The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) The Cost of Policy Inaction (COPI)Insights into the Sukhdev Report
Patrick ten BrinkSenior Fellow and Head of Brussels Office
TEEB Core Team MemberCOPI Deputy project lead responsible for monetary estimate
Building on the Pavan Sukhdev led TEEB, the Alterra and IEEP led COPI.& building on the work of
TEEB Core team (Pavan Sukhdev, EC, German BMU, EEA, UFZ, IEEP, UoL, IIT)
9 June 2008EEB Seminar
Presentation Structure
1. Objective, ambitions and process of TEEB and inputs (COPI,
Scoping the Science, Workshop)
2. The Urgency of Action
3. Ecosystems and Ecosystem services
4. The Valuation Challenge
5. First phase numbers
6. Next steps / the implications of the
Sukhdev report
ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/teeb_report.pdf
Note some slides for information / documentation / completeness.
Not all will be shown!
Objectives
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.
Objectives (TEEB)
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity - TEEB’s goals are
• To mainstream the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity
• To address the needs of the “end-users” of these economics : policy-makers, local administrators, corporations and citizens
• To review extensively the current state of the science and economics of ecosystems and biodiversity, and recommend a valuation framework and methodology
Source: Pavan Sukhdev, Bonn 2008
Phase 1 was some preliminary scoping work, ground work, some first analysis, clarification as to how to address the wider goals, preliminary identification of experts
and organisations who could contribute to the wider work.
Now that Phase 1 was a success the process (already intense) is intensifying. Involvement from different organisations will be invaluable for the success.
Inputs into the process leading to the TEEB Report
Pavan Sukhdev TEEB Core Team & wider contributions
Expert contribution international participants
The TEEB “Phase 1” – inputs / outputs
� COPI Report ( “The Cost of Policy Inaction : The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target” –Alterra & IEEP, Braat ten Brink et al )
� Synthesis of Evidence (Synthesis of submitted evidence : over 100 papers from the ‘call for evidence’, Markandya et al, FEEM) and the workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium
� Scoping Science Study (“Review of the Economics of Biodiversity loss : Scoping the Science”, A. Balmford et al, Cambridge)
� Forest Biodiversity Valuation (“Study on the Economics of Conserving Forest Biodiversity” –Cambridge, Kontoleon et al)
� European Wetlands Study (“Ecosystem Accounting for the Cost of Biodiversity Losses : Framework and Case Study for Coastal Mediterranean Wetlands” – EEA, Weber et al )
� COP-9 Report ( “Interim Report : The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity”, Sukhdev et al )
TEEB Core Group & contributions from wide range of experts / steering group
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/index_en.htm
The TEEB “Phase 1”: Interim Report
The Urgency for Action
The Ecological Case
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 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]
� 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
THE DEMISE OF GLOBAL FISHERIES
Source: Sea Around Us project
2010
40 %
40 %
20 %
Running down our natural capital
We are fishing down the foodweb – D. Pauly (UBC, Canada)
CBD indicator:Marine Trophic Index
Substitution?
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008
Biodiversity loss from 1700 to 2050 accelerates
Poorer Ecosystems
Richer Ecosystems
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.
CBD global 2010 target: significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss
European Union 2010 target: halting the loss of biodiversity
Rate of Biodiversity Loss
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008
Changes in Ecosystem Services due to loss of Biodiversity
Pristineforest
Degradedland
Extensive use
Plantation
Originalspecies
Fossil fuelsubsidized
Extensive use
Subsistenceagriculture
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008
Level of Biodiversity in the World in 2000Using Mean Species Abundance (MSA) indicator
Remaining MSA in %
Source: Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium.
Source: Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium.
Level of Biodiversity in the World in 2050One Scenario of the future : OECD/Globio
Remaining MSA in %
� MSA loss from 71% to 60%� Natural Areas decline by 7.5 Million Sq. Km.
2000The Global Loss of Biodiversity
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008
2050The Global Loss of Biodiversity
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008
Ecosystems and Ecosystem services
The Ecosystems in which we live and in which our economies operate provide a range of services that benefits individuals,
society, firms, the economy
Ecosystem Services - The Millennium Ecosystem framework
Source: MEA
Provisioning services: Food & fibre, Water, Fuel …
Regulating services: Climate regulation (local, regional, global);
Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, runoff …);
Water purification and waste management;
Erosion control; Natural hazards control …
Cultural & Supporting services – ALL
Wetlands
• Coastal wetlands
• Floodplains
• Swaps, bogs, moors …
• Etc.
Provisioning services: Food & fibre, Water, Natural medicines, Fuel (biofuel)
Regulating services:
Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, runoff);
Erosion control;
Natural hazards control (e.g fire resistance) …
Cultural & Supporting services – ALL
Grasslands & scrublands
• Natural & semi-natural grasslands;
• Agricultural land;
• Steppe;
• Mediterranean scrubland;
• Mountain grasslands.
Provisioning services: Food & fibre, Water, Fuel (biofuel)…
Regulating services: Air quality maintenance;
Climate regulation (local, regional, global) – carbon storage;
Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, runoff …);
Erosion control
Natural hazards control (e.g. Fire resistance, storm & avalanche protection
Cultural & Supporting services – ALL (recreation, tourism et al)
Forests
• Boreal forest
• Temperate forests
• Mountain forests
• Etc.
By MK based on MA 2005 classification
Different Biomes, different (level) of services
The link between biodiversity, ecosystems, their services, and benefits to mankind…
Function
(eg slow passage
of water, or
biomass)
Biophysical
Structure of process
(eg woodland
habitat or net
primary
productivity) Service
(eg flood
prevention,
harvestable
products) Benefit (value)
(eg willingness to
pay for woodland
protection or for
more woodland,
or harvestable
products)
Source: Building on presentation by Jean-Louis Weber (EEA) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6
March 2008, Brussels, Belgium
Maintenance and restoration costs
Economic and social values (& market values)
The logic behind current status & trends- ES use, enhancement & trade offs
Enhancement / investment Use Trade offs
Source: L Braat in COPI study - Braat, ten Brink et al. 2008
Land-uses and trade offs for ecosystem services
Source: Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium.
Energy
Soil protection
Food
regulation
Energy
Soil protection
Food
-
Freshwater
Soil protection
Food
Climate regulation
Climate regulation
Energy
Freshwater
1natural extensive
3 intensive
Freshwater
Energy
Soil protection
Food
Climate regulation
Energy
Soil protection
Food
-
Freshwater
Soil protection
Climate regulation
Climate regulation
Freshwater
2
3
Freshwater
� Production rates, flows and values all vary spatially – so simple benefits transfer misleading
� Services produced and enjoyed in different places – so spatial understanding essential for
interventions to be effective
� Costs and benefits of conserving services accrue in different places – so spatial understanding
essential for interventions to be equitable
t C/ha
ESS service provision and spatial relation Example: carbon storage
Source: Andrew Balmford & Ana Rodrigues 2008 Presentation within the Scoping the Science work
“Net” ecosystem services
• As land is degraded more artificial inputs are needed to get the same provisioning service (eg crops) … with due costs
• Share of ecosystem service drops as soil is degraded.
“production function” changes over time
� Challenge to estimate clearly the value of biodiversity.
� Important as part of an analysis of conversion from one land use to another
� What appear as positive gains from a conversion may well not be.
� Decision making should be based on the right evidence…..
regulation
Energy
Soil protection
-
Freshwater
Climate regulation
Energy
Soil protection
Food
-
Freshwater
Upon closer analysis
Net value less
regulation
Energy
Soil protection
Food
-
Freshwater
Climate regulation
Energy
Soil protection
Food
-
Freshwater
Value – first estimate
The Evaluation Challenge
What should we measure to understand and communicate the problem?
How can we go about doing this?
Monetary Value
Quantitative Review of Effects
Qualitative Review
Non-Specified
Benefits
Increasing up the
benefits
pyramid
Measuring Benefits of Ecosystem services: The Benefits Pyramid
What can be said in what terms and what was explored?
Full range of ecosystem services from biodiversity
Type of benefits; health,
social, income, wellbeing
Quantitative: eg number people
benefiting from wood from forests
Monetary: eg avoided water
purification costs, tourist value
Knowledge gaps The “known-
unknowns” and
“unknown-unknowns”
Interest and evidence
� There are different audiences, and different messages are needed for each.
� Different types of messages have different power and different reach.
Monetary
Quantitative /
qualitative
Level of information Level of press/interest
The overall aim is to get the message across to the (range of) key
audiences – in a manner that is representative of the facts and that
engages interest. Hence, we need to work out how best to combine
monetary and non-monetary information.
Different Measures to represent the monetary and non-monetary benefits.
� The single global number
� Ranges
� Local / national numbers
� Partial aggregations
� 1 locality, 1 service numbersMon-
etary
Quantitative
Qualitative
All
� Indexes (eg living planet index)
� Indices (eg species richness)
� People/population (share) affected
� Species at risk, endangered
� Risk assessments
� Loss of forest cover (ha)
� Aggregates and cases
� Surveys
� Story lines, uniqueness, indispensible
� Hotspots
� Maps
� Critical trends and thresholds
� Stakeholder perceptions
Key Objectives: understanding, representativeness and getting the
message across
Politicians, media,
general public
Economists;
local politicians
Scientists
Policy analysts
All
Source: Patrick ten Brink (IEEP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium
Non
specified
benefits.
Increasing
up the
benefits
pyramid
Ecosystems, land-use and human well-being : the extent of this relationship
Services 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
Land cover types Food
Materials
Forest trees-
related
Plant-related
Physical
support
Amenity
Identity
Didactic
Cycling
Sink
Prevention
Refugium
Breeding
Artificial surfaces/
Urban
Arable land &
permanent crops
Grassland & mixed
farmland
Forests & woodland
shrub
Heathland,
sclerophylous veg.
Open space with
little/ no vegetation
Wetlands
Water bodies
Source: Jean-Louis Weber (EEA) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium
Biodiversity values: Techniques and confidence to calculate the total economic value (TEV)
Use values Non-use values
Direct Indirect BequestExistenceOption
Market
Production Function
Revealed Preference
Stated Preference
Confidence?
Confidence?
Value?
Value?
Source: Alistair McVittie & Dominic Moran presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium
Initially insensitive (eg loss of part of large forest and tourism or recreation) or due to slow
draw down of stock (eg fish) or due to initial substitution possibilities
Relation of Habitat Area, its loss & Ecosystem ServiceIllustration of realities & evaluation challenge
Full area loss
Threshold – eg change of
recreation desitination, of fish
stock collapse for region
Area loss
EV
0 %
Pristine
Linear - eg food or fuel
provision from land,
carbon storage
Exponential decline – eg for
low resilance / fragile
ecosystem or area near a
threshold such as minimum
habitat area for a species.
100%
Elements of the Evaluation challenge
� Risks and Scientific Uncertainty
� Substitutability (or lack of) and irreversibility
� Linear vs non-linear changes / threshold issues
� Some costs only have an effect in future generations
� Inherent biases in the economic valuation system?
� eg greater focus & ease of analysis for commodity prices related valuations
� Biases in the application of valuation - certain priorities and not others?
� eg global issues focus rather than local?
� Data Gaps – how can we work with the gaps before we fill them?
� Ethical issues – anthropocentric approach;
equity, fairness.
� Spatial perspective – provision of service and benefit from service not always in
the same location
� Biases in use of discount rate ?
The Cost of Policy Inaction
L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.)
with
J. Bakkes, K. Bolt, I. Braeuer, B. ten Brink, A. Chiabai, H. Ding, H. Gerdes, M. Jeuken, M. Kettunen, U. Kirchholtes, C. Klok, A. Markandya, P. Nunes, M. van Oorschot, N. Peralta-Bezerra, M. Rayment, C. Travisi, M. Walpole.
Wageningen / Brussels, May 2008
Based on the Report to the European Commission, May 29, 2008
COPI Results
Mapping changes : from Biodiversity & Ecosystems to Economic Values
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.)
Change inEconomic
Value
InternationalPolicies
Changein
Land use,Climate,
Pollution,Water use
OECDBaselinescenario
ChangeIn
EcosystemServices
Changein
Biodiversity
Changein
Ecosystemfunctions
Change inEconomic
Value
InternationalPolicies
Changein
Land use,Climate,
Pollution,Water use
OECDBaselinescenario
ChangeIn
EcosystemServices
Changein
Biodiversity
Changein
Ecosystemfunctions
Change inEconomic
Value
InternationalPolicies
Changein
Land use,Climate,
Pollution,Water use
OECDBaselinescenario
ChangeIn
EcosystemServices
Changein
Biodiversity
Changein
Ecosystemfunctions
Biodiversity loss from 1700 to 2050 accelerates
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.
The total biodiversity loss 2000-2050:All biodiversity of 1,300 million ha converted to asphalt.(about 1.5 times the United States)
73%
62%
COPI Figure 4.4a : Contribution of different pressures to the global biodiversity
loss between 2000 and 2050 in the OECD baseline
Main drivers of 11% Biodiversity Loss over the 50 years to 2050
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI
Change of Landuse – across all biomes
0%108.4108.4World Total *
0%0.20.2Artificial surfaces
9%20.819.1Cultivated grazing
626%0.50.1Woody biofuels
44%15.811.0Intensive agriculture
-39%3.05.0Extensive agriculture
70%7.04.2Forest managed
-9%3.03.3Bare natural
-11%58.065.5Natural areas
2000 to 2050
million
km2
million
km2Area
Difference 20502000Actual
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI
Valuation and Ecosystem service losses COPI calculation: A
Annual Loss of economic value of ecosystem services that would have been
available had biodiversity remained at 2000 levels. Estimate for 2050.
2000 2050
Services that would
have been there, had
biodiversity been
halted.Ecosystem
service level
Relative to 2000
2010 2030
A
Losses
continue
into the
future
COPI - Some key results
• The loss of natural areas over the period 2000 to 2050 is 7.5million km2- broadly equivalent to the total area of the Australia.
• When looking at the combined loss of natural and bare natural areas and extensive agriculture the area is equivalent to that of the entire United States of America.
• The loss of welfare in 2050 from the cumulative loss of ecosystem services between now and then amounts to $14 trillion (10^12) Eurosunder the fuller estimation scenario
• This is equivalent in scale to 7% of projected global GDP for 2050.
• The loss grows with each year of biodiversity and ecosystem loss
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI
• In the early years (e.g. period 2000 to 2010) less biodiversity has been lost (than in later years), less land-conversion has taken place, and less damage has occurred due to fragmentation, climate change or pollution. The loss over the period 2000 to 2010 is, however, still substantial.
• For the fuller estimate the welfare losses from the loss of ecosystem services amount to 545 billion EUR in 2010 or just under 1% of world GDP by 2010.
COPI - Some key results (cont.)
•This amounts to around 50 billion Euros extra loss per year, every year – in the early years.
•The value of the amount lost every year rises, until it is around 275bn EUR/yr in 2050.
The loss grows with each year of biodiversity and ecosystem loss.
Land based ecosystems only-7.1%-13938World Total
-0.40%-786Cultivated grazing
0.19%381Woody biofuels
0.67%1303Intensive Agriculture
-0.57%-1109Extensive Agriculture
0.95%1852Forest managed
-7.97%-155678Natural areas
Equivalent to
% of GDP in
2050Billion EURArea
Relative to
2000Relative to 2000
Global COPI - Loss of Ecosystem services from land based ecosystems – all biomes
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.)
-6.3%-0.8%
Losses of ESS from natural areas in forest biomes as share
of % GDP
195.5World GDP in 2050 (trillion (10^12) EUR)*
-12310-1552Natural areas
-5.5%-0.7%Losses of ESS from forests as share of % GDP
-10791-1317Forest Total
-1025-133Temperate deciduous forest
-701-47Cool coniferous forest
-1372-190Temperate mixed forest
-2332-249Warm mixed forest
-3362-536Tropical forest
-1999-163Boreal forest
Fuller Estimation
Partial
EstimationForest biomes
Global COPI - Loss of Ecosystem services Forestry biomes
What ESS could already be included (forests)?
Not included - (10 services)
Provisioning services
� Biochemicals, natural medicines,
pharmaceuticals
� Ornamental resources
� Fresh water
Regulating services
� Temperature regulation, precipitation
� Erosion control
� Technology development from nature
� Regulation of human diseases
� Biological control and pollination
� Natural hazards control / mitigation
Cultural services
• Living comfort due to environmental
amenities
Included - (8 services)
Provisioning services
� Food, fiber, fuel
Regulating services
� Air quality maintenance
� Soil quality maintenance
� Climate regulation (i.e. carbon storage)
�Water regulation (i.e. flood prevention,,
aquifer recharge etc.)
�Water purification and waste
management
Cultural services
� Cultural diversity, spiritual and religious
values, educational values, aesthetic and
cultural
� Recreation and ecotourism
A : 50-year impact of inaction B : Natural Capital Loss every year
Lost Welfare equivalentto 5.5 % of GDP (from forest
biomes overall) … or…
Natural Capital Lost fromUSD 1.35 x 10 12 to 3.10 x 10 12
(@ 4% Discount Rate) (@ 1% Discount Rate)
COPI – Forestry Biome Different ways of calculating the loss
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.)
Three Hidden Stories of “Discounting”
Cash flow 50
years in the
future
Annual
discount
rate
Present
value of the
future cash
flow
1,000,000 4% 140,713
1,000,000 2% 371,528
1,000,000 1% 608,039
1,000,000 0% 1,000,000
� Inter-generational Equity…
� Marginal Utility of $1 to the Rich vs Poor ….
� Declining Growth Paths …
Source: Pavan Sukhdev, Bonn 2008
Valuation and Ecosystem service losses
2000 2050
Services that would have been there, had biodiversity been halted
Ecosystem service level
Population9100 million
GDP (OECD Scenarios) 2.8%/year
GDP, with feedback on economic losses from
biodiversity losses integrated -illustrative
Relative to 2000
Population: 6092 million
GDP: 41.4$ trillion (PPP) (10^12)
GDP/capita: 680$ (PPP)
GDP adjusted for impact of biodiversity loss - illustrative
Source: Patrick ten Brink (IEEP), Leon Braat (Alterra), Mark van Ooorshot (MNP), Matt Rayment (GHK)
Navigation Challenge Ahead
Natural Capital
Physical Capital
Hum
an C
apita
l
Should we set sail on a complex 3-D growth voyage …
… with a simple economic compass ?
Source: Pavan Sukhdev, Bonn 2008
Next Steps
� TEEB Phase 1 Launch at Bonn. Phase 2 up to June 2009. Final report COP-10
� Launch led to high level commitment to Phase 2.
� A range of interest from wide set of organisations
� High level Advisory Board
� Core team and wider expert team - being developed
� Contributions from far and wide
� A wide range of tasks expected to be addressed in the work
� Estimation of loss of value from ecosystem & biodiversity losses (global & local)
� Estimation of costs and benefits of action
� Guidance/Toolkit of instruments / policies where benefits valuation may help improve practice – for range of stakeholders (policy makers, to local authorities, to corporations to individuals).
Issues needing exploration (own view)
• Fine-tuning of valuation framework and development of recommended valuation framework
• More valuation of the benefits of ecosystems/biodiversity and the COPI & analysis of the costs and benefits of action
• Risk assessment of different action/inaction strategies/scenarios
• Sectoral analysis: Sector role in drawing down natural capital, sectors benefitting from natural capital, and which sectors have the most potential to improve things?
Issues needing exploration
Broad messages (and areas to explore),
� Rethink today’s subsidies to reflect tomorrow’s priorities;
� eg Fisheries subsidies
� Reward unrecognized benefits, penalise uncaptured costs
� eg PES, liability, PPP
� Share the benefits of conservation;
� eg Benefits sharing
� Measure what you manage.
� Valuation for local decision making to national accounts
� Valuation and role for individuals and corporations.
� TEEB can contribute to processes behind each of the above.
Summary – Implications of the Report
• The beginning of an important process leading to improved appreciation of biodiversity and ecosystems.
• Better understanding of value, and uncosted value
• Engagement by wide group of experts started and more en route / beneficial.
• Opportunity to contribute – integrated into the process, coordinated / communicated and in parallel.
• Foresee significant advance in benefits and cost of biodiversity valuation
• Need complementary tools and indicators
• Better information for better evidenced based decision making(contribution to Beyond GDP related efforts)
• Improving tools and decisions (eg local, regional, national)
• More difficult to make the wrong decisions / inappropriate tradeoffs
• Contribute to thinking, understanding, commitment and tools to help slow/stop biodiversity loss.
Questions ?
London Office28 Queen Anne's Gate
London SW1H 9ABUK
Tel: +44 (0)207 799 2244Fax: +44 (0)207 799 2600
Brussels Office
55 Quai au Foin/Hooikaai
B-1000 Brussels
Belgium
Tel: +32 (0) 2738 7482
Fax: +32 (0) 2732 4004
www.ieep.eu
Thank You Patrick ten Brink
IEEP is an independent, notIEEP is an independent, notIEEP is an independent, notIEEP is an independent, not----forforforfor----profit institute profit institute profit institute profit institute
dedicated to the analysis, understanding and promotion dedicated to the analysis, understanding and promotion dedicated to the analysis, understanding and promotion dedicated to the analysis, understanding and promotion
of policies for a sustainable environment in Europeof policies for a sustainable environment in Europeof policies for a sustainable environment in Europeof policies for a sustainable environment in Europe
TEEB ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Source: The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity: Interim Report. Sukhdev et al
for information
Study Authors and Contributors
Study Authors & Contributors (cont.)