Ecosystem Accounting for the Cost of Biodiversity Losses:

Framework and Case Study for Coastal Mediterranean Wetlands

Jean-Louis Weber, EEA

The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium

“ Because National Accounts are based on financial transactions, they account for nothing Nature, to which we don’t owe anything in terms of payments but to which we owe everything in terms of livelihood.” Bertrand de Jouvenel 1968

Ecological truth & market prices in the GDP

• Risks of unsustainable use of the living natural capital are ignored: the negative impacts of over-harvesting, force-feeding with fertilisers, intoxication, introduction of species, fragmentation by roads, or sealing of soil by urban development have no direct monetary counterpart.

• The natural capital is not even amortised in accounting books of companies and in the national accounts – no allowance is made for maintaining ecosystems’ critical functions and services. The full cost of domestic products is not covered in many cases by their price.

• This is as well the case of the price of imported products made from degraded ecosystems: their full cost is not covered by their price.

• Actual value for people of free ecosystem services is not accounted (the market tells: price is zero).

Report draft outlineIntroduction: Benefits from biodiversity, ecosystem services

First Part: Framework1. Framework of ecosystem accounting2. Biodiversity focus: definition, measurement and valuation

Second Part: Case study of Mediterranean Wetlands3. The broad pan-Mediterranean picture4. Summary accounts of stocks and flows of Mediterranean

wetland socio-ecosystems (ES,FR, IT, GR, BG, RO – 10 km strip)5. Selected local case studies

i. Doñana (Spain)ii. Camargue (France)iii. Amvrakikos Wetlands (Greece)iv. Danube Delta (Romania)v. Comparative results

Conclusion

The link between biodiversity and the output of ecosystem services…

Biophysical structure or

process(e.g. woodland habitat or net

primary productivity )

Service(e.g. flood

protection, or harvestable products)

Service(e.g. flood

protection, or harvestable products)

Function(e.g. slow

passage of water, or biomass)

Function(e.g. slow

passage of water, or biomass)

Benefit (Value)(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for

more woodland, or harvestable products)

Benefit (Value)(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for

more woodland, or harvestable products)Σ Pressures

Limit pressures via policy action?

Biophysical structure or

process(e.g. woodland habitat or net

primary productivity )

Service(e.g. flood

protection, or harvestable products)

Service(e.g. flood

protection, or harvestable products)

Function(e.g. slow

passage of water, or biomass)

Function(e.g. slow

passage of water, or biomass)

Benefit (Value)(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for

more woodland, or harvestable products)

Benefit (Value)(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for

more woodland, or harvestable products)

Biophysical structure or

process(e.g. woodland habitat or net

primary productivity )

Service(e.g. flood

protection, or harvestable products)

Service(e.g. flood

protection, or harvestable products)

Function(e.g. slow

passage of water, or biomass)

Function(e.g. slow

passage of water, or biomass)

Benefit (Value)(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for

more woodland, or harvestable products)

Benefit (Value)(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for

more woodland, or harvestable products)Σ Pressures

Limit pressures via policy action?

‘Intermediate Products’ ‘Final Products’

Maintenance and

restoration costs

Economic and social values (sometimes

market values).

Biodiversity and services

• Biodiversity supports ecosystem resilience ecosystem functioning and therefore possible services

The assessment should distinguish between ecosystem services according to their dependence from biodiversity:o Closely dependent (products of family agriculture, picking

plants, some recreation and regulation services)o Dependent on a longer term (e.g. intensive agriculture or

forestry, fish farming)o Not directly dependent from biodiversity (e.g. extraction of

salt in wetlands)

I nternal functions

Support to ES functions

ES used as part of

commodities

Final use of non market

ESProvisioning M S

Cultural M S

Regulating M S

C

Ecosystem maintenance and restoration costs ( to offset depreciation)

Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem Services

Regulation

Ecosystem assets

Benefits from biodiversity: accounting for ecosystem services value and sustainability

Distance to stated targets & additional maintenance/restoration

costs

Capital stocks and functions

Services

Market values

Physical measurement and shadow prices

Accounting for ecosystems and ecosystem services • Analysis:

Accounts in physical units: Ecosystem services (non market; dependant from biodiversity) Ecosystem assets integrity (stocks, flows, resilience…)

Accounts in monetary units: Ecosystem services:

– market prices for the marketed services; – physical units + valuation in money (shadow prices) for non marketed end use services.

Ecosystem assets: full maintenance and restoration costs

• Action: Framing and assessing public policies Accounting for values and costs as basis for founding ES markets:

For individual ES (payment for use) For the full range of ES (payment for maintaining/restoring ecosystem functions)  

• Accounting at typical scales: Macro scale (framing and monitoring the issue – global to continental) Meso scale (implementation, trade offs – countries, districts, sub-river

basins, landscape systems) Micro scale (concrete action, mitigation and compensation, assessment of

benefit values, at the local level)

Ecosystem services, land use and well-being

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 Fo

od

Mat

eria

ls

Fo

rest

tre

es-

rela

ted

Pla

nt-

rela

ted

Ph

ysic

al

sup

po

rt

Am

enit

y

Iden

tity

Did

acti

c

Cyc

lin

g

Sin

k

Pre

ven

tio

n

Ref

ug

ium

Bre

edin

g

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

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YYYY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YYYY

YY

YY

YYYY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YYYY YY

YY YY YY

YY YYYY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YY

YYYY

YY

YY YY

YY

YY

YY

YY YY

YY

Mediterranean Region

• Exceptionally diverse eco-region: Most original bio-geographical world region One of the most threatened –in world hot-spots list

• Main reservoir of plant biodiversity 10 % of known plant species in biosphere on 1.5 % of total

land area More than half are endemic

• Migratory birds: 200,000,000 birds of 150 species stop over in Med wetlands

• 7 % of known marine species in 0.8 % of total ocean area

Coastal population: 143 M in 2003 (+48 M in 30years); + 35 M projected in 2025

(Pan-)Mediterranean case study: a nested approach

• Mediterranean and close neighbourhood: the broad picture & trends

• EEA member countries (with Corine land cover): regional maps, statistics & accounts

• 4 local case studies: the complexity of socio-ecosystem analysis

Chapter 3: The macro scale picture on the report

Identification of wetlands not declared at Ramsar

Sources: GlobCover2005 – courtesy European Space AgencyRamsar database – courtesy Wetlands International

Chapter 3: Definition and Mapping of Wetland Socio-Ecological Systems (SES)

Core classes

> 5% in a 5 km radius

+ Adjacent classes

CORINE

In practice: • Group of municipalities• Parc or reserve or site• Hydro-morphological unit

or methodology for automatic mapping

1990

Chapter 4: Land cover change accounts 1990-2000 • Change in Ecological Potential of SES Wetlands,

ES,FR, IT, GR – 10 km strip

Change 1990-20002000

Chapter 4: Land cover change accounts 1990-2000

• Land cover change accounts for SES Wetlands, ES,FR, IT, SI, HR, GR, BG, RO – 10 km strip

Level 1411 Inland marshes

412 Peat bogs

421 Salt marshes

422 Salines

423 Intertidal

flats

512 Water bodies (lakes)

521 Coastal lagoons

522 Estuaries Total

LCF1 Urban land management 0LCF2 Urban residential sprawl 49 40 13 102LCF3 Sprawl of economic sites and infrastructures 18 274 4 204 500LCF4 Agriculture internal conversions 0LCF5 Conversion from other land cover to agriculture 219 187 350 756LCF6 Withdrawal of farming 0LCF7 Forests creation and management 0LCF8 Water bodies creation and management 49 49LCF9 Changes due to natural & multiple causes 15 393 103 208 719NC No Change 98829 120455 31107 181 49107 231323 735 531737Grand Total 99130 121349 31111 181 49609 231748 735 533863

Consumption of Wetlands 1990 – 2000 by processes (flows) and wetland types (Corine land cover)

Chapter 5: 4 local case studies

• Introduction to 4 local case studies• Maps and land cover accounts

• Nomenclature of ES• Standard tables• Synthesis

Doñana - SpainDoñana - Spain

Camargue - FranceCamargue - France Amvrakikos - GreeceAmvrakikos - Greece

Danube Delta - RomaniaDanube Delta - Romania

Example: land cover change in Doñana

Land cover (has) 1956 1977 1988 2006 Artificial 138 501 1092 1219 Water infrastructure 164 291 Urban 138 501 928 928 Agricultural areas Aquiculture 3608 3482 Rice fields 5040 27704 40751 40751 Irrigation lands 23407 45193 45182 Non-irrigated land 6922 14770 18581 14913 Greenhouse agriculture 162 154 Channelling marshes 54743 41894 15033 10189 Salines 156 930 1304 1304 Natural areas Channels 5734 "Lucios" (shallow, seasonal lakes) 6417 546 565 565 Restored marshes 7952 Non-transformed marshes 77193 46784 30205 30776 Fluvial beaches 1371 4711 3288 2885 Water courses and estuarine 5740 4315 4303 4706 Other 1810 431 1494 1494 TOTAL 165264 165993 165579 165572

Preliminary results – Source: Berta Martin, UAM

Example: Picking of medicinal plants, Danube Delta

Source: Iulian Nichersu, DDNI

Working nomenclature of ES for Wetlands SES (1)

Service-type Category ServiceStrong, short term

Medium/ long

termWeak

[B] Quantity (non-

market only)

[C] Estimated value (shadow

price)

1 Provisioning 1.1 Food 1.1.1 Hunting prays x x x x1.1.2 Gathering/ picking up goods x x x x1.1.3 Fishing x x1.1.4 Seafood x x1.1.5 Livestock x x x1.1.6 Agriculture x x x1.1.7 Aquiculture x x…

1.2 Materials 1.2.1 Fresh water x x x x1.2.2 Salt works x x1.2.3 Construction materials ("Arids") x x1.2.4 Fiber crops x x x1.2.5 Tree plantations x x…

1.3 Forest trees-related 1.3.1 Timber x x1.3.2 Fuel / wood x x1.3.3 Cork x x1.3.4 Pines x x…

1.4 Plant-related 1.4.1 Genetic resources x x x1.4.2 Medicinal & cosmetic plants x x x x…

1.5 Physical support 1.5.1 Communication x x x1.5.2 Housing x x x x…

2 Cultural 2.1 Amenity x x x x3 Regulating 3.1 Cycling x x x

Source: Berta Martin, Pedro Lomas et alii, Autonomous University of Madrid, 2007

Wetland social-ecological system: .........Dependence from biodiversity state

[A]

Market commodities

Final use non market Ecosystem Services

Working nomenclature of ES for Wetlands SES (2)

Service-type Category ServiceStrong, short term

Medium/ long

termWeak

[B] Quantity (non-

market only)

[C] Estimated value (shadow

price)

1 Provisioning 1.1 Food x x x x2 Cultural 2.1 Amenity 2.1.1 Recreation x x x x

2.1.2 Tourism/Ecotourism x x2.1.3 Landscape beauty x x x x…

2.2 Identity 2.2.1 Sense of place x x x2.2.2 Cultural heritage x x x x2.2.3 Religious / spiritual x x x…

2.3 Didactic 2.3.1 Education / interpretation x x x x2.3.2 Scientific research x x x x2.3.3 Traditional Ecological Knowledge x x x…

3 Regulating 3.1 Cycling 3.1.1 Soil retention & Erosion control x x x3.1.2 Hydrological regulation x x x3.1.3 Saline equilibrium x x x3.1.4 Pollination for useful plants x x x x3.1.5 Climate regulation x x x x…

3.2 Sink 3.2.1 Soil purification x x x3.2.2 Waste treatment x x x3.2.3 Water purification x x x…

3.3 Prevention 3.3.1 Flood buffering x x x3.3.2 Pest prevention x x x3.3.3 Invasive species prevention x x x3.3.4 Air quality x x x…

3.4 Refugium 3.4.1 Habitat maintenance x x x…

3.5 Breeding 3.5.1 Food web maintenance x x x3.5.2 Nursery x x x…

Source: Berta Martin, Pedro Lomas et alii, Autonomous University of Madrid, 2007

Wetland social-ecological system: .........Dependence from biodiversity state

[A]

Market commodities

Final use non market Ecosystem Services

Standard tables currently tested5.x.2 Basic accounts Phase 1

Land accounts (T1 to T5)

T1 - Change in socio-ecological system boundaries and land cover YT2 - Socio-ecological system boundaries and land cover 2000 Y

T3 - LEAC & change 1975-2000 - Summary YT4 - LEAC & change 1975-2000 - Detailed table NT5 - Linear and small features tbd

Water accounts (T6 to T8)T6A - Water Use & Supply YT6B - Matrix of flows within the economy NT7A - Water asset account/ raw quantity by assets types NT7B - Matrix of net natural transfers between water assets NT8A - Water asset account/ quality account 1: weighting factor = m3 of srkm YT8B - Water asset account/ quality account 2: weighting factor = ha option

T9 - Accounts of C, Biomass (tbd) tbd

T10 - Species account: Change in status of threatened and/or protected species Y

T11 - Habitats loss account: Loss of designated habitats Y5.x.3 Ecosystem Health (Distress Syndrome Diagnostic)

T12 - Counts of Ecosystem Health (Ecosystem Distress Syndrome Diagnostic) YT13 - Counts of Stress factors Y

5.x.4 Maintenance and restoration costs

Accounts of ecosystem protection, maintenance and restoration costs (T14, T15)

T14 - Environmental protection and management expenditures Y

T15 - Estimation of needed additional protection, maintenance and restoration costs (planned nor unplanned)Y 5.x.5 Ecosystem services (quantities and values – dependence from biodiversity)

T16 - Ecosystem services Y

T17 - Synthesis table Y

Monetary accounts: tests

• Marketed services According to existing statistics

• End use non market services Preliminary results for some services

• Maintenance and restoration costs Preliminary results for actual environmental protection

expenditure (SERIEE/SEEA methodology): local protection agencies

Additional maintenance and restoration costs: exploitation of budgetary documents of local agencies

Development opportunities: Policy

• Beyond GDP – a strong policy demand

• MA2 – the new assessment process

• IPES – an operational objective

Source: GlobWetlands - Courtesy ESA

Development opportunities: Knowledge

• UN SEEA 2003 revision to create a global statistical standard by 2010 – will include ecosystem accounts – basis for mobilising statistical offices

• GEO/GEOSS – GMES/SEIS: huge resource for space and in situ monitoring – basis for mobilising science

Source: GlobWetlands - Courtesy ESA

Supply of commodities

Stocks & flows, Integrity, BiodiversityFunctional Landscape

RegulatingClimate, floods, soil formation,

carbon sequestration, air quality, water quality, pest and diseases

control, pollination, invasion resistance, habitat provisioning

SupportingPrimary production

Water cycleBiogeochemical cycles

ProvisioningFood, water, fibre, wood, fuel,

medicines

CulturalAesthetics, tourism, spiritual, education, research, traditional

knowledge

Non nature-based sources of goods

and services

Insurance value Market & nonmarket values

Main

ten

an

ce / re

stora

tion o

f natu

ral ca

pita

l

Mostly negative

feedbacks

Adapted from Scholes, 2007, Lomas, 2007

Use of commodities& non-produced services

Ecosystem and servicesEcosystems and services