approach to Integrate biodiversity and business
11th Plenary Meeting of the
European Network of Heads of Nature Conservation Agencies
23-25 September 2012, Brussels, Belgium

2. Presentation overview
Business & Biodiversity: Opportunities, conflicts & ways forward
1. Context
2. Reasons to engage business with biodiversity
3. Potential conflicts, potential synergies
4. The Values of Nature – an opportunity for a new paradigm
5. Business Commitments & recommendations
6. Public authorities’ roles vis-à-vis business and biodiversity

3. “I believe that the great part of miseries of mankind are brought upon
them by false estimates they have made of the value of things.”
Benjamin Franklin, 1706-1790
“There is a renaissance underway, in which people are waking up
to the tremendous values of natural capital and devising
ingenious ways of incorporating these values into major resource
decisions.”
Gretchen Daily, Stanford University

4. TEEB’s Genesis and Developments
TEEB End User Nature & Green Economy
Reports Brussels TEEB Water & Wetlands
Interim Climate TEEB Oceans
2009, London 2010
Report Issues Update
TEEB TEEB
Synthesis Books
Ecol./Env.
Economics CBD COP 9 Input to
literature Bonn 2008 UNFCCC 2009
India, Brazil, Belgium,
Japan & South Africa
TEEB studies
Sept. 2010
The Netherlands,
Germany, Nordics,
BD COP 10 Norway, India, Brazil,
Nagoya, Oct 2010 South-East Asia

5. From (policy) drivers to impacts to values
Range of data and Already useful and
indicators evolving range of tools
Source: Adapted from Braat and ten Brink et al (2008)
Natural capital accounts
Reporting /
accounts
Understanding data & interactions helps policy decisions SEEA

6. From Biodiversity loss to an alternative development path
Opportunities/benefits of ESS
No net loss from 2010 level
Past loss/ Investment in natural capital +ve
degradation change
Halting biodiversity loss `
Slow biodiversity Regulation
loss Better governance
Economic signals :
PES, REDD, ABS (to reward benefits)
Charges, taxes, fines (to avoid degradation/damage:
Alternative natural capital Subsidy reform right signals for policy)
Sustainable consumption (eg reduced meat) Markets,
Development path certification/logos & GPP
Agricultural innovation
Investment in natural capital:
Green infrastructure
Predicted future loss of natural capital Restoration
(schematic) – with no additional policy action PAs
Today 2020 2050
Need multi-level governance & engagement (government, business, communities, citizens) & integration.
Cannot address biodiversity loss with business action to reduce their impacts and invest in solutions

7. Reasons to Engage Business with Biodiversity
Business has direct and indirect impacts on biodiversity
• Public interest: biodiversity & public goods / ecosystem services
• Business’ own interest: via liabilities (e.g. re fines/compensation) and the bottom line;
reputation/brand impacts, license to operate
Businesses depend upon biodiversity & ecosystem services
• Water provision to agriculture, forestry, water sector, food and beverage and as an input to
production for wide range of other sectors
• Genetic materials for pharmaceuticals and crops
Ecosystem change creates business risks & opportunities
• Risks: reduced water availability and agricultural production, energy output
• Fisheries impacts due to invasive jellyfish species or eutrophication events
• Opportunities: new products (certified wood, fish) and markets (e.g. carbon, water and wetland
banking, PES)
The inter-connections / feedback loops need to be understood, as does the value of nature to business

8. Eutrophication : Damage to Biodiversity, reducing public
goods, and also others’ private benefits
Since ‘60s -
Eutrophication
caused
“dead-zones”:
Regularly ~405
coastal dead-
zones

9. Undermining sector’s own interests
Fisheries subsidies ~ US$30-34 bn/yr: only ~7bn “good”, 20bn “bad”
Figure: State of exploitation of selected stock / species groups, 2004
28% over-exploited, 52% fully exploited, remaining 20% moderately exploited or
underexploited (some low margin/uneconomic) (FAO 2006 and FAO 2008)

10. Potential conflicts, potential synergies
Potential Conflicts of interest /trade-offs
• Intense agriculture: eutrophication, pesticides in water, soil quality loss
• Mining: pollution impacts on water quality, biodiversity , on other sectors (e.g. water
companies, food and beverage)
• Forestry: monocultures, biodiversity loss, invasive species, ecosystem service loss
• Transport infrastructure and fragmentation
• High level of water abstraction reducing water table and availability for others,
Potential Synergies / win-wins
• High nature value farming; farming and natural pollinators
• Water provisioning / purification & watershed protection, land management, restoration
• Tourism and protected areas
The private optimum will often differ from public optimum;
What conflicts and synergies do you see?

11. Taking account of public goods
US$ Based only on private gain, the “trade- Shrimp Farm
/ha/yr off” choice favours conversion….. Mangroves
$12,392/ha
10000
$9632/ha
After
Adding Storm
Public protection
5000 Benefits
From
mangroves
$1220/ha Fishery
$584/ha nursery
$584/ha
private profits private private
0 profits profits Net of public
less costs of
subsidies restoration
needed
after 5 years
If public wealth is included, the “trade-off”
choice changes completely…..
-ve $9,318/ha Source: Barbier et al, 2007

12. Valuation: A tool to bridge the gap between business & policy makers
• Understand/quantify private and public values, interests and incentives – the
public optimum may be different from the private optimum.
• Identify synergies and trade-offs and assess their scale. Identify what is in the
public interest given flow of public goods from natural capital
• Inform policy choices, instrument selection and implementation - can help to
raise the regulatory baseline, identify public instruments for public services
• Will need mix of qualitative, quantitative and monetary evidence and tools
• Care in understanding and responding to meaning of results
– Value/price and costs not the same
– Demonstrating value does not mean that it can be bought or sold
– Value includes ‘real money’, picked up by GDP, ‘avoided real costs’ picked up in budgets and
bottom lines, and :welfare benefits” appreciated socially.
Inform government – “public/civil servants” - in light of appreciation of public goods

13. Business Commitments : towards no net loss
and net positive impacts
Rio Tinto : “Our goal is to have a ‘net positive
impact’ on biodiversity.” [2004]
BC Hydro: “long-term goal of no net incremental
environmental impact.”
Sony: “strives to achieve a zero environmental
footprint throughout the lifecycle of our
products and business activities.”
Walmart: “Committed … to permanently conserve
at least one acre of priority wildlife habitat for
every developed acre.” ~= no net BD loss
Increasing number of companies making
Commitments http://www.thebiodiversityconsultancy.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/07/Private-Sector-No-Net-Loss-commitments.pdf
Positive commitments – the implementation is the challenge.
Need business leadership, transparency/disclosure and public “encouragement”

14. Offsetting and net positive impact
Source: Rio Tinto 2008; http://www.riotinto.com/documents/ReportsPublications/RTBidoversitystrategyfinal.pdf
What experience / plans do you have for (requiring) offsetting and net positive impacts ?

15. Offsetting: potential for Synergy & for Conflict: Design is everything
Adapted from BBOP 2009

16. Business Commitments / engagement
Ecosystem Valuation Initiative
Natural Capital accounting –
Rio+20 Declaration et al.
www.wbcsd.org/web/evi.htm
Environmental Profit & Loss
accounts & disclosure – e.g. PUMA 2012

17. Presentation overview
TEEB for Business Recommendations
1. Identify impacts & dependence on biodiversity & ecosystem services (BES)
Including through the value chain
2. Assess the business risks & opportunities associated with impacts & dependencies
3. Develop BES information systems, set targets, monitor and report results
4. Act to avoid, minimize and mitigate BES risks, using ‘offsets’ where appropriate
Build on concept of Net Positive Impact
5. Act on emerging BES business opportunities and win-wins
cost-efficiencies, new products and new markets
6. Integrate BES actions with wider Corporate Social Responsibility
7. Engage with business peers & other stakeholders to improve BES guidance & policy
Building on TEEB for Business (2012)

18. Public Authority Perspective & Role vis-à-vis Business
National authorities remit to ensure biodiversity resources are conserved
Public authorities responsibility for public interest: wise stewardship of public goods
Government to provide an efficient, enabling and fiscal environment (right signals)
Practical way forward (examples)
• Improve evidence base: ecosystem service indicators, environmental accounts, valuation
• Take account of public goods, wider benefits in permitting and spatial planning
• Establish stronger offset requirements, liability and improve non-compliance enforcement
• Remove / reform environmentally harmful subsidies & Offer incentives for conservation
• Ensure public access to information / disclosure rules and improve labelling of goods to
inform purchasing decisions
What works will be dependant on the particular context of each country. Care
is needed to ensure that wider values of nature to wider society taken into account.
What is your practical way forward, experience and lessons/recommendations?

19. Thank you
TEEB Reports available on http://www.teebweb.org/
See also www.teeb4me.com
Patrick ten Brink
ptenbrink@ieep.eu
IEEP is an independent, not-for-profit institute dedicated to the analysis, understanding and promotion of
policies for a sustainable environment. www.ieep.eu