Presenter: Heidi Wittmer, ,Dept. of Environmental Politics .

Authors:

Heidi Wittmer, Hugo van Zyl, Claire Brown, Julian Rode, Ece Ozdemiroglu, Nick Bertrand, Patrick ten Brink, Andrew Seidl, Marianne Kettunen, Leonardo Mazza, Florian Manns, Jasmin Hundorf, Isabel Renner, Strahil Christov, Pavan Sukhdev

International Expert WorkshopTEEB Country Studies: Learning form

Experience and How to Utilize the ResultsVilm, 21st-25th May, 2013

TEEB Guidance Manual for Country Studies

Focus: Guidance for countries which would like to do a TEEB- Country-Study (TCS).

Target audience: Person(s) in charge of conducting a TCS or a TEEB project.Format:

Guidance to address the practical problems of doing a TCS. Problems, experience, obstacles and pitfalls from on-going

projects being compiled and integrated at all stages of the guidance manual.

Timeline: First draft available by mid 2013 on the TEEB-webpage.Launch at Trondheim conference for biodiversity May 28th 2013The final version will be available by 2015.

Structure of the Talk and the Manual

1. What is a TEEB country study and why does it make sense to do one?

2. Scoping: How to set up the study?

3. How to do the study? Six Steps

4. What to do with the results?

Chapter 1: What is TEEB and how does it integrate into the Policy Landscape?

1.1 Understand TEEB

1.2 Identify your reasons for doing a TCS

1.3 Identify TEEB-related processes and decide whether to do a TCS in this context

At the outset: in your country is/was TEEB primarily understood as:

Economic valuation of ecosystem services Analysis of economic significance,

incentives, instruments of BES* Creating PES** schemes and markets for BES*

• * biodiversity & ecosystem services• ** Payment for ecosystem services

Recommendations:Make Nature’s values visible…

Assess and communicate the role of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the economy

Ensure public disclosure of, and accountability for, impacts on nature

Assess and communicate the role of biodiversity and ecosystem services in the economy

Ensure public disclosure of, and accountability for, impacts on nature

Ch.1,3,4 Ch.1,3 Ch.2,3

The destruction of nature has now reached levels where serious social and economic costs are being felt – and will be felt at accelerating pace under “business as usual“

Recommendations:Accounting for risk and uncertainty…

Apply safe minimum standard or precautionary principles

Apply safe minimum standard or precautionary principles

Ch. 2,5 Ch.7 Ch. 6

Ecosystem services can help recognize values, but do not explain how ecosystems function.

Economic valuation is less useful in situations characterized by: non marginal changes, radical uncertainty, or ignorance about tipping points.“

TEEB Recommendations

Measuring better to manage better: from indicators to national accounts,

Changing the incentives: payments, taxes, charges, subsidy reform, markets

Protected areas: biodiversity riches that can also offer value for money, recreation and cultural identity, tourism.

Natural capital and poverty reduction: investment for synergies –livelihoods, food, water, fuel.

Financial disclosure and net positive impact: disclose all major externalities and reflect all environmental liabilities and changes in natural assets –

apply principles of ‘no net loss’ or ‘net positive impact’ Invest in ecological infrastructure public health, adaptation to climate

change

Mainstream the economics of nature: Economic, trade and development policies , transport, energy and mining , agriculture, fisheries, forestry, planning…

Slide inspired by Patrick ten BrinK,

How was your TCS (discussion) started:

Policy decision by environmental ministry Policy involving more than environment

ministry (in initiation) Science or NGO or donor started to push discussion and played an important role in convincing policy…

Was/is your TCS policy-driven? And if so:

A specific question from policy An unspecific request: „economic

arguments for nature protection“ A decision to do TEEB before knowing what exactly to address

Did/do you consider‚open architecture‘?

Yes, important element of our TCS We considered, and decided

on a limited role Did not consider, or decided totally against

Your biggest concern:

The scientific credibility of our TCS The political relevance of our TCS

The legitimacy of our TCS

Chapter 2: How to select the scope and objectives of the TCS and how to set up the process?

2.1 Outputs of the scoping phase

2.2 Identifying the thematic focus: scope and objectives

2.3 How to design the study and the process?

2.4 Getting stakeholders on board: Who should be involved?

How to engage them

TCS architecture: Do you have

Yes – variation Study leader / chair – „a face to the study“ Steering committee – management, Advisory board (only scientific) Stakeholder group(s) Different coordinators for different reports Author teams (core teams) Reviewers (extended review involving users)

Our TCS will contain Certainly – maybe, not clear yet Mapping Indicators Models, scenarios, forecasting techniques cost-benefit, valuation, Policy instrument proposals Decision support systems and processes Answers to specific questions by policy

Chapter 3: Main Study Phase

STEP 1: Refine the objectives of a TCS by specifying and

agreeing on the key policy issues with stakeholders

STEP 2: Identify the most relevant ecosystem services

STEP 3: Define information needs and select appropriate methods

STEP 4: Assess and value ecosystem services

STEP 5: Identify and outline the pros and cons of policy options, including distributional impacts

STEP 6: Review, refine and report: Produce an answer to each of the questions

Chapter 4: How to use the findings and recommendations of the TCS?

4.1 Stakeholder engagement for using the TCS findings

4.2 Communicate the findings

4.3 Think beyond the TCS

Create stories that relate to policy concerns at this particular moment in time

Specific challenges of TCS…

• Show the „added value“ of a TEEB-approach – of an economic perspective– Gap analysis, feasibility study…

– The economics vs. The politics of ES & Biodiv

• Balance credibility – relevance – legitimacy– Governance structure, open architecture, involving

other ministries

• Translate results into arguments for policy debates– Beyond the „converted“

– Impact on the ground