london group meeting brussels, 29 september – 3 october 2008 land & ecosystem accounts within...
TRANSCRIPT
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Land & Ecosystem Accounts within SEEA revision
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
“Global warming may dominate headlines today.
Ecosystem degradation will do so tomorrow”
Corporate Ecosystems Services review, WRI et al. March 2008
Jean-Louis WeberEuropean Environment Agency
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
An EEA proposal to UNCEEA (June 2008)
take the responsibility of organising the drafting of a volume on land and ecosystem accounts to be issued at the same time as volume 1
UNCEEA answer:
review of the proposal by Brasil, Canada, Eurostat
land possibly integrated to Volume 1, ecosystem to Volume 2
Volume 2 shortly after Volume 1
opinion of London Group
interest by UNEP to particpating into the process (LG sub-group on land and ecosystem accounts)
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Land and ecosystems in the SEEA
The SEEA classification of assets (Chapter 7 – Table 7.2) refers to 3 categories:
1.natural resources
2.land and water surfaces
3.ecosystems
Note:
Ecosystems are made of component [natural resources] and land. Natural resources and land are [are prone to be] private goods [withexclusive right of use]. They are more than the sum of components and land: their capacity of reproducing life [and continue delivering a bundle of services over time] is their fundamental characteristic; it is a public good [and therefore the objectives such as “halt biodiversity loss”].
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
3 – Ecosystem as a Public Good: non-transferable rights on ecosystem sustainable potential
1 – Produced & Non produced Assets/SNA:
Resource & land
Assets, services and values: 3 components
2 - Non produced Assets/ Other Services
Reg
ulat
ing
Recreating
Provisioning
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
SEEA2003: enlargement of SNA1993 for a better description of the economy-environment relation
Natural resources EcosystemsEconomic
assets (SNA)Non-economic
assets
Openingstocks
Openingstocks
OpeningState
SNAtransactions
and otherflows
Changes instocks
Changesin stocks
Economicactivities,
naturalprocesses,
etc.
Changesin state
Closingstocks
Closingstocks
Closingstate
Described in SNA
RM HASSAN - UN The System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (UN 2003) - RANESA Workshop June 12-16, 2005 Maputo
Volume 1
Statistical Standard
Volume 2
Non Standard Accounts
Volume 1
Statistical Standard
NAMEA, expenditure,
physical quantities, sub-soil, energy, land (?),value of economic assets
Volume 2
Non Standard Accounts
ecosystems, quality,
valuation…
Revision SEEA2012
Macro-ecological closure(non-linear feedback, spatial
issues)
Impacts on ecosystems & related services/benefits
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
CORE LAND COVER ACCOUNT
ECOSYSTEM ACCOUNTS
Land integration of ecosystem accounts
Soil
Flora & Fauna
Water system
Atmosphere/ Climate
Land use economic & social
functions
Intensity of use & full maintenance
costs
Ecosystem services
Ecosystemassets
Stocks
Material & energy flows
Resilience
Production & Consumption
Economic Assets
Population
Infrastructures & Technologies
Inclusive use of market & non
market ecosystem services
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Land cover accounts
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
The approach used to generate land cover accounts records
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
LEAC: from changes to flows of land cover
LCF3
LCF1
LCF2
LCF5
LCF4
LCF7
LCF6
LCF8
Change Matrix(44x43=1932
possible changes)summarized into
flows
LCF9
19
90
2000
Corine land cover types 1 2A 2B 3A 3B 3C 4 5
Land cover flows
Artif
icia
l are
as
Arab
le la
nd &
pe
rman
ent c
rops
Past
ures
&
mos
aics
Fore
sted
land
Sem
i-nat
ural
ve
geta
tion
Open
spa
ces/
bar
e so
ils
Wet
land
s
Wat
er b
odie
s
LCF1 Urban land management 737 15 19 0 8 0 0 780LCF2 Urban residential sprawl 1924 1867 200 145 8 3 2 4149LCF3 Sprawl of economic sites and infrastructures 77 2728 1595 665 451 35 22 53 5627LCF4 Agriculture internal conversions 17252 10062 27314LCF5 Conversion from other land cover to agriculture 273 935 1796 1734 155 96 50 5039LCF6 Withdrawal of farming 2393 2860 5253LCF7 Forests creation and management 254 35803 5166 1048 1063 3 43337LCF8 Water bodies creation and management 191 252 253 117 190 17 21 1042LCF9 Changes due to natural & multiple causes 311 44 15 1317 1323 1041 229 252 4534Total Consumption of 1990 land cover, km² 1843 24608 17607 39899 9018 2304 1413 381 97074
No Change 160016 1149717 802502 990736 255914 50289 45502 45473 3500149Total land cover 1990, km² 161860 1174325 820109 1030635 264932 52593 46915 45854 3597223LCF1 Urban land management 780 780LCF2 Urban residential sprawl 4149 4149LCF3 Sprawl of economic sites and infrastructures 5627 5627LCF4 Agriculture internal conversions 15695 11619 27314LCF5 Conversion from other land cover to agriculture 2450 2590 5039LCF6 Withdrawal of farming 1124 2792 1244 23 70 0 5253LCF7 Forests creation and management 42547 766 24 43337LCF8 Water bodies creation and management 21 1021 1042LCF9 Land Cover due to natural & multiple causes 4 2167 1790 313 260 4534Total Formation of 2000 land cover, km² 10556 18144 15333 45343 4177 1858 383 1280 97074
No Change 160016 1149717 802502 990736 255914 50289 45502 45473 3500149Total land cover 2000, km² 170572 1167861 817835 1036079 260090 52147 45885 46754 3597223
Tota
l, km
²
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Accounting for and mapping flows: urban sprawl, by grid
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Ecosystem accounts
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Recurrent policy demand for ONE integrated indicator for
- Assessing the direct costs and benefits of environmental protection and management as well as the costs of inaction, at the local, regional & national levels
- Supplementing or mitigating GDP and National Income measurements of economic performance:
Should relate to sustainability and human well beingCan be physical, better in money
Should include a clear bottom lineExisting long lists of indicators don’t really work for that purpose
Previous attempts (e.g. “green GDP”) have not been convincing…
- November 2007: Beyond GDP International Conference in BrusselsEEA: Ecosystem accounts of assets and services open a new way forward…
Full costs of goods and services including non covered ecosystem maintenance and restoration costs for meeting stated targets
Total benefits for human wellbeing from ecosystem services , used after production and monetised as well as directly available for end use and free
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Ecosystem approach within the SEEA: 4 questions
1 . is the renewable natural capital maintained over time at the amount and quality expected by the society?
physical measurement of stocks and resilience in reference to stated social norms. [no monetary valuation of ecosystem assets needed at this stage]
2. is the full cost of maintaining the natural capital covered by the price of goods and services?
measurement of additional costs not currently covered for maintaining and restoring domestic ecosystems potentials (provision for depreciation, consumption of ecosystem capital) and addition to the value of goods and services
3. is the full cost of ecosystems services covered by import prices? calculation of the “concealed cost” (virtual transfer in capital) and addition to the value
of imported goods and services
Add additional domestic costs (2.) and imported “hidden costs” (3.) to the value of products for calculating the full cost of goods of services (and in the full cost of the final demand after deduction of costs in exports
4. is the total of goods and services supplied to final uses by the market (and government institutions) as well as for free by ecosystems, developing over time?
measure and value free end-use services and add these benefits to Final Demand
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Society
EconomyEcosystem
Economy and ecosystem: the conceptual model
Ecosystem
Maintenance/restoration of ecosystem functions
Input of fossil energy,materials
Services
CO2
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Logic underlying the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment…
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(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for
more woodland, or harvestable products)
Benefit(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for
more woodland, or harvestable products)Σ Pressures
Limit pressures via policy action?
Maintenance, restoration
Courtesy Roy Haines-Young
Economic and social values (sometimes
market values).
Maintenance and restoration costs
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Natural assets/ ecosystem capital Natural capital stocks, health/resilience, distance to objective (physical units, by sectors)• Consumption of Ecosystem Capital /restoration costs (€)• Consumption of Ecosystem Capital concealed in imports/exports (€)• NPV or market value of selected assets, SNA rules (NPV or market value of selected assets, SNA rules (€€))• Ecosystem assets inclusive wealth (€)
Supply & use of Supply & use of ecosystem ecosystem services by services by sectors, sectors, I-O analysis, I-O analysis, NAMEANAMEA
Functional Ecosystem Services[Marketed & Non-market end use
ES (physical units and €)]
SNA, SEEA2003 & Ecosystem Accounts
Sector accounts of ecosystem natural capital
Sector accounts of flows of ecosystem services
Counts of Counts of ecosystem ecosystem
integrity/healthintegrity/health(focus on vigor,
robustness, resilience, dependance from inputs, healthy populations &
stress)
Core accounts of Core accounts of assets & flowsassets & flows
systems: land systems, rivers, soil, sea, atmosphere... components: biomass, water, C, N, P, species...
Ecosystem RatingEcosystem Rating
& Aggregates& Aggregates
by E
cosy
stem
typ
es
Material/energy flowsMaterial/energy flows[biomass, water, nutrients, residuals, physical units]
SNASNAsectorssectors
activitiesactivitiesproductsproducts
flowsflows
assetsassets
Impacts to the ecosystem
Feedbacks to the economy
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Mock-up account
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Spatial Integration of Environmental & Socio-Economic Data Collection
Mapping
Sampling
Individual Sites Monitoring
Socio-EconomicStatistics
Socio-economic statistics
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Scale, governance, accounts and payments
Derived from global monitoring programmes & international statistics
IPES: global trade of ecosystem permits
Simplified accounts
Global scale:
monitoring of International Conventions and framing & regulation of markets
Clearing house on [1] ES prices & [2] ecosystem mitigation costs
Prices & costs reference tables for legal compensation
Green taxes
Beyond GDP Accounting
SEEA 2012SEEA 2012
FrameworkFramework
National & regional government: environmental agencies, ministries of economy, statistical offices, courts
Corporate accounts, costs & benefits, trade of ES
PES: specific markets
Accounting guidelines, charts
Action level: local scale, site level, management, projects, case studies, business
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Simplified ecosystem accounts
Markets need accounts, regulations [= control]
Land ecosystems are spatially distributed => grid data [e.g. 1 km2]
Globally, change matters [degradation or improvement of ecosystem functioning and attached cost], not the value of the stock
Global multicriteria rating based on a small number of ecological potential [derived from ecosystem accounts]:
Landscape ecological potential [LEP]Landscape ecological potential [LEP] HANPPHANPP Biodiversity rarefactionBiodiversity rarefaction Exergy loss [river basins]Exergy loss [river basins] Dependance from external inputs [material/energy, footprint]Dependance from external inputs [material/energy, footprint]
losses/gains of “points of ecological potential” computation of restoration costs [needed for compensating losses // or accumulated by gains of points]
Rating can be detailed as necessary for the policy [national, regional] and action scales [local, business]
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Example of a first candidate: LEP
Corine land cover map (derived from satellite images)
Green Background Landscape Index (derived from CLC)
Naturilis (derived from Natura2000 & CDDA)
Effective Mesh Size (MEFF, derived from TeleAtlas and CLC)
net Landscape Ecological Potential (nLEP) 2000, by 1km² grid cell
nLEP 2000 by NUTS 2/3
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
1990
LEAC/ Landscape Ecological Potential 1990-2000, 1km² grid (Source: Ecosystem Accounting for Mediterranean Wetlands, an EEA feasibility study for TEEB)
Change 1990-2000
LEP, state and change by 1 km2 grid
Legend
Camargue Regional Park, France
Change in net LEP 1990 to 2000
1 km² grid, range : -100 to +100
Improvement/ Highest : 47
Degradation/ Lowest : -33
Natural Park of Camargue (France)Natural Park of Camargue (France)
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
LEP connects at the local level: e.g. effect of land cover change
UnitsAMVRAKIKOS
GREECECAMARGUE
FRANCEDANUBE DELTA
ROMANIADOÑANA
SPAIN
km² 1802 827 5858 1473
Urban temperature 2000 0-100 1.6 0.3 1.3 0.5
Change in Urban temperature 1990-2000 0-100 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1
Intensive Agriculture Temperature 2000 0-100 15.8 25.0 11.8 13.4
Change in Intensive Agriculture temperature 1990-2000
0-100 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.7
Landscape Net Ecological Potential 2000 0-100 n.a 39.5 n.a 48.2
Change in Landscape Net Ecological Potential 1990-2000
0-100 n.a -0.7 n.a -1.1
Nature designation index (combined N2000 & national)
0-100 21.5 96.1 90.7 80.0
Mean Effective Mesh Size in SES 2005 logN(MEFF) n.a 150.8 n.a 189.1
Population Density (inhab/km²) 2000 inhabitants 57.9 26.5 7.5 7.5
Surface of coastal Wetland SES
Wetland Socio-Ecological Systems
ME
AN
VA
LU
ES
PE
R K
M²
Overall budget of the Natural Regional Park of Camargue
2 620 000 €2 440 000 €2 360 000 €1 744 000 €TOTAL
1 020 000 €790 000 €760 000 €254 000 €Field actions’ budget
1 600 000 €1 650 000 €1 600 000 €1 490 000 €Staff and other fix costs
2008200720062005
2 620 000 €2 440 000 €2 360 000 €1 744 000 €TOTAL
1 020 000 €790 000 €760 000 €254 000 €Field actions’ budget
1 600 000 €1 650 000 €1 600 000 €1 490 000 €Staff and other fix costs
2008200720062005
PNRC, 2008.
Next step: calculation of ecosystem maintenance & restoration costs
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Soil, sea and atmosphere
Soil (see session 4): start from priority services ==> fertility, carbon storage ==> accounts for organic matter/biomass/carbon [composition, quality], erosion and sealing [quantity] + additional salinisation and biodiversity counts + next, losses of income linked to soil degradation
Sea: start from coastal sea service of nursery [spawning] and fish stocks [including age structure and interactions between stocks]
Atmosphere: start from GHGs accounting
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Land Use Functions & Ecosystem Services
Expert meeting on Land Use and Ecosystem accounting, 18-19 May 2006, EEA
LUF analysis and mapping address cross-cutting issues e.g.: Urban/Rural,
Agro/Environment detect & measure ES services = ecosystem functions which
benefit to people, somewhere
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Valuation of ecosystem services interest:
inclusion of free services contributing to quality of life, health and the regulation of natural processes (pollination, water purification, floods, erosion, nursery for wildlife...);
extended calculation of impacts;
enforcement of legal compensations;
valuation of rents [e.g. bioprospecting...], creation of new activities/income.
difficulties
from micro to macro; the “benefit transfer” issue; the aggregation issue
shadow prices are linked to specific purposes of valuation – ranges of prices are acceptable in case studies, not so much in national accounting
feasibility; limits to calculation of the “total economic value”; case of the “non-use” or “existence values”; case of regulating services;
focus on “most important services” one by one and the multifunctional character of ecosystems
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
The Zanzibar table
adapted from Glenn-Marie et alii 2008
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Perspectives
SEEA revision 2012/2013
from GlobCover to GlobCorine: European Space Agency & EEA
Source: ESA, 2008
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Points for discussion Land accounts within volume 1 ?
Ecosystem accounts in volume 2 ?
SEEA-Ecosystem in perspective ?
Prioritisation:
1 - simplified accounts for all ecosystems [and input to MA2015] + focus on forests, wetlands
2 - support to initiatives at local & business levels
3 - full integrated accounts
Need further discussion of contents =
classification of ecosystem services
valuation of ecosystem services
definition of accounting units [socio-ecological systems]
calculation of ecosystem capital consumption
upscaling of ecological potential assessments
physical & monetary aggregates
==> periodic meetings of the sub-group enlarged to UNEP experts [IPES, MA. TEEB, Green Economics] ? Meeting on ES classification at EEA, 10 & 11 December 2008
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Thank you!
LONDON GROUP MEETINGBRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Ecosystem Assets[stocks and resilience]
Subsoil Assets[stocks]
Environmental Expenditures, Taxes
Additional Ecosystem
Maintenance Costs
Material & Energy Flows
NAMEA
Ecosystem
Services
Natural capital / assets
SNA flows & assets
Additional Ecosystem
Costsin Imports
(less in Exports)
Ecosystem Services
Ecosystem Assets
[stocks and resilience]
Rest of the
World
SEEA Integrating Ecosystems Physical flows
Monetary flows/valuation
Assets valuation
Subsoil Assets[stocks]