A review of ecosystem service valuation progress and...
107
A review of ecosystem service valuation progress and approaches by the member states of the European Union
Transcript of A review of ecosystem service valuation progress and...
A review of ecosystem service
valuation progress and approaches by the member states
of the European Union
A review of ecosystem service valuation progress and approaches by the member states of the European UnionPrepared forThe European Commission as part of a contract on the provision of technical support related to Target 2 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 – maintaining and restoring ecosystems and their services (Contract 07.0202/2016/739529/SER/D2), led by the Institute for European Environmental Policy in collaboration with IUCN, Trinomics and UNEP-WCMC.
Published January 2018
CopyrightEuropean Union 2018. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU.
CitationLing, M. A., King, S., Mapendembe, A., and Brown, C. 2018. A review of ecosystem service valuation progress and approaches by the Member States of the European Union. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK.
AcknowledgementsThe authors would like to express their gratitude for the valuable review comments provided by Patrick ten Brink (IEEP) on earlier drafts of this report.
Legal noticeThe information and views set out in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.
The UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) is the specialist biodiversity assessment centre of UN Environment, the world’s foremost intergovernmental environmental organisation. The Centre has been in operation for over 35 years, combining scientific research with practical policy advice.
This publication may be reproduced for educational or non-profit purposes without special permission, provided acknowledgement to the source is made. Reuse of any figures is subject to permission from the original rights holders. No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose without permission in writing from UN Environment. Applications for permission, with a statement of purpose and extent of reproduction, should be sent to the Director, UNEP-WCMC, 219 Huntingdon Road, Cambridge, CB3 0DL, UK.
The contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of UN Environment, contributory organisations or editors. The designations employed and the presentations of material in this report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of UN Environment or contributory organisations, editors or publishers concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city area or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries or the designation of its name, frontiers or boundaries. The mention of a commercial entity or product in this publication does not imply endorsement by UN Environment.
UN Environment World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)219 Huntingdon Road,Cambridge CB3 0DL, UKTel: +44 1223 277314
i
UN Environment promotes environmentally sound
practices globally and in its own activities. Printing on
paper from environmentally sustainable forests and
recycled fibre is encouraged.
.
www.unep-wcmc.org
ii
Contents1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................1
2. SCOPE OF TASK.............................................................................................................................3
2.1. Background...........................................................................................................................3
2.2. Overall objectives..................................................................................................................3
2.3. Objectives of ‘Issue C: MAES valuation’................................................................................4
3. APPROACH TAKEN........................................................................................................................5
4. RESULTS OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW................................................................................................8
4.1. Results from existing synthesis documents and other notable studies...............................8
4.2. ESMERALDA country factsheets.........................................................................................11
4.2.1. Belgium........................................................................................................................11
4.2.2. Croatia.........................................................................................................................13
4.2.3. Denmark......................................................................................................................13
4.2.4. France..........................................................................................................................13
4.2.5. Germany......................................................................................................................13
4.2.6. Ireland.........................................................................................................................14
4.2.7. Lithuania......................................................................................................................14
4.2.8. Portugal.......................................................................................................................14
4.2.9. Spain............................................................................................................................14
4.3. TEEB studies........................................................................................................................15
4.3.1. Belgium........................................................................................................................15
4.3.2. Croatia.........................................................................................................................16
4.3.3. Czech Republic.............................................................................................................16
4.3.4. Denmark......................................................................................................................17
4.3.5. Finland.........................................................................................................................17
4.3.6. Germany......................................................................................................................20
4.3.7. Lithuania......................................................................................................................20
4.3.8. Luxembourg.................................................................................................................21
4.3.9. The Netherlands..........................................................................................................21
4.3.10. Poland..........................................................................................................................21
4.3.11. Portugal.......................................................................................................................21
4.3.12. Slovakia.......................................................................................................................21
4.3.13. Slovenia.......................................................................................................................22
4.3.14. Sweden........................................................................................................................22
4.3.15. UK................................................................................................................................22
iii
4.4. IPBES Catalogue of Assessments........................................................................................22
4.4.1. Belgium........................................................................................................................23
4.4.2. Denmark......................................................................................................................23
4.4.3. Finland.........................................................................................................................24
4.4.4. France..........................................................................................................................24
4.4.5. Germany......................................................................................................................24
4.4.6. Greece..........................................................................................................................24
4.4.7. Ireland.........................................................................................................................24
4.4.8. Italy..............................................................................................................................24
4.4.9. Lithuania......................................................................................................................25
4.4.10. The Netherlands..........................................................................................................25
4.4.11. Portugal.......................................................................................................................25
4.4.12. Spain............................................................................................................................26
4.4.13. Sweden........................................................................................................................27
4.4.14. UK................................................................................................................................27
4.5. OpenNESS case studies.......................................................................................................28
4.6. Results from National Statistics and SEEA reviews............................................................28
4.6.1. Austria.........................................................................................................................29
4.6.2. Belgium........................................................................................................................29
4.6.3. Czech Republic.............................................................................................................29
4.6.4. Denmark......................................................................................................................30
4.6.5. France..........................................................................................................................30
4.6.6. Germany......................................................................................................................30
4.6.7. Latvia...........................................................................................................................31
4.6.8. The Netherlands..........................................................................................................31
4.6.9. Poland..........................................................................................................................31
4.6.10. Romania......................................................................................................................31
4.6.11. Sweden........................................................................................................................32
4.6.12. UK................................................................................................................................32
4.7. Results from OPERAs review...............................................................................................33
4.8. Synthesis of review results.................................................................................................33
5. EXPERT INTERVIEWS...................................................................................................................36
5.1. France case study................................................................................................................36
5.2. Netherlands case study.......................................................................................................37
5.3. Slovakia case study.............................................................................................................38
5.4. Spain case study..................................................................................................................39
iv
5.5. Bulgaria case study..............................................................................................................40
5.6. Summary of Expert Interview case studies........................................................................41
6. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS.................................................................................43
7. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................47
8. ANNEXES.....................................................................................................................................51
8.1. Annex 1: Ecosystem services included in the systematic review.......................................51
8.2. Annex 2: Valuation techniques included in the systematic review....................................52
8.3. Annex 3: Search terms employed in systematic reviews...................................................53
8.4. Annex 4: Systematic review matrix - France......................................................................54
8.5. Annex 5: Systematic review tables.....................................................................................55
8.5.1. ESMERALDA country factsheets..................................................................................55
8.5.2. TEEB studies.................................................................................................................56
8.5.3. IPBES Catalogue of Assessments.................................................................................57
8.5.4. National Statistics and SEEA reviews..........................................................................58
8.6. Annex 6: Expert interview questions..................................................................................59
8.7. Annex 7: Expert interview transcripts................................................................................61
8.7.1. France..........................................................................................................................61
8.7.2. The Netherlands..........................................................................................................65
8.7.3. Slovakia.......................................................................................................................67
8.7.4. Spain............................................................................................................................69
8.7.5. Bulgaria.......................................................................................................................70
v
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis study sets out to ‘support the EC in understanding progress Member States have made on assessing the values of ecosystems and the services they provide’.
Using an agreed-upon subset of ecosystem services and valuation techniques, a set of key search terms were developed and used to systematically review recently completed and ongoing work conducted by Member States, carried out as part of their ecosystem or natural capital assessment processes. Resources reviewed included ESMERALDA country factsheets, TEEB studies, IPBES catalogue of Assessments, and National Statistics and SEEA reviews. In addition, reviews of OpenNESS case studies, existing synthesis documents and other notable studies, and publications available through OPERAs were also conducted.
These reviews sought to gain an insight into what activities the Member States have conducted, what approaches to valuation have been employed, if the results have been used, and where/how any impact has been achieved in terms of policy-making or decision support.
The results were recorded in a series of systematic review tables (Annex 5, section 8.5), and for the ESMERALDA country factsheet review only (Annex 5, section 8.4), were mapped onto a systematic review matrix showing what valuation methods had been employed and for what ecosystem services.
Experts from a number of Member States were identified and interviewed in order to explore their understanding of what ecosystem service valuation methods, if any, have been employed in their countries, for what services, why they were selected, and in particular, if there has been any uptake or impact from the results of the valuation.
The systematic review demonstrates that a broad range of assessment and valuation processes have been, and continue to be, carried out, and that further work is planned across the Member states. The key findings of this review include:
8 Member States include details of ecosystem service valuation activities in their ESMERALDA country factsheets, referring to the use of valuation tools 24 times;
8 Member States include details of ecosystem service valuation activities in their TEEB studies, referring to the use of valuation tools 103 times;
2 Member States have resources containing details of ecosystem service valuation activities uploaded to the IPBES Catalogue of Assessments, including 26 references to the use of valuation tools;
1 Member State includes one reference to ecosystem service valuation in work carried out as part of National Statistics and SEEA related reviews, suggesting that to date, there is very little valuation activity linked to this area;
Belgium is the Member State with the most references to the use of valuation tools across the resources reviewed in this study; and
‘Market price’ based approaches have been used most frequently in the studies reviewed.
1
Five case studies developed as a result of the expert interviews provide analysis and interpretation of the progress made by the expert’s Member State. The case studies show that:
France, The Netherlands, and Spain each refer to the use of ‘market price’ or ‘market based’ valuation approaches. France and The Netherlands also refer to the use of ‘Hedonic pricing’;
France, The Netherlands, and Slovakia consider that the awareness raising potential of their valuation activities has been the main use;
None of the case studies identified any impact achieved as a result of their valuation work in terms of integration into policy processes; and
Three case studies explicitly stated that it was ‘difficult to assess’, ‘not easy to define’, and ‘not possible to measure’ any impact achieved.
A number of recommendations are set out in section 7 to develop and roll this work out further in the future, where resources allow. These include:
More in-depth reviews of the available resources (i.e. comprehensive literature review, to include resources available through Oppla for example);
o This could inform an update of Table 1 by Brouwer et al. (2013) to include contemporary assessment and valuation data and to include additional information relating to policy questions addressed by Member States and/or decision support areas.
Mapping of ecosystem service valuation methods for all resources reviewed (i.e. TEEB studies, IPBES catalogue of Assessments, and National Statistics and SEEA reviews) onto systematic review matrices;
Conducting expert interviews for all Member States to establish where valuation work and results have been used to inform policy, and what, if any, impacts have been achieved;
Seeking assistance from Member State experts to validate completed ecosystem service valuation mapping matrixes;
Uploading of validated ecosystem service valuation mapping matrixes to the BISE website;
Integration of the results from the KIP INCA report on valuation into this process; and
Using this information and understanding of Member State progress, and conversely gaps, to value their ecosystem services to support the EC’s ‘Action plan for nature, people and the economy’, and to promote the integration of ecosystem services into decision-making processes.
2
2. SCOPE OF TASK2.1. Background
This work forms part of a larger European Commission (EC) project focusing on the ‘Provision of technical support related to Target 2 (By 2020, ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by establishing green infrastructure and restoring at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems) of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020.
This target aims to support Target 15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity’s (CBD) 2020 Strategic Plan (i.e. Aichi Biodiversity Target 15: By 2020, ecosystem resilience and the contribution of biodiversity to carbon stocks has been enhanced, through conservation and restoration, including restoration of at least 15 per cent of degraded ecosystems, thereby contributing to climate change mitigation and adaptation and to combating desertification).
Target 15 is one of six Aichi Biodiversity Targets around which the EU Biodiversity Strategy is built. Each of these targets is translated into a set of time-bound actions. The work set out in this report is specifically relevant to Action 5: ‘Improve knowledge of ecosystems and their services in the EU.’
Within the framework of these targets and actions, each Member State is required to contribute their achievement by:
Mapping and assessing the state of ecosystems and their services in its national territory (by 2014); and
Assessing the economic value of such services and promoting the integration of these values into accounting and reporting systems at EU and national levels (by 2020).
To perform these activities, the EC created an initiative called ‘Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services’ (MAES). The EU MAES Working Group was established in 2012.1
2.2. Overall objectivesThe overall objectives of the contract pertaining to the project described above is ‘to provide technical support to the Commission Services in order to further develop some of the issues related to the implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy, which are highly technical’, specifically including issues relating to Target 2 of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy and its supporting Actions.
These project objectives are sought to be achieved through a range of cross-cutting tasks; the work presented here relates to the first of these:
Task 1 – Contribution to the monitoring and assessment of activities currently underway in the Member States which contribute to the actions under Target 2.
An operational structure has been developed by the lead partner which sets out the work required under the main contract into a nine ‘issues’ (A to I), each of which relate to the
1 http://www.beescommunity.be/en/thematic-groups/belgian-maes-working-group/#sthash.XuFfIKxj.dpuf
3
cross-cutting tasks described above. According to this structure, the work presented here sits within ‘Issue C: MAES – Valuation’ which seeks to carry out a “Synthesis of work in Member States (including IPBES) to prepare for a guidance (task 3) and a dedicated workshop (task 5) in 2018”.
2.3. Objectives of ‘Issue C: MAES valuation’The objective of Issue C is to ‘support the EC in understanding progress Member States have made on assessing the values of ecosystems and the services they provide’. Of particular interest in this process is the examination of how Member States have been able to integrate ecosystem services into decision-making, and translating this into supporting guidance.
This review process specifically sought to cover the full range of values (e.g. non-monetary and monetary values) and to seek out examples of where valuation approaches and results have actually been able to feed into, and influence, policy. However, the EC have acknowledged that identifying examples of such policy impact is likely to be difficult. The range of valuation studies assessed under this study extend only to those linked to ecosystem and natural capital assessment processes, not those focused on valuation more generally.
In June 2017 the EC adopted the ‘Action Plan for Nature, People and the Environment’ by way of strengthening their position to achieve the 2020 EU Biodiversity Targets. This presents a new context for the work set out here in terms of how ecosystem services are integrated into this new plan. Of specific relevance to this are the policy measures and/or institutional arrangements made by Member States to ‘ensure that values are not only assessed but also captured in decision-making, including through the implementation of the mitigation hierarchy (avoid, reduce, compensate)’.
4
3. APPROACH TAKENIt was sought to address the objectives of this project by undertaking a stocktaking exercise based on recently completed and ongoing work conducted by Member States; including, for example, projects and processes such as The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) follow-up study for Europe (Brouwer et al., 2013)2, Enhancing ecoSysteM sERvices mApping for policy and Decision mAking (ESMERALDA), the Inter-governmental science-policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), Operational Potential of Ecosystem Research Applications (OPERAs), Operationalisation of Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services (OpenNESS), TEEB inspired country studies, and associated published work located through internet literature searches.
This study does not seek to repeat detailed methodological accounts but provides links to them and focuses on the overall results, issues that have arisen, and stakeholder interactions to identify lessons that can be learnt, and in particular how Member States are using valuation for policy purposes. This stocktake aims to provide a contemporary understanding of the valuation activities being carried out by Member States to support implementation of Action 5. The following steps were taken in order to gather the required information:
1. Review of existing relevant synthesis documents;2. Review of all published ‘MAES-related developments’ in EU member states through
the Biodiversity Information System for Europe (BISE), and all ESMERALDA country fact sheets using a defined and agreed upon set of search terms, including for example, ‘value(s)’, ‘valuation’, ‘economic’, ‘non-monetary’, ‘impact’, ‘uptake’ etc.;
3. Review of other notable and relevant projects and processes, including IPBES, OpenNESS, and TEEB, whereby the same search terms will be employed to review key documents; and
4. Undertake expert interviews to elicit more in-depth information from leading practitioners working in the areas of ecosystem services, their assessment, their valuation in the EU, and its policy uptake (to include Member State representatives and project representatives from the ESMERALDA project as a minimum).
The results from these reviews and interviews will be presented in a set of tables and matrixes to clearly demonstrate, and help to visualise, where most progress has been made and where any gaps exist in terms of Member States’ valuation and assessment activities of ecosystems and their services. The different type of values, and for which services they are associated, will also be recorded.
This stocktake will be analysed to present key findings and any pertinent recommendations that are identified throughout the course of the study, for example, for future work to be undertaken by Member States, or where there may be needs for capacity support or development in order to conduct assessments of ecosystem values.
2 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/EU%20Valuation.pdf
5
In discussion with the contracting party it was agreed that the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) framework (version 4.3)3 would be used to define the ecosystem services underpinning the systematic review for this study. A range of ecosystem services were selected from the ‘class’ level of ecosystem services, effectively covering the main suite of processes considered to be useful and of interest to the Directorate-General Environment (DG Env) in terms of integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services into policy-making actions. For example, these included:
Global climate regulation by reduction of greenhouse gas concentrations – relevant to the Paris Agreement, Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF);
Nutrition from biomass – relevant to the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD);
Nutrition from water provision – relevant to the Water Framework Directive (WFD); Physical and experiential interactions – relevant to the Cohesion fund (CF) and
European agricultural fund for rural development (EAFRD); Intellectual & representative interactions, scientific – relevant to the EC Innovation
Union; Fibres and other materials from plants, algae and animals for direct use or
processing – relevant to the EU Forest Strategy; Mass stabilisation and control of erosion rates – relevant to the CAP; and Flood protection – relevant to the Floods Directive.
Building on the suite of valuation methods employed by TEEB4, a range of valuation approaches and specific valuation techniques that could be applied across this range of ecosystem services was defined. In total, 25 specific valuation techniques across market based, cost based, production based, revealed preference, stated preference, other non-monetary, and existing knowledge approaches were defined (section 8.2). Using this list of valuation techniques a list of key words or search terms was developed, with which the systematic reviews could be conducted, for example, of each Member States’ ESMERALDA country factsheet. For example, in reference to the ‘benefits transfer’ approach, the key word ‘benefits’ was used. In total, 39 key words were defined (section 8.3); however, several of these are classed as generic terms, including ‘monetary’, ‘value’ and ‘valuation’. These were included as a failsafe in order to identify sections of text which might refer to valuation processes and activities without actually mentioning any specific valuation techniques or methods.
In order to summarise the findings of the stocktaking exercise, a systematic review matrix was designed based on columns of agreed ecosystem services from the CICES framework and rows of different valuation methods. This allowed the mapping of valuation methods employed by the Member States, against different ecosystem services, in order for any common associations or patterns to be visualised and identified. The systematic review matrix presented below (section 8.4) provides an example of how this approach was employed, in this case, for France.
3 https://cices.eu/4 http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415501088/
6
4. RESULTS OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW4.1. Results from existing synthesis documents and other notable studies
In a report commissioned by the European Commission, Brouwer et al., (2013) review available options for conducting ecosystem services valuation and natural capital accounting to support Member States in addressing Target 2 of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. A principal objective of the report was to ‘synthesise and evaluate recent and on-going initiatives for accounting and reporting biodiversity and ecosystem service values and assess the scope for integrating these initiatives at the EU level’. This work included a stocktake of initiatives related to TEEB, informed by literature reviews, telephone interviews with Member States representatives, and web-based surveys in order to ascertain lessons learned and priorities for research, and to assess these against the objectives and progress made. For the purposes of the work described herein, Table 1 of Brouwer et al. (2013) provides a useful baseline summary of Member States national assessments, as assessed in 2013, and is reproduced below (Table 1).
In addition to the work of Brouwer et al. (2013), Schröter et al. (2016)5 provide a review of European National Ecosystem assessments and, inter alia, their objectives and aims. This relatively recent review highlights that only the UK (as discussed in Bouwer et al., 2013), Spanish, Flanders (both discussed in the review of the IPBES Catalogue of Assessments (section 4.4), and Finnish studies (as discussed under the review of TEEB studies (section 4.3)) had objectives related to social and/or economic valuation.
Further evaluation of the progress made by the Member States is presented in the ‘Mapping of Ecosystems and their Services in the EU and its Member States (MESEU)’ synthesis report6. MESEU was a three-year European Commission DG Environment funded process coordinated by Alterra. The MESEU project aimed to ‘provide assistance on behalf of and in cooperation with the European Commission to the Member States in the context of Action 5 of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, on the mapping and assessment of the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territories’. In particular, MESEU sought to use and build upon previously conducted studies and work at the EU and Member State levels to provide an overview and understanding of the state of the art for mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. However, MESEU does not explicitly go into the valuation of ecosystems and their services. Part of the proposed work for the third and final year of the MESEU project planned to evaluate the ‘usability of maps and quantitative assessments to function as a basis for economic valuations’, but this has not yet been published.
Natural capital accounting has emerged as an essential policy support tool for achieving these and other objectives at the EU and Member State levels (EC & EEA, 2016) 7. To this end, a shared project was set up at the EU level to develop an integrated system for natural
5https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306262516_National_Ecosystem_Assessments_in_Europe_A_Review6https://circabc.europa.eu/webdav/CircaBC/env/ecosystem_assesment/Library/2015%20MAES%20Hands%20On%20Workshops/MESEU-synthesis%20report-2012-2014_14012015.pdf7 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/capital_accounting/pdf/KIP_INCA_final_report_phase-1.pdf
7
capital and ecosystem services accounting (KIP-INCA). KIP-INCA supports the second phase the EU initiative on Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and Services (MAES), which aims to value ecosystem services and integrate them into accounting and reporting systems by 2020. The project aims to develop accounts on the extent and condition of ecosystems present in the EU, as well as accounts for selected services from these ecosystems and their contribution to the economy and human well-being. Under Phase 2 of the project, a set of factsheets detailing valuation methods are provided for consideration in producing monetary ecosystem service accounts in the EU (La Notte et al,. 2017)8. These include a range of provisioning and regulating ecosystem services, in addition to outdoor recreation. It is anticipated that pilot monetary accounts for at least a limited set of these ecosystem services will be developed by 2020 under the KIP-INCA project (EC & EEA, 2016).
8 https://www.es-partnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/JRC_report_ecosystem_services_accounts.pdf
8
Table 1: Summary of Member States’ national assessments of ecosystem services. Reproduced from Brouwer et al. (2013)
Member State
Stage of National Assessment
Name of Initiative Contact Person Timeframe
Ecosystems Addressed
ES Categorisation ES Addressed Valuation methods
Austria Early developmentTEEB scoping study
Mr. Michael Zika (WWF)
Launched June 2012 Not known yet
Belgium Early development
TEEB Flanders and TEEB Wallonia
Mr. Jeroen Panis (ANB) and Mr.Nicolas Dendoncker (FUNDP)
Terrestrial ecosystems Not known yet To be decided
Not fully known yet probably including stated preference methods based on Liekens et al. (2012)
Czech Republic
Complete study on grassland ES
Survey of grassland ecosystem services in CR
Iva Honigova (Agency for Nature Conservation) 2010-2011 Grasslands TEEB
Food provision; climate regulation; invasive species; erosion control; water flow; water filtration; recreation and tourism
Market prices; marginal abatement; cost; maintenance cost; damage cost avoided; replacement cost and stated preference valuation
Estonia Early development
Lilika Käis (Ministry of Environment) Not known yet To be decided Not known yet
France Early development National MA Terrestrial and marine 43 ES to be analysed Not fully known yet
Germany Early developmentNatural Capital Germany
Bernd Hansjürgens (UFZ) 2012-2015 All ecosystems Not known yet Under investigation Not fully known yet
Hungary Early development
Eszter Kelemen (Institute of Environment and Landscape Management) Not fully known yet
Ireland
Complete study on benefits and costs of biodiversity
Economic and Social Aspects of Biodiversity: Benefits and Costs of Biodiversity in Ireland
Craig Bullock (University College Dublin) -2008
Agriculture; forestry; marine; environment; water; wetlands
Provisioning; regulating and supporting services are considered with less attention to cultural services (with the exception of recreation) Value transfer
ItalyNo on-going national study
Rocco Scolozzi (University of Trento) Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
LithuaniaOn-going national assessment
Lithuanian ecosystem services inventory and valuation
Vytautas Narusevicius (Environmental Protection Agency) 2010-2014
Inland water; forests; wetlands; grassland; cultivated/agriculture land; peri-urban TEEB and MA
Provisioning; regulating; cultural; supporting
Market prices; cost based (substitution) pricing; contingent valuation; value (benefit) transfer; travel costs; hedonic pricing methods Netherlands On-going national
NetherlandsOn-going national assessment
TEEB Netherlands
Mr. C.M.A. Hendriks (Alterra); Arjan Ruis (PBL) 2011-2012 All ecosystems
Under investigation
Provisioning; regulating; cultural; supporting
Market valuation (opportunity costs) and possibly nonmarket valuation methods
Norway Early development TEEB Norway Henrik Lindhjem (NINA) 2012-2014
All ecosystems - forests in particular
Under investigation
Provisioning; regulating; cultural; supporting Unknown yet
Poland Early development Andrzej Mizgajski Unknown yet
RomaniaNo on-going national study Not applicable
Slovakia Early development
Jana Spulerova (Institute of Landscape Ecology) Not known yet To be decided Unknown yet
Spain
Completed national Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Spanish Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
All terrestrial ecosystems MA
Provisioning; regulating and cultural services
Limited valuation but VANE project aims to develop this
SwedenNo on-going national study
Louise Hård (Swedish Society for Nature Conservation) Not applicable
UK
Completed national ecosystem assessment; Follow-on assessment ongoing
UK National Ecosystem Assessment
Ian Bateman (CSERGE) 2007-2011
All UK terrestrial and marine habitats
MA adapted to focus on final services
14 ES valued: A subset of including provisioning; regulating and cultural services
Market prices; damage costs avoided; production function; stated preference; hedonic pricing; meta-analytic value transfer; replacement costs
9
4.2. ESMERALDA country factsheetsUsing the list of defined key words, as described above (section 3) a systematic review of each Member States’ ESMERALDA country factsheet was conducted.
Of the 28 Member States, four do not have ESMERALDA country factsheets (Cyprus, Czech Republic, Latvia and the UK), and as such no indication of ecosystem services valuation activities in these countries is provided via this approach. The results of the key word search were subsequently used to do a more focused review of the ESMERALDA country factsheets in order to elicit information on the specific valuation techniques mentioned, and to ascertain as to whether or not which, if any, ecosystem services were valued by these methods. Experience so far suggests that subsequent literature reviews might be needed in order to fully decipher the process undertaken, as referred to in the ESMERALDA country factsheets.
ESMERALDA is a H2020 Coordination and Support Action aiming to deliver a ‘flexible methodology’ for use for pan-European, national and regional ecosystem services mapping and assessment as set out in Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. This builds on existing ecosystem services projects and databases (e.g. MAES, MESEU, OpenNESS, OPERAs, and national studies) to develop mapping approaches that integrate biophysical, social and economic assessment technique It is hoping such an approach will support the timely delivery by all EU Member States of Action 5. In particular ESMERALDA is engaging with Member States that are lagging behind due to capacity.
The results of the systematic review are presented below. Only Member States that returned positive results from the systematic review are included and discussed here. Those not present did not feature any of the search terms used as part of the review.
4.2.1. BelgiumIn the ESMERALDA factsheet for Belgium a case study from the MESEU project is discussed 9, with regards to ecosystem services assessment work conducted in the Wallonia region of Belgium. It is reported that this assessment work sought to: 1) assess and map all ecosystem services in the region; then 2) assess the monetary value of forest ecosystem services identified.
In order to assess the monetary value of the forest ecosystem services, the following process was applied:
Overall methodology: monetary valuation based on biophysical values, providing overall (but partial) monetary values for Walloon forest ecosystem services (with distinction between the stock and the flux of ecosystem services).
o 24 ecosystem services selected on the basis on their applicability for forest ecosystems.
o Indicators were chosen from the literature before being grouped and classified according to the type of indicator (flux or stock, supply or demand, etc.).
9 http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes/maes-catalogue-of-case-studies/case-study_meseu_wallonia_disclaimer.pdf
10
o The indicators quantification was mainly based on statistics. When lacking data, values related to distinct indicators were chosen when believed to be relevant. For under-documented ecosystem services, values were then suggested for information. In the following steps, quantified indicators were attributed a monetary value. This valuation was based on a literature review which was first focused to the region of Wallonia, and then was further extended to neighbouring countries in order to complete the dataset (= the benefit transfer method).
It was reported that this approach had some limitations, including: partial valuation because: i) some ecosystem services could not be evaluated; ii) indicators and data do not provide the entire value of the ecosystem services; and, iii) some ecosystem services are not convertible to monetary values.
The factsheet makes reference to other ‘Important scientific projects’ in Belgium, and cites the ‘Valuation of terrestrial ecosystem services in a multifunctional peri-urban space’ or ‘VOTES’ project10.
Among its objectives, this project sought to “assess the current value of key ecosystem services in the study area” and to “explore how the current value may change in relation to future land use change”. In order to carry out these valuations the project focused only on the ‘use value’ component of the Total Economic Value (TEV). Two approaches were employed to achieve this: indirect valuation using a revealed preferences method, specifically the travel cost method; and, deliberative valuation using the discourse-based method.
Three ecosystem services were assessed using these methods three ecosystem services: ‘soft recreation’ (travel cost method), and ‘quality of life’ and ‘conservation of biodiversity and wildlife’ (discourse-based method).
As “quality of life” and “conservation of biodiversity and wildlife” are deemed to sit within the ‘Spiritual and/or emblematic’ and/or ‘Other cultural outputs’ groups of services, including ’Symbolic’, ‘Sacred and/or religious’, ‘Existence’, and ‘Bequest’ classes of services, they have not been included within the systematic review matrix of valuation activities selected for this review. However, valuation of these services was carried out using a discourse-based method, in this instance, participatory or deliberative valuation (Stated preference).
It is also reported in Belgium’s factsheet that, in the Walloon region, the government are seeking to increase the implementation of the ecosystem services concept into practice through the development and launch of a regional platform on ecosystem services. This platform, the Walloon Ecosystem Services Platform (WalES), which was launched in 2014, is led by the Public Service of Wallonia (SPW) and involves scientists and all administrative services concerned within the region. Part of the WalES project focuses on ecosystem services valuation, which will include collating the available data for use in ‘ecosystem
10 www.belspo.be/belspo/SSD/science/Reports/VOTES_FinRep_AD.pdf%20-%20Adobe%20Acrobat%20Pro.pdf
11
services mapping and biophysical valuation (indicators and proxy)’. However, it is unclear at present if any actual valuation work has been carried out through this project.
4.2.2. CroatiaThe Croatian ESMERALDA factsheet suggests that a number of indicators have been developed to assist in the assessment of ecosystems and their services. For the indicator ‘Filtration/sequestration/storage/accumulation by ecosystems’ which seeks to assess ‘Nutrient retention’, replacement cost (cost of artificial removal of nutrients by wastewater cleaning stations) has been adopted as the quantification method to support its implementation.
4.2.3. DenmarkTermansen et al. (2015)11 consider progress on mapping 16 ecosystem services in Denmark in the report ‘Status for ecosystems, ecosystem services and their values in Denmark’. This is considered to be a non-monetary quantitative approach to valuing ecosystem services.
The report confirms that:
four ecosystem services have been mapped at a national scale; six ecosystem services for which mapping has not been done at a national scale but
data for MAES mapping is available; five ecosystem services have not been mapped and data and/or models are missing;
and one ecosystem service has not been mapped and a substantial effort will be needed.
4.2.4. FranceThe ESMERALDA factsheet for France is based on the ‘French Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services’ (EFESE) process. It is unclear if the processes associated with search terms identified in the systematic review (e.g. ’direct market value’ for goods, ‘cost based methods’ for regulation services, and ‘direct market values’ and ‘revealed preferences’ for cultural services ) have been completed or are still in progress.
The factsheet often does not provide detail on the exact valuation method used. For example, it is stated that cultural ecosystems services are valued using revealed preferences, but it is not made explicit how they are revealed (e.g. via travel costs, hedonic approaches, etc.).
4.2.5. GermanyThe Germany ESMERALDA factsheet identifies a paper by Albert et al. (2015)12 entitled ‘Towards a national set of ecosystem service indicators: Insights from Germany’. This paper includes some maps of ecosystem service potential for use as indicators (structural water quality as an indicator for ecosystem services potential for self-purification of rivers and streams, and crop yield potential based on soil quality). Through the development and use of such indicators the authors, amongst other intended activities, sought to better
11 http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR147.pdf12https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/londongroup/meeting21/EEA_Summary_Germany_ESIndicators.pdf
12
understand the supply and demand of ecosystem services, and therefore the ecosystem service capacity, which is essential for their economic valuation and potential integration into accounting and reporting systems.
4.2.6. IrelandIreland’s ESMERALDA factsheet identifies the use of ‘discrete choice modelling’ for valuing Ireland’s water-related ecosystem services; as detailed in the report ‘What’s our water worth?’13
Review of this report reveals that the authors employed a ‘choice card’ to conduct a choice experiment to “estimate the generic values that the Irish public associate with Irish waterbodies”, and “to estimate the Irish public’s value for attributes representing the health of ecosystems, water clarity and smell, access to recreational activities and the condition of banks and shorelines”. It is debateable how well respondents interpreted the choice experiment used in the study, as 44% expressed zero willingness to pay.
4.2.7. LithuaniaSix search terms were identified in Lithuania’s ESMERALDA factsheet, however, it is difficult to identify if valuation has actually been carried out, and the majority of valuation activities mentioned relate to a pilot study for the Tytuvenai Regional Park only.
Further investigation is required in order to gain good insight into the approaches employed by the researchers; for example, those mentioned in the excerpt below:
“For the economic evaluation [in the first two pilot case studies] the following methods were used: Market value, cost based pricing, travel costs, hedonic pricing, willingness to pay – for the provisioning and cultural ecosystem services; Value (benefit) transfer – for the regulating and supporting ecosystem services with global/national effect, like carbon dioxide sequestration and climate regulation.”
4.2.8. PortugalValuation references relate to a local pilot and preliminary TEEB study for the Natural Park of Serra de São Mamede, where the economic value of ecosystem services was estimated. The economic valuation of ecosystem services that was performed used: avoided costs (carbon sequestration and soil protection), willingness to pay (biodiversity), and market prices (crop, extensive animal, and fibre production) methods.
4.2.9. SpainThe Valuation approaches referred to in the ESMERALDA factsheet for Spain are based on the Spanish Ecosystem Assessment. The assessment employed market based valuation, with stated preference and non-monetary approaches. The factsheet does not specify which ecosystem services were valued using ‘market prices’. For ‘biodiversity’, it is assumed that some ‘stated preference’ and ‘qualitative non-monetary ranking’ approaches were employed. See excerpt below:
“Valuation of 5 ecosystem services based on market based methods with interest in mapping those values captured by the market; and (3) a socioeconomic valuation taking into 13 http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/water/EPA_%20Research_%20Report_127.pdf
13
account the use and non-use values of biodiversity, as well as a plurality in terms of valuation methods (monetary and non-monetary methods related with market prices, stated preferences techniques, and demand ranking)”.
More detail is provided on the Spanish NEA under the IPBES Catalogue review section below (section 4.4).
4.3. TEEB studiesThe same set of search terms, as employed for the ESMERALDA stocktaking exercise above, were employed in the review of TEEB studies. The TEEB approach has informed studies across various scales and themes, for instance at the country scale (e.g. Finland), ecosystem scale (e.g. grassland), and at the site scale (e.g. a specific area of afforested wetland). Generally the ecosystem and site-scale studies are encompassed by a set of TEEB ‘case studies’14, in this instance, for Europe. These have not been included within the scope of this review due to their often local scale application or focus.
The approach taken to identify TEEB inspired studies for Member States was to:
Review the country pages in the TEEB-inspired Country Studies website: http://www.teebweb.org/areas-of-work/teeb-country-studies-2/; and
Conduct a Google search for ‘TEEB’ + 'Country Name' (e.g. ‘TEEB France’) and identify any key documents on the first page of returned results only.
A summary of the results is set out below.
4.3.1. BelgiumThree projects are outlined under the TEEB-Inspired country studies for Belgium:
ECOFRESH15 (focused on freshwater ecosystem services); TEEB Flanders feasibility study (focused on wetlands, forests, coasts, grasslands,
heaths, agro-ecosystems, and urban areas in the Flemish region); and TEEB Wallonia ecosystem assessment and valuation of forest ecosystems (focused
on wetlands, forests, coasts, grasslands, heaths, agro-ecosystems, and urban areas in the Walloon region).
ECOFRESH is national in its scope and seeks to conduct a comprehensive review of ecosystem services delivered by Belgian freshwater ecosystems; carryout an assessment of their importance; and, develop methodologies to better mainstream the ecosystem services concept into policy and management. No explicit reference to valuation, as such, not included in this review.
The TEEB Flanders feasibility study is based on the nature value explorer tool16,17, developed at the request of the Flemish government. The tool employs a range of valuation approaches to value marginal changes in ecosystem services under different land use
14 http://www.teebweb.org/resources/case-studies/15 https://www.uantwerpen.be/en/rg/ecobe/research/research-projects/national---flemish-p/ecofresh/16 https://www.natuurwaardeverkenner.be/index.jsf17 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925513000140?via%3Dihub
14
scenarios, rather than the total value of ecosystem services. The tool’s English manual18 informs the review carried out as part of this study and the results present in the annex 5, section 8.5.2.
The TEEB study for Wallonia, which focuses on the assessment and valuation of forest ecosystems at the site scale, involves an initial mapping phase, and then seeks to economically value the ecosystem services produced by the forest ecosystems. No readily identifiable information on this study was found, as such, it is not included in this component of the review. However, a number of studies relating to Wallonia are discussed above in section 4.2.1, and are included in the review of ESMERALDA country factsheets.
4.3.2. CroatiaAn outline presentation19 for a freshwater ecosystem study in Croatia was identified through the Google search. This study includes some consideration of ‘biodiversity values and economic valuation of ecosystem services’, but it does not appear to include any formal valuation work per se. It is suggested in the ‘past work’ section of this presentation that three economic analyses have been conducted, possibly in relation to TEEB, and that a study valuing the contributions to economic growth and human well-being of the ecosystems of the Sjeverni-Velebit National Park and Velebit Nature Park.
4.3.3. Czech RepublicThe TEEB-Inspired country studies web page for the Czech Republic20 provides information on a ‘Survey on Grassland Ecosystem Services’; this report21 has been used to inform the present review and the results set out in annex 8.5.2.
below summarises the ecosystem services assessed as part of the grassland survey, and the range of economic valuation methods used to estimate the value of the habitat.
18 https://www.natuurwaardeverkenner.be/download/manual/manual_en.html19 http://img.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Vilm-Freshwater-Ecosystem-Study-in-Croatia_1.pdf20 http://www.teebweb.org/countryprofile/czech-republic/21 http://doc.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Survey-on-grassland-ES_2011_final-report_ISBN.pdf
15
Table 2: Summary of ecosystem services assessed, ecosystem service indicators and economic valuation techniques used for the estimation of economic value of a habitat in the Czech Republic’s ‘Survey on Grassland Ecosystem Services’22.Summary of ecosystem services assessed, ecosystem service indicators and economic valuation techniques used for the estimation of economic value of a habitat in the Czech Republic’s ‘Survey on Grassland Ecosystem Services’22.
4.3.4. DenmarkThe TEEB-inspired synthesis for the Nordic countries (i.e. Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), known as ‘TEEB Nordic’, set out to “bring together existing information on the socio-economic role and significance of biodiversity and ecosystem services for the Nordic countries”.
Review of the Technical Executive Summary of the Nordic Synthesis22 reveals a range of valuation processes that have been carried out, relevant to Denmark; for example:
Fish – landed catch value; Hunting – quantitative based on participation and species numbers hunted; Pollination – reported by Axelsen et al. (2011)23, but no information on valuation
technique(s) used; Water quality – stated preference valuation; and Recreation – number of visits.
This information has been used to inform the systematic review table in annex 5, section 8.5.2.
4.3.5. FinlandIn 2015 the Finnish Ministry of the Environment published the TEEB for Finland synthesis and roadmap report24. This report presents a synthesis of case studies and a review of policy coherence with ecosystem management, and it was based on a defined set of priority ecosystem services. This report informs the review presented in annex 5, section 8.5.2.
22 http://img.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/TEEB_Nordic_-_technical_summary.pdf23 http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR832.pdf24http://catalog.ipbes.net/system/assessment/247/references/files/755/original/TEEBFinland_FinnishEnvironment_1-2015.pdf?1440586831
16
Table 3 - Table 5 below outline the range of ecosystem services the TEEB for Finland study focused on and the values for which each service was considered to provide (column 4 in each table).
Table 3: The ten most important provisioning services in Finland and their associated indicators, as identified by the TEEB for Finland synthesis and roadmap report.
17
Table 4: The twelve most important regulating and maintenance services in Finland and their associated indicators, as identified by the TEEB for Finland synthesis and roadmap report.
18
Table 5: The six most important cultural services in Finland and their associated indicators, as identified by the TEEB for Finland synthesis and roadmap report.
As outlined above for Denmark (section 4.3.4), Finland is also included in the TEEB Nordic study. Again, review of the Technical Executive Summary of the Nordic Synthesis25 reveals a range of valuation processes that have been carried out in Finland, including:
fish – landed catch value; reindeer herding – quantitative, based on numbers of herders, numbers of reindeer,
and estimates of production value; berries and mushrooms – based on a ‘Collectors Price’ – possibly akin to market
price; hunting – quantitative, based on participation and species numbers hunted, value of
hunted meat; and water quality – stated preference valuation.
4.3.6. GermanyAs part of their package of work under TEEB, Germany has developed a natural capital web-portal: NaturKapital Deutschland – TEEB DE26. This provides links to a range of publications and case studies focussed on natural capital and TEEB.
Of particular interest and relevance to this study is the report ‘The value of nature for economy and society - an introduction’27. The report features a whole chapter (3) on ‘Valuing ecosystem services and incorporating them into decision-making’, which has been reviewed and informs the systematic review table presented in annex 5, section 8.5.2.
4.3.7. LithuaniaThe web search using Google identified several presentations related to studies included in Table 1 from Bouwer et al. (2013). As discussed previously, it appears that valuation and
25 http://img.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/TEEB_Nordic_-_technical_summary.pdf26 http://www.naturkapital-teeb.de27 http://www.naturkapital-teeb.de/fileadmin/Downloads/Projekteigene_Publikationen/TEEB_Broschueren/170329_UFZ_TEEB_Einfuehrungsbericht_engl_Gesamt__web.pdf
19
assessment work in Lithuania is still being conducted at the pilot study scale; as such, no review is included.
4.3.8. LuxembourgThe Google search of the internet identified a project called ‘VALUing Ecosystem Services for environmental assessment’ (VALUES)28, with regards to Luxembourg. It appears that this is an international project, funded by the Luxembourg Research Fund, looking at life cycle assessment (LCA) and impacts on ecosystems and their services. Reference is made to calculating ecosystem service values, but specifically in the context of LCA. This could be a potentially useful resource for more in-depth reviews, but is not considered relevant here, and in not included in this review.
4.3.9. The NetherlandsAt the request of the government of The Netherlands, a series of reports for different themes (e.g. business, cities, land use management) were produced by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, between 2012 and 2014. These were outputs of the ‘Natural Capital Netherlands’ (NKN) programme, carried out by PBL, which aimed to “identify suitable tools that will enable government bodies and businesses to include nature in their decision-making”29. The most recent output of the two-year follow up study was ‘Natural capital in the Netherlands’30. This was reviewed to inform the systematic review table presented in annex 5, section 8.5.2.
4.3.10. PolandThe Polish TEEB guide for cities publication ‘Nature in the city: ecosystem services – untapped potential of cities’31 was published in 2012. The report includes a section focused on valuation (‘How to assess the value of nature? Valuation of street trees in Lodz city center’); this is a local scale study but it has been used to inform the current review (annex 5, section 8.5.2).
4.3.11. PortugalA national TEEB assessment for Portugal (‘ptTEEB’) is reported to be underway (commencing in 2011), but no evidence of progress is noted. As such, this is not included in the present review.
4.3.12. SlovakiaThere is reference on the TEEB-inspired Country Studies web page32 to a case study on selected ecosystem services (regulating, habitat, cultural and provisioning services) at national and regional level. This was led by the Institute of Landscape Ecology of the Slovak Academy of Sciences. However, no evidence of this was identified online; this is not included in the present review.
28 http://www.lifecycle-values.lu/en/about-values/29 http://themasites.pbl.nl/natuurlijk-kapitaal-nederland/natural-capital-netherlands/about-natural-capital-netherlands30 http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2016-natural-capital-in-the-netherlands-2406.pdf31 http://sendzimir.org.pl/images/ZRZ_ENG.pdf32 http://www.teebweb.org/countryprofile/slovakia/
20
4.3.13. SloveniaOne case study report33 containing a broad range of ecosystem services valuation work was identified for Slovenia through the web search. This report, ‘Ecosystem services evaluation in the Skocjan caves regional park’, seeks to present the evidence to support decision-making that is based on clearly defined economic and ecological information.
This study is considered to be site-specific and is not therefore included in this review. Future work that seeks to delve into such studies in a greater depth might find this a useful resource.
4.3.14. SwedenThe web search identified the TEEB-inspired, Swedish Government Official Report ‘Making the value of ecosystem services visible’34. This report sought to investigate the societal values of ecosystem services, to develop the knowledge base and allow the integration of ecosystem services into economic systems, and to propose improved ways that ecosystem services can be evaluated. In review of this report it was, however, found that the approach was quite generalised with no in-depth analysis. The report has been used as part of the present review and informs the review table in section 8.5.2, but the TEEB Nordic study might be considered to provide more realistic/meaningful information.
As described above for Denmark and Finland, Sweden is also included in the TEEB Nordic study. By reviewing the Technical Executive Summary of the Nordic Synthesis35 a range of valuation processes that have been carried out in Sweden were identified, including:
Fish – landed catch value; reindeer herding – quantitative, based on numbers of herders, numbers of reindeer,
and estimates of production value; berries – based on combined value of berries and mushroom; hunting – quantitative, based on levels of participation, species numbers hunted,
and value of hunted meat; and water quality – stated preference valuation case studies.
4.3.15. UKThe TEEB-inspired Country Study for the UK is the UK NEA; this is well-described in Bouwer et al. (2013)36.
4.4. IPBES Catalogue of AssessmentsThe same set of search terms as employed for the ESMERALDA stocktaking exercise (section 4.3) were employed in the review of Member State national ecosystem assessments included in the IPBES Catalogue of Assessments (http://catalog.ipbes.net/). Where the MAES initiative was found to be the only record in the catalogue for a country, it was not considered further.33 http://www.park-skocjanske-jame.si/si/file/download/48_8c77a17c04b9b/Ecosystem_Services_Evaluation.pdf34 http://img.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Making-the-value-of-ecosystem-services-visible_Sweden_2013.pdf35 http://img.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/TEEB_Nordic_-_technical_summary.pdf36 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/EU%20Valuation.pdf
21
4.4.1. BelgiumThe Flanders assessment37 is indicated as being due for completion in 2018. The findings presented in annex 5, section 8.5.3., result only from the review of the ‘Nature report 2016: Working with Nature’38. There is reference in this report to valuation activities carried out in a regional area called Rivierenland; these included interviewing key land users to assess how they rank their preferences for ecosystem services (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Valuation of ecosystem services in Rivierenland by members of the public (provisioning: blue; regulating: purple; cultural: orange) and biodiversity (green).
There is also a technical report39, however, this is only available in Dutch and therefore has not been considered as part of this review.
In the document ‘Nature Report 2014: Flanders Regional Ecosystem Assessment - State & Trends Synthesis Report40, chapter 7 provides some maps of the values of crop cultivation (net price), wood production, and carbon storage under alternative multifunctional forest management scenarios. This identifies some areas where focusing on ecosystem services rather than just food production would result in socio-economic gains.
4.4.2. DenmarkThere are 37 different assessments listed for Denmark. These all relate to multiple countries, with the vast majority relevant to the Arctic – presumed to be associated with Denmark’s sovereignty over Greenland. The non-Arctic focused studies, with exception to the MAES study, focuses on the PRESS initiative. The collaborative PRESS initiative (PEER Research on EcoSystem Services) brings together PEER (Partnership for European
37 https://www.inbo.be/en/flanders-regional-ecosystem-assessment-2014-201838 https://pureportal.inbo.be/portal/files/13129922/VanGossum_etal_2016_WorkingWithNature.pdf39 https://www.inbo.be/nl/technisch-rapport-201640https://pureportal.inbo.be/portal/files/9004761/Stevens_etal_2015_FlandersRegionalEcosystemAssessment_State_Trends.pdf
22
Environmental Research) institutes to address knowledge gaps that exist and prevent the spatially-explicit, biophysical, monetary, and policy assessment of ecosystem services in Europe.
4.4.3. FinlandThere are 39 different assessments listed for Finland. Two are specific to Finland – one of which is the TEEB study discussed in section 4.3.5 above.
The other is the COAST-MAN (or ‘coastal management’) project – an ongoing initiative by academics with local municipality support to “assess the impact of the municipal climate strategy on the assessment components for the municipality: tourism, sustainable/green cities, agricultural communities, and fishing as a livelihood option”41. The COAST-MAN project was a sub-global assessment under the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Follow-on Programme. There is no current activity within Coast-MAN project42.
The remainder of the assessments including Finland relate to multiple countries, with the vast majority relevant to the Arctic. The non-Arctic focused studies, with exception to the MAES study, focuses on the PRESS initiative, as described above for Denmark.
4.4.4. FranceThere are 8 assessments listed for France, 5 of these are specific national studies for France, with the ongoing national ecosystem assessment the most relevant. The assessment is ongoing and is anticipated to finish in 2019.
No noteworthy outputs were identified as the result of a Google search.
4.4.5. GermanyThere are 5 assessments listed for Germany, 2 of which are specific at the national scale; the remainder involve multiple nations (including: PRESS initiative; MAES; and a study by The Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF) on Arctic sea birds).
The main National study identified is the Natural Capital Germany study, discussed above in the TEEB section (section 4.3.6). The remaining national study focusses on developing a genetic library of life.
4.4.6. GreeceTwo multi-country assessments are detailed for Greece: MAES, and a Mediterranean Wetlands Outlook study. These were not reviewed as part of this study.
4.4.7. IrelandTwo multi-country assessments are detailed for Ireland: MAES, and a CAFF study on Arctic sea birds. These were not reviewed as part of this study.
4.4.8. ItalyThree multi-country assessments are detailed for Italy: MAES; PRESS initiative, and a Mediterranean Wetlands Outlook study. These were not reviewed as part of this study.
41 http://catalog.ipbes.net/assessments/7342 https://www.novia.fi/coastal-team/development-projects/coast-man-sga-2/ (accessed 27th July)
23
4.4.9. LithuaniaReferences were found to a pilot project called ‘Lithuanian ecosystem services inventory and valuation’, carried out by the Centre for Environmental Solutions. As part of this study it appears that a national list of ecosystem services were constructed but the only output on the catalogue page relates to a paper for a small-scale valuation study (site less than 10ha). The project was scheduled to finish in 2015, and it appears to be a proof of concept for a national scale assessment. Therefore, this resource was not reviewed in detail as part of this study.
4.4.10. The NetherlandsThree national assessments were identified for The Netherlands, the first of which is a TEEB study called ‘TEEB Netherlands: Regional cases project’, for which no outputs are listed. Two additional multi-country assessments are also detailed: MAES and the PRESS initiative.
An Atlas of Natural Capital43 is also listed; this could be broadly considered a quantitative valuation of ecosystem services, it is intended to be updated through to 2020. This Atlas of Natural Capital was developed by order of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Environment in the Netherlands. It appears that there is an intention to develop monetary value layers as part of the Atlas, but these are not yet apparent (N.B. economic and social valuation are listed as ‘tools and approaches used’ as part of the Atlas on the IPBES Catalogue of assessments page).
The third national assessment identified relates to the Dutch Community of Practice on Ecosystem Services; however, the Catalogue entry in incomplete and the web links included no longer work. As such, this was not considered further within the scope of this review.
In their review of National Ecosystem Assessments in Europe Schröter et al. (2016) 44 identify a report by de Knegt et al. (2014)45 which summarises the distribution of ecosystem services delivery from natural, agricultural and urban land and the amounts of supply to demand, and intends to “assign them a place in the economic system and incorporate them in the decision-making processes by government and industry”. However, this report is only available in Dutch, with an English summary, which suggests that no valuation was undertaken as part of the present study. This could potential act as a useful resource in any future assessment of valuation work if translation is available.
4.4.11. PortugalTwo assessments are detailed for Portugal, MAES and the ‘Portugal Millennium Ecosystem Assessment’46 produced as a sub-global assessment under the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) process.
In the assessment’s executive summary there is reference to the economic value of ecosystem service groups (i.e. provisioning versus supporting). There are also some links to
43 http://www.atlasnatuurlijkkapitaal.nl/en/kaarten44https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306262516_National_Ecosystem_Assessments_in_Europe_A_Review45 http://edepot.wur.nl/32317246 http://home.uni-leipzig.de/idiv/ecossistemas/
24
economic information on the total value of water supply; however, the marginal contribution of ecosystem services to this value is not provided (i.e. it is included along with inputs associated with labour and equipment). It is possible that the Portugal TEEB study attempted to explore this further.
4.4.12. SpainThere are two nationally relevant assessments listed for Spain; one focusses on the Basque country, and the other is the national scale Spanish Ecosystem Assessment47. Also detailed are MAES and a multi-country assessment for Mediterranean wetlands.
The Spanish National Ecosystem Assessment focussed on biophysical elements of ecosystems and biodiversity, and not their economic or social value. This therefore, set the rationale for a follow-up assessment seeking to conduct a comprehensive socio-economic valuation. As set out in the ‘Additional relevant information’ section, this sought to take into account “the use and non-use values of biodiversity, as well as a plurality in terms of valuation methods (monetary and non-monetary methods related with market prices, stated preferences techniques, and demand ranking”. In the synthesis of key findings48 there is a table ( below) which shows the valuation techniques employed as part of the Spanish socio-economic valuation analyses (N.B. ‘meta-analysis’ is a type of benefits transfer).
47 http://www.ecomilenio.es/48 https://www.dropbox.com/s/tjz9a6rg5y3yuf2/INFORME%20EMEC%202016%20Alta.pdf?dl=0
25
Table 6: Economic values for each ecosystem service subject to different valuation approaches (Santos-Martin et al., 2016).
4.4.13. SwedenThere are 39 different assessments listed for Sweden; 37 of these relate to multiple countries, with the vast majority relevant to the Arctic. There are two assessments specific to Sweden, both of which are local scale; these relate to the Kristianstad Wetlands and Stockholm Urban areas. These were not reviewed as part of this study.
4.4.14. UKThere are 15 assessments listed for the UK; 12 are relevant to the UK only, and of these the UK National Ecosystem Assessment (NEA) is the most relevant; this is described in detail by Bouwer et al. (2013). Further studies listed focus on the value of ecosystem services from upland ecosystems49 conducted in 2009, and ‘Valuing Ecosystem Services in the East of England’50, published in 2011. These studies are not reviewed here, but might be useful resources for more in-depth analysis in the future.
The UK NEA Follow-on study is not listed on the IPBES Catalogue of Assessments. However, this is highly relevant to the present review and has therefore been included. Work Package 49http://catalog.ipbes.net/system/assessment/189/references/files/563/original/NECR029_edition_1.pdf?136423275250 http://catalog.ipbes.net/assessments/182
26
351 of the UK NEA Follow-on focussed on the ‘Economic value of ecosystem services’; this has been included in the IPBES Catalogue of Assessments systematic review table (section 8.5.3). This describes The Integrated Model (TIM), which is a spatial model that employs ecosystem service valuation techniques to prescribe economically optimal spatial distribution of the UKs extended forest estate, largely based on the afforestation of agricultural land. It incorporates:
An agricultural production module: based on a market price approach to estimate spatial agricultural profits for key agricultural commodities in the UK;
A timber module: this calculates spatial profits from timber in different areas with different species; and
A recreational module: which estimates the value of forest visits, based on a benefits function transfer derived from revealed preferences to travel to sites as obtained from the Monitoring Engagement with the Natural Environment (MENE) data.
4.5. OpenNESS case studiesOperationalisation of Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services (OpenNESS) aims to translate the concepts of natural capital and ecosystem services into operational frameworks that provide tested, practical and tailored solutions for integrating ecosystem services into land, water and urban management and decision-making. It examines how the concepts link to, and support, wider EU economic, social and environmental policy initiatives and scrutinises the potential and limitations of the concepts of ecosystem services and natural capital. In particular methods relating to mapping and assessment are being utilised by Member State to undertake activities related to the implementation of MAES.
Central to the OpenNESS project is a set of multi-scale case study approaches on the application of ecosystem service and natural capital approaches in decision-making situations. These are listed at www.openness-project.eu/cases. Review of these case studies identified a number of very local site-scale projects that are not considered further in this report.
At the ecosystem scale, a single case study was identified: Case 06 - integrating ecosystem services into forest policy and management in Finland. This study proposes to employ: a) participatory methods to identify key ecosystem services from forests; b) up-to date forest and land-use models to quantify ecosystem services; and, c) monetary and non-monetary valuation methods to communicate the value of these services to policy makers and stakeholders.
4.6. Results from National Statistics and SEEA reviewsWhilst environmental accounting is a requirement of Member States and EU Regulation, the modules mandated do not extend to ecosystems or their services52 (N.B. this therefore
51 http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=1n4oolhlksY%3d&tabid=8252 http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Environmental_accounts_-_establishing_the_links_between_the_environment_and_the_economy
27
provides the rationale for the KIP INCA project53). The EC (2016)54 identify that experimental ecosystem accounting is underway in some form in the Netherlands, UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain.
In order to identify and review ecosystem accounting initiatives involving valuation in the Member States this study sought to:
review the references in the EC (2016) report for Netherlands, UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain only; and
undertake a Google search with the terms ‘Ecosystem Account’ plus the Member State country names.
These review actions again employed the search terms as used in the ESMERALDA factsheet review (as described in section 4.2) to rapidly highlight any areas of potential importance and interest in the located resources.
The results of this review are set out below.
4.6.1. AustriaA case study for mapping ecosystem service values in the Austrian Alps was identified 55. However, this was very local in scale and not considered relevant to this study.
4.6.2. BelgiumAn initiative called ‘Belgium Ecosystem Services: a new vision for society-nature interactions (BEES)’ was identified56. This appears to be focused at a very high level and is therefore not considered relevant to this study.
4.6.3. Czech RepublicAn academic study (Frélichová et al., 2014) using a benefits transfer approach (similar to the approach of Costanza et al. (1997 and 2014), which is based on an assumed constant value of services provided per hectare of ecosystem type, parameterised based on ecosystem service values from studies in Europe) was identified57. This study produced a national map of ecosystem service values. This has not been included in the present review, but could be useful in more in-depth future studies.
53 The KIP INCA project is the inter-DG and inter-EU-institution Knowledge Innovation Project on Integrated System for Natural Capital and Ecosystem Services Accounting in the EU. This aims to develop EU wide ecosystem capital accounts and is a forum for bringing together Member State representatives to explore progress with accounting, how this can build on the MAES initiative, and common challenges in developing accounts to realise commitments. It builds on data from LUCAS, Copernicus, MAES, and environmental reporting and is an EU inter-services group comprising DG ENV, DG CLIMA, DG JRC, DG ESTAT, DG RTD and the EEA.54 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/capital_accounting/pdf/KIP_INCA_final_report_phase-1.pdf55 http://www.afrjournal.org/index.php/afr/article/view/33556 http://igeat.ulb.ac.be/fr/projets/details/project/belgium-ecosystem-services-a-new-vision-for-society-nature-interactions/57 https://www.academia.edu/7774078/Integrated_assessment_of_ecosystem_services_in_the_Czech_Republic?auto=download
28
A study for assessing the impacts of climate change on regulating services was also identified58, but the search terms ‘value’ and ‘account’ were not included anywhere in this report, and as such, it was not considered relevant in the context of this study.
4.6.4. DenmarkA study entitled ‘Water resource accounts and accounts for the quantity and value of ecosystem services connected with the Danish water resources: methods and requirements’ was identified59.
This report takes the form of a scoping study; it also proposes a methodology and reviews data (including valuation data) for developing water resource accounts using the SEEA for Water60 publication.
In this report an account called the ‘Annual value of water resource related ecosystem services and the value of the total water resource’ is proposed; this is of potential interest within the present review. The report proposes that market prices could be used for water provisioning services (both drinking and non-drinking). For regulating services, the most important is ‘retain and transform nutrients and other pollutants’; it is proposed to use a benefits transfer approach based on existing studies that have estimated avoided costs associated with the most cost-effective alternative nutrient reduction method. Cultural services for this account are considered in the context of the recreational and intellectual use of water resources. The report proposes using benefits transfer from three stated preference surveys (using a combination of choice experiment and contingent valuation) at different locations.
As this is a scoping exercise the findings are not included in the review (see annex 5, section 8.5.4).
4.6.5. FranceAs stated above, France was identified in the 2016 EC report as having commenced with experimental ecosystem accounting in some form. Upon review it appears that the experimental ecosystem accounting work conducted to date relates to the trial of the CBD Quick Start Accounts, which do not include modules on ecosystem service values specifically. As such, this is not considered further within the scope of this review.
4.6.6. GermanyGermany, as with France above, was referred to in the 2016 EC report as having carried out some experimental ecosystem accounting. This reference refers to the national set of ecosystem service supply and use indicators described in the ESMERALDA country factsheet review for Germany in section 4.2.5 above.
4.6.7. LatviaSearches conducted for Latvia returned no results for ‘ecosystem accounting’; however, the search did identify the ‘LIFE EcosystemServices’ website61. This is a government initiative 58 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ehs2.1210/pdf59 http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR116.pdf60 https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envAccounting/seeaw/seeawaterwebversion.pdf61 http://ekosistemas.daba.gov.lv/public/eng/deliverables_and_publications1/economic_valuation/
29
that provides a summary of economic valuation carried out in some pilot regions in Latvia. As there is no ESMERALDA factsheet for Latvia, it is considered that the ‘LIFE EcosystemServices’ website could be a potentially useful alternative information resource.
4.6.8. The NetherlandsIn The Netherlands, ecosystem accounts have been developed at a regional scale for the Limburg provinces62,63; these estimate the value of the following ecosystem services:
Provisioning (crop and fodder production) – based on the ‘resource rent’ approach (N.B. this is essentially market prices minus the costs of other inputs/labour);
Provisioning (groundwater) – based on the replacement cost of the most cost efficient alternative;
Cultural (nature tourism) – based on the ‘resource rent’ approach: total revenue of nature-based tourism was €247 million - minus intermediate costs of €127 million, labour costs of €68 million, and user costs of fixed capital of €14 million);
Cultural (hunting) – based on the ‘resource rent’ approach (N.B. in this context this is essentially the market price paid to landowners for hunting rights – it is assumed landowners have no costs for supplying the right to hunt);
Regulating – removal of air pollutants/particulate matter (PM10) by vegetation based on avoided damage (estimated air pollution health costs);
Regulating – carbon sequestration by vegetation based on avoided damage (social cost of carbon – which can be referred to as the estimated damage costs of climate change on a per tonne carbon dioxide equivalent basis); and
Cultural (nature tourism).
4.6.9. PolandThrough the Google search an article called ‘Resources of the Polish Official Statistics for valuation of provisioning ecosystem services’ was found64. This article explores the available national statistics that could potentially inform valuation, and it concludes that information on yields is sufficient to allow a spatially coarse-scale assessment (national/sub-national regions), but that it is not possible to disaggregate this data to a local scale.
4.6.10. RomaniaThe web search also identified the following news article relating to a project entitled ‘Demonstrating and promoting natural values to support decision-making in Romania’ or ‘Nature4Decision-making – N4D’65. This project seeks to map and value Romania’s ecosystem services in accordance with the MAES process, and is running through to early 2018.
62https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roy_Remme/publication/272772448_Monetary_accounting_of_ecosystem_services_A_test_case_for_Limburg_province_the_Netherlands/links/556c338b08aec22683038d60.pdf63 https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/e/b/6/d34e724a-4ba3-49ca-915c-c2ee1d37c8ba_Final%20report%20part%20II-Monetary%20Supply%20and%20Use.pdf64https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/12928/1/Resources_of_the_Polish_officjal_statistics_for_valuation_of_provisioning_ecosystem_services.pdf65 https://www.agerpres.ro/english/2016/05/25/romania-s-ecosystems-to-be-mapped-by-2018-under-project-worth-3-38-ml-euro-14-56-02
30
A comprehensive report produced under the N4D project66 sets out a number of valuation options for Romania by which they could assess their ecosystem services. However, only one pilot case study of ecosystem services valuation in Romania is actually presented; the economic valuation of forest ecosystem services based on reported national level statistics. As such, this is not considered further in this review.
4.6.11. SwedenSome land accounts for ecosystem services that have been developed in Sweden were identified67. The report presenting these land accounts discusses valuation but does not apply it beyond some quantitative values for blueberry provisioning, carbon sequestration, and recreational visits. This work is not considered further within the scope of this review.
4.6.12. UKThe UK has published68 monetary estimates of selected ecosystem services at the national scale, by way of demonstrating the value of its natural capital. In summary, the report includes estimates of:
Provisioning (fish, drinking water, timber, agricultural production) – using the ‘Resource Rent’ approach – based on market prices minus costs of inputs/labour;
Regulating (PM10 and SO2 removal by vegetation based on avoided damage – these are essentially air quality damage costs as developed by DEFRA, which are based on mortality and morbidity);
Regulating (Carbon sequestration, based on the non-traded cost of carbon69 – this is a replacement cost approach, where the cost is essentially grounded in the abatement costs of achieving the carbon reduction via other means – either by investing in technology or the costs of policy interventions); and
Cultural (Recreational visits – Market process, based on travel expenditure, admission process and parking).
Further consideration is given in the Office for National Statistics’ bulletin ‘UK Natural Capital: Ecosystem accounts for farmland (Experimental Statistics)’70; for example:
Regulating (pollination based on production function – however, these are captured in the overall provisioning service within the resource rent).
4.7. Results from OPERAs reviewThere are six references to the search terms ‘value’ or ‘valuation’ in the publications section of the OPERAs project website71:
66 https://www.oppla.eu/sites/default/files/uploads/assessment-ecosystems-and-ecosystem-services-romanian-en-212-pg.pdf67http://www.scb.se/contentassets/6d29a226fcd34a0fa192c97c8ec339dc/mi1301_2015a01_br_mi71br1701eng.pdf68https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/monetaryestimates2016#service-flow-estimates-by-category-of-natural-capital69https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/245334/1_20090715105804_e____carbonvaluationinukpolicyappraisal.pdf70https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/ecosystemaccountsforfarmlandexperimentalstatistics#annex-4-monetary-accounts-discussion71 http://operas-project.eu/publications
31
Bayer et al. (2015)72 discuss the concept of Greenhouse Gas Value (GHGV) accounts. This is not considered further as part of this study;
Bullock et al. (2014)73 attempt to estimate natural capital value of Ireland’s native woodland. This study relies on approaches used in other studies and used reported values to make assumptions about the value of different ecosystem services supplied by Ireland’s woodland. This report is not considered further as part of this study;
Koetse and Brouwer (2015)74 explore people’s willingness to pay and willingness to accept changes in dike height at the Ijsselmeer and associated probability of flooding. This is a theoretical study focussed at the regional scale and is not considered further as part of this study;
Schmidt et al. (2016)75 conducted surveys in order to assess visitor’s preferences in the Pentland Hills and urban green spaces of Edinburgh for land management practices and scenarios. This research relates to site scale valuation of ecosystem services, and is not considered further as part of this study;
Scholte et al. (2015)76 present a review of concepts and methods available for the use of socio-cultural valuation of ecosystem service. This report is not considered further as part of this study; and
Walz et al. (2016)77 review of four social valuation studies focusing on ES in mountain regions in the European Alps and the Rocky Mountains: not considered further as part of this study.
Work conducted under the OPERAs project focussed on exemplars to test the use of tools and approaches in decision-making, these were not official government studies such as the work undertaken through MAES. Work such as this undertaken as part of research studies should be highlighted to Member States for utilisation in their ongoing valuation activities.
4.8. Synthesis of review resultsIn order to demonstrate where the main areas of ecosystem service valuation activity have been conducted, in terms of the Member States and the valuation tools employed, the results from the systematic reviews presented above (sections 4.2- 4.6) are synthesised in Table 7 below.
72 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937801500034573 http://www.nzjforestryscience.com/content/44/S1/S474 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-015-9920-275 http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00044.176 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180091500091977 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10113-016-1028-x
32
Table 7 Synthesis of results from the systematic review of Member State activity under ESMERALDA, TEEB studies, IPBES Catalogue of Assessments, and National Statistics and SEEA
EU Member State
Process reviewed
Valuation toolsMarket based* 0Market prices 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15Net price method 0Substitute goods 1 1 1 1 4Cost based* 1 1 1 1 1 5Avoided cost 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Conversion cost 1 1Damage cost 1 1 1 1 1 5Mitigation cost 1 1Opportunity cost 1 1 1 3Replacement cost 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Restoration cost 1 1 1 1 4Production based* 1 1 2Bio-economic modelling 1 1 2Factor income** 1 1 1 1 4Production function** 1 1 1 3Revealed Preference* 1 1 1 1 1 1 6Averting behaviour 0Hedonic pricing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Public investments 1 1 2Travel cost method 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Stated preference* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7Choice modelling 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9Contingent ranking 1 1 1 3Contingent valuation method 1 1 1 1 1 5Deliberative valuation** 1 1 2Participatory valuation** 1 1 1 1 1 5Other non-monetary* 1 1 1 1 1 5Deliberative 0Participatory mapping (i.e. non-specific non-monetary) 1 1 1 3Qualitative 1 1 1 1 1 1 6Quantitative 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8Existing knowledge* 1 1 1 3Benefits transfer 1 1 1 1 1 1 6Delphi approach 1 1 2Expert judgement (i.e. non-specific existing knowledge) 1 1 1 1 1 5
5 11 9 0 2 0 0 0 0 22 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 23 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 21 0 0 1 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 12 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 17 0 0 4 0 1
TEEB studies
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
National Statistics and SEEA
ESMERALDA
TEEB studies
ESMERALDA
TEEB studies
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
National Statistics and SEEA
ESMERALDA
National Statistics and SEEA
ESMERALDA
TEEB studies
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
National Statistics and SEEA
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
National Statistics and SEEA
ESMERALDA
TEEB studies
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
TEEB studies
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
National Statistics and SEEA
ESMERALDA
TEEB studies
ESMERALDA
TEEB studies
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
National Statistics and SEEA
ESMERALDA
National Statistics and SEEA
ESMERALDA
TEEB studies
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
National Statistics and SEEA
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
National Statistics and SEEA
ESMERALDA
TEEB studies
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
TEEB studies
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
National Statistics and SEEA
ESMERALDA
TEEB studies
ESMERALDA
TEEB studies
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
National Statistics and SEEA
ESMERALDA
Portugal Belgium Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Ireland Lithuania The Netherlands Poland
31
22
16
Spain Sweden
19
33
11
22
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
National Statistics and SEEA
ESMERALDA
TEEB studies
IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
National Statistics and SEEA
* Denotes where reference has been made to the valuation tool group type only** Denotes that these valuation terms are synonymous for one another, but have been referred to individually
33
N.B. Results from the OpenNESS and OPERAs reviews have not been included in this synthesis (see sections 4.5 and 4.7 for more detail)
34
5. EXPERT INTERVIEWSIn order to obtain a direct assessment of the state of ecosystem services valuation work conducted by the Member States, contact was made with a number of leading practitioners working in the fields of ecosystem service assessment and valuation, with the intention to conduct expert interviews. Expert were identified in the following countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, France, Germany, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, and Spain. Interviews were conducted with the following experts:
Fernando Santos Martin (Spain); Stoyan Nedkov (Bulgaria); Arjan Ruijs (The Netherlands); Yann Kervinio (France); Peter Bezak (Slovakia); Tania López-Piñeiro Perez (Spain); and Phiippe Puydarrieux (France).
See section 8.6 for the interview questions presented to the experts.
The responses from the expert interviews are summarised below. The complete interview transcripts can be seen in section 8.7.
5.1. France case studyThe French government are carrying out the French Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services (EFESE). The assessment is being carried out in two phases. Phase one has been completed and it assessed pollination services. The second phase is ongoing and seeks to assess ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, coastal erosion regulation, water regulation, hunting, recreation.
The assessment has an ecosystem service valuation component. Cost-based methods, namely market prices, public pricing, defensive expenditure, replacement costs, restoration costs, damage cost avoided, net factor income, production function, travel cost, and hedonic pricing were used in the assessment. These methods of valuation were selected in order to ensure the potential use of the results; methodologies based on willingness to pay, participatory valuation, value transfer, etc. are prone to biases and are often considered as not totally “objective”, and were therefore not used. Cost-based methods leave fewer places for discussion.
The results of the valuation work that has been conducted have been used in communication and awareness raising. Many press articles quoted the national assessment of pollination for example, and especially the economic value of the ecosystem service. Examples include: Le Monde, Les Échos, and France culture. The results have also been used in supporting policy design: the results of various valuations of ecosystem services (EFESE as well as UK-NEA and several other assessments) were quoted by Members of Parliament during the parliamentarian debates about the law on the recovery of the biodiversity, nature and landscapes (Law No. 2016-1087 of August 8, 2016). However, so far the results are not sufficient to support the integration of ecosystem service values into
35
decision-making, in particular into Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). Some results cannot be integrated into CBA, to avoid double counting. For instance, the value of agricultural production and the value of pollination cannot be aggregated because pollination is valued as a production function of agriculture.
The impact of the valuation results are difficult to assess at this stage . However, the process of assessment and valuation was valuable and the use of economic values proved to be strategic. The main aim of the national ecosystems and ecosystem services assessment in France was to build a framework of practitioners (advisory board) and to renew the debate between stakeholders about biodiversity within the EFESE steering committee. The ministry in charge of environment set up a web platform (http://plateforme-efese.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/), which is open to both the community of practitioners and stakeholders. This website offers a place where all stakeholders can express their positions and thoughts about the on-going assessments and the key messages delivered by each assessment. This is a living platform and it demonstrates real interest from all parties in the assessment. The economic values are strategic, especially when they are quoted by the media, and when they are published by an official source, such as a ministry. In that case their visibility is often much more important than results published by a scientific journal. This is why certain stakeholders are cautious with the publication of economic values.
5.2. Netherlands case studyThe assessment processes conducted in the Netherlands include: (1) developing an ecosystem services indicator to show the status and trends of ecosystem services delivery and use (http://edepot.wur.nl/323172); (2) the ‘Atlas Natural Capital’ (www.atlasnatuurlijkkapitaal.nl), which collects and displays a broad range of maps containing information on natural capital and ecosystem services, for use in planning processes and research, among others; (3) Statistics Netherlands (CBS) and Wageningen University and Research (WUR) are working on a National Natural Capital Account (NCA) for the Netherlands, based on accounts for ecosystems and a large number of ecosystem services, also including, where possible, monetary accounts; (4) a large project on how ecosystem services information could be included in decision-making processes and how differences in these processes affect the approach adopted, definitions, and data needs (http://themasites.pbl.nl/natuurlijk-kapitaal-nederland/natural-capital-netherlands); and, (5) a guide for assessing changes in ecosystem services and biodiversity resulting from nature impacting activities, is currently being developed. This guide will consider changes in terms societal cost benefit analysis, and it is intended that this will serve as a standard and state of the art.
These assessments focus on a wide range of ecosystem services, and in particular, those that were most relevant to stakeholders, such as water, land, production, regulating or cultural services. For the different assessments, no specific valuation methods have been selected so far. However, the valuation phase of the National NCA (2018-2019) will build on the state of the art methods for estimating the values as used for accounting purposes. In the Natural Capital Netherlands programme, monetising welfare effects due to changes in natural resources turned out to be relevant only for some of the decision-making processes
36
evaluated. In the case studies where valuation played a role, use was made, as much as possible, of existing data. The CBS ecosystem services assessment lists and attempts to prioritise possible valuation methods. This includes the use of base values, revealed preference, market price, and hedonic pricing studies. In the recent past, a few choice experiments were used to obtain more insight in people’s willingness to pay for water safety and nature friendly farming.
The extent to which the results of the valuations conducted played a role in making a choice, proposing realistic alternatives for consideration, or changing peoples’ minds, depended on the phase of the project (early in the decision-making process, or in a later stage, closer to actual decisions). The estimates were most often used in cost-benefit weighting, and it was case specific as to whether the focus was on effects to society in general, or to individual stakeholder groups. In the latter case, it was not always the social values that were most relevant, sometimes financial consequences for individual stakeholders were more relevant.
In the pilot study on NCA executed by Statistics Netherlands and WUR, valuation played a role to show the importance of natural capital. It has not yet been used in any actual policy decisions. In the case of the Natural Capital Netherlands programme, valuation played a role especially early in the decision-making process, to select the most promising alternative options, or to design a good alternative option (e.g. used in the ‘Eems-Dollard’ case study where an innovative dike zone was designed to create nature, reduce flooding probabilities, and create employment opportunities).
For the National NCA a partial (thematic) carbon account has recently been developed which may be used in decision-making for energy-policies.
In terms of impacts achieved, it is difficult to say as decision-making processes related to spatial changes take a lot of time. It is not always easy to trace the effects of particular types of information in influencing decision-making processes. In general, awareness about the possibility to use ecosystem services differently or the potential that ecosystem services could provide, was in several cases more important than information about the social or private value of these ecosystem services. This awareness, in many cases, was only to a small extent dependent on insights in the value of ecosystem services.
5.3. Slovakia case studySlovakia conducted an ecosystem services assessment process in Trnava (a city in the west of the country). The objective of this case study was to evaluate the current state of the ecosystem services concept implementation in Slovakia, and to propose appropriate methods for spatial planning at local and regional level in urban and peri-urban areas for improved ecosystem services management. The assessment focussed on ten ecosystem services considered to be most important in the case study area. These ecosystem services were selected by experts and stakeholders and included biomass for food production, water for drinking and non-drinking purposes, regional and local climate regulation, and recreational services.
37
Several approaches and new methods for the assessment of ecosystem services were used, including biophysical and socio-cultural methods. An evaluation was made of landscape capacity to provide selected ecosystems services, based on GIS methods and tools, and participatory approaches. QUICKScan78 software was used to identify urban green and open spaces, and to conduct ecosystem service valuation. Recreational ecosystem services were valued using the ESTIMAP model. These methods were used in the OpenNESS project and were relevant and applicable for the case study area also.
The results of the valuations conducted have been partly used, mainly for publications and by local government. The main impact has been raising public awareness on the importance of ecosystem services. The feedback from potential users of the new methods and tools (researchers, NGOs, town and regional officials) used in the assessment has been very positive. A foundation was created for a new approach to spatial/urban planning and the decision-making process. The debate on the ecosystem services approach in Slovakia was opened and stakeholders were mobilised through regular meetings, active work, and discussion on the results. There is a plan to use the results in policy-making processes. The barriers preventing the use of the results include unclear relationship of results to recent regulatory frameworks in respect to land use/landscape planning, lack of human and financial resources to make results operational, and rigid national legislation that is not open for the incorporation of the ecosystem services concept (difficult to include in decision-making process). In addition, if the use of the ecosystem service concept and assessment results is to be mandatory in planning processes, awareness of the concept and approaches by all key stakeholders is critical.
A number of lessons can be learned from the Trnava case study: it provides a methodological background for ecosystem services assessment in similar landscapes (small cities and suburban areas); it showed that the use of simple methods in assessments is more suitable for practical implementation (complex methods are more scientifically reliable but can present challenges for implementation); and, the tiered approach (national-regional-local) to ecosystem services assessment is useful.
5.4. Spain case studyThe Spanish National Ecosystem Assessment (SNEA) tried to cover all of the ecosystem services (22) under the MA definition, as part of their MA follow-on work. The second phase of the assessment carried out economic valuation work and focussed on priority ecosystem services. The ecosystem services were selected based on their importance for human well-being aspects in Spain and the status of those ecosystem services (e.g. if in more degraded state, they were considered more important). Based on these two criteria, a subset of twelve ecosystem services were selected for valuation purposes. The Spanish socio-economic valuation assessment also set out to cover different methods of valuation (e.g. market based methods, cultural etc.).
The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and Environment in Spain supplied easily accessible information on production. However, there was a need to cover gaps from the data supplied. Spain started the whole process around a literature review, mainly of 78 http://www.quickscan.pro/
38
scientific publications on economic valuation of ecosystem services in Spain. Publications (up to 2015) were reviewed and a meta-analysis was conducted, allowing the definition of what the most critical ecosystems and ecosystem services were and therefore, what should be covered in the assessment. Three techniques were used: a meta-analysis review based on publications, market-based, and stated preference (those without any market based information available).
In terms of how the results of the valuations conducted have been used, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and Environment was very pleased that the study had been conducted, as it was a requirement for them, and it therefore satisfied that particular demand. The study is still under discussion and review within the Ministry, and they have expressed interest in an accounting process for 1-3 ecosystem services using the processes as proposed by the MAES working group. This is more applicable and has more potential for practical application than the valuation approaches used in the SNEA. These are considered by the Ministry to be better for communication purposes, but not necessarily for decision-making.
All the work undertaken under the SNEA, both the ecosystem assessment and the valuation of ecosystem services, has been used to provide an answer to the actions outlined in the Spanish Action Plan for Natural Heritage and Biodiversity, and in the EU Biodiversity Strategy (Target 2 action 5).
Regarding impacts that the results of the valuation work has had, up to now, it is not possible to measure the impact of these activities. In any case, there is all still an important step to achieve, the integration of the economic value of ecosystem services into accounting and reporting systems. It is still difficult to foresee what the final outcome of the whole exercise would be, but the work developed under the SNEA has provided essential information for the purpose of moving towards any potential integration of such values.
It is worth noting that any information provided on valuation tend to be scrutinised, and criticised. The Ministry have a strong position on this, they see it as being important, but don’t necessarily know what to do with valuation results. The Ministry do not necessarily have the expertise to know how to interpret the results and apply them, possibly also with the fear that they would open themselves up for scrutiny and criticism. The accounting side of things would carry more confidence from the ministry; they are more familiar with this approach. Different units from within the Ministry also accept results and figures in different ways. This also causes problems in terms of uptake of results.
5.5. Bulgaria case studyBulgaria have just finished a project to conduct a national ecosystem services mapping, but this only entailed a biophysical assessment. The mapping process was organised through several different projects, for example the MetEcoSMap and IBBIS projects. Some valuation activities were included in this project, but these were only at the local scale.
The mapping of ecosystem services and assessment of their condition is a follow-up of action 5 of the MAES process, and forms part of the road map prepared by the Minister of the Environment and Water. A further goal is the valuation of these ecosystem services, the
39
mapping therefore forms the first step. As a result the working group of MAES in Bulgaria have developed a timeline for the valuation; according to this timeline, in 2018-2019 there should be a methodology developed for the monetary valuation of ecosystem services followed by its implementation. Subsequently, it is aimed to incorporate these values into national accounts in 2020.
In the mapping phase 25 ecosystem services were defined, however it is understood that in the next phase it will need to be decided which services from these can be valued.
5.6. Summary of Expert Interview case studiesTable 8 below, sets out a summary of the main findings presented in the Expert Interview case studies in sections 5.1 to 5.5 above.
40
Table 8 Summary of results from expert interview case studies
Case study Member State
ES assessed Tools used Use of resultsImpact(s) achieved
Problems encountered/barriers
France
Pollination, Carbon sequestration,Coatal erosion regulation,Water regulation,Hunting,Recreation
Cost based methods,Market prices, Public pricing,Defensive expenditure,Replacement costs,Restoration costs,Damage costs avoided,Net factor income,Production function,Travel cost,Hedonic pricing
Communications and awareness raising,Quoted by Members of Parliament,Policy design support
Difficult to assess at present
None stated
The Netherlands
A number of assessments focusing on a wide range of ecosystem services, in particular, those of most relevance to stakeholders, such as water, land, production, regulating or cultural services.
No specific valuation methods across the assessments, but include: base values, revealed preference, market price, hedonic pricing, and choice experiments.
Cost-benefit weighting, Awareness raising around importance of natural capital,Land use planning (e.g. Eems-Dollard dike zone)
Not easy to define the influence in decision-making processes
None stated
Slovakia
Ten ecosystem services including biomass for food production, water for drinking and non-drinking purposes, regional and local climate regulation, and recreational services
Participatory approaches, and QUICKScan software and ESTIMAP model
For publications and by local government
Public awareness raising on the importance of ecosystem services
Unclear relationship of results to regulatory frameworks,Lack of human and financial resources to make results operational, Rigid national legislation that is not open for the incorporation of ecosystem services and is therefore difficult to include them in decision-making processes
Spain
Food (agricultural production),Water for consumption,Gene pool (agro-biodiversity),Climate regulation,Water purification,Erosion control,Natural disturbances (fire control),Biological control,Recreation/nature tourism, Local ecological knowledge,Spiritual and religious feeling,Aesthetic pleasure in landscape
Meta-analysis review,Market-based,Stated preference
Satified demand upon the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and Environment to conduct valuation work
Not possible to measure the impact
Lack of expertise in Ministry departments to interpret and apply results
BulgariaN/A (Not yet commenced with valuation phase of national assessment)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
41
6. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTSThrough the definition of agreed-upon sets of ecosystem services, valuation approaches, and associated key words, systematic reviews of material published via ESMERALDA country factsheets, TEEB studies, IPBES Catalogue of Assessments, National Statistics and SEEA reviews, other notable synthesis documents, and that identified through web searching, were conducted. These reviews sought to identify where EU Member State countries had conducted ecosystem service valuation activities, in order to understand where progress has been made, and where gaps still exist.
The approach taken was to use a ‘key word’ search and map out the results on a set of matrices or tables, demonstrating what valuation methods have been employed by the Member States for what ecosystem services, in order for any common themes to be identified.
Table 7 presents a synthesis of the systematic review results. In summary of the information presented, it was identified that:
8 Member States (Belgium, Croatia, Denmark, France, Ireland, Lithuania, Portugal, and Spain) include details of some ecosystem service valuation activities in their ESMERALDA country factsheets;
o Including 24 references to the use of valuation tools. 8 Member States (Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Germany, The
Netherlands, Poland, and Sweden (and the UK via the UK NEA)) include details of some ecosystem service valuation activities in their TEEB studies;
o Including 103 references to the use of valuation tools. 2 Member States (Belgium and Spain (and the UK via the UK NEA)) have resources
containing details of some ecosystem service valuation activities uploaded to the IPBES Catalogue of Assessments;
o Including 26 references to the use of valuation tools. 1 Member State (Sweden (and The Netherlands, via the ecosystem accounts for
Limburg Province; and the UK via several Office for National Statistics reports)) includes some reference to ecosystem service valuation activities in work carried out as part of National Statistics and SEEA related reviews;
o Including 1 reference to the use of valuation tools, suggesting that to date, there is very little valuation activity linked to National Statistics and SEEA.
A number of very local site-scale projects including reference to ecosystem service valuation activities conducted as part of the OpenNESS project; however, that are not considered further in this report due to their scale;
Belgium is the Member State with the most references to the use of valuation tools across the resources reviewed in this study (25), and is the only Member State to include references to valuation work in three study areas (ESMERALDA, TEEB Studies, and IPBES Catalogue of Assessments);
The use of ‘market price’ based approaches was found to be the most common; it was referred to 15 times across the studies reviewed; and
42
Three valuation tools (‘Net price method’, ‘Averting behaviour’, and ‘Deliberative’) were not referred to in any of the resources review as part of this study.
Using the results of the ESMERALDA country factsheet systematic review, a mapping of valuation techniques to ecosystem services was conducted for the 8 Member States listed above. Analysis of this mapping, however, does not provide enough evidence to draw any firm conclusions or patterns in terms of the consistent use of any particular approach for valuing specific ecosystem services. However, it is possible to draw some observations from the results:
The use of ‘market prices’ was the most common approach employed; reference to its use was recorded in five Member States (Belgium, France, Lithuania, Portugal, Spain);
Three references to the use of ‘Other non-monetary’ valuation tools were identified (Belgium, France, Spain);
‘Cost based’ was referred to twice (France, Lithuania), as was ‘avoided cost’ (Lithuania, Portugal); and
The ‘Travel cost method’ was also referred to twice (Croatia, Lithuania).
With regards to these observations it is worth reiterating, as outlined above (section 4.2.7), that some of the instances of these valuation techniques being referred to in the assessment literature do not always confirm that any valuation has actually been carried out. Sometimes techniques are discussed or referred to that have been pilot tested at the site scale, or even where they have been considered for use. Such summaries and observations should therefore, be treated with caution until more in-depth research can confirm the explicit actions of the Member States.
The use of market price based approaches identified in this study was generally found to be either directly based on the market value of freely traded ecosystem service goods, or the market price minus other input costs (i.e. the environmental resource rent). Such approaches do not capture the total ‘willingness to pay’ of consumers (i.e. consumer surplus). As such, they are consistent with ‘transaction’ or ‘market prices’ for goods, services, or assets that are reflected in the System of National Accounts and the associated satellite System of Environmental Economic Accounts.
As outlined above, a number of references to non-monetary valuation approaches were identified through this study. Given the range and nature of ecosystem services (and their beneficiaries), reducing their appraisal to monetary analysis is likely to limit decision-making options by offering narrow mono-criterion information. In the UK, it has been suggested to use Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA) as a means of environmental policy appraisal where valuation is not possible, or where it fails to capture the diverse plurality of values that often exist around environmental decision-making. MCA is predicated on establishing a sound set of criteria for evaluating options, often supplemented by a weighting system (see Dodgson et al., 200979). Thus, MCA can capture broad information from a range of stakeholder’s on their preferences for both evaluation criteria and the relative importance of these criterion.
79 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/multi-criteria-analysis-manual-for-making-government-policy
43
This type of approach lends itself to environmental policy, where many ecosystem services, and preferences for these services, are difficult to represent with monetary values. The disadvantage of such non-monetary approaches is that they are context specific. Whilst they allow a ranking of different environmental outcomes across a set of stakeholders, the approach does not provide the common monetary measure that communicates net benefits of decisions in comparable and readily understandable way. As such, their potential to inform on decisions across multiple social objectives (e.g. for economic growth, education, or health) is limited.
It was intended to map the results of each systematic review in this fashion; however, given the scope and limitations of the project, it has not been possible to achieve this. Furthermore, in light of the volume of literature available via each of the focal areas reviewed here, it was not possible to analyse, in-depth, all of the resources identified and located. As a result of this, it has not been possible to explicitly identify, through the systematic review, policy frameworks, institutional arrangements or other processes put into place by individual Member States, to ensure ecosystem service values are integrated into decision-making at national and sub-national levels. However, several examples were referred to in the expert interviews.
As shown above in Table 8, and as was the case with the systematic reviews, drawing any firm conclusions from the expert interview case studies is difficult. France, The Netherlands, and Spain each refer to the use of ‘market price’ or ‘market based’ approaches; and, France and The Netherlands also both refer to the use of ‘Hedonic pricing’. In terms of use or uptake of valuation results, France, The Netherlands, and Slovakia all cite the importance in terms of awareness raising on the subject of ecosystem services or natural capital. And with regard to the impact achieved by conducting valuation studies or processes, no definitive results were presented. In fact three of the five Member States interviewed explicitly stated that it was ‘difficult to assess’, ‘not easy to define’, and ‘not possible to measure’ any impact achieved.
Spain is considered to be one of the leading Member States in terms of their progress to value their ecosystem services, as demonstrated by their 2016 publication (‘Socio-economic valuation of ecosystem services’). However, as set out in the case study above (section 5.4), even here the impacts of the valuation work conducted are not possible to measure. Even so, the work has been welcomed and well received as an important step in the process of integrating the economic value of ecosystem services into accounting and reporting systems. This demonstrates that, despite the often basic and experimental nature of the progress and approaches taken so far, at least things are moving in the right direction, and any progress made is better than no progress at all.
The Netherlands case study reflects this sentiment, where it has been difficult to define or identify where impacts resulting from ecosystem service valuation might have been achieved. Some of this has been attributed to the fact that decision-making processes relating to spatial change operate only in the long-term. Added to this, it is also highlighted that it is not always easy to trace the effects or influence of data and information in decision-making processes. In The Netherlands it was found that the awareness raising
44
potential of ongoing ecosystem services valuation work is sometimes more important, and has more perceived impact, than the valuation information or data itself.
The expert interview with Bulgaria also makes a good and significant point to consider in terms of analysing how Member States are progressing with their valuation work, and any potential impact it has or may achieve. Bulgaria stated that a prioritisation of ecosystem services will be needed prior to carrying out any valuation work in the next assessment phase. This is a prudent point to make in the context of an evaluation of progress made by the Member States to value their ecosystem services; in most situations where there is limited capacity (financial and human) it simply is not possible to value all ecosystem services, and therefore, there will always be some gaps present in the information available to feed into decision-making processes.
45
7. RECOMMENDATIONSMuch of the work being conducted in the area of ecosystem service valuation is still in its infancy in some Member States and is generally experimental in its nature, added to this, much of the available information is not always readily available or is not yet published. As such, it is recommended to expand the approach used in this study and conduct more expert interviews across the Member States. It is anticipated that this could provide the best approach to uncovering and understanding the progress being made by Member States to value their ecosystem services and to integrate this information into policy processes. As with the Spain case study presented in section 5.4, it is also considered important that any future interviews and formulation of case studies encapsulates the opinions and viewpoints from both the practitioner and policy maker perspectives. This study demonstrated that such an approach can provide complimentary information and therefore, understanding of the context and situation within the Member States.
If an expanded programme of expert interviews across the Member States is conducted, this could form part of a two-step process, whereby the interview is used to inform the population of the ecosystem service valuation mapping tables, followed by review and validation of the information presented in the tables by the experts (and their colleagues). Once validated, such ecosystem service valuation mapping tables could be uploaded to the BISE website to act as valuable reference documents for each of the Member States.
The systematic review matrix presented in annex 4 (section 8.4) presents the findings of the ESMERALDA country factsheet review for France, providing an example of the review matrix approach that was employed for all Member States with ESMERALDA country factsheets. However, this approach was only employed for the ESMERALDA country factsheet review, not the accompanying TEEB studies, IPBES Catalogue of Assessments, nor the national statistics and SEEA reviews due to the constraints of the project (N.B. the OpenNess and OPERAs reviews were also not included as the information identified was not found to be pertinent to this study). It is considered that this approach is useful and can be expanded further to encompass other studies, such as the aforementioned, where resources allow.
Furthermore, as referred to in section 4.2, through the process of conducting the systematic review of ESMERALDA country factsheets, it is considered highly likely that subsequent literature reviews would be needed in order to understand fully the processes undertaken by Member States.
Further work in this area, for example to complete and validate ecosystem service valuation mapping for all Member States, and the development of case study materials for all Member States will contribute to, and support, the EC’s ‘Action plan for nature, people and the economy’80. Specifically under Action 1 b (Update, develop and actively promote, in all EU languages, guidance on integrating ecosystem services into decision-making) of Priority A (Improving guidance and knowledge and ensuring better coherence with broader socio-economic objectives) where the Commission in collaboration with the Member States and relevant stakeholders seek to “Develop guidance and a set of practical tools to support the
80 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/info/pubs/docs/brochures/Action_plan_brochure_en.pdf
46
integration of ecosystems and their services into planning and decision-making processes at local, regional, national and EU level (by 2018)”.
Throughout section 4 there are numerous references to resources that have not been reviewed within the scope of this study, but could act as useful resources for more in-depth reviews. It is recommended that these could be reviewed to gain further insight and understanding into the progress of the Member States, if resources allow. For example, this report referred to, but did not review the TEEB case studies. These aim to “describe examples where a focus on ecosystem services and their economic significance helped decision makers to find more sustainable solutions for the management of ecosystems”. As such, this is exactly the sort of resource considered to be useful to inform more comprehensive reviews of valuation activities.
As discussed above, this review has few clear examples where the valuation of ecosystem services conducted as part of national ecosystem or natural capital assessments has been integrated into policy- or decision-making processes, or achieved any identifiable impact: as reported in the expert interviews with France, The Netherlands, and Spain for example. This could be, and is indeed suspected to be the case, because this information is not yet being adopted into policy-making processes.
Environmental protection is a fundamental component of public policy across all scales, from local to global. Ecosystem service valuation provides a policy support tool that can assist decision makers to evaluate land-use options, progress policy targets, and formulate policy. From a decision makers’ perspective, this allows the costs and benefits of different policies and projects to be compared using a common means of monetary measurement (e.g. for addressing health impacts, education, or ecosystem losses). This is clearly reflected in international commitments, such as Aichi Biodiversity Target 2 and the EU Biodiversity Strategy Target 2, Action 5. However, these policy hooks are not well integrated with the sectoral dimensions across which policy actions are often determined and implemented. As such, the outcomes associated with national ecosystem assessments and their associated valuations may be more relevant to awareness raising (as detailed in the France and The Netherlands case studies above), rather than a fundamental consideration for integrated land management and economic planning in itself. Therefore, ecosystem service values are likely to have greater resonance with decision makers when targeting sectoral policy or management entry points; for example, in the context of the Water Framework Directive (e.g. NERA-Accent, 200781) and wider policies for sectors dependent on ecosystem services (e.g. forestry, agriculture, and tourism). This is also reflected in recent work under the Natural Capital Protocol82 where ecosystem service valuation is intended to allow better understanding of their dependencies and to inform business management action(s). Efforts to implement environmental-economic accounting to integrate information on ecosystem services across sectors also provides an opportunity to strengthen the role valuation can play in decision-making. This is because it formalises these relationships and informs distributional analyses with respect to both beneficiaries of ecosystem services and those
81 http://www.pjmeconomics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/07-DEFRA-WFD-Benefits.pdf82 http://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/protocol/
47
who would lose out when different ecosystem management and access arrangements are implemented. This can often strengthen the impact of ecosystem service valuation by putting it into context with the opportunity costs associated with environmental protection and enhancement.
The fact that this study was not able to identify any examples of ecosystem service valuation feeding directly into policy-making might also be because details of such uptake and impact are simply not reported upon. It is not common in the natural or social sciences to document and publish the resulting impact achieved through research-based processes. Any follow-on work that seeks to explore this area in greater detail should seek to identify, synthesise, and make publicly available this information. By doing so it may help to foster approaches by Member States to directly tie-in policy uptake and impact into the design of valuation activities and studies.
Although not discussed in detail in the preceding sections, the ecosystem services valuation work carried out as part of the UK NEA represents a clear example of where a valuation activities have contributed to a decision-making process. The results of this valuation work made ministers in the UK realise that a ‘business as usual’ path was not an optimal route to follow in terms of the benefits and services provided by the natural environment. The impact achieved by the publication of the UK NEA was that it fed directly into a natural environment white paper (The Natural Choice: securing the value of nature83) and many other policy initiatives.
The OpenNESS project84 sets out a number of practical recommendations for broadening and diversifying valuation approaches which might be useful in terms of addressing the gap that currently exists between ecosystem service valuation activities and their policy integration, and policy support more generally:
Start with the purpose of the valuation to identify which value dimensions are relevant;
Define the information needs, such as which datasets and indicators are needed, in close interaction with the relevant stakeholders and place-based experts;
Apply a set of methods to address complementary ecological, monetary and socio-cultural dimensions simultaneously;
Use original valuation data based on information from actual beneficiaries and providers, rather than transferred estimates; and
Present diverse values in parallel when informing decisions.
Finally, as with several of the other recommendations set out above, future studies looking to build on this work and further examine how the Member States are undertaking and implementing ecosystem service valuation activities might seek to examine and cross compare the actual resulting figures across the same range of services for example. For instance, in the case of monetary valuation, it might be interesting, where resources allow, to not only compare where and how valuation has been conducted, and where any impact 83 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228842/8082.pdf84 http://www.openness-project.eu/sites/default/files/Policy brief %235 Capturing diverse nature values_Final.pdf
48
or uptake has been achieved, but to also compare the ecosystem service values distilled as a result of these activities. This could form the basis of a meta-analysis type of approach, similar to that taken in the TEEB Valuation Database85, for example.
85 http://doc.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/teeb_database_teebweb.xlsx
49
8. ANNEXES8.1. Annex 1: Ecosystem services included in the systematic review
Provisioning
NutritionBiomass
Cultivated cropsReared animals and their outputsWild plants, algae and their outputsWild animals and their outputsAnimals from in-situ aquaculture
WaterSurface water for drinkingGround water for drinking
Materials Biomass
Fibres and other materials from plants, algae and animals for direct use or processingMaterials from plants, algae and animals for agricultural use
Energy Biomass-based Plant-based resources
Regulation and
maintenance
Mediation of waste, toxics &
other nuisances
Mediation by ecosystems Mediation of smell/noise/visual impact
Mediation of flows
Mass flowsMass stabilisation and control of erosion ratesBuffering and attenuation of mass flows
Liquid flows Flood protection
Maintenance of physical, chemical & biological conditions
Lifecycle maintenance,
habitat and gene pool protection
Pollination and seed dispersal
Soil formation and
composition
Weathering processes
Decomposition and fixing processes
Atmospheric composition and climate regulation
Global climate regulation by reduction of greenhouse gas concentrations
Cultural
Physical and intellectual interactions with biota,
ecosystems, and land-/sea-
scapes [environmental
settings]
Physical and experiential interactions
Experiential use of plants, animals and land-/seascapes in different environmental settingsPhysical use of land-/seascapes in different environmental settings
Intellectual & representative
interactionsScientific
50
8.2. Annex 2: Valuation techniques included in the systematic review
Market basedMarket pricesSubstitute goodsNet price methodNon-specific market based approachCost basedAvoided costConversion costDamage costMitigation costOpportunity costReplacement costRestoration costNon-specific cost based approachProduction basedBio-economic modellingFactor income/Production functionNon-specific production based approachRevealed PreferenceHedonic pricingAverting behaviourPublic investmentsTravel cost methodNon-specific revealed preference approachStated preferenceChoice modellingContingent rankingContingent valuation methodParticipatory or deliberative valuationNon-specific stated preference approachOther non-monetaryDeliberativeQualitativeQuantitativeNon-specific non-monetary approachExisting knowledgeDelphi approachBenefits transferNon-specific existing knowledge approach
51
8.3. Annex 3: Search terms employed in systematic reviews
Search terms Relates to
Averting Averting behaviourAvoided Avoided costBenefits Benefits transfer
Bio Bio-economic modellingChoice Choice modelling
Contingent Contingent valuation methodConversion Conversion cost
Cost Cost basedDamage Damage cost
Deliberative Deliberative valuationDelphi Delphi approach
Economic Bio-economic modelling
Expert Expert judgement (i.e. non-specific existing knowledge)
Function Production functionGoods Substitute goods
Hedonic Hedonic pricingIncome Factor income
Investments Public investmentsKnowledge Existing knowledge
Mapping* Participatory mapping (i.e. non-specific non-monetary
Market Market pricesMitigation Mitigation costMonetary General
Net Net price methodNon* Non-monetary
Opportunity Opportunity costParticipatory Participatory valuationPreference Revealed PreferenceProduction Production basedQualitative Qualitative
Quantitative QuantitativeRanking Contingent ranking
Replacement Replacement cost
Restoration Restoration costStated Stated preference
Substitute Substitute goodsTravel Travel cost method
Valuation GeneralValue General
52
53
8.4. Annex 4: Systematic review matrix - France
CICES ES Section
CICES ES Division Energy
CICES ES Group Biomass-based
Liquid flows
Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and
gene pool protection
Intellectual & representative interactions
CICES ES Class
Tool usedMarket basedMarket prices 1 1 1Substitute goodsNet price methodNon-specific market based approachCost based 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Avoided costConversion costDamage costMitigation costOpportunity costReplacement costRestoration costNon-specific cost based approachProduction basedBio-economic modellingFactor income/Production functionNon-specific production based approachRevealed Preference 1 1Hedonic pricingAverting behaviourPublic investmentsTravel cost methodNon-specific revealed preference approachStated preferenceChoice modellingContingent rankingContingent valuation methodParticipatory or deliberative valuationNon-specific stated preference approachOther non-monetary 1 1DeliberativeQualitativeQuantitativeNon-specific non-monetary approachExisting knowledgeDelphi approachBenefits transferNon-specific existing knowledge approach
Other
Physical and experiential interactions
Provisioning Cultural
Nutrition Materials Mediation of flows Maintenance of physical, chemical & biological conditions
Physical and intellectual interactions with biota,
ecosystems, and land-/sea-scapes [environmental settings]
Biomass Water Biomass Mass flows
Soil formation
and composition
Mass stabilisation and control of
erosion rates
Cultivated crops
Reared animals and their outputs
Wild plants, algae and their outputs
Wild anim
als and their outputs
Animals from
in-situ aquaculture
Surface water for drinking
Ground w
ater for drinking
Fibres and other materials from
plants, algae and anim
als for direct use or processing
Materials from
plants, algae and anim
als for agricultural use
Plant-based resources
Experiential ise of plants, animals and
land-/seascapes in different
environmental setti
ngs
Physical use of land-/seascapes in diff
erent environmental setti
ngs
Scientific
Buffering and att
enuation of mass
flows
Flood protection
Pollination and seed dispersal
Weathering processes
Decomposition and fixing processes
Global clim
ate regulation by reduction of greenhouse gas
concentrations
Micro and regional clim
ate regulation
Atmospheric composition and climate regulation
Filtration/sequestration/storage/accum
ulation by ecosystems
Mediation of waste, toxics & other nuisances
Mediation by ecosystems
Regulation and maintenance
Mediation of sm
ell/noise/visual im
pact
N.B. A numeric system was employed to populate the individual Member State matrixes to indicate the type of process through which the valuation of ecosystem services was conducted: 1 = Assessment, 2 = Accounting, 3 = Academic, 4 = Policy/decision, 5 = Other. Therefore, in the above example for France, reference to ‘market prices’ valuation of ‘cultivated crops’ indicates that this was carried out as part of an assessment process; in this example, the French Assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services’ (EFESE).
54
8.5. Annex 5: Systematic review tables8.5.1. ESMERALDA country factsheets
# Search terms Relates to Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom 1 Averting Averting behaviour 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *2 Avoided Avoided cost 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 *3 Benefits Benefits transfer 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *4 Bio Bio-economic modelling 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *5 Choice Choice modelling 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *6 Contingent Contingent valuation method 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *7 Conversion Conversion cost 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *8 Cost Cost based 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 * 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *9 Damage Damage cost 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *
10 Deliberative Deliberative valuation 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *11 Delphi Delphi approach 0 1 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *12 Economic Bio-economic modelling 0 0 0 0 * * 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *13 Expert Expert judgement (i.e. non-specific existing knowledge)0 1 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *14 Function Production function 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *15 Goods Substitute goods 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *16 Hedonic Hedonic pricing 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *17 Income Factor income 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *18 Investments Public investments 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *19 Knowledge Existing knowledge 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *20 Mapping* Participatory mapping (i.e. non-specific non-monetary0 1 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *21 Market Market prices 0 1 0 0 * * 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 * 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 *22 Mitigation Mitigation cost 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *23 Monetary General 0 1 0 0 * * 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 * 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 *24 Net Net price method 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *25 Non* Non-monetary 0 1 0 0 * * 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 *26 Opportunity Opportunity cost 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *27 Participatory Participatory valuation 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *28 Preference Revealed Preference 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 0 0 0 0 *29 Production Production based 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *30 Qualitative Qualitative 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *31 Quantitative Quantitative 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *32 Ranking Contingent ranking 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *33 Replacement Replacement cost 0 0 0 1 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *34 Restoration Restoration cost 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *35 Stated Stated preference 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 *36 Substitute Substitute goods 0 0 0 0 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *37 Travel Travel cost method 0 0 0 1 * * 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 * 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *38 Valuation General 1 1 1 0 * * 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 * 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 *39 Value General 0 1 0 0 * * 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 * 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 *
1 8 1 2 0 0 2 3 2 7 2 1 0 3 1 0 9 0 0 2 1 4 2 1 0 6 2 0
55
8.5.2. TEEB studies
# Search terms Relates to Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom 1 Averting Averting behaviour * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * See UK NEA2 Avoided Avoided cost * 1 * * 1* * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *3 Benefit transferBenefits transfer * 1 * * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * *4 Bio Bio-economic modelling * * * 0 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *5 Choice Choice modelling * 1 * * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 1 * * * * *6 Contingent Contingent valuation method * * * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *7 Conversion Conversion cost * * * * * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * *8 Cost based Cost based * * * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * *9 Damage Damage cost * 1 * * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10 Deliberative Deliberative valuation * * * * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * *11 Delphi Delphi approach * * * * * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * *12 Economic Bio-economic modelling * * * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *13 Expert Expert judgement (i.e. non-specific existing knowledge)* * * * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *14 Production FunctionProduction function * * * 1 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *15 Goods Substitute goods * * * * 1 * * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *16 Hedonic Hedonic pricing * 1 * * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *17 Income Factor income * * * * * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *18 Public InvestmentPublic investments * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *19 Knowledge Existing knowledge * * * 1 * * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *20 Particpatory MappingParticipatory mapping (i.e. non-specific non-monetary* * * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *21 Market price Market prices * 1 * * 1 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 1 * * * * * 122 Mitigation cost Mitigation cost * * * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *23 Monetary General * 1 * * * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 1 * * * * * 124 Net price Net price method * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *25 Non-monetaryNon-monetary * * * * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *26 Opportunity costOpportunity cost * * * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * *27 Participatory Participatory valuation * * * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *28 Preference Revealed Preference * stated * * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *29 Production Production based * * * N/A * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *30 Qualitative Qualitative * 1 * * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 131 Quantitative Quantitative * 1 * * 1 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 132 Ranking Contingent ranking * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *33 Replacement Replacement cost * 1 * * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *34 Restoration Restoration cost * * * 1 * * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * * 135 Stated Stated preference * 1 * * 1 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *36 Substitute Substitute goods * * * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * *37 Travel Travel cost method * 1 * * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * *38 Valuation General * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 1 * * * * * 139 Value General * 1 * * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 1 * * * * * 1
0 14 0 1 0 24 4 0 27 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 15 0 0 0 0 0 7 0
56
8.5.3. IPBES Catalogue of Assessments
# Search terms Relates to Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom
1 Averting Averting behaviour * * * * * * *See
TEEB* See TEEB * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *
See Bouwer et al 2013
2 Avoided cost Avoided cost * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *3 transfer Benefits transfer * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *4 Bio-e / Bioe Bio-economic modelling * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *5 Choice Choice modelling * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *6 Contingent Contingent valuation method * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *7 Conversion Conversion cost * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *8 Cost based Cost based * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *9 Damage Damage cost * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *
10 Deliberative Deliberative valuation * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *11 Delphi Delphi approach * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *12 Economic Bio-economic modelling * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *13 Expert Expert judgement (i.e. non-specific existing knowledge)* 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *14 Production FunctionProduction function * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *15 Substitute Substitute goods * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *16 Hedonic Hedonic pricing * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *17 Income Factor income * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *18 Investment Public investments * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *19 Knowledge Existing knowledge * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *20 Mapping* Participatory mapping (i.e. non-specific non-monetary* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *21 Market Market prices * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *22 Mitigation Mitigation cost * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *23 Monetary General * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *24 Net price Net price method * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *25 Non-m / NonmNon-monetary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *26 Opportunity costOpportunity cost * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *27 Participatory Participatory valuation * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *28 Preference Revealed Preference * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *29 Production Production based * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *30 Qualitative Qualitative * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *
31 Quantitative Quantitative * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Nat Cap
Atlas * ? * * * *32 Ranking Contingent ranking * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *33 Replacement Replacement cost * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *34 Restoration Restoration cost * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *35 Stated Stated preference * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *36 Substitute Substitute goods * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * *37 Travel Travel cost method * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *38 Valuation General * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *39 Value General * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * ? * * * 1 *
0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0
57
8.5.4. National Statistics and SEEA reviews
# Search terms Relates to Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Netherlands Poland Portugal Romania Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden United Kingdom 1 Averting Averting behaviour * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * See report * * * * * * See report2 Avoided Avoided cost * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *3 Benefit transfer and benefifits transferBenefits transfer * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *4 Bio Bio-economic modelling * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *5 Choice Choice modelling * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *6 Contingent Contingent valuation method * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *7 Conversion Conversion cost * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *8 Cost Cost based * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *9 Damage Damage cost * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
10 Deliberative Deliberative valuation * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *11 Delphi Delphi approach * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *12 Economic Bio-economic modelling * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *13 Expert Expert judgement (i.e. non-specific existing knowledge)* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *14 Function Production function * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *15 Goods Substitute goods * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *16 Hedonic Hedonic pricing * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *17 Income Factor income * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *18 Investments Public investments * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *19 Knowledge Existing knowledge * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *20 Mapping* Participatory mapping (i.e. non-specific non-monetary* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *21 Market Market prices * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *22 Mitigation Mitigation cost * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *23 Monetary General * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *24 Net Net price method * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *25 Non* Non-monetary * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *26 Opportunity Opportunity cost * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *27 Participatory Participatory valuation * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *28 Preference Revealed Preference * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *29 Production Production based * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *30 Qualitative Qualitative * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *31 Quantitative Quantitative * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 132 Ranking Contingent ranking * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *33 Replacement Replacement cost * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *34 Restoration Restoration cost * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *35 Stated Stated preference * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *36 Substitute Substitute goods * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *37 Travel Travel cost method * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *38 Valuation General * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *39 Value General * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
58
8.6. Annex 6: Expert interview questions
Name:
Country or region in which assessment process was conducted:
1: What ecosystem services were assessed and valued in your national (/other scale) assessment process?
A:
a: Why were these ecosystem services selected?
A:
2: What methods of valuation were used to value these ecosystem services in your national (/other scale) assessment process?
A:
a: Why were these methods of valuation selected?
A:
3: Have the results of the valuations conducted been used?
A:
a: If ‘yes’, how and where?
A:
i: And what impact, if any, have they had?
A:
b: If ‘no’, is there a plan to use the results?
A:
c: What are/were the barriers (if any) preventing the use of the results?
A:
4: OR: If no valuation work has yet been conducted as part of your national (/other scale) assessment process, why was this?
A:
a: Is there a plan to carry out any valuation studies?
A:
b: Are there barriers preventing this from taking place?
A:
59
c: What would facilitate this process from happening (i.e. technical support, resources etc.)?
A:
From your network of contacts, do you know of anyone from other EU Member States that we could contact as part of this work?
A:
60
8.7. Annex 7: Expert interview transcripts8.7.1. France
What ecosystem services were assessed and valued in your national (/other scale) assessment process?This case study covers the French assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services (EFESE). It is worth noting the process is still underway. The first ecosystem service assessed was pollination. This service was assessed at the national level and at the “departmental” level. In a second phase the following assessments were launched: carbon sequestration, coastal erosion regulation, water regulation, hunting, recreation.
The first interim report on the assessment was published in December 2016 and it mentions several other ecosystem service assessed for the various specific types of ecosystems (e.g. ecosystem services delivered by coral reefs, forests, freshwaters and wetlands, agro-ecosystems, etc.). Significant work has been done by INRA on ecosystem services provided by agro-ecosystems (e.g. soil stabilisation and erosion control) (see EFESE interim report p. 98-99).Why were these Ecosystem Services selectedIn summary, the selection of ecosystem services was mainly driven by the following considerations: (i) the technical feasibility: availability of data and robust methodology, (ii) the political agenda: potential use of the results by policy makers, and the novelty of the results, (iii) various opportunities (partnerships, additional funding, etc.). Reasons for selection of specific ecosystem services are as follows:
Pollination: Pollination was selected as the first ecosystem services to be assessed at the same time as the IPBES assessment on the same ecosystem service. The idea was to be able to present simultaneously the IPBES report and the national assessment of this ecosystem service simultaneously (a special event was organised by the ministry in charge of environment in November 2016).
Carbon sequestration: The choice of working on carbon sequestration was oriented by the political agenda and especially the preparation of the UNFCCC CoP 21 held in Paris. The assessment was tricky and the potential use of the results was a debate within the central administration.
Hunting: The choice of working on “hunting” (as a cultural service) and its focus was guided by a request from the Fédération Nationale des Chasseurs – FNC - (the French National Union of Hunters). The hunters wanted to demonstrate the values of hunting. The FNC funded the study and the ministry in charge of EFESE was part of the steering committee and tried to ensure that the methodology used and the results were consistent with EFESE conceptual framework and its general methodology. Actually all the results were not taken into account by EFESE because of the lack of robustness of some methodologies used for this assessment. However the study is quite pragmatic and interesting86.
Coastal erosion regulation: The choice of assessing coastal erosion regulation in Aquitaine was the result of an opportunity of a partnership with the French Committee of IUCN and the Aquitaine Region.
Water regulation services: The choice of water regulation services (water purification and flood regulation) was driven by public policy considerations and priorities.
86 BIPE, 2016, Evaluation du service écosystémique chasse en 2015, Rapport final de l’étude, 82 p.; this study doesn’t focus only on ecosystem services but more especially on the contribution of hunters to national and local economies. The results of this study have been used by certain candidates during the last Presidential Campaign to value the role of hunters.
61
The assessment of goods delivered by ecosystems (provisioning services) was not the priority, because a lot of data and values are already available at the national level. For political reasons, the question was more about the assessment of regulation services.
The French assessment of Ecosystems and Ecosystem Services (EFESE) is a cross-cutting work including both an assessment of ecosystem services at the national level and an assessment of ecosystem services at the scale of each main type of ecosystems (i.e. urban, forests, freshwater and wetlands, agro-ecosystems, mountains and rocks, marine and coastal ecosystems including coral reefs).
The choice of ecosystem services assessment at the ecosystem level was a bit different. It was guided by the priorities identified with stakeholders. But the choice process (especially the involvement of stakeholders in this choice) was a bit different for each ecosystem depending on the partner in charge of the assessment and on the specificities of each ecosystem.What methods of valuation were used to value these Ecosystem Services in your national (/other scale) assessment process?The cost-based methods were preferred: market prices, public pricing, defensive expenditure, replacement costs, restoration costs, damage cost avoided, net factor income, production function, travel cost, and hedonic pricingWhy were these methods of valuation selected?These methods of valuation were selected in order to ensure the potential use of the results; Methodologies based on willingness to pay, participatory valuation, value transfer, etc. are prone to biases and often considered as not totally “objective”. Cost-based methods leave fewer places for discussion.Have the results of the valuations conducted been used and if ‘yes’, how and whereCurrently there is not specific plan to use the results of the valuations. However, the results have been used in a limited way mainly in communication and awareness and supporting to policy design. The published conceptual framework (p.11) mentioned the following goals to the EFESE assessment:
To increase awareness To integrate values into decision-making To integrate values into national accounting To maintain essential ecosystem services To restore 15% of degraded ecosystems.
The results have been used in the following:Communication and awareness: Many press articles quote the national assessment of pollination and especially the economic value of this ecosystem services. Examples include: Le Monde, Les échos and France culture
Supporting policy design: The results of various valuations of ecosystem services (EFESE as well as UK-NEA and several other assessments) were quoted by MPs during the parliamentarian debates about the law on the recovery of the biodiversity, nature and landscapes 87 (Law No. 2016-1087 of
87 For instance, Senator Jérôme Bignon mentions in particular that "many theoretical and empirical studies make it possible to become aware of the socio-economic stakes of biodiversity". It also states that an "analysis by the General Commissariat for Sustainable Development (CGDD) in 2011 estimates the value of services provided by the wetlands of the regional nature park of the Cotentin and Bessin marshes between 2,400 and 4,400 euros per year per hectare "; he added that a European Commission report ("the Social Dimension of Biodiversity Policy") also estimates that 55% of jobs in the European Union and 84% in the developing countries have a direct link with ecosystem services. In the United Kingdom, an assessment of ecosystems and the services they provide to society (UK National Ecosystem Assessment) distinguished two scenarios: one based on economic development without a particular environmental consideration, the other one based on prioritisation of Environmental Protection. The interest of this theoretical work
62
August 8, 2016).
So far the results are not sufficient for the integration of values into decision-making in particular into Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). Some results cannot be integrated in CBA in order to avoid double counting. For instance, the value of agricultural production and the value of pollination cannot aggregated because pollination is valuated as a production function of agricultureWhat impact, if any, have the results had?The impact is almost impossible or difficult to assess at this stage. However the process was valuable and economic values are strategic.
The process is valuable: The main interest of this national assessment in France was to build a framework of practitioners (advisory board) and to renew the debate between the stakeholders about biodiversity within the steering committee. The ministry in charge of environment set up a web platform (http://plateforme-efese.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/) open to both the community of practitioners and the stakeholders. This website offers a place where all the stakeholders can express their positions and thoughts about the on-going assessments and the key messages delivered by each assessment. This platform is really living and demonstrates the real interest of all the parties in this exercise.
The economic values are strategic: Economic values have been quoted by the media. When they are published by an official source such as a ministry they became really strategic. Their visibility is often much more important than results published by a scientific journal. This is why certain stakeholders are really cautious with the publication of economic values. The discussions within the steering committee which is responsible for the sign-off of the key messages of each report can be very tedious on economic values.
If ‘no’, is there a plan to use the results?No answerWhat are/were the barriers (if any) preventing the use of the resultsThe main barrier to the use of the results is the robustness of the results. Economic results (in monetary terms or other economic dimensions such as number of jobs are more likely to be used than “descriptive” products. If the data and the methodology can be disapproved by certain stakeholders it will be difficult to use the results. For this reason, the cost-based methods should be preferred.
Some stakeholders – especially those whose activities impact on biodiversity – were reluctant to agree on the publication of economic values. In the end all the values published in the EFESE interim report had to be justified.
The concepts are often too broad and vague to achieve a common understanding (ecosystem service, ecosystem condition, etc.) and be relevant to decision. Given this, we proposed and maintain a conceptual framework that propose a precise, operational and policy relevant meaning of these concepts. This conceptual framework took time to discuss and set-up and may be updated on a regular basis.
Ecosystem service evaluations are often carried out without an explicit linkage to a specific
is to have stressed that the scenario maximising direct monetary profits is not the scenario "which provides the best overall benefit for society.” (Source: Puydarrieux Philippe, « Préface de Philippe Puydarrieux », in Les services écosystémiques. Repenser les relations nature et société. Versailles, Editions Quæ, « Nature et société », 2016, p. 7-10. DOI : 10.3917/quae.pesch.2016.01.0007. URL : http://www.cairn.info/les-services-ecosystemiques--9782759224692-page-7.htm; Rapport de M. Jérôme Bignon, Sénat p.30)
63
decision framework. As a result, the objectives of these evaluations are often multiple and not explicit. This prevents from the achievement of relevant values. Indeed, producing values to feed-in existing planning or cost-benefit assessment process for, let’s say planning decision would have to follow some standards and guidelines that are not the same as producing values that reflect the view of local stakeholders or values that are able to raise awareness. The values we produced on crop pollination (designed to raise awareness) differ a lot from the values we are seeking on carbon sequestration (designed to feed-in decision processes) in this regards.
The issues are complex, both on the biophysical and economic side, and requires substantive efforts to assess. On the biophysical side, achieving values that are sufficiently credible to really convince about the reality of an ecosystem services and influence decision may require a great modelling effort that is often out of reach in the constraints of the program (time, means). For instance, we faced this problem when assessing the regulation of coastal erosion by the forest on sandy coasts, which is still unestablished. Given this, we designed our program as an iterative and progressive one that deliver results but also identify precisely data and knowledge gaps so that another study could progress focusing on these gaps. On the economic side, the many uncertainties associated requires specific methods that could properly account for risk attitudes, precaution, responsibility for the burden of proof, differing flexibility and related option values. All this is crucial to ensure the relevance of the monetary value proposed and it is made all the more difficult as the assessment is not related to an explicit decision framework or that simplicity is imposed.
The socio-economic assessments methods remain too simplistic and their potential is misunderstood. The community involved in these assessments is mainly ecologically-oriented and features a general suspicion against socio-economic valuation (often confounded with monetary valuation). This may be, in part, ideological or due to the reluctance to express trade-offs, but this may also be due to the excessive simplicity and, sometimes, lack of relevance of existing economic valuation approaches. As economic valuation consists in searching for what matters most in one’s perspective, this prevents the achievement of proper economic values that focus on the most relevant dimensions and, eventually are able to convince decision makers. For instance, carbon sequestration is often proxied through current flows, without accounting for their permanence, which is not what is most relevant in a climate mitigation perspective (where biomass production matters, as well as the non-permanence risk) ;
The articulation of expertise and public participation is sometimes inappropriate. Both are important, but for different reasons. Sometimes, stakeholders formulate expert judgements that lack credibility where there exist established knowledge, while in other instances, experts propose value-laden information and overpass political and stakeholders roles. Sometimes, experts are asked to provide general and inappropriately framed information that requires to prioritise stakes and implicitly carries judgements. In this context, experts are often reluctant to participate and may also fear to have their contribution distorted.
If no valuation work has yet been conducted as part of your national (/other scale) assessment process, why was this?N/AIs there a plan to carry out any valuation studies and what are the barriers?N/AWhat would facilitate this process from happening (i.e. technical support, resources etc.)?N/A
64
8.7.2. The Netherlands
What ecosystem services were assessed and valued in your national (/other scale) assessment process?This case study covers the assessment processes conducted in the Netherlands. These includes:
An ecosystem services indicator has been developed, showing the status and trends of ecosystem services delivery and use (http://edepot.wur.nl/323172). This indicator is currently further developed and an ecosystem services model is built to be able to analyse the effects of future changes on ecosystem services.
The Atlas Natural Capital (www.atlasnatuurlijkkapitaal.nl) collects and displays a broad range of maps containing information on natural capital and ecosystem services to be used in planning processes, research, etc. Also a tool is added and will be further developed for assessments of ecosystem services in an urban surrounding.
Statistics Netherlands (CBS) and Wageningen University and Research (WUR) are working on a National Natural Capital Account (NCA) for the Netherlands, based on accounts for ecosystems and a large number of ecosystem services and also including where possible the monetary accounts.
On a more strategic side, a large project was conducted on how ecosystem services information could be included in decision-making processes and how differences in these processes affect the approach adopted, definitions and data needs: see http://themasites.pbl.nl/natuurlijk-kapitaal-nederland/natural-capital-netherlands. This project cannot be characterised as an ecosystem services assessment, but it evaluates for a number of case studies the status and trends of ecosystem services, how information about its value can play a role in decision-making and why it turns out to be difficult to make better use of ecosystem services.
Currently a guide for assessing changes in ecosystem services and biodiversity in Societal Cost Benefit Analysis for programs/projects with impact on nature is being developed, which is going to serve as a standard and state of the art. This guide involves all relevant ecosystem services with impact from such programs/projects.
Why were these Ecosystem Services selectedThe Atlas Natural Capital, the Natural Capital Accounts, the Ecosystem Services Indicator and the Guide for Societal Cost Benefit Analysis use the main ecosystem services for the Netherlands as given by Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES). They include a broad range of production, regulating and cultural services. For the Natural Capital Netherlands programme, each case study adopted the ecosystem services that were most relevant according to the stakeholders. It depended on the case study whether it was more related to water, land, production or cultural services. What methods of valuation were used to value these Ecosystem Services in your national (/other scale) assessment process?For the different programmes, as yet no specific valuation methods are selected. The valuation phase of the National NCA (2018-2019) will build on the state of the art methods for estimating the values as used for accounting purposes. In the Natural Capital Netherlands programme, monetising welfare effects due to changes in natural resources turned out to be relevant only for some of the decision-making processes evaluated. In the case studies where valuation played a role, use was made as much as possible of existing data. The guide for ecosystem services-assessment in SCBS gives a list and prioritisation of possible valuation methods. This includes especially the use of base values, revealed preference, market price and hedonic pricing studies, where possible. In the recent past a few choice experiments were used to obtain more insight in people’s willingness to pay for water safety and nature friendly farmingWhy were these methods of valuation selected?
65
This follows the cost-benefit analysis guidelines which indicate which methods are available and can be used for particular changes and situations. Have the results of the valuations conducted been used and if ‘yes’, how and whereIt depended on the phase of the project (early in the decision-making process, or in a later stage, closer to actual decisions) to what extent its results played a role in making a choice, improving alternatives considered or changing peoples’ minds. The estimates were usually used in a cost-benefit weighting; it depended on the case whether the focus was on effects to society or to individual effects of particular stakeholder groups. In the latter case, not always social values following from valuation studies were most relevant; sometimes financial consequences for individual stakeholders were more relevant.
In the pilot study on NCA, executed by Statistics Netherlands and WUR, valuation played a role to show the importance of natural capital. It has not yet been used in actual policy decisions.
In the cases of the Natural Capital Netherlands programme, valuation played a role especially early in the decision-making process, to select the most promising alternative options or to design a good alternative option – e.g. used in Eems-Dollard case study where an innovative dike zone was designed to create nature, reduce flooding probabilities and create employment opportunities.
Later in the decision-making process, questions also related to allocation effects over different stakeholders; in those stages not only social but also financial effects for individual stakeholders were relevant – e.g. relevant in the Brabant Water case study, where the drinking water company, farmers, nature organisations and the province decided about voluntary changes in plant protection means and searched for institutional changes to prevent farmers from going back to chemical plant protection measures.
For the National NCA a partial (thematic) Carbon-account has been constructed only recently which may be used in decision-making for energy-policies.What impact, if any, have the results had?It is difficult to say as decision-making processes related to spatial changes take a lot of time. It’s not always easy to trace the effects of particular types of information. To generalise, awareness about the possibility to use ecosystem services differently or the potentials ecosystem services could provide, was in several cases more important than information about the social or private value of these ecosystem services. This awareness, in many cases, was only to a small extent dependent on insights in the value of ecosystem services.If ‘no’, is there a plan to use the results?No answer What are/were the barriers (if any) preventing the use of the resultsThere are no real barriers in using the results. If the values are available, they can be used. Yet, there may be barriers in collecting the relevant data. Valuation is often expensive and knowledge about causal dose-response relations are often missing in ecosystem services research, preventing the estimation of policy relevant results. Moreover, it may be difficult to communicate the meaning or usefulness of the results, it may be complex to make people aware of the potentials of using ecosystem services in a more sustainable way, it may be complex to get ecosystem services on development agendas, and it may also be complex to cooperate with others to design new solutions that include effects on ecosystem services. Moreover, there are numerous barriers to find the financial means to realise nature based solutions or more sustainable uses of ecosystem services, and there may be legal barriers preventing a more sustainable use of ecosystem servicesIf no valuation work has yet been conducted as part of your national (/other scale) assessment process, why was this?
66
As argued above, valuation is not always relevant and very complicated and time-consuming. Why value all ecosystem services available in a country? It creates awareness, but is valuation the proper method for this? To make valuation policy relevant, it must be related to a particular policy or change and you can use ecosystem services values to assess the net social effect of this change. For many nature and agricultural policy plans, often cost-information (including environmental costs of emissions) better fits the policy process than valuation of ecosystem services.Is there a plan to carry out any valuation studies and what are the barriers?For the National NCA a valuation-phase of the ESS is scheduled for 2018 and 2019. Also different applications will be developed, among others for national and regional spatial planning, for thematic assessments, and to facilitate NCA by businesses.
If relevant for policy assessments or other (f.i. spatial) investment programs, specific valuation studies will be carried out. The Guidance for valuation in SCBA will have to be used for such assessments. Recently, a handbook was written about the use of shadow prices for valuation of changes in environmental variables, this includes some information about changes in ecosystem services as well. As part of the follow up on the Guidance the use of these shadow prices and the need for further research will be evaluated.
In the Netherlands, there is no barrier to valuation, but it takes time, budgets are restricted and there is lacking a feeling of urgency.What would facilitate this process from happening (i.e. technical support, resources etc.)?N/A
8.7.3. Slovakia
What ecosystem services were assessed and valued in your national (/other scale) assessment process?This case study covers the assessment process conducted in Trnava in Slovakia - Trnava case study. Environmental problems in area are due to urban growth and intensive agriculture: air and water pollution, agricultural land take, low ecological stability of landscape. The case study objective was to evaluate the current state of the ecosystem services concept implementation in Slovakia and proposal of appropriate methods for the landscape and spatial planning at local and regional level in urban and peri-urban areas.
Ten ecosystem services were selected by experts and stakeholders. These included the following Provisioning services
o ES01 - Biomass for food productiono ES02 - Water for drinking and non-drinking purposes
Regulation and maintenance serviceso ES03 - Air quality regulationo ES04 - Water quality regulationo ES05 – Water flow regulation and flood protectiono ES06 – Regional and local climate regulationo ES07 – Soil formation and composition maintenanceo ES08 - Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection
Cultural serviceso ES09 – Physical and experient. interactions (recreation)o ES10 - Intellectual interactions (education, heritage...)
Why were these Ecosystem Services selected
67
The assessment focussed on ecosystems services that are the most important for case study area (CSA).What methods of valuation were used to value these Ecosystem Services in your national (/other scale) assessment process?The following methods were used in the assessment.
Bio-physical assessment Socio-cultural assessmentSpreadsheet type(land cover)
judgement of experts (questionnaires)
GreenFrame(land cover, biotope mapping, landscape quality data – urban and peri-urban area)
judgement of experts, preferences and assessment of stakeholders (questionnaires, interviews, workshops)
QuickScan(land cover, biotope mapping, environment quality – urban area)
(land cover, biotope mapping, environment quality – urban area)
ESTIMAP(land cover, biotope mapping, – urban and peri-urban area)
socio-economic data, survey with stakeholders and public (questionnaire) 4 methods - see presentation
Why were these methods of valuation selected?These were the methods used in OpenNESS project and relevant for the case study area
Have the results of the valuations conducted been used and if ‘yes’, how and whereThe results of the valuations conducted been have been party used. They have been used for publications and for local government. This is still ongoingWhat impact, if any, have the results had?Raising public awareness on the importance of ecosystem servicesIf ‘no’, is there a plan to use the results?There is a plan to use the results for policy makersWhat are/were the barriers (if any) preventing the use of the resultsThe barriers preventing the use of the results include unclear relationship of results to recent regulatory frameworks in respect to land use/landscape planning, lack of human and financial resources to make results operational and rigid national legislation not open for incorporation of the ecosystem services concept (difficult to include in decision-making process). Lastly ecosystem service assessment needs awareness of all participants if the concept would be mandatory in the planning process.If no valuation work has yet been conducted as part of your national (/other scale) assessment process, why was this?N/AIs there a plan to carry out any valuation studies and what are the barriers?The Ministry of Environment of Slovak Republic is leading national assessment of ecosystem services (MAES). There many barriers as mentioned above including lack of human and financial resources.What would facilitate this process from happening (i.e. technical support, resources etc.)?The resources to support institutions to cooperate and exchange data for harmonised national assessment would facilitate this process from happening.
68
8.7.4. Spain
What ecosystem services were assessed and valued in your national (/other scale) assessment process?The assessment tried to cover all of the ecosystem services (22) under the MA definition, in 2010, as part of MA follow-on type work, as part of a biophysical assessment. The second phase was carried with economic valuation work and focussed on six – eight ecosystem services (see page 14) in this phase. The valuation focussed on two main aspects, ecosystem services considered as important for human well-being aspects for Spain, second criteria, the status of those ecosystem services (e.g. if in more degraded state, they were considered more important). Based on these two criteria, a subset of approximately eight ecosystem services were selected for valuation purposes. The Spain assessment also wanted to cover different methods of valuation (e.g. market based methods, cultural etc.)Why were these Ecosystem Services selectedThe ecosystem services were selected based on their importance for human well-being aspects in Spain and the status of those ecosystem services (e.g. if in more degraded state, they were considered more important). What methods of valuation were used to value these Ecosystem Services in your national (/other scale) assessment process?The Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and Environment in Spain supplied easily accessible information on production. However there was a need to cover gaps from the data supplied. Spain started the whole process around a literature review mainly of scientific publications on economic valuation of ecosystem services in Spain. Publications (up to 2015) were reviewed and a meta-analysis done, defined what the most critical ecosystems that should be covered, and what ecosystem services. Why were these methods of valuation selected?Three techniques were used: meta-analysis review based on publications, market-based, stated preference (those without any market based information available).Have the results of the valuations conducted been used and if ‘yes’, how and whereThe Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and Environment was very pleased that the study had been conducted, as it was a requirement, so somewhat of a tick in a box. The study is under discussion and review within the ministry. The ministry has expressed interest in an accounting process for 1-3 ecosystem services using the processes as proposed by the MAES working group. This is more applicable, and has more potential for practical application, than the valuation approach, which they consider might be better for communication purposes, but not necessarily for decision-making.
All the work undertaken under the Spanish Ecosystem Assessment, both the ecosystems assessment and the valuation of ecosystem’s services, has been used to provide an answer to the actions outlined in the Spanish Action Plan for Natural Heritage and Biodiversity and in the EU Biodiversity Strategy (Target 2 action 5). Up to now it is not possible to measure the impact of these activities. In any case, there is still a step to achieve and that is the integration of the economic value of ecosystem services into accounting and reporting systems. It is still difficult to foresee what would be the final outcome of the whole exercise but indeed the work developed under the Spanish Ecosystem Assessment has provided essential information for that purpose.What impact, if any, have the results had?Not yet however as mentioned above the ministry has expressed interest in an accounting process for 1-3 ecosystem services using the processes as proposed by the MAES working group. This is more applicable, and has more potential for practical application, than the valuation approach, which they consider might be better for communication purposes, but not necessarily for decision-making
69
If ‘no’, is there a plan to use the results?Currently there is no plan, but ongoing discussions around development of accounting process.What are/were the barriers (if any) preventing the use of the resultsAny information provided on valuation will be scrutinised, and criticised etc.. The Ministry have a strong position on this, they see it as being important, but don’t necessarily know what to do with valuation results. The Ministry do not necessarily have the expertise to know how to interpret the results and apply them, possibly also with the fear that they would open themselves up for scrutiny and criticism. The accounting side of things would carry more confidence from the ministry, they are more familiar with this approach. Different units from within the Ministry also accept results and figures in different ways. This also causes problems in terms of uptake of results.If no valuation work has yet been conducted as part of your national (/other scale) assessment process, why was this?N/AIs there a plan to carry out any valuation studies and what are the barriers?N/AWhat would facilitate this process from happening (i.e. technical support, resources etc.)?N/A
8.7.5. Bulgaria
What ecosystem services were assessed and valued in your national (/other scale) assessment process?This case study focus on the project on national ecosystem services mapping in Bulgaria which has just been completed. The mapping was only a biophysical assessment. The ecosystem services mapping exercise was organised through several different projects. First was preparation of the methodology –i.e. different methodology for assessing different ecosystem types using the nine different ecosystems defined –i.e. nine ecosystem types (e.g. urban, forests etc.,) as defined by MAES. The mapping was divided into seven projects, with selection or prioritisation of ecosystem services to be mapped, with different ecosystem services per ecosystem type (e.g. in urban ecosystems, 20 ecosystem services were mapped. However, under the next phase it will need to be decided which ecosystem services from those mapped per ecosystem can be valued.
The methodologies of the mapping will be published will be in September 2017. Draft reports are available on the project website. The is a project being implemented by the Bulgarian Environment Agency, under Ministry of Environment who are gathering data and preparing an online platform to publish this data.Why were these Ecosystem Services selectedN/AWhat methods of valuation were used to value these Ecosystem Services in your national (/other scale) assessment process?There are some valuation activities ongoing in Bulgaria. However they are only focussing at the local scale.Why were these methods of valuation selected?N/AHave the results of the valuations conducted been used and if ‘yes’, how and whereN/AWhat impact, if any, have the results had?N/AIf ‘no’, is there a plan to use the results?
70
N/AWhat are/were the barriers (if any) preventing the use of the resultsN/AIf no valuation work has yet been conducted as part of your national (/other scale) assessment process, why was this?N/AIs there a plan to carry out any valuation studies and what are the barriers?The project on ecosystem services and their condition is a follow-up of action 5 of the MAES process, and is part of the road map prepared by the Ministry of Environmenta further goal is their valuation. Ecosystem services mapping the first step and second step will their valuation.What would facilitate this process from happening (i.e. technical support, resources etc.)?Working group of MAES in Bulgaria have developed a timeline (not an official document), according to this timeline in 2018-2019 there should be a methodology prepared for monetary valuation of ecosystem services, development and implementation. Funding for this work will be provided by the EEA 2014-2021 grants, and Operation plan for the Environment. A presentation outlining what the nine different ecosystems defined are, and what services were mapped per ecosystem type is available upon request from the Bulgarian Environment Agency.
71
