Patrick ten Brink of IEEP TEEB ECPA Hungry for Change II Final 11 April 2013

1. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)
The value of ecosystem services and the importance of natural capital.
Patrick ten Brink
TEEB for Policy Makers Co-ordinator
Head of Brussels Office, Head of Environmental Economics Programme
Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)
Hungry for Change II
Conference and Exhibition, 11th April 2013, Brussels
Biodiversity session - programme
Ensuring healthy biodiversity and sustainable productive agriculture can coexist in Europe

2. Ecosystems provide multiple ecosystem services
Provisioning services Regulating Services Cultural Services
Food Climate regulation Aesthetics
Fibre Water and waste purification Landscape value,
Fuel Air purification Recreation & Tourism
Water provision Natural hazards management Cultural values
Ornamental resources Erosion control Inspirational services
Genetic resources Pollination Education
Medicinal resources Biological control Scientific Knowledge
Supporting Services: Soil formation & fertility, photosynthesis, nutrient cycle
Habitat services such as nursery service, gene pool protection.
Some are private goods (eg food provisioning), others public goods that can become (part)
private (eg tourism, pollination), others are pure public goods (eg health, identify)

3. TEEB’s Genesis, Aims and progress
G8+5 “Potsdam Initiative – Biological Diversity 2010”
Potsdam
1) The economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity
Importance of recognising, demonstrating & responding to values of nature
Engagement: ~500 authors, reviewers & cases from across the globe
TEEB End User
Reports Brussels
Interim Climate TEEB W&W
2009, London 2010 TEEB
Report Issues Update Nature & GE
TEEB Books TEEB Oceans
Synthesis
Ecol./Env.
Economics
literature
CBD COP 9 Input to
Bonn 2008 UNFCCC 2009
India, Brazil, Belgium,
Japan & South Africa
Sept. 2010 TEEB studies
The Netherlands,
BD COP 10 Germany, Nordics,
Nagoya, Oct 2010 Norway, India, Brazil

4. Contribution of Natural Capital to Human Wellbeing & livelihood
HUMAN WELLBEING
AND LIVELIHOODS
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
NATURAL CAPITAL
Provisioning: Direct livelihood support
food, timber, Food and materials, water…
Social Human raw materials,
water…
capital capital Supporting:
nutrient Regulating: water Security and resilience
cycling, soil purification and
Food security, mitigation of natural
Man-made formation, retention, climate
disasters, climate change adaptation
capital control, pest and
crop and mitigation
disease control…
pollination
Cultural: aesthetic, Health
spiritual, Access to clean air and water,
recreational, disease control, medication,
knowledge… traditional medicine
Social relations
INSTITUTIONS
Government & public institutions, companies, communities, NGOs & citizens
A range of factors can help lead to ecosystem service provision
A complex site specific production function
Source: Own Representation adapted from Laure Ledoux in ten Brink et al 2012, building on MA (2005) and TEEB (2011a)

5. Action locally leads to local, to national & to global benefits.
Mainly global benefit
Mainly local
benefit
Additional national benefit
Source: Own Representation Patrick ten Brink.

6. Economic importance of pollination
• Over 75 % of the world’s crop plants rely on pollination by animals
• The production of 87 of 115 leading global crops (~= 35 % of the global
food supply) were increased by animal pollination. (Klein et al. 2007)
• 30 % of fruits, 7 % of vegetables and 48 % of nuts produced in the EU
depend on pollinators
• The annual economic value of insect-pollinated crops in the EU is Domesticated pollinator (honey bee)
about EUR 15 billion (Gallai et al 2009)
• UK: economic value of biotic pollination as a contribution to crop
market value in 2007 at EUR 629 million (UK NEA, 2011)
• Pollination benefits linked to proximity: forest-based pollination in Costa
Rica increased coffee yields by 20 % within 1 km of forest. (Ricketts et al. 2004)
• Loss of pollinators (domesticated & wild) reduces crop yield through
reduced and unreliable pollination Wild pollinator (hover fly)
Building on presentation by Dr Anne Franklin (2010), various references in “EU 2010 Biodiversity Baseline” (EEA, 2010) + UK NEA, 2011, Ricketts et al, 2004)

7. Agricultural pests cause significant economic losses worldwide -
biological control can reduce losses, costs and increase output
Globally, >40 % of food production is lost to insect pests, plant pathogens & weeds,
despite the application of more than 3 billion kilograms of pesticides to crops, plus other
means of control (Pimentel 2008).
In the US, ~ US$18 billion lost due to insect damage (including more than US$ 3 billion
spent in insecticides), of which about 40 % attributed to native species and the
remaining to exotic pests (Losey & Vaughan 2006).
These values, however, would be much higher without biological control
~ 65 per cent of potential pest species are being suppressed in the US. Total value
of pest control by native ecosystems around US$ 13.60 billion. (Losey & Vaughan, 2006)
The presence of natural enemies increased barley yields 303 kg/ha, preventing 52
per cent of yield loss due to aphids. (Estimated via a predator removal experiment in Östman et al. 2003)
Source: Balmford 2008

8. Natura 2000 Protected areas have a significant role in:
• Harbouring wild pollinators,
• Controlling the spread of pests and pathogens,
• Regulating and filtrating water
• Supporting soil fertility through erosion control
• A gene bank for our crops, fruits and vegetables
• + Recreation, tourism, landscape value
• + HNV & organic farming: provisioning service
HNV farming
Organic agriculture represents a promising agricultural
management option for Natura 2000 sites and protected
areas under agricultural land-use (Scialabba, 2003)
Organic farming host 30% more species than non-
organic farming (Kukreja, 2010).
But most issues of Agriculture-Biodiversity outside PAs
Source: Paracchini et al. (2008)

9. 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.

10. Potential of rural land to deliver ecosystem services
• Rural land plays an essential role in delivering a wide range of
ecosystem services
• More extensive forms of agricultural and forestry management
generally support the highest levels of biodiversity and the
© Ben Allen
greatest diversity and quality of ecosystem services.
• With appropriate management more intensive systems can also
reduce current pressures on the environment.
• Very little fertile land remains that is managed extensively - most
© Ben Allen
areas have either been taken up by urban sprawl or by intensive
agriculture.
• It is these areas - where the potential for the production of food,
feed and timber is the greatest - where the competition and
tensions between the provision of environmental services and
© Ben Allen
commodity production are most keenly felt.
Source: Building on presentation by Kaley Hart, IEEP on Land as an Environmental Resource

11. Meeting future demands sustainably
The future balance of commodities and environmental services will depend on individual
decisions taken by millions of farmers and foresters in the EU.
Decisions will be heavily influenced by the future trajectories of market prices and
production costs as well as by public policies.
Three aspects need close attention:
• current forms of land management which are depleting essential natural
resources must be modified to ensure that production methods are sustainable;
• growth in agricultural and forest productivity must be accompanied by an
increase in the production of environmental services – sustainable intensification;
• land that has a high environmental value currently should be maintained and
valued for the benefits already provided and measures taken to prevent
abandonment, urbanisation or intensification of agricultural or forest
management.
Source: Building on presentation by Kaley Hart, IEEP on Land as an Environmental Resource

12. Meeting future demands – agriculture
• There continues to be some potential to increase crop yields sustainably , especially in
the EU-12 – but far less than assumed in many land use models
• There is significant potential to improve the environmental performance of farms -
recent research suggests this need not have a significant impact on output per
hectare, with appropriate crop types and management
The food – environment production possibilities frontier
• There may also be opportunities
to bring back some areas of land
that have been recently
abandoned. Often such areas will
be appropriate only for extensive
grazing because of the negative
impact of cultivation on
environmental services
Source: Building on presentation by Kaley Hart, IEEP on Land as an Environmental Resource

13. Increasing rewards for ecosystem services provision through PES
Intensive land use Biodiversity ‘friendly’ land use
Eg Private optimum Eg social optimum
Cultural
Potential new
Services income from
(eg tourism) different
To date ‘unpaid’ CS
Regulating payments for
RS
ecosystem services (eg ecosystem
PS
services water quality)
BENEFITS
services -
Additional PS public &
(other products,
pollination) private
Income
(Paid) Benefit to from
land user - provisioning Income from
Services (PS) Opportunity cost - original
provisioning Income foregone
services (eg farm to landowner products in
or forest products) (in absence of PES) existing
markets
Cost to population
COSTS
of pollution
Social Benefit = Private benefit + public good (ESS) – pollution costs

14. Summary
• Ecosystem services an increasingly appreciated concept, but awareness still needs to grow
and integration of the concept in agricultural economy is in early stages
• There are important synergies between agriculture and biodiversity conservation
• Also important trade-offs. Food provision and food security a public good, but impacts on
biodiversity also create losses of other public goods (e.g. via eutrophication, water quality loss
impacts) & losses of other private goods (e.g. via lower levels of wild pollinators or natural pest control)
• Some public goods can be sustainable managed, via PES – important tool (private and
public), good potential, but not the only tool and many complicating factors (eg state aid
issues and issues about the additionality of actions with regard to the environmental baseline)
• All public goods need to be underpinned by effective baseline regulation
• Decision making needs to factor in private and public goods
• Major effort needed to reform of support/pricing to ensure optimal use of natural capital
• Cannot do without public policy for public goods – fundamental rationale for role of
government. Focus on private optimum alone will not lead to social optimum.

15. Thank you for your attention !
Patrick ten Brink
ptenbrink@ieep.eu
IEEP is an independent not for profit institute dedicated to advancing an environmentally
sustainable Europe through policy analysis, development and dissemination.
For further information see: http://www.ieep.eu
Follow us on twitter: IEEP_EU
For more information about IEEP’s work on Nature and the Green Economy visit
www.ieep.eu and for TEEB also www.teebweb.org

16. Additional information sources
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) in National and International Policy Making (ed. Patrick ten
Brink) www.teebweb.org or via www.ieep.eu
TEEB Water and Wetlands (Russi et al 2013; ten Brink et al 2013) http://www.ieep.eu/publications/2013/02/the-
economics-of-ecosystems-and-biodiversity-for-water-and-wetlands
Recognising the value of protected areas (Kettunen et al 2011) www.cbd.int/database/attachment/?id=1408
Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network (ten Brink et al 2011)
http://www.ieep.eu/publications/2012/06/estimating-the-overall-economic-value-of-the-benefits-provided-by-the-
natura-2000-network
Costs and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network (Gantioler et al 2010)
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf
Green Infrastructure options (Mazza et al, 2010))
http://www.ieep.eu/assets/898/Green_Infrastructure_Implementation_and_Efficiency.pdf
Nature in the Transition to a Green Economy (ten Brink et al 2012)
http://www.ieep.eu/newsletter/summer-2012/nature-in-the-transition-to-a-green-economy/
The Social and Economic Benefits of Protected Areas: an Assessment Guide (Kettunen and ten Brink eds 2013
forthcoming) http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415632843/
Land as an Environmental Resource (Hart et al, 2013)
Sustainable management of natural resources with a focus on water and agriculture (Poláková et al, forthcoming):
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/