ptb of ieep teeb presentation to wbcsd 12 mar 2010

TEEB for Policy Makers

Patrick ten BrinkTEEB for Policy Makers Co-ordinator

Head of Brussels OfficeInstitute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)

WBCSD Liaison Delegate MeetingThe Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)

Evidence of Values, policy options and implications for business8:30 – 15:30; 12 March 2010

Royal Plaza HotelMontreux, Switzerland

Presentation overview

Part A: TEEB

Process, content and context

Part B: Values and Decision Making

Part C: TEEB for Policy Makers

Selected elements for business

TEEB’s goals

1. Demonstrate the value to the economy, to society/individuals and wider environment – what we have & what we risk losing.

2. Underline the urgency of action, benefits of action (opportunities), analyse costs of action

3. Show how the value of ecosystem services and biodiversity can be assessed and where it can be useful

4. Show how we (can) take into account the value of ecosystem services and biodiversity in our decisions and choices,

5. Identify / support solutions

6. Address the needs of policy-makers, local administrators, business and citizens (the “end-users”)

Source: adapted from Pavan Sukhdev

TEEB’s goals

TEEB – Final Report June 2010

TEEB D4: TEEB for Citizens

TEEB D3: TEEB for Business

TEEB D2: TEEB for Local Policy-Makers and Administrators

TEEB D1: TEEB for National and International Policy-Makers

TEEB D0: Ecological and Economic Foundations

TEEB reports for different end-users

TEEB timeline

2008 2009 2010

TEEB Phase I TEEB Phase II

May 08 Interim report(CBD COP9, Bonn)

Final TEEB synthesis & publicationsCBD COP10(Oct 2010, Nagoya, Japan)

Sep 09 TEEB Climate Issues

Update(Strömstad)

Nov 09 D1 for policymakers

Spring/ Summer / Autumn 2010 D0, D2, D3 & D4

TEEB timeline

D1: Engagement / Feedback / Fine-tune

D1: Feedback / input –WBCSD Montreux


Major Policy Interest

G8+5

CBD Process

National Politics

EU Message from Athenshttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/conference/pdf/message_final.pdf

Message from Strömstadhttp://www.se2009.eu/polopoly_fs/1.14381!menu/standard/file/Chairs%20conclusion%20Str%C3%B6mstad.pdf

Message from Madridhttp://www.fundacion-biodiversidad.es/minisites/2009/conferencia2010/doc/Prioridades_Cibeles.pdf

Message from Syracusehttp://www.g7.utoronto.ca/environment/env090424-summary.pdf

Bonn (COP 9)London (UK-Brazil co-chaired informal experts meeting) 60+countries;

Trondheim Biodiversity Conferences 100+countriesNagoya (COP 10)

Benn to call on world leaders to adopt biodiversity pricingEnvironment secretary says a way must be found to take account of the economic impact of decisions on biodiversity

Patrick Wintourhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jan/25/hilary-benn-biodiversity-pricing

Press Echo to TEEB I, May 2008

Source: Dr Carsten Neßhöver, Heidi Wittmer & Christoph Schröter-Schlaack, Presentation in Vilm, 26.8.2008

TEEB for Policy Makers report- launched 13 November 2009 - The Global Biodiversity Crisis

• Coral reef emergency• Deforestation • Loss of public goods…

Responding to the value of nature

Available Solutions• PES water, PES – REDD+

• Markets, GPP

• Subsidy reform

• Legislation, liability, taxes & charges

• Protected Areas

• Investment in natural capital et al

Measuring what we manage

• BD & ecosystem service indicators

• Natural capital accounts

• Beyond GDP indicators et al

http://www.teebweb.org/

TEEB D1: TEEB for International and National Policy-Makers

Available on http://www.teebweb.org/

Eroding natural capital base & tools for an alternative development path

Past loss/ degradation

Predicted future loss of natural capital (schematic) – with no additional policy action

2009 2050

Halting biodiversity loss

Opportunities/benefits of ESS

Investment in natural capital +ve change

Alternative natural capital

Development path

Regulation

PAs

Restoration

Investment in natural capital: green infrastructure

Economic signals :

PES, REDD, ABS (to reward benefits)

Charges, taxes, fines (to avoid degradation/damage:

Subsidy reform (right signals for policy)

Better governance

`

Sustainable consumption (eg reduced meat)

Markets, certification/logos & GPP

Agricultural innovation

No net loss from 2009 level

What contribution can be made by the private sector and in which areas ? For what instruments? What conditions would help ?


Part A: TEEB





“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 resourcedecisions.”

Gretchen Daily, Stanford University

Integrating Economic Values into Policy Assessment

Ecosystem Services

Provisioning services• Food, fibre and fuel• Water provision • Genetic resources

Regulating Services• Climate /climate change regulation• Water and waste purification • Air purification • Erosion control• Natural hazards mitigation• Pollination• Biological control

Cultural Services • Aesthetics, Landscape value, recreation and

tourism• Cultural values and inspirational services

Supporting Services• Soil formation

+ Resilience - eg to climate change

Many services from the same resource

Important to appreciate the whole set of eco-system services

Ecosystem Services - multiple benefits from ecosystems

Ecosystem Services and awareness of values


Regulating Services• Climate /climate change regulation• Water and waste purification • Air purification • Erosion control• Natural hazards mitigation• Pollination• Biological control





Market values – known and generally taken into account in decision making on land use decisions

Value long ignored, now being understood

Value oft appreciated only after service gone

Rarely values calculated

Value often overlooked

Value historically oft overlooked; priv. sector exceptions

Sometimes value implicit in markets

Decision making is biased towards short term economic benefits as the (long-term) value of ecosystem services is poorly

understood.

Shrimp Farm

private profits less

subsidies

Net of public costs of

restoration needed

after 5 years

private profits

Mangroves

0

10000

US$/ha/yr

private profits

5000

If public wealth is included, the “trade-off”choice changes completely…..

$584/ha

$1220/ha

$9632/ha

$584/ha

-ve $11,172/ha

$12,392/ha

Source: Barbier et al, 2007

After AddingPublicBenefitsFrom

mangroves

Based only on private gain, the “trade-off” choice favours conversion…..

Taking account of public goods…can change what is the “right” decision on land/resource use

Fishery nursery

Storm protection

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 andprovision, carbon storage, flood control

Conservation / restorationInvestment decision

e.g. New Zealand – Te Papanui Park - watere.g. USA-NY – Catskills-Delaware watershede.g. Saltillo City, Mexico – Zapaliname mountains e.g. Venezuela and PAs to avoid sedimentatione.g. Vietnam and restoring/investing in Mangroves

- cheaper than dyke maintenance

Create Political support for new (fiscal) instrumentseg UK landfill tax, building on valuation of damage of using landfills for

waste disposal.

To communicate the need for and influence the size of payments for ecosystem services (PES).

Valuation can be useful for municipalities setting up PES for activities leading to clean water provision – and also private sector (eg Vittel)

&at international/national level in discussions on design and future

implementation of REDD (reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation) and REDD+

Political and public support for action Instrument ChoiceInstrument design


Improve legislative design and implementationTrend: we can expect future legislation (and its implementation) to ever increasingly take the value of nature into account


Inform impact assessment of Proposed legislation & policies

Creating and improved evidence base

�Valuable for new marine legislation in UK: establishment of Marine Conservation Zones on the basis of ecosystem service benefits

� Impact assessment within European Commission - change around 2/3rds of policies for the better & often low-cost investment (Evaluation Partnership 2007; Jacobs 2006)

�Valuable for EU Water Framework Directive

Inform land-use decision - Creating and improved evidence base

– eg India: Floodplain between Yamuna River and Delhi.

Choice: convert floodplain / embankment plan or not

Evidence showed that ecosystem benefits exceeded opportunity costs of conversion.

>> Delhi government halted embankment plan of Yamuna until further order

- e.g. Opuntia scrubland in Peru

Choice: maintain scrubland or move to agriculture?

Analysis of value of provisioning services (e.g. fruit and cochineal), regulating services (nursery and refugium services), erosion control and supporting services (soil formation)

>> even if only some of the intangible benefits considered, the value of the scrubland

higher than direct revenues from agriculture.

Avoid socially less good investment decisions


Evaluate damage to natural resources to determine appropriate compensation,

e.g. under liability regimes in the US and the EU – Exxon Valdez, Erika

e.g. Indian Supreme court: compensation payments for forested land conversion

Court rulesCourt rulings


Expect increasing attention in future?

Sea deadzones & Ag?Pollution impacts?

Damage to resources?

Seeing the whole picture – timescales for benefits

To address short-term bias - important to understand the timescale of benefits

• A review of 112 studies in 80 MPAs (marine protected areas) : fish populations, size & biomass all

dramatically increased inside reserves, allowing spill-over to nearby fishing grounds (Halpern 2003).

• Eight years after designation of Kenya’s Mombasa Marine National Park, fish catches around the park had reached three times the level of those further away (McClanahan and Mangi 2000)

• For other MPAs, benefits after 5, even after 3 years.

Help demonstrate the sense of the measures

• to those facing potential impacts on activities

• to wider benefits to society

Identifying and Implementing transition

measures to address short-term needs

critical for stock recovery phase.

What Advice do WBCSD members have for dealing with sectors/activities, where there is a need to integrate medium and long term interests, but this comes at a (short term)cost (opportunity cost)?

http://hattoriforth.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83549e5d069e20120a6ebb5b0970b-800wi

Part B Summary

Values and Decision Making

� Under-valuing biodiversity and the ecosystem services it supports hascontributed to the loss of natural capital

� Historically, many values have been invisible

� Increasingly values are understood and available

� Increasing use in policy assessment and policy choices.

� Real world effects – on policies, instruments, investments, results.

More steps are needed to appreciate and respond to the value of nature

The whole picture of benefits and costs need to be appreciated – the here and now, the over there and over time, the private and public

…always better to look at the whole board…is this enough to work out what to do?


Part A: TEEB





Presentation overviewPart B: Using Economics-based Policy Instruments

for Biodiversity and Ecosystem services

The Global Biodiversity Crisis

Responding to the value of nature

Available Solutions• Rewarding benefits: PES, REDD+, ABS, tax relief & fiscal transfers, Markets, GPP

• Subsidy reform

• Addressing losses : Regulation legislation, liability, taxes & charges, offsets, banking

• Protected Areas

• Investment in natural capital et al

Measuring what we manage


Ecosystem Services Public Goods and Private Goods


Regulating Services• Climate /climate change regulation• Water and waste purification • Air purification • Erosion control• Pollination• Biological control





Market values

Potential Market values– eg REDD & water purification PES

- Avoided cost of purification

Potential Market values– eg water supply PES; -eg ABS

Opportunity cost: Lost output or cost of alternative service provider

Market values : eco-tourism

Social value – identity et al

Social value – health, wellbeing

Creation of markets, development of pricing mechanisms one set of solutions

to level the economic playing field

Tools that reward the provision of ecosystem services and promote the greening of supply chains, include:

• Payments for Ecosystem services (local, national, international) PES

• Access and benefits sharing (ABS)

• Tax based mechanism and public compensation mechanisms

• Green markets and fiscal incentives (Certification, premia markets, GPP)

+ investment in natural capital (conservation/restoration/new green infrastructure)

Rewarding Benefits through payments & markets

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)

• PES offer considerable potential to raise new funds for biodiversity or to use existing funding more efficiently.

• Both the public and private sectors can play a role in establishing PES in different contexts.

• PES have proven to be a highly flexible tool, providing both direct and indirect rewards for various ecosystem services and biodiversityconservation at a range of different scales (496 hectares in an upper watershed in northern Ecuador) to much larger scales (e.g. 4.9 million hectares of sloping farmland reforested in China.

Payments for Ecosystem Service (PES): PES can be defined as a voluntary transaction where a well-defined ecosystem service (ES) (or land-use likely to secure that service) is « bought » by at least on ES

buyer from at least one ES provider, if and only if the ES provider secures ES provision (conditionality) (adapted from Wunder 2005)

PES – Practice: Payments for Specific Ecosystem services

PES: payments to ensure the provision of a specific service

• Managing forest & agricultural land to ensure water quality - New York (Catskills-Delaware watershed); Saltillo city, Mexico (Zapalinamé mountains),

• To cleanse coastal waters in Sweden

• to protect groundwaters in many European countries & parts of Japan

– Public - eg Germany

– Private - eg Vittel mineral water, France

• Carbon storage/sequestration via farm management is rewarded in New Zealand & via forest management in Costa Rica & Uganda & REDD+

• PES are also used to tackle external threats that could undermine service provision e.g. for removal of invasive alien species through South Africa’s Working for Water Programme

What example of practice do you know of re private sector PES ? What do you see as the perspectives for private sector engagement in PESs?

PES for provision of multiple services from a given area

• Costa Rica’s PSA (Pagos por Servicios Ambientales) supports a bundle of

four services - carbon sequestration, hydrological services preserving biodiversity and landscape beauty.

• PES schemes to combine improved groundwater quality with increased

biodiversity are found in e.g. Germany and Bolivia (Los Negros watershed)

• PES schemes primarily for biodiversity conservation include the

Bushtender programme (Victoria, Australia) and the US Conservation

Reserve Programme.

Are there any examples of PES for multiple services from the private sector?

PES: payment levels and opportunity costs

Payment levels vary widely in practice

• Costa Rica, PSA: for forest conservation US$ 64 per ha/yr in 2006. Portela & Rodriguez 2008; Pagiola 2008 in Wunder & Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2009;

• Mexico’s PSA-H: for preservation of cloud forest US$ 40 per ha/year; for other tree-covered land US$ 30 per hectare/year Muñoz-Piña et al. 2007.

• Vittel mineral water, France Perrot-Maître 2006; Wunder and Wertz-Kanounnikoff 2009

– 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.

PES will be able to address the opportunity costs in some cases only. Other or complementary measures needed.

Are there any examples of private PES with insights on addressing opportunity costs?

REDD+ Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation

What private sector carbon offset agreements/investments are there ? And what lessons can be drawn from these?

What does the private sector see as opportunities and necessary/helpful conditions to help engage industry in the solution?

Major potential for this instrument (deforestation ~17% of global GHG emissions)

One of the few areas given fairly solid support at the UNFCCC’s Copenhagen COP

Probably a very significant scope for private sector engagement

Tax and compensation measures

Tax breaks and other compensation mechanisms offer an important ‘thanks’ and incentives for efforts.

Considerable potential to integrate and reward ecological concerns in land, property and income taxes

They are only rarely used for this purpose.

�Tax incentives for conservation easements and ecological gifts in North America By 2005, land trusts held conservation easements on over 2.5 million hectares (6.2 million acres)

�Canada: The Ecogift Programme (introduced in 2001). Tax benefits to owners of ecologically sensitive land if they donate it (fully or partially) to specified recipients to manage sustainably / conserve the natural habitat.

�The Netherlands, savers and investors can obtain exemption from a capital gains tax if they invest in specified green projects or capital funds.

Example of practice re available for and use by private sector?

Access and Benefits sharing

Countries benefited little from genetic resources sourced from their territory.

A fairer and more efficient regime is needed that can establish clear rights for local people, encourage the conservation of genetic resources in situ and facilitate discoveries and their application across a range of sectors.

“My father said: You must never try to make all the

money that's in a deal.

Let the other fellow make some money too, because if

you have a reputation for always making all the

money, you won't have many deals.”

J. Paul Getty

The current ABS discussions do not appear to be proceeding at an adequate rate for positive final result in Nagoya (though strong interest to address this).

What insights/advice do WBCSD member have for making progress?

Greening Markets

Market (niches) for products & services demonstrating conservation benefits:

� products with reduced direct impacts on biodiversity, due to adoption of more

efficient or low-impact production and processing methods

�e.g. for reduced impact forestry - FSC, PESC certified timber

� e.g. for fisheries, MSC certification;

� products with reduced indirect impacts on biodiversity as a result of decreased

pollution load

� e.g. biodegradable detergents – eco-labelled products

� products and services based on the sustainable use of ecosystem services and biodiversity

�e.g. ecotourism or biotrade.

These are less and less “niches”; and more and more “mainstreamed”

Private sector role here critical – what insights would you wish to share with TEEB?

Green Public Procurement

Green Public Procurement (GPP) means that public purchasers take account of environmental factors when buying products, services or works. A product or service can only qualify as ‘green’ if it goes beyond what is required by law and beyond the performance of products commonly sold in the market.

� GPP rapidly developing since the early 2000s;

� Now being mainstreamed by environmentally ambitious governments.

� EU: government purchases alone exceeds 1,500 bn EUR/year,16% of EU GNP.

� European Commission proposed to MS - by 2010, 50% of purchasing should be GPP.

� The Netherlands: nat. government intends to purchase 100% green by 2010, with levels of 50 to 75% for local and regional governments.

� Many other large economies – including Japan, China, New Zealand, Korea and the US –also have formal policies in place that stimulate GPP

Major tool for greening the supply chain; direct link (demand side pull) to certification of products and services (supply side) Trend in increased GPP can be expected.

To what extent is the private sector “reading the writing on the wall” to respond?

What are fine examples of Green private procurement ?

Subsidy reform

- increase share of the “good” subsidies

still relevant, targeted, effective, positive impacts, few negative effects

- remove/reform the “bad" subsidiesno longer relevant, waste of money, important negative effects

- reform the “ugly” subsidiesbadly designed – eg inefficient, badly targeted, potential for negative effects

Source: building on Sumaiia and Pauly 2007

Aggregate subsidy estimates for selected economic sectors

Over $ 1 trillion per year in Subsidies

Most sensible use of funds? Or potential for reform?

Fisheries Subsidies

Fisheries subsidies ~ US$30-34 bn/yr: only ~7bn “good”, 20bn “bad”

“Small” compared to other subsidies – Agriculture, transport, energy

Large relative to sector (~ US$ 90bn/yr landed value) and

Major impacts (stock collapse, species composition, damage to ecosystems)

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)

Subsidies & “Sunken Billions”

Contribution of fisheries harvest sector to the global economy ~US$ 50billion/ year less than it could be (World Bank and FAO 2008)

Non optimal resource management, driven, in part, by subsidies leading to “too many fishers chasing too few fish”

Since ‘60s - Europhication caused “dead-zones”: Regularly ~405 coastal dead-zones

Biofuels

An example of complex relationship between renewable energy subsidies and env. damaging impacts & interests across range of actors.

� US$11bn/yr (‘06: US+EU+Canada) (GSI 2007, OECD 2008)

�Cost of reducing CO2 ~ US$ 960 to 1700/tCO2 equiv. (OECD 2008)

Biofuels subsidies generally not cost effective:� cf EU-ETS: ~ US $ 30-50 / t� avoided deforestation and degradation, � soil quality maintenance, carbon and Ag.

Effect opposite to stated objective:�Where biofuels fom converted forest lands –there may be net increase of emissions

Urgent need to review biofuels policies / instrumentsSupport other (natural capital) solutions, notably those that lead to ESS

Yet reforming EHS > potential benefits

• Reduce the use of resource intensive inputs, thus saving resources (for society/the economy now and for future generations) & causing less pollution

>> Lesser pressure on the nature capital stock

• Increase competitiveness by exposing subsidised sectors to competition and supporting

future competitiveness by resource availability

• Level the playing fields / fix market distortions by making resource prices

reflect resource value, and making polluters pay for their pollution.

• Overcome technological ‘lock-in’ whereby alternative, less established, and possibly more environmentally-friendly, technologies and practices are unable to compete on an equal basis with

the subsidised sector

>> Move to a more resource efficient economy

• Enable governments to divert budget to other areas (e.g. education, poverty, PES, energy saving)

>> Good governance in a time of crisis Which subsidies would the private sector welcome reform focus and how?

Offsets (no net loss+) to Habitat Banking

� When appropriately designed and effectively regulated, offsets and biodiversity banks can be efficient market-based instruments that help businesses compensate for the residual unavoidable harm from development projects.

� Over 30 countries now require some form of compensation for damage to biodiversity or have established programmes requiring offsets.

� Legal requirements for offsets include Brazil, South Africa, Australia and the United States (Bean et al. 2008; Carroll et al 2007).

� United States: More than 400 wetland banks have been established, creating a market for wetland mitigation worth more than $3 billion/year.

� 70+ species banks; can trade between $100mn & $370mn in species credits/yr. (Bayon 2008; DECC 2009)

What lessons / examples do you have re offsets that work (economically & BD)?What insights have you re habitat banking – what do you see as potential for this

instrument and appropriate enabling conditions?

Trading systems

Not just CO2 and Sulphur trading - also

ITQs (individual tradable quotas) and fisheries in New Zealand: rebuilt stock and some of very few to achieve conservation target of less than 10% stock collapse

Tradable water use quotas in Zhangze City, China

Minle County: irrigation districts allocated water rights certificates, reducing water used for irrigation

Tradable development rights in Montgomery county - by 2008 50,000ha of prime land preserved.

Habitat banking: USA, Australia.

Scope for new/broadened markets (for which issues, where geographically?) What lessons/insights do you have from practice – eg enabling conditions?

Addressing losses through pricing

taxes/charges/fees and fines+liability and compensation

Instruments to make the full costs of loss visible and payable

Taxes & polluter pays principle

Incentive effect & revenue raising effect

Pesticides tax: 20 SEK/kg (in 2002) 65 % reduction in use (Sjöberg, 2007)

Fertiliser taxes or taxes on excess nutrients: Decrease in product use 20-30% in

the Netherlands, 11-22% in Finland, 15-20% in Sweden & 15% in Austria. (Ecotec 2001)

Plastic bag tax: Ireland (2002). 33 cents per bag at checkout. Plastic bag consumption dropped by 80% from 1.2 billion to 230 million bags in the first year, generating tax revenues (US$ 9.6 million) earmarked for a green fund.

Landfill tax: UK £1 billion of contributions paid from landfill operators to env. projects

…also energy taxes, carbon taxes, NOx, SOx taxes, range of product taxes etc

Progress Politically difficult but necessary

Potential for innovation by private sector in response?

In what areas would the private sector value government taxes (eg water use?) to help ensure resource availability for valuable inputs?

Charges / taxes for raising revenues

Mexico increased gasoline tax by 5.5% in October 2007. 12.5% of proceeds will go tosupport investments in the env. sector, including PA management (Gutman & Davidson 2007);

Bonaire National Marine Park (BNMP), Antilles: BNMP dive tags US $ 25 in

2005: + entrance fees. (Slootweg and van Beukering et al. 2008; Stinapa Bonaire 2009)

USA, duck hunters - required to purchase Federal Duck Stamps. 98% ofrevenue ($50 mn/yr) goes directly to the purchase/lease of wetlands. (www.fws.gov/duckstamps).

Entrance fees for the Galapagos Islands 100$ for international tourists; Revenues

(> US$3 mn/yr) to improve the management of the National Park (Vanasselt, 2000)

Water abstraction charge: Australia - for the Murray River basin; revenues

earmarked for wetland restoration and salt interception schemes (Ashiabor 2004);

Water abstraction charge: Germany - some revenues to farmers to help change

farming practice – for lesser nitrogen in water/cleaner drinking water + biodiversity gains in extensive farms. Link to PES

Reforestation charge in Liberia: 5US$/m3 of logged wood, reinvested

Charges & full cost recovery

Water pricing:

e.g. Many EU Member States (e.g. Netherlands, UK) have moved towards full cost recovery for water; significant changes in water pricing for most newer Member States

In the Czech Republic, water pricing gradually increased from €0.02/m3 before 1990 to €0.71/m3 in 2004. Between 1990 and 1999, water withdrawals decreased by 88% (agriculture), 47% (industry) and 34% public water mains).

Waste: e.g. Korea: volume based waste fee: 1994 to 2004: 14% reduction in municipal waste

Greater application of full cost recovery in many countries (water, waste, energy)

Business can respond by factoring charges in, and by adopting innovation

Gradual transition important to address affordability/social concerns

Where can the private sector contribute to the alternative development path ?

Past loss/ degradation

Predicted future loss of natural capital (schematic) – with no additional policy action

2010 2050

Halting biodiversity loss

Opportunities/benefits of ESS

Investment in natural capital +ve change

Alternative natural capital

Development path

Regulation & standards

Donations

Restoration & offsets

Investment in natural capital

Trading and new markets PES, REDD, ABS

Charges, taxes, fines, EHS reform – and innovation

`

Sustainable production and consumption

Reduced footprint

Markets, certification/logos & GPP

No net loss from 2010 level

Where do you see the major potential for private sector contribution ?

•It is arguably in the long term interests of both private sector and the society at large that Biodiversity and ecosystem services be preserved/invested in.

•The TEEB vision is one of seeing biodiversity as natural capital – as important a capital base as man-made capital or social and human capital.

•It is also one of taking the value of nature into account in measurement, in policies and associated measures – such that natural capital is not run down, but rather invested in.

•Where do you see areas of common vision and opportunities for common / coordinated solutions?

•Where do you see potential conflicts of incentives/interests ?

•What can usefully be done to enable joint progress ?

• We’d welcome general comments & debate as well as specific comments/suggestions re the D1 report that is available on the web.

• The D1 report will be updated (in book form) and take into account work from D3 and any contributions that fit in D1 remit.

Patrick ten BrinkTEEB for Policy Makers Coordinator

[email protected]

TEEB for Policy Makers report


Major funders:

TEEB Contributors include:

Thank you

ptb of ieep teeb presentation to wbcsd 12 mar 2010

Education