Presentation of the key results

Outline

ContextKey results and findingsPolicy recommendationsOutreach, visibility and influence

TEEB Nordic – the context

TEEB Nordic – the objective

- Preliminary synthesis of Nordic ecosystem services and their socio-economic importance / value

- Participatory process with an aim to facilitate contacts between Nordic stakeholders

- Complementing global knowledge base with Nordic information and examples

TEEB Nordic – the tasks

1. Identification and classification of ecosystem services and their indicators

2. Synthesis of biophysical status and trends (info, gaps, examples)

3. Synthesis of socio-economic importance and value (info, gaps, examples)

4. Exploring policy responses (info, examples)

(A taste of) key results & findings

Nordic ecosystem services

- Nordic ecosystems provide the full range of ecosystem services identified in global assessments

- Nordic ‘specialities’: wood-based bioenergy, reindeer herding (north), non-timber forest products (berries, mushrooms and game), recreation and tourism, bio-innovations / bioeconomy, carbon storage and sequestration, water purification, nature-inspired arts and crafts / fashion … …

- Status: several ecosystems and related services know to be degraded, even though no detailed (national) assessments exists

CORINE Land Cover (CLC) classifications in the Nordic countries. Data source: EEA: Corine Land Cover 2006 raster data – version 16 (04/2012). © SYKE, © European Environment Agency.

Nordic ecosystem services: identification and indicators

Key principles and general outcomes

- Identified ecosystem services: list of identified services “Nordified” and detailed

- Identified indicators: every ES requires two different types of indicators - 1) biofysical status and 2) socio-economic value. Consequently, indicators identified systematically for both.

- Evidence base: Due to significant gaps in the existing data on the status and value of Nordic ES synthesis the synthesised concrete evidence base does not cover the full range of ecosystem services and indicators outlined.

Example: Identified Nordic ecosystem services

Example: Biophysical indicators for Nordic ES

Example: Biophysical indicators for Nordic ES

Nordic ecosystem services

CORINE Land Cover (CLC) classifications in the Nordic countries. Data source: EEA: Corine Land Cover 2006 raster data – version 16 (04/2012). © SYKE, © European Environment Agency.

Population densities in the Nordic countries. Data source: Nordregio Nordic Centre for Spatial Development. © SYKE, © Nordregio

← Versus →

Example: fisheries

Data source: TEEB Nordic report

Example: recreational fishing

Data sources: European Anglers Alliance 2002, Sievänen and Neuvonen 2010, Statistics Sweden 2012b and 2012c, Statistics Norway 2012, Toivonen et al. 2000, Garpe 2008 in TEEB Nordic report

- Nordic countries: over six million recreational fishermen

- Finland, Sweden and Norway: 44%, 30% and 50% of the population, respectively, reported having engaged in some kind of fishing activity in the past year.

- Finland and Sweden: The size of catch by recreational fishermen 48 million kg in Finland (1998) and 79 million kg in Sweden (1995)

- Sweden: the net value of recreational fishing has been estimated at almost 79.5 million EUR, exceeding the value of commercial fishing.

Example: berries, mushrooms, game

Data source: TEEB Nordic report

Example: pollinationRelative pollinator abundance of bumblebees in the Nordic countries based on the models of the JRC (Maes et al. 2012).

Data source: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. © European Communities, 1995-2012.

Example: pollination- Finland: the value of honeybee pollination service of selected

crops would be around 18 million EUR and of wild berries (bilberry and lingonberry) 3.9 million EUR (Lehtonen 2012).

- Finland : estimated value of pollination (by honeybees) in home gardens was 39 million EUR in Finland (Yläoutinen 1994, cited in Lehtonen 2012).

- Denmark: the value of the general insect pollination service was calculated to be worth 421 to 690 million DKK (~56.6 to ~92.8 million EUR) a year (Axelsen et al. 2011).

- Sweden: the value of honeybee pollination service was calculated to be 189-325 million SEK (~21.5- ~37 million EUR) (Pedersen 2009a).

Example: carbon storage

Soil organic carbon content based on the models of JRC. (Maes et al. 2011a).

Carbon storage (above and below ground) (tonnes / ha) based on the models of JRC. (Maes et al. 2011a, 2011b).

Data source: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. © European Communities, 1995-2012.

Example: carbon sequestration - Finland: the value of carbon sequestration of Finnish forest

trees to be 1 876 million EUR (Matero et al (2007)

- Sweden: the annual carbon sequestering value of Swedish forest to be between 29-46 billion SEK (2001 SEK) (~3.3 – ~5.2 billion EUR) (Gren and Svensson 2004)

Example: water purificationNitrogen retention capacity in the Nordic countries based on the JRC models. (Maes et al. 2011a, 2011b).Data source: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability. © European Communities, 1995-2012.

Example: water purification

Data source: TEEB Nordic report

Examples: recreation and tourism- Denmark: ~70 % of Danes visit green areas several times a

week (Schipperijn et al. 2010).

- Norway, hiking in forests or mountains is practised more than twice a month by almost half of the population (i.e. around 2.4 million people) (Statistics Norway 2012).

-

- Finland: 1 EUR financial support for the management of national parks provides 10 EUR return for the region (TEEB Nordic case study by Kajala)

- Sweden, the value added from outdoor life expenditure was calculated to be 34 331 million SEK (~3 918 million EUR) and altogether spending on outdoor life would result in 75 637 job opportunities (Fredman et al. 2010)

Gaps- Biophysical indicators: reflecting the sustainability of provisioning

services, developing indicators for regulating services, role of biodiversity in maintaining ES

- Socio-economic indicators: broader cultural and landscape values, nature’s role in maintaining health, indirect employment impacts of nature …

- Trade-offs between ES

- ES per ecosystems: marine ecosystem services other than fisheries

- Flow of ES: substitutability of ES via international trade – how does this affect value?

- Long-term trends: development of ES values in the future

Conclusions & policy recommendations

Key conclusions- Nature / natural capital is of high socio-economic significance

for the Nordic countries→ Developing sustainable and greener Nordic economies need to integrate nature /

natural capital→ Good examples already exist, it is time for mainstreaming !

- There is such a concept as “key Nordic ecosystem services” / the Nordic way

→ It makes sense to consider ES also at the Nordic level, not only nationally

- There are significant gaps in the existing knowledge base → No ‘quick fix’ solutions but need to work systematically towards more

comprehensive information base to support decision-making in the upcoming years

cc Benefits of creating natural / green infrastructure – Vihti, Finland -

Results of wetland creation- Water quality ↑ - cost-effective

way for managing water quality- Recreational benefits- Biodiversity benefits

Source: TEEB Nordic case by Salminen at al. 2013

cc Payments for ecosystem services (PES):Paying blue mussel farmers for improved water quality

- Lysekil, Sweden -

ResultsThe use of mussels to clean the N content of the municipal waste water plant saves the municipality close to 100 000 EUR / year compared to using a traditional technique

© http://kodu.ut.ee/~olli/eutr/html/htmlBook_111.html

cc

Nordic bio-business innovations: bioremediation

Microbes from Svalbard (NO) and Northern Arctic (FI) as possible tool to remove ammonia & nitrate released in the environment by mining operations.

Fungi Paecilomyces variotii used commercially in Finland to turn paper mill waste in protein biomass production.

Birch tar oil to form a basis for a natural herbicide in Finland, currently exploring the possibilities to develop into a commercial product.

Policy recommendations- Carry out national ecosystem service assessments→ Need to develop ES indicators and elaborated (national) frameworks for the assessment of

ES: biophysical status and trends, and socio-economic importance and value

- Complement national assessment with problem- and/or challenge-based assessments

→ Specific policy challenges – and immediate resources to address these challenges - vary across the Nordic countries

- Address information gaps and needs→ Biophysical ES indicators, broader cultural and landscape values, nature’s role in maintaining

health, indirect employment impacts of nature, trade-offs between ES, marine ecosystem services other than fisheries, development of ES value in the future, substitutability of ES via international trade … …

Policy recommendations- Continue transition to truly ‘green’ green economy→ Need to further develop enabling policy frameworks: secure good regulatory baseline, reform

of harmful subsidies, invest in natural capital (e.g. management of protected areas), innovative solutions for eco-efficiency and decoupling of economy from resources (e.g. via nature-based innovations and risk management)

- Development of accounting framework for natural capital / ES→ Implement commitments to World Bank’s WAVES initiative, join forces with the European

Environment Agency (EEA)

- Nordic synergies and cooperation → Identifying and agreeing on key areas: compatible and comparable sets of (core) ES indicators

and frameworks for assessments, Baltic Sea and other marine areas, sustainable production of forest-based biofuels, carbon stock and sequestration capacity at Nordic level … …

→ Dedicated ES working group under the Nordic Council of Ministers

Outreach, visibility and influence

TEEB Nordic – outreach, visibility, influence

TEEB Nordic / NCM has been a part of broader TEEB visibility / outreach

TEEB Nordic hoped to provide support / information to national assessments at Nordic level (e.g. FI, NO)

TEEB Nordic – outreach, visibility, influence

TEEB Nordic case studies will be added to TEEBCases database.

TEEB Nordic – outreach, visibility, influence

Value of nature (inc. TEEB Nordic case study on benefits of Vihti / Nummela wetland) on Fin national news.

TEEB Nordic – outreach, visibility, influence

A synthesis developed by the Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) and Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE) with contributions and support from a range of Nordic experts.

Carried out in the context of The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) and funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers in the context of the Finnish Presidency 2011.

Study and its summaries available at: http://www.ieep.eu/work-areas/biodiversity/financing-biodiversity/2013/01/socio-economic-socio-economic-importance-of-ecosystem-services-in-the-nordic-countries-synthesis

Stand-alone Nordic case studies available at: http://www.teebweb.org/resources/teeb-case-studies/

Marianne Kettunen Senior policy analyst at Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) /

Guest researcher at Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)www.ieep.eu

mkettunen@ieep.eu

Dr. Petteri VihervaaraSenior researcher at Finnish Environment Institute (SYKE)

www.ymparisto.fi/syke petteri.vihervaara@ymparisto.fi