TEEB biodiversity and Water, presentation by Patrick ten Brink of IEEP at the Water Day at the CBD COP10 Nagoya 22 Oct 2010

1. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Biodiversity and Water
Patrick ten Brink
TEEB for Policy Makers Co-ordinator
Head of Brussels Office
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)
CBD COP 10
Water Ecosystems and Climate Change
Room 211A level 1B
16:30 17:45
22 October 2010
Nagoya, Japan
1

2. TEEB origins
Source: Bishop (2010) Presentation at BIOECON

3. TEEB s Genesis and progress
Potsdam Initiative Biological Diversity 2010
1) The economic significance of the global loss of
biological diversity
Sweden
Sept. 2009
Brussels
13 Nov 2009
TEEB Interim London India, Brazil, Belgium,
Report @ CBD COP- July 2009 Japan % South Africa
9, Bonn, May 2008 Sept. 2010

4. Ecosystem Services and awareness of values
Provisioning services Market values known and generally taken into account in
Food, fibre and fuel decision making on land use decisions
Water provision Ecosystem service generally unpriced, often taken for granted,
Genetic resources until service is lost
Regulating Services
Climate /climate change regulation Value long ignored, now being understood >> new
instruments (e.g. PES), markets, investments
Water and waste purification
Air purification Value often appreciated only after service is
Erosion control degraded or gone > replacement, substitute costs
Natural hazards mitigation (e.g. Flood control)
Value often appreciated only after service gone
Pollination and damage done >> damage costs
Biological control
Cultural Services
Aesthetics, Landscape value, recreation Sometimes value explicit / implicit in markets
and tourism (e.g. tourism spend / house prices)
Cultural values and inspirational services
Values generally rarely calculated
Supporting Services - e.g. soil formation
Habitat Services - e.g. nurseries The benefits to our economies, livelihoods and wellbeing have
generally not been taken into account. There is, however, now
+ Resilience - e.g. to climate change a new awareness of the value of ecosystem services and a
growing use of instruments to reward benefits.

5. We never know the worth of water 'til the well is dry .
English proverb
Men do not value a good deed unless it brings a reward
Ovid, B.C. 43 18 A.D., Roman Poet

6. Presentation overview
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity in Policy Making
The Global Biodiversity Crisis
Measuring what we manage
Ecosystem service indicators
Accounts
Valuation and assessment
Available Solutions
Rewarding benefits: PES, REDD+, fiscal
transfers, ABS, markets, GPP et al
Subsidy reform
Addressing losses : Regulation legislation,
liability, taxes & charges, offsets, banking
Protected Areas
Investment in natural capital
Responding to the value of nature
http://www.teebweb.org/

7. Valuation and policy making:
from valuing natural assets to decisions
To underline the value of natural assets & help determine where ecosystem
services can be provided at lower cost than man-made technological alternatives
e.g. water purification and provision, flood control
Conservation / restoration and other Investments decisions
PES instruments at different scales and by different stakeholders
Avoided cost of alternative water purification and provision
e.g. USA-NY Catskills-Delaware watershed
e.g. New Zealand Te Papanui Park - water
e.g. Mexico PSAH nationally, and local application eg Saltillo City, Zapaliname mountains
Avoided loss of output e.g. Venezuela: PAs to avoid sedimentation & loss of hydro output
Lower cost of flood control
e.g. Vietnam and restoring/investing in Mangroves - cheaper than dyke maintenance
e.g. Belgium Schelde river: natural flood defence - cheaper than man-made infrastructure

8. Valuation and policy making:
from valuing natural assets to decisions
Inform land-use decision - Creating and improved evidence base
Example: India: Floodplain between Yamuna River and Delhi.
Choice: convert floodplain / embankment plan or not
Evidence showed that ecosystem benefits exceeded opportunity costs of conversion.
Decision: Delhi government halted embankment plan of Yamuna until further order
. Avoid socially less good investment decisions

9. PES: They exist, they work
(though lots of lessons to learn)
Instrument growing in applications
300 PES programmes globally, range of ecosystem services (Blackman & Woodward, 2010)
Broad estimate for global value: USD 8.2 billion (Ecosystem Marketplace, 2008)
USD 6.53 billion in China, Costa Rica, Mexico, the UK and the US alone. (OECD 2010)
increasing by 10-20% per year (Karousakis, 2010)
For Specific services - e.g. provision of quality water (NY), protect groundwaters (J, D),
cleanse coastal waters (Sw), carbon Storage (NZ, Uganda), invasive alien species (SA - WfW),
biodiversity (EU)
Multiple services: e.g Costa Rica s PSA - carbon, hydrological services preserving biodiversity
and landscape beauty.
Multiple objectives - e.g. Mexico s PSAH hydrological services, deforestation, poverty
Big and small
E.g. 496 ha being protected in an upper watershed in northern Ecuador
eg. 4.9 million ha sloped land being reforested by paying landowners China.
Public (municipal, regional, national) and private (eg Vittel (Fr), Rochefort (B) for quality water
Local and national and international - e.g. REDD+ for forest carbon plus
See also Chapter 5 TEEB for Policy Makers

10. Multiple Objectives : PSAH Mexico
PES to forest owners to preserve forest
Manage and not convert forest
e.g. cloud forest US$ 40 per ha/year;
e.g. other tree-covered land US$ 30 per ha/year
Hydrological services: Aquifer Recharge;
Improved surface water quality,
Reduce frequency & damage from flooding
Reduce Deforestation Address Poverty
Munoz 2010); Muñoz-Piña et al. 2008; Muñoz-Piña et al. 2007.

11. Multiple Objectives : PSAH Mexico
Balance of priorities varied over time
Aquifers
An instrument can evolve and respond to
changing needs
A
Poverty Water scarcity
P WS
Deforestation
D
Munoz 2010); Muñoz-Piña et al. 2008

12. PSAH Mexico
Results: PSAH reduced the rate of deforestation from 1.6 % to 0.6 %.
18.3 thousand hectares of avoided deforestation
Avoided GHG emissions this equates 3.2 million tCO2e.
Year in which forest is 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total
signed into the program
Surface incorporated into 127 184 169 118 546 654 567 2,365
the program ( ooo ha)
Forest owners participating 272 352 257 193 816 765 711 3,366
(individuals + collectives)
Total payment to be made 17.5 26.0 23.5 17.2 84.2 100.9 87.4 303
over 5 years (US$ m)
Source Munoz 2010); Muñoz-Piña et al. 2008

13. Multiple Benefits: at the Urban level City of Toronto
Estimating the value of the Greenbelt for the City of Toronto
The greenbelt around Toronto offers $ 2.7 billion worth of non-market
ecological services with an average value of $ 3, 571 / ha.
Implication re: future management of the greater city area ?
Ecosystem Annual Value
Valuation Benefits (2005, CDN $)
Carbon Values 366 million
Air Protection Values 69 million
Watershed Values 409 million
Pollination Values 360 million
Biodiversity Value 98 million
Recreation Value 95 million
Agricultural Land 329 million
Value
Source: Wilson, S. J. (2008)
Map: http://greenbeltalliance.ca/images/Greebelt_2_update.jpg

14. The Social Dimension: Jobs: Working for Water
WfW is a public works programme in South Africa which protects water
resources by stopping the spread of invasive plants.
Municipal government contracting workers to manage public land
sustainably
Results - More than 300 projects in all nine South African provinces.
Employed around 20,000 people per year,
52 per cent of them women4, and
also provided skills training, health and HIV/AIDS education to participants.
costs to rehabilitate catchments range from 200-700 EUR/ha (Turpie et al. 2008)
benefits may reach a 40 year NPV of 47,000 EUR/ha (see TEEB Foundations, 2010)
Wunder et al 2008a; http://www.dwaf.gov.za/wfw/

15. WfW: The Manalana wetland (near Bushbuckridge, Mpumalanga)
severely degraded by erosion that threatened to consume the entire system
WfW public works programme intervened in 2006 to reduce the erosion and
improve the wetland s ability to continue providing its beneficial services
Results
The value of livelihood benefits from degraded wetland was just 34 % of what
could be achieved after investment in ecosystem rehabilitation;
Rehabilitated wetland now contributes provisioning services at a net return
of 297 EUR/household/year;
Livelihood benefits ~ 182,000 EUR by the rehabilitated wetland; x2 costs is
The Manalana wetland acts as a safety net for households.
Sources: Pollard et al. 2008 ; Wunder et al 2008a; http://www.dwaf.gov.za/wfw/

16. Security and meeting objectives working with nature:
Flood Control and the Schelde : Belgium
Major infrastructural works were planned - deepening fairway to the harbour of
Antwerp and complementary measures to protect the land from storm floods
CBA carried out, including ecosystem services (recreational value) of new floodplains.
Evaluation Result: an intelligent combination of dikes and floodplains can offer more
benefits at lower cost than more drastic measures such as a storm surge barrier near
Antwerp.
14 vs 41 year payback
Policy Response / Action: The Dutch & Flemish gov ts approved an integrated
management plan consisting of the restoration of approximately 2500 ha of intertidal
and 3000 ha of non-tidal areas
University of Antwerp and VITO (2004) in TEEB in National Policy (2011)

17. Table 4.2 Different alternatives for flood protection in the CBA (Phase 1: different measures; Phase 2 optimization)
Security and meeting objectives working with nature:
Flood Control and the Schelde : Belgium
Phase 1 2
Measurements Storm Over- Dykes Floodplains Floodplains Floodplains
surge Schelde (340km) (CIA, 1800 (RTA, 1800 (1325 ha) +
barrier ha) ha) dykes (24 km)
Investment and
maintenance costs 387 1.597 241 140 151 132
Loss of agriculture 16 19 12
Flood protection benefits
727 759 691 648 648 737
Ecological benefits 8 56 9
Other impacts:
- shipping -1 -3 -3 -5
- visual intrusion
Total net benefits 339 -837 451 498 530 596
Payback period (years) 41 / 27 17 14 14
University of Antwerp and VITO (2004) in TEEB in National Policy (2011)

18. Private Sector Interests: Water: Vittel (France)
Vittel mineral water, France Perrot-Maître 2006; Wunder and Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2009
Since 1993, PES programme in its 5100 ha catchment in the Vosges Mountains.
26 farmers paid to adopt best low-impact practices in dairy farming
Payment levels
Ave. payments are EUR 200 ha/year over a five year transition period and
up to 150,000 EUR per farm to cover costs of new equipment.
Contracts are long-term (18-30 years),
with payments adjusted to opportunity costs on a farm-by-farm basis.
Making it Happen
built on a 4-years research by the France s INRA (National Institute for Agricultural Research )
took 10 years to become operational
Success because of economic rationale + tenacity of Vittel
Similar case for Beer ! Rochefort, Belgium . What cases do you know of ?

19. Natural resource management & spatial planning
Flooding of River Elbe, Germany (2002)
Damage over EUR 2 billion
Assessment that flood damage (+ cost of dams) by far exceed costs of upstream
flooding arrangements with land holders
The value of upstream ecosystems in regulating floods was re-discovered !
Local authorities start changing spatial planning & seeking arrangements upstream

20. Thank you
TEEB Reports available on http://www.teebweb.org/
& TEEB in Policy Making will come out as an Earthscan book in March 2011
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
Manual of EU Environmental Policy:
http://www.earthscan.co.uk/JournalsHome/MEEP/tabid/102319/Default.aspx