TEEB Phase 2 Introduction by Patrick ten Brink of IEEP at the EEB Biodiversity Seminar 11 Dec 08

1. The Economics of Ecosystems
and Biodiversity (TEEB)
Second phase of the TEEB Initiative
Presentation to the EEB Biodiversity Seminar
Thursday 11 December 2008
Patrick ten Brink,
An initiative of the
G8+5, BMU (D) & the Head of Brussels Office,
European Commission IEEP
Supported by TEEB D1 Co-ordinator
Defra (UK), UNEP, the EEA,
ptenbrink@ieep.eu
OECD and the CBD Secretariat
D1
Building on and borrowing from the work & insights of the wider TEEB team
and contributors of supporting studies, call for evidence and other contributions
1

2. Presentation Structure
1. TEEB Background and Aims
2. TEEB Phase 1: Recap on results & impacts from phase 1
3. TEEB Phase 2: Ambitions, Activities, Content and Process
4. TEEB and some reflections
1. Role of NGOs
2. Communication
3. TEEB and the financial crisis
2

3. Background: TEEB’s Genesis
Potsdam 2007: meeting of the environment
ministers of the G8 countries and the five
major newly industrialising countries
“Potsdam Initiative – Biological Diversity 2010”
1) The economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity
In a global study we will initiate the process of analysing
the global economic benefit of biological diversity,
the costs of the loss of biodiversity and
the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective
conservation.
3

4. TEEB’s Goals
• Assess and communicate the urgency of action to address ecosystems
and biodiversity loss – by presenting the economic, societal and human value
of the benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity, and the scale of the benefits lost,
• Show how we (can) take into account the value of ecosystems and
biodiversity in our decisions and choices,
• Address the needs of policy-makers, local administrators, business and
citizens (the “end-users”) – interests, opportunities, & responsibilities.
Phase 2 (2008-2010):
Phase 1 (2007-2008): • Additional analysis within wider
• Preliminary scoping work, Valuation framework
• Some first analysis, • Broaden the scope of studies (methods;
• Clarification as to how to address the ecosystem services (ESS) and biomes)
wider goals, • Focus on End-user products
• Preliminary identification of experts and • Stronger Involvement from different
organisations to contribute experts & organisations
Source: adapted from Pavan Sukhdev 4

5. Recap: why the concern?
Past Losses
Global Forest Area has shrunk by approximately 40% since 1700. Forests have
completely disappeared in 25 countries [1].
Since 1900, the world has lost about 50%of its wetlands. [2].
Some 20% of the world’s coral reefs - have been effectively destroyed by
fishing, pollution, disease and coral bleaching and approximately 24% of the
remaining reefs in the world are under imminent risk of collapse through human
pressures.[3]
In the past two decades, 35% of mangroves have disappeared. Some countries
have lost up to 80% through conversion for aquaculture, overexploitation and
storms.[4]
The rate of species extinction is estimated to be 100 to 1,000 times more rapid than
the “natural” extinction rate (MA 2005).
[1] United Nations Forest and Agriculture Organisation, 2001.Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000; United Nations Forest and Agriculture Organisation, 2006 Global Forest
Resources Assessment 2005.
[2] http://www.ramsar.org/about/about_wetland_loss.htm
[3]
Wilkinson C., 2004: Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004 report
[4]
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Global Assessment Report 1: Current State & Trends Assessment. Island Press, Washington DC. Detail: Chapter 19 Coastal
Systems. Coordinating lead authors: Tundi Agardy and Jacqueline Alder. Original reference: 35%: Valiela et al. 2001; 80% reference: Spalding et al. 1997
5

6. Biodiversity loss - 1700 to 2050
73%
62%
MSA statistics indicate that in the “Policy Inaction” scenario :
Global objective (significant reduction in rate of loss) unlikely by 2050
Stricter European goal (halting further loss ) unlikely by 2050
CBD goals (for 2010) unlikely over short term
6
Source: building on Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium.

7. The Global Loss of
Biodiversity
2000
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008 on the COPI Study; building on MNP data 7

8. The Global Loss of
Biodiversity
2050
Europe – at Risk
India - at Risk
Africa – at Risk.
The World – at Risk.
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008 on the COPI Study; building on MNP data 8

9. Mapping changes : from Biodiversity
& Ecosystems to Economic Values
(Human)
Drivers
Change
Change in
in Change
Economic
Natural Land use, in
Change Value
Drivers Climate, Biodiversity
Pollution, In
Water use Ecosystem
Services
Policies Change
Nat. Reg. in
Loc. Int. Ecosystem
functions
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.)
9

10. Valuation & Ecosystem service losses
COPI calculation: A
Annual Loss of economic value of ecosystem services that would have been
Relative to 2000 available had biodiversity remained at 2000 levels. Estimate for 2050.
Services that `would
have been there,
had biodiversity A
Ecosystem
been halted.
service level
Losses
continue
into the
future
2000 2010 2030 2050
Source: P ten Brink in L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI Study 10

11. TEEB – Interim Report
COP-9, Bonn, May 2008
Key Messages from the Interim Report…..
Economic Size &
Welfare Impact of
Losses is enormous MDG1: Eradicate
extreme poverty
and hunger
Strong Links between MDG5: Improve
Poverty / MDG’s material health
& Biodiversity Losses
MDG4: Reduce
child mortality
Discount Rates are
an ethical choice
Source: Pavan Sukhdev 11

12. Change of Landuse (area coverage)
across all biomes – Global Total
Actual 2000 2050 Difference
Area million km2 million km2 2000 to 2050
Natural areas 65.5 58.0 -11%
Bare natural 3.3 3.0 -9%
Forest managed 4.2 7.0 70%
Extensive agriculture 5.0 3.0 -39%
Intensive agriculture 11.0 15.8 44%
Woody biofuels 0.1 0.5 626%
Cultivated grazing 19.1 20.8 9%
Artificial surfaces 0.2 0.2 0%
World Total * 108.4 108.4 0%
Natural areas loss is 7.5m km2 - broadly equivalent to the area of the Australia.
Losses: natural, bare natural areas & extensive agriculture broadly equals the USA
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI 12

13. Loss of Quality / Degradation
Global total
Loss of quality - due to pollution, fragmentation, infrastructure and climate
impacts (Global average all biomes)
Mean Species Abundance indicator
Mean species abundance change for different land
use categories MSA loss 2000 to 2050
Natural areas 11%
Bare natural 8%
Forest managed 20%
Extensive agriculture 8%
Intensive agriculture -2%
Woody biofuels 0%
Cultivated grazing 14%
World Total 18%
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI 13

14. COPI - Some key results
• The welfare loss grows with each year of biodiversity and ecosystem loss.
• Over the period 2000 to 2010 this amounts to around 50 billion Euros extra loss
per year, every year.
• By 2010 the welfare losses from the loss of ecosystem services amount to 545
billion EUR in 2010 or just under 1% of world GDP.
• The value of the amount lost every year rises, until it is around 275bn
EUR/yr in 2050.
• The loss of welfare in 2050 from the cumulative loss of ecosystem services
between now and then amounts to 14 trillion (10^12) Euros under the fuller
estimation scenario
• This is equivalent in scale to 7% of projected global GDP for 2050 – across
land-based biomes
Source: P ten Brink in L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI Study 14

15. Global COPI
Loss of Ecosystem services
from land based ecosystems
Relative to 2000 Relative to 2000
Equivalent to %
Area Billion EUR of GDP in 2050
Natural areas -15678 -7.97%
Forest managed 1852 0.95%
Extensive Agriculture -1109 -0.57%
Intensive Agriculture 1303 0.67%
Woody biofuels 381 0.19%
Cultivated grazing -786 -0.40%
World Total -13938 -7.1%
Land based ecosystems only
Other biomes - need for complementary focus in Phase 2
The loss grows with each year of biodiversity and ecosystem loss.
Source: P ten Brink et al in L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI Study for DGENV 15

16. Global COPI
Loss of Ecosystem services
Forestry biomes
Partial
Forest biomes Estimation Fuller Estimation
Boreal forest -163 -1999
Tropical forest -536 -3362
Warm mixed forest -249 -2332
Temperate mixed forest -190 -1372
Cool coniferous forest -47 -701
Temperate deciduous forest -133 -1025
Forest Total -1317 -10791
Natural areas -1552 -12310
World GDP in 2050 (trillion (10^12) EUR)* 195.5
Losses of ESS from forests as share of % GDP -0.7% -5.5%
Losses of ESS from natural areas in forest biomes as share
of % GDP -0.8% -6.3%
Source: P ten Brink et al in L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI Study Building on FEEM forestry per hectare values16

17. What ESS could already be
included (forests)?
Included - (8 services) Not included - (10 services)
Provisioning services Provisioning services
Food, fiber, fuel Biochemicals, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals
Regulating services Ornamental resources
Air quality maintenance Fresh water
Soil quality maintenance Regulating services
Climate regulation (i.e. carbon storage) Temperature regulation, precipitation
Water regulation (i.e. flood prevention,, Erosion control
aquifer recharge etc.) Technology development from nature
Water purification and waste management Regulation of human diseases
Cultural services Biological control and pollination
Cultural diversity, spiritual and religious Natural hazards control / mitigation
values, educational values, aesthetic and
cultural Cultural services
Recreation and ecotourism • Living comfort due to environmental amenities
Need for focus in Phase 2
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI Study 17

18. COPI – Forestry Biome
Different ways of calculating the loss
A : 50-year impact of inaction B : Natural Capital Loss every year
Lost Welfare equivalent Natural Capital Lost from
to 5.5 % of GDP (from forest USD 1.35 x 10 12 to 3.10 x 10 12
(@ 4% Discount Rate) (@ 1% Discount Rate)
biomes overall) … or…
Source: P ten Brink in L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI Study for DGENV 18

19. Impacts of Phase 1
Impacts of Phase 1
• Press coverage and visibility – the buzz
• Awareness and understanding – broadening the audience & new perceptions
• Formal Engagement by other into the TEEB process – voting with their
feet/pockets
• Integration of TEEB into other processes and activities – others are listening
• Policy debate – TEEB in the corridors of power
And in TEEB phase II, the above +
• Policy influence – Realising commitments +Words turn to commitment
• Practical influence – Action on the ground
19

20. Press Echo to TEEB I, May 2008
Source: Dr Carsten Neßhöver, Heidi Wittmer & Christoph Schröter-Schlaack, Presentation in Vilm, 26.8.2008 20

21. Awareness & understanding –
broadening the audience & new
perceptions
Broadening the audience & high level access….
• Into realms of Economics and Finance experts – nature: natural capital: value
• Other Government departments reaches - reaches the parts of government that other
studies cannot reach
• other sectors “integration” – understanding of value of nature and need to safeguard inputs
• Court of auditors: national responsibility of dealing with limited resources.
New Perceptions (in some quarters) / strengthened perceptions
• The dangers of discounting as done to date / dispute the dogma
• New understanding of reliance, resilience and risk
• GDP of the Poor
• Not Economy vs Ecology, but ecology underpins much of the economy
• Nature is fundamental to welfare and wellbeing
• Need to re-orientate the signals within our economies/societies
• Need to reward practice that offers benefits,
• Ensure responsibility for damages
21

22. Deep Links with Poverty
“GDP of the Poor” most seriously
impacted by ecosystem losses…
“India” Example (from GIST’s Green Accounting for Indian States
Project, 2002-03 data)
480 Million people in small farming, animal
husbandry, informal forestry, fisheries….
ESS add “only 7.3%” to classical GDP
or
ESS add 57 % to “GDP of the Poor”
Source: Pavan Sukhdev 22

23. Ethics of discounting
Three hidden stories
1. Declining Growth Paths in the per-capita flow of nature’s services …
imply that discount rates should be negative
2. Marginal Utility of $1 to the Rich vs Poor … is too different to merit the
same discounting treatment
3. Inter-generational Equity … following ‘market practice’ means valuing
nature’s utility to your grandchild at one-seventh of your own !
Cash flow Annual Present
50 years in discount value of
the future rate the future
Most of the 29 valuation studies cash flow
in our meta-study of forest valuations 1,000,000 4% 140,713
use discount rates between 3%-5% 1,000,000 2% 371,328
1,000,000 1% 608,039
1,000,000 0% 1,000,000
Source: Pavan Sukhdev 23

24. GDP & natural capital loss
How they (don’t) fit
The assumption of
GDP (OECD Scenarios) continued economic
GDP, with feedback on
2.8%/year group will be
economic losses from
Relative to 2000 biodiversity compromised by
losses integrated -
illustrative
eroding our natural
capital
GDP: 41.4$ trillion (PPP) (10^12)
Population 9100 million
GDP/capita: 680$ (PPP)
Population: 6092 million
GDP adjusted for well-being impact
of biodiversity loss - illustrative
Services that would have been If we measure it
there, had biodiversity been
halted
right – we are most
probably going in
Ecosystem the wrong direction
service level
2000 2050
Source: Patrick ten Brink (IEEP), Leon Braat (Alterra), Mark van Ooorshot (MNP), Matt Rayment (GHK)
24

25. ..some quotes…
Simon Kuznets - GDP's creator – already in 1934 said that “The
welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of
national income”.
& after almost 30 years further thought, added
“Distinctions must be kept in mind between quantity and quality of
growth, between its costs and return, and between the short and the
long term. Goals for more growth should specify more growth of
what and for what.”
On GDP and natural resources
A country could cut down all its forests and deplete its natural
resources and this would show only as a positive gain to GDP
despite of the loss of capital.
Source: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 2005 see
http://www.millenniumassessment.org
25

26. Global Loss of Fisheries…
…Human Welfare Impact
Half of wild marine fisheries
are fully exploited, with a
further quarter already over-
exploited
at risk : $ 80-100 billion
income from the sector
at risk : est. 27 million jobs
but most important of all…..
We are fishing down the food web
At risk : over a billion people rely
to ever smaller species…
on fish as their main or sole source
Perverse Subsidies are a key driver of the loss of animal protein, especially in
of fisheries : Need for new policy orientation? developing countries.
Source: Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6
March 2008, Brussels, Belgium. Original source: Pauly (UBC, Canada) 26

27. Impacts of Phase 1
Engagement into the Process
• Formal Engagement by other into the TEEB process - voting with their
feet/pockets/time
Engagement in TEEB
• CBD support TEEB formally
• UNEP on board - thematic/expert input, not just secretariat
• UK on board to support TEEB Phase II
• German government (not just initiators and funders, but also going to do TEEB Germany)
• European Parliament Interest
• …..
Links of TEEB to others – TEEB is seeking to build links and wider engagement.
• UNDP : Latin America…
• Ecosystem value work in China….
• Japan – building
• USA - building
• VROM et al workshop on IPES (February 2009)
• CBD workshop on perverse incentives (..maybe May 2009)
• EEB Biodiversity seminars! (tip of the iceberg)
What potential links are there that you recommend TEEB make?
27

28. TEEB Phase 2: Ambitions, Process
and milestones
• Overview
• D0 D0
• D1 D1
• D2 D2
• D3 D3
• D4 D4
28

29. TEEB – Final Reports
Sep 2009 - June 2010
Science & Economics
Foundations, Policy D0
Costs & Costs of Inaction
Policy opportunities for
D1
National & International
Policy-Makers
Decision Support D2
for Local Administrators
Business Risks D3
& Opportunities
Citizen / Consumer D4
Ownership
Source: Pavan Sukhdev 29

30. The Process for TEEB Phase 2
2008 2009 2010
Nagoya, Japan
Inputs from Science and Economics
experts through the Call for Evidence,
participation in Working Groups, etc
CBD COP9 - Bonn, Germany
Val‘n Framework, Methodologies, Cost Analyses D0
D0
End-User Outreach
TEEB for Policy-Makers D1 D1
D2
TEEB for Administrators D2 D3
D4
TEEB for Business D3
CBD COP10
TEEB for Citizens/Consumers D4
Continuous involvement of End-User Groups
Source: adapted from Pavan Sukhdev 30

31. The Operational Framework
of TEEB – Phase II
Study Leader Group Advisory Board
Scientific Peer Review Group
Coordination E1 E2 E3 E4
Group
Workshops – Call for Evidence –
Synthesis Papers– etc….
TEEB
Secretariat
D0: Science &
Economics
D1: D2: D3: D4:
-
Policy Maker Administrator Business Citizen/consumer
Workshops – Call for Evidence – Synthesis Papers– etc….
E5 E6 E7 E8 E9 E10 E11 E12 E13 E14
Source: Pavan Sukhdev 31

32. TEEB Phase 2
D0: Valuation Framework, Methodologies,
Cost Analyses - Scientific Challenges
D0
• The scientific tome / basis of the wider TEEB work
• Solid, referenced analysis on TEEB issues, building on
• Phase 1 TEEB work and supporting effort
• Existing work across the world
• Contributions from across the planet - “big names” & other committed
• New work launched within the D0 context
• European Commission
• Others (Germany, UK, UNDP, etc)
• Develop further the TEEB valuation framework / guidelines to facilitate
others doing similar work.
32

33. D0 TEEB Phase 2
D0: Valuation Framework, Methodologies,
Cost Analyses - Scientific Challenges
• Develop further the TEEB valuation framework, e.g.
• further develop the framework of ecosystem services and benefits,
• investigate the state of knowledge on ecosystem dynamics,
• exploring how to reflect thresholds
• Recommend valuation methodology and do TEEB analysis, e.g.
• examine further some values not addressed in depth during Phase I
(e.g. resilience values of biodiversity, option values such as bio-
prospecting, non-use values such as bequest & existence values),
• address additional biomes (e.g, oceans, poles)
• Evaluation of policy costs
• the costs and opportunity costs of conservation policies versus the costs
of ‘business-as-usual’ within an existing policy framework (e.g.
agriculture, fisheries, infrastructure, climate change, etc)
Source: adapted from Pushpam Kumar 33

34. TEEB for Policy Makers
Objectives and Outcomes:
D1
• Raise awareness of policy makers across the globe of the importance and
urgency of action to address ecosystems degradation and biodiversity loss.
• Help improve the understanding of the benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity
and the risk and costs of losing these benefits.
• Inform about the consequences of international and national policies on
biodiversity and ecosystems (i.e. subsidies, trading rules, benefits sharing).
• Identification of opportunities for action, such as applying new or reforming
existing policy tools; improve the way we measure our societal and economic
wellbeing taking account of ecosystem benefits and losses
• Support policy action, by providing information and tools to help provide
information that can be integrated into decision making.
34

35. The D1 (Policy Level) TEEB Report:
D1 Structuring the issues
(The “wireframe”)
Ch Title Questions being addressed
1 The Biodiversity Policy Challenge Why is there Urgency for Action to address biodiversity
loss?
2 Policy Responses: Actors and instruments Who can take up the biodiversity challenge; what tools
can help ?
3 Measuring to Manage our Natural Capital What should we measure to ensure a proper stewardship
of our natural capital?
4 Evaluation Tools that (can) Integrate the Value of What tools work, what needs and opportunities are there
Biodiversity for their use?
5 Policies to Reward (unrecognised) Benefits of What policy instruments can help and how to make the
Ecosystems and Biodiversity markets give the right signals?
6 Aligning Today’s Subsidies to Tomorrow’s Priorities Can we save money and avoid the destruction of
biodiversity?
7 Policies to Address the Losses of Biodiversity What instruments and market signals can help ensure
that the polluter pays ?
8 Protecting areas, ecosystems, habitats and species Protected areas, and addressing the financing and
implementation challenge
9 Using the whole Policy Toolkit to address the challenge What package of instruments and responses do we need
to respond to the challenge?
Structure and content being developed continuously taking into account insights & suggestions –
detailed wireframe on http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/d1.pdf
35

36. Examples of issues of particular interest
Where can TEEB help ?
D1
Working suggestions of areas where particular focus in TEEB is valuable -
due to value of good practice and/or need for new initiatives or progress:
• Integrated policy making – the costs and benefits of losing biodiversity
• Payments for Environmental Services (PES)
• REDD (Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation)
• Environmental Harmful Subsidy (EHS) reform
• Adjusted national income accounting
• Ecological footprints
• (Criminal) Liability for damages
• …
• …
What areas do you see as particularly important to give due focus to?
36

37. Deep Links with Poverty
Examples Rewarding Unrecognized Benefits
Panama Canal : Insurance firms and shipping companies are financing
a 25-year project to reforest the water catchment of the canal to restore
freshwater flow to its locks… the fear of loss due to closures of the Canal had
been making shipping insurance premiums mount.
Costa Rican PES : Payments for Environmental Services are virtually
a national strategy for forest and biodiversity conservation and sustainable
development
Guyana : A Private Equity firm recently bought the rights to environmental
services from a 370,000 hectare rainforest reserve in Guyana anticipating that its
services (water storage, biodiversity maintenance, rainfall regulation, etc) will
gain value. Revenues will be shared 80% with the local community. Benefits
sharing
Source: Pavan Sukhdev 37

38. TEEB D1 Organisation and Process
D1 Core Group Advisors & Authors / Contributors & Peer Reviewers
Co-ordinate process + develop Direct contributions: advice on content + contributions of
“wireframe” + substantial ideas, insights, recommendations and material (text,
content contributions + data, maps, case examples, quotes, messages, photos)
responsible for overall output & + Peer Review
“make it happen”
Call for Evidence D1 “wireframe” – The “contents of D1”
On-line http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/call_evidence.htm
Oct to Jan 08 for D1
Thematic Workshops January to May 09
Focused on policy makers.
Expectation: 150-200 pages D1 Report June 09 Peer Review Sept’ 09
38

39. TEEB Phase 2
D2: TEEB for Local Administration D2
Still being developed
Aim: support awareness of the implications/trade-offs in local decisions &
• Provide tools and information to local administrations to help them in their practical
work – permit decisions, inspection, enforcement, court cases, setting local
taxes/charges/fines (if and where possible) etc
Topics to be addressed:
• Tools to help local authorities with permit decisions (eg land conversion
requests)
– eg clarify ecosystem services that should not be ignored,
– seek to provide some indicative values for potential use / benchmark,
– provide examples to demonstrate precedent.
• Help provide information to local authorities to help with conflict resolution
over protected areas.
• Information to support local courts
– Eg to support implementation of liability cases / criminal law for environmental damage
What areas do you see as particularly important to give due focus to?
39

40. TEEB Phase 2 D3
D3: TEEB for Businesses
Topics to be addressed:
• Tools to help business managers identify biodiversity risks and liabilities
– Value of biodiversity ecosystem services as an input to their processes, dependence and
need to safeguard the inputs.
– Potential liabilities – damages, costs (fees/charges).
• The concept of “no net loss” or “net positive impact” on biodiversity and
implications for business accounting systems
• New biodiversity business opportunities, including bio-friendly segments
within established sectors, e.g. eco-agriculture, eco-tourism, certified forestry, as
well as new sectors, e.g. biocarbon, biodiversity banking
• How to make business assets / capacities / skills more relevant to conservation
through public-private partnerships
• Mainstreaming ecosystem indicators and values in corporate management and
annual reporting systems
• The role of environmental regulation and market structures in pricing ecosystem
assets and liabilities
• How business can help build a green economy and green jobs
Source: adapted from Joshua Bishop 40

41. D4 TEEB Phase 2
D4: TEEB for Citizens/Consumers
Still being developed – balance of citizen focus and consumer focus open
Re Consumers, need for:
• Information on impact of consumer choices on biodiversity / ecosystems – eg the
food we eat, clothes we buy, cars we drive (& the fuel), house we live in (and
heat), and holidays we take..
• Tools to help consumers measure their impacts so as to respond to a need for
responsibility.
– Eg food miles or footprints or rucksacks?
– Benefits of organic for health and for the environment
• Examples of policies to help consumers - from different countries
Re Citizens & peoples, arguably need for:
• Rights, ethics and responsibility (and potential roles – eg spot the impact eg IAS)
• Realities for forest peoples
• GDP of the poor
• Ethics – who reaps the ecosystem services (eg biofuels-food tension)
What do you see as particularly important to give due focus to? 41

42. TEEB and NGOs
1. Opportunity to get your messages across – for policy makers (D1),
administration (D2), for business (D3) and for individuals (D4)
2. There is no “TEEB for NGOs”, as NGOs have something to say for the 4
end user groups. Opportunity for engagement in Ds (contributors,
advisors, core group)
3. From NGOs, TEEB needs messages, insights, data, case examples,
photos, maps and quotes – we need global representation. Help with
practice in Latin America, Africa, and Asia most welcome – examples
and names of experts who know.
4. NGOs invaluable in getting the communication “buzz” in the
public/press + issues into the policy corridors.
42

43. TEEB and Communication – how to
get the messages across
The challenge – not just identifying the message, but getting it across and being
taken seriously – into agendas, into action.
TEEB: 5 deliverables, including 4 specific end user focused products
Pavan Sukhdev (and others): wide range of high level presentations
Big numbers and the press
National/local numbers and country relevance
Wide Engagement and involvement of into the process
Clarifying links between high level issues - climate change, financial losses
Case examples, interesting facts, quotes, lessons/insights + spotting the
needs and opportunities.
What do you see as initiatives that TEEB should focus on ?
43

44. TEEB and Communication – how to
get the messages across
Eg: how to get companies to use values for “green D3
accounting”?
Underline the material benefits of ecosystem services to their
operations (ie dependency on ecosystem inputs?)
+ underline the risks / liabilities of loss of inputs, or damage to
ecosystems D0 D1 D2 D3 D4
+ clarify economic opportunities and competitiveness advantages.
+underline the long term context – the financial crisis gives a new
hope for moving away from short-termism?.
“No one would look just at a firm’s revenues to assess how well it
was doing. Far more relevant is the balance sheet, which shows
assets and liability. That is also true for a country.”
Joseph Stiglitz, 2005 in Foreign Affairs,
see http://www.foreignaffairs.org/.html
44

45. TEEB and Communication – how to
get the messages across
Eg: how to get countries to use values for “green
accounting”?
Underline the importance of ecosystem services to the economy and
societies wellbeing/development.
Demonstrate the benefits of using a more complete evidence base
Demonstrate the linkage of TEEB issues to others they recognise
intuitively or already commit to addressing (natural hazards,
food dependency, climate change, migration, development etc)
A country could cut down all its forests and deplete its natural
resources and this would show only as a positive gain to GDP
despite of the loss of capital.
Source: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 2005 see
http://www.millenniumassessment.org
45

46. TEEB and the Financial Crisis
parallels and differences
1.
1. The loss of natural capital is losing us more money than the stock
The loss of natural capital is losing us more money than the stock
market collapse
market collapse
2. Ecological losses have been leading to human disasters (starvation,
2. not risk of ends meet (…suicides by Indian farmers), migrations) but
The makingnatural capital loss is hardly factored in – has been off the
not taken as seriously as banking losses
decision makers’ radar….
3. The risk of natural capital loss - to the economy to societies - is hardly
3. factored down natural capital is like running down out
Running in – has been off the decision makers’ radar….savings – and
when our savings run out, the situation is fragile, explosive, implosive
4. Running down natural capital is like running down out savings – and
when our savings run out, the situation is fragile, explosive, implosive
4. Short termism rules the decision (eg discount rate, quarterly
5. The insurance market term again not in our economic losses
objectives) - the longwill not be able to cope with the compass.
6. Short termism rules the decision (eg discount rate, quarterly
5. The market signals have often encouraged loss of natural capital – a
objectives) - the long term again not in our economic compass.
loss in the faith in markets… need to fix the compass
7. The market signals have often encouraged loss of natural capital – a
loss in the faith in markets… need to fix the compass
46

47. Rescues committed to and rescues still
to be committed to…
International Financial Crisis and Global Ecological Crisis
Rescue Action (Source: BBC, Oct 2008)
Approximately 60% (15 out of
24) of the ecosystem services
evaluated in this assessment
are being degraded or used
unsustainably-MA,2005
According to various estimates,
these conservation areas produce
some $4-5 trillion of utility per
year from various ecosystem
services
Any Rescue Action/ Plan for Ecological Crisis?
Source: Pavan Sukhdev 47

48. Summary
• Loss of biodiversity and ecosystem services cannot continue into the
future without undermining wellbeing and welfare of societies,
economies and individuals.
• Sustainable progress needs a reorientation of market signals and a
revision of policies in light of a greater appreciation of the role /
importance of ecosystems and biodiversity to societies.
• TEEB is a response to the need and Phase 1 has launched the issues
• TEEB Phase 2 has a lot to do - to clarify the messages, ensure ownership
and visibility of the messages and that they are heard and responded to.
Contribute to a Green New Deal
• This requires engagement by all end-users and NGOs have an important
contribution to make.
• Without rising to the challenge we are creating a basis for a crisis much
beyond the current financial turned economic turned social crisis.
48

49. Thank you!
- Further information….
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/index_en.htm
or google „TEEB Europa“ TEEB website will be up soon
For contributions
• Call-for-Evidence http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/call_evidence.htm
• Other contributions/engagement – please contact TEEB core teams/coordinators
• DO: Pushpam Kumar; D1: Patrick ten Brink; D3: Joshua Bishop
Wider TEEB Contact (and also cc generally):
TEEB Scientific Coordination via teeb@ufz.de
TEEB is currently funded by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature
Conservation and Nuclear Safety and the EU Commission, Directorate General for the
Environment, with additional contributions from other partners.
49