A review of ecosystem service valuation progress...
79
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...
A review of ecosystem service
valuation progress and
approaches by the member states
of the European Union
i
A review of ecosystem service valuation progress and approaches by the
member states of the European Union
Prepared for The 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
Copyright European Union 2018. All rights reserved. Certain parts are licensed under conditions to the EU.
Citation Ling, 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.
Acknowledgements The 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 notice The 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, UK Tel: +44 1223 277314
UN Environment promotes
environmentally sound
practices globally and in its
own activities. Printing on
paper from environmentally
sustainable forests and
recycled fibre is encouraged.
.
ii
www.unep-wcmc.org
iii
Contents 1. 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 ....................................................................................................................... 21
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
iv
4.4. IPBES Catalogue of Assessments ......................................................................................... 23
4.4.1. Belgium ......................................................................................................................... 23
4.4.2. Denmark ....................................................................................................................... 24
4.4.3. Finland .......................................................................................................................... 24
4.4.4. France ........................................................................................................................... 24
4.4.5. Germany ....................................................................................................................... 24
4.4.6. Greece ........................................................................................................................... 25
4.4.7. Ireland ........................................................................................................................... 25
4.4.8. Italy ............................................................................................................................... 25
4.4.9. Lithuania ....................................................................................................................... 25
4.4.10. The Netherlands ........................................................................................................... 25
4.4.11. Portugal ........................................................................................................................ 26
4.4.12. Spain ............................................................................................................................. 26
4.4.13. Sweden .......................................................................................................................... 27
4.4.14. UK .................................................................................................................................. 28
4.5. OpenNESS case studies ........................................................................................................ 28
4.6. Results from National Statistics and SEEA reviews ............................................................. 29
4.6.1. Austria ........................................................................................................................... 29
4.6.2. Belgium ......................................................................................................................... 29
4.6.3. Czech Republic .............................................................................................................. 30
4.6.4. Denmark ....................................................................................................................... 30
4.6.5. France ........................................................................................................................... 30
4.6.6. Germany ....................................................................................................................... 31
4.6.7. Latvia ............................................................................................................................ 31
4.6.8. The Netherlands ........................................................................................................... 31
4.6.9. Poland ........................................................................................................................... 31
4.6.10. Romania ........................................................................................................................ 32
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 .................................................................................................................... 37
5.1. France case study ................................................................................................................. 37
5.2. Netherlands case study ........................................................................................................ 38
5.3. Slovakia case study ............................................................................................................... 39
5.4. Spain case study ................................................................................................................... 40
v
5.5. Bulgaria case study ............................................................................................................... 41
5.6. Summary of Expert Interview case studies ......................................................................... 42
6. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS .................................................................................. 44
7. RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................... 48
8. ANNEXES ....................................................................................................................................... 52
8.1. Annex 1: Ecosystem services included in the systematic review ....................................... 52
8.2. Annex 2: Valuation techniques included in the systematic review .................................... 53
8.3. Annex 3: Search terms employed in systematic reviews .................................................... 54
8.4. Annex 4: Systematic review matrix - France ....................................................................... 55
8.5. Annex 5: Systematic review tables ...................................................................................... 56
8.5.1. ESMERALDA country factsheets ................................................................................... 56
8.5.2. TEEB studies .................................................................................................................. 57
8.5.3. IPBES Catalogue of Assessments ................................................................................. 58
8.5.4. National Statistics and SEEA reviews........................................................................... 59
8.6. Annex 6: Expert interview questions ................................................................................... 60
8.7. Annex 7: Expert interview transcripts ................................................................................. 62
8.7.1. France ........................................................................................................................... 62
8.7.2. The Netherlands ........................................................................................................... 66
8.7.3. Slovakia ......................................................................................................................... 68
8.7.4. Spain ............................................................................................................................. 70
8.7.5. Bulgaria......................................................................................................................... 71
1
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This 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.
2
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.
3
2. SCOPE OF TASK
2.1. 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 objectives
The 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
4
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)’.
5
3. APPROACH TAKEN
It 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
6
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
3 https://cices.eu/
4 http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415501088/
7
matrix presented below (section 8.4) provides an example of how this approach was
employed, in this case, for France.
8
4. RESULTS OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
4.1. 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_Revi
ew 6https://circabc.europa.eu/webdav/CircaBC/env/ecosystem_assesment/Library/2015%20MAES%20Hands%20
On%20Workshops/MESEU-synthesis%20report-2012-2014_14012015.pdf 7 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/capital_accounting/pdf/KIP_INCA_final_report_phase-1.pdf
9
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
10
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 development
TEEB 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 development
Natural 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
Italy
No on-going
national study
Rocco Scolozzi
(University of
Trento) Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable
Lithuania
On-going national
assessment
Lithuanian
ecosystem
services
inventory and
valuation
Vytautas
Narusevicius
(Environmental
Protection Agency) 2010-2014
Inland water;
forests;
wetlands;
grassland;
cultivated/agricu
lture 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
Netherlands
On-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
Romania
No 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
Sweden
No 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
11
4.2. ESMERALDA country factsheets
Using 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. Belgium
In the ESMERALDA factsheet for Belgium a case study from the MESEU project is discussed9,
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.
9 http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes/maes-catalogue-of-case-studies/case-
study_meseu_wallonia_disclaimer.pdf
12
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.).
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
10
www.belspo.be/belspo/SSD/science/Reports/VOTES_FinRep_AD.pdf%20-%20Adobe%20Acrobat%20Pro.pdf
13
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
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. Croatia
The 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. Denmark
Termansen 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. France
The 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. Germany
The 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
11
http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR147.pdf 12
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envaccounting/londongroup/meeting21/EEA_Summary_Germany_ESIndicators.pdf
14
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
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. Ireland
Ireland’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. Lithuania
Six 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. Portugal
Valuation 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. Spain
The 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
13
http://www.epa.ie/pubs/reports/research/water/EPA_%20Research_%20Report_127.pdf
15
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
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 studies
The 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. Belgium
Three 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.
14
http://www.teebweb.org/resources/case-studies/ 15
https://www.uantwerpen.be/en/rg/ecobe/research/research-projects/national---flemish-p/ecofresh/
16
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
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. Croatia
An 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 Republic
The 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.
16
https://www.natuurwaardeverkenner.be/index.jsf 17
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925513000140?via%3Dihub 18
https://www.natuurwaardeverkenner.be/download/manual/manual_en.html 19
http://img.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Vilm-Freshwater-Ecosystem-Study-in-Croatia_1.pdf 20
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
17
Table 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.
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. Denmark
The 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:
22
http://img.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/TEEB_Nordic_-_technical_summary.pdf
18
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. Finland
In 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.
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.
23
http://www.dmu.dk/Pub/FR832.pdf 24
http://catalog.ipbes.net/system/assessment/247/references/files/755/original/TEEBFinland_FinnishEnvironment_1-2015.pdf?1440586831
19
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.
20
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.
21
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. Germany
As 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. Lithuania
The 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
assessment work in Lithuania is still being conducted at the pilot study scale; as such, no
review is included.
25
http://img.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/TEEB_Nordic_-_technical_summary.pdf 26
http://www.naturkapital-teeb.de 27
http://www.naturkapital-teeb.de/fileadmin/Downloads/Projekteigene_Publikationen/TEEB_Broschueren/170329_UFZ_TEEB_Einfuehrungsbericht_engl_Gesamt__web.pdf
22
4.3.8. Luxembourg
The 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 Netherlands
At 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. Poland
The 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. Portugal
A 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. Slovakia
There 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-netherlands 30
http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/pbl-2016-natural-capital-in-the-netherlands-2406.pdf 31
http://sendzimir.org.pl/images/ZRZ_ENG.pdf 32
http://www.teebweb.org/countryprofile/slovakia/
23
4.3.13. Slovenia
One 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. Sweden
The 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. UK
The 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 Assessments
The 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
33
http://www.park-skocjanske-jame.si/si/file/download/48_8c77a17c04b9b/Ecosystem_Services_Evaluation.pdf 34
http://img.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Making-the-value-of-ecosystem-services-visible_Sweden_2013.pdf 35
http://img.teebweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/TEEB_Nordic_-_technical_summary.pdf 36
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/EU%20Valuation.pdf
24
MAES initiative was found to be the only record in the catalogue for a country, it was not
considered further.
4.4.1. Belgium
The 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. Denmark
There 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
37
https://www.inbo.be/en/flanders-regional-ecosystem-assessment-2014-2018 38
https://pureportal.inbo.be/portal/files/13129922/VanGossum_etal_2016_WorkingWithNature.pdf 39
https://www.inbo.be/nl/technisch-rapport-2016 40
https://pureportal.inbo.be/portal/files/9004761/Stevens_etal_2015_FlandersRegionalEcosystemAssessment_State_Trends.pdf
25
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
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. Finland
There 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. France
There 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. Germany
There 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. Greece
Two 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. Ireland
Two 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.
41
http://catalog.ipbes.net/assessments/73 42
https://www.novia.fi/coastal-team/development-projects/coast-man-sga-2/ (accessed 27th July)
26
4.4.8. Italy
Three 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.
4.4.9. Lithuania
References 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 Netherlands
Three 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.
43
http://www.atlasnatuurlijkkapitaal.nl/en/kaarten 44
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306262516_National_Ecosystem_Assessments_in_Europe_A_Review 45
http://edepot.wur.nl/323172
27
4.4.11. Portugal
Two 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
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. Spain
There 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 (
46
http://home.uni-leipzig.de/idiv/ecossistemas/ 47
http://www.ecomilenio.es/ 48
https://www.dropbox.com/s/tjz9a6rg5y3yuf2/INFORME%20EMEC%202016%20Alta.pdf?dl=0
28
Table 6 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).
Table 6: Economic values for each ecosystem service subject to different valuation approaches (Santos-Martin et al., 2016).
29
4.4.13. Sweden
There 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. UK
There 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
351 of the UK NEA Follow-on focussed on the ‘Economic value of ecosystem services’; this
49
http://catalog.ipbes.net/system/assessment/189/references/files/563/original/NECR029_edition_1.pdf?1364232752 50
http://catalog.ipbes.net/assessments/182 51
http://uknea.unep-wcmc.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=1n4oolhlksY%3d&tabid=82
30
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 studies
Operationalisation 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 reviews
Whilst 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
provides the rationale for the KIP INCA project53). The EC (2016)54 identify that experimental
52
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Environmental_accounts_-_establishing_the_links_between_the_environment_and_the_economy 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
31
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. Austria
A case study for mapping ecosystem service values in the Austrian Alps was identified55.
However, this was very local in scale and not considered relevant to this study.
4.6.2. Belgium
An 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 Republic
An 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.
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.
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.pdf 55
http://www.afrjournal.org/index.php/afr/article/view/335 56
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 58
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ehs2.1210/pdf
32
4.6.4. Denmark
A 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. France
As 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. Germany
Germany, 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. Latvia
Searches conducted for Latvia returned no results for ‘ecosystem accounting’; however, the
search did identify the ‘LIFE EcosystemServices’ website61. This is a government initiative
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.
59
http://dce2.au.dk/pub/SR116.pdf 60
https://unstats.un.org/unsd/envAccounting/seeaw/seeawaterwebversion.pdf 61
http://ekosistemas.daba.gov.lv/public/eng/deliverables_and_publications1/economic_valuation/
33
4.6.8. The Netherlands
In 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. Poland
Through 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. Romania
The 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.
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
62
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Roy_Remme/publication/272772448_Monetary_accounting_of_ecosystem_services_A_test_case_for_Limburg_province_the_Netherlands/links/556c338b08aec22683038d60.pdf 63
https://www.wur.nl/upload_mm/e/b/6/d34e724a-4ba3-49ca-915c-c2ee1d37c8ba_Final%20report%20part%20II-Monetary%20Supply%20and%20Use.pdf 64
https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/12928/1/Resources_of_the_Polish_officjal_statistics_for_valuation_of_provisioning_ecosystem_services.pdf 65
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 66
https://www.oppla.eu/sites/default/files/uploads/assessment-ecosystems-and-ecosystem-services-romanian-en-212-pg.pdf
34
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. Sweden
Some 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. UK
The 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 review
There are six references to the search terms ‘value’ or ‘valuation’ in the publications section
of the OPERAs project website71:
Bayer et al. (2015)72 discuss the concept of Greenhouse Gas Value (GHGV) accounts.
This is not considered further as part of this study;
67
http://www.scb.se/contentassets/6d29a226fcd34a0fa192c97c8ec339dc/mi1301_2015a01_br_mi71br1701eng.pdf 68
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/monetaryestimates2016#service-flow-estimates-by-category-of-natural-capital 69
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/245334/1_20090715105804_e____carbonvaluationinukpolicyappraisal.pdf 70
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/environmentalaccounts/bulletins/uknaturalcapital/ecosystemaccountsforfarmlandexperimentalstatistics#annex-4-monetary-accounts-discussion 71
http://operas-project.eu/publications
35
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 results
In 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/S0959378015000345 73
http://www.nzjforestryscience.com/content/44/S1/S4 74
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10640-015-9920-2 75
http://www.bioone.org/doi/10.1659/MRD-JOURNAL-D-16-00044.1 76
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800915000919 77
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10113-016-1028-x
36
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
* 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
EU Member State
Process reviewed
Valuation tools
Market based* 0
Market prices 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 15
Net price method 0
Substitute goods 1 1 1 1 4
Cost based* 1 1 1 1 1 5
Avoided cost 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Conversion cost 1 1
Damage cost 1 1 1 1 1 5
Mitigation cost 1 1
Opportunity cost 1 1 1 3
Replacement cost 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Restoration cost 1 1 1 1 4
Production based* 1 1 2
Bio-economic modelling 1 1 2
Factor income** 1 1 1 1 4
Production function** 1 1 1 3
Revealed Preference* 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Averting behaviour 0
Hedonic pricing 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Public investments 1 1 2
Travel cost method 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Stated preference* 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7
Choice modelling 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 9
Contingent ranking 1 1 1 3
Contingent valuation method 1 1 1 1 1 5
Deliberative valuation** 1 1 2
Participatory valuation** 1 1 1 1 1 5
Other non-monetary* 1 1 1 1 1 5
Deliberative 0
Participatory mapping (i.e. non-specific non-monetary) 1 1 1 3
Qualitative 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Quantitative 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8
Existing knowledge* 1 1 1 3
Benefits transfer 1 1 1 1 1 1 6
Delphi approach 1 1 2
Expert 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 stu
dies
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
ESMER
ALD
A
TEEB stu
dies
ESMER
ALD
A
TEEB stu
dies
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
ESMER
ALD
A
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
ESMER
ALD
A
TEEB stu
dies
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
ESMER
ALD
A
TEEB stu
dies
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
TEEB stu
dies
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
ESMER
ALD
A
TEEB stu
dies
ESMER
ALD
A
TEEB stu
dies
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
ESMER
ALD
A
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
ESMER
ALD
A
TEEB stu
dies
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
ESMER
ALD
A
TEEB stu
dies
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
TEEB stu
dies
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
ESMER
ALD
A
TEEB stu
dies
ESMER
ALD
A
TEEB stu
dies
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
ESMER
ALD
A
Portugal Belgium Croatia Czech Republic Denmark Finland France Germany Ireland Lithuania The Netherlands Poland
31
22
16
Spain Sweden
19
33
11
22
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
ESMER
ALD
A
TEEB stu
dies
IPB
ES Catalo
gue o
f Assessm
ents
Natio
nal Statistics an
d SEEA
37
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)
38
5. EXPERT INTERVIEWS
In 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 study
The 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
39
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 study
The 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
40
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 study
Slovakia 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.
41
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 study
The 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
78
http://www.quickscan.pro/
42
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 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 study
Bulgaria 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
43
the Environment and Water. A further goal is the valuation of these ecosystem services, the
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 studies
Table 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.
44
Table 8 Summary of results from expert interview case studies
Case study
Member StateES assessed Tools used Use of results
Impact(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
Bulgaria
N/A (Not yet commenced
with valuation phase of
national assessment)
N/A N/A N/A N/A
45
6. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
Through 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
46
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
47
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
48
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.
49
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
Much 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
50
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.pdf 82
http://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/protocol/
51
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,
83
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228842/8082.pdf 84
http://www.openness-project.eu/sites/default/files/Policy brief %235 Capturing diverse nature values_Final.pdf
52
to not only compare where and how valuation has been conducted, and where any impact
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
53
8. ANNEXES
8.1. Annex 1: Ecosystem services included in the systematic review
Provisioning
Nutrition
Biomass
Cultivated crops
Reared animals and their outputs
Wild plants, algae and their outputs
Wild animals and their outputs
Animals from in-situ aquaculture
Water Surface water for drinking
Ground water for drinking
Materials Biomass
Fibres and other materials from plants, algae and animals for direct use or processing
Materials 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 flows Mass stabilisation and control of erosion rates
Buffering 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 settings
Physical use of land-/seascapes in different environmental settings
Intellectual & representative
interactions Scientific
54
8.2. Annex 2: Valuation techniques included in the systematic review
Market based
Market prices
Substitute goods
Net price method
Non-specific market based approach
Cost based
Avoided cost
Conversion cost
Damage cost
Mitigation cost
Opportunity cost
Replacement cost
Restoration cost
Non-specific cost based approach
Production based
Bio-economic modelling
Factor income/Production function
Non-specific production based approach
Revealed Preference
Hedonic pricing
Averting behaviour
Public investments
Travel cost method
Non-specific revealed preference approach
Stated preference
Choice modelling
Contingent ranking
Contingent valuation method
Participatory or deliberative valuation
Non-specific stated preference approach
Other non-monetary
Deliberative
Qualitative
Quantitative
Non-specific non-monetary approach
Existing knowledge
Delphi approach
Benefits transfer
Non-specific existing knowledge approach
55
8.3. Annex 3: Search terms employed in systematic reviews
Search terms
Relates to
Averting Averting behaviour
Avoided Avoided cost
Benefits Benefits transfer
Bio Bio-economic modelling
Choice Choice modelling
Contingent Contingent valuation method
Conversion Conversion cost
Cost Cost based
Damage Damage cost
Deliberative Deliberative valuation
Delphi Delphi approach
Economic Bio-economic modelling
Expert Expert judgement (i.e. non-specific existing
knowledge)
Function Production function
Goods Substitute goods
Hedonic Hedonic pricing
Income Factor income
Investments Public investments
Knowledge Existing knowledge
Mapping* Participatory mapping (i.e. non-specific non-
monetary
Market Market prices
Mitigation Mitigation cost
Monetary General
Net Net price method
Non* Non-monetary
Opportunity Opportunity cost
Participatory Participatory valuation
Preference Revealed Preference
Production Production based
Qualitative Qualitative
Quantitative Quantitative
Ranking Contingent ranking
Replacement Replacement cost
Restoration Restoration cost
Stated Stated preference
Substitute Substitute goods
Travel Travel cost method
Valuation General
Value General
56
8.4. Annex 4: Systematic review matrix - France
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).
CICES ES Section
CICES ES Division Energy
CICES ES GroupBiomass-
basedLiquid flows
Lifecycle
maintenance
, habitat and
gene pool
protection
Intellectual &
representativ
e interactions
CICES ES Class
Tool used
Market based
Market prices 1 1 1
Substitute goods
Net price method
Non-specific market based approach
Cost based 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Avoided cost
Conversion cost
Damage cost
Mitigation cost
Opportunity cost
Replacement cost
Restoration cost
Non-specific cost based approach
Production based
Bio-economic modelling
Factor income/Production function
Non-specific production based approach
Revealed Preference 1 1
Hedonic pricing
Averting behaviour
Public investments
Travel cost method
Non-specific revealed preference approach
Stated preference
Choice modelling
Contingent ranking
Contingent valuation method
Participatory or deliberative valuation
Non-specific stated preference approach
Other non-monetary 1 1
Deliberative
Qualitative
Quantitative
Non-specific non-monetary approach
Existing knowledge
Delphi approach
Benefits transfer
Non-specific existing knowledge approach
Oth
er
Physical and
experiential
interactions
Provisioning Cultural
Nutrition Materials Mediation of flowsMaintenance 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 stab
ilisation
and
con
trol o
f
ero
sion
rates
Cu
ltivated
crop
s
Re
ared
anim
als and
the
ir ou
tpu
ts
Wild
plan
ts, algae an
d th
eir o
utp
uts
Wild
anim
als and
the
ir ou
tpu
ts
An
imals fro
m in
-situ aq
uacu
lture
Surface
wate
r for d
rinkin
g
Gro
un
d w
ater fo
r drin
king
Fibre
s and
oth
er m
aterials fro
m
plan
ts, algae an
d an
imals fo
r dire
ct
use
or p
roce
ssing
Mate
rials from
plan
ts, algae an
d
anim
als for agricu
ltural u
se
Plan
t-base
d re
sou
rces
Expe
rien
tial ise o
f plan
ts, anim
als and
land
-/seascap
es in
diffe
ren
t
en
viron
me
ntal se
ttings
Ph
ysical use
of lan
d-/se
ascape
s in
diffe
ren
t en
viron
me
ntal se
ttings
Scien
tific
Bu
fferin
g and
atten
uatio
n o
f mass
flow
s
Floo
d p
rote
ction
Po
llinatio
n an
d se
ed
disp
ersal
We
athe
ring p
roce
sses
De
com
po
sition
and
fixing p
roce
sses
Glo
bal clim
ate re
gulatio
n b
y
red
uctio
n o
f gree
nh
ou
se gas
con
cen
tration
s
Micro
and
regio
nal clim
ate re
gulatio
n
Atmospheric
composition and
climate regulation
Filtration
/seq
ue
stration
/storage
/accu
mu
lation
by e
cosyste
ms
Mediation of waste,
toxics & other nuisances
Mediation by
ecosystems
Regulation and maintenance
Me
diatio
n o
f sme
ll/no
ise/visu
al
imp
act
57
8.5. Annex 5: Systematic review tables
8.5.1. 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
58
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 NEA
2 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 * * * * * 1
22 Mitigation cost Mitigation cost * * * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
23 Monetary General * 1 * * * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 1 * * * * * 1
24 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1
31 Quantitative Quantitative * 1 * * 1 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1
32 Ranking Contingent ranking * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *
33 Replacement Replacement cost * 1 * * 1 * 1 * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * *
34 Restoration Restoration cost * * * 1 * * 1 * * * * * * * * 1 * * * * * 1
35 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 * * * * * 1
39 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
59
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
60
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 report
2 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 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1
32 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
61
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:
62
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:
63
8.7. Annex 7: Expert interview transcripts
8.7.1. 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 selected
In 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.
64
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 pricing
Why 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 where
Currently 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 landscapes87 (Law No. 2016-1087 of August 8, 2016).
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
65
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 agriculture
What 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 answer
What are/were the barriers (if any) preventing the use of the results
The 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.
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
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)
66
Ecosystem service evaluations are often carried out without an explicit linkage to a specific 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/A
Is there a plan to carry out any valuation studies and what are the barriers?
N/A
What would facilitate this process from happening (i.e. technical support, resources etc.)?
N/A
67
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 selected
The 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 farming
68
Why were these methods of valuation selected?
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 where
It 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 results
There 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 services
If no valuation work has yet been conducted as part of your national (/other scale) assessment
69
process, why was this?
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 production o ES02 - Water for drinking and non-drinking purposes
Regulation and maintenance services o ES03 - Air quality regulation o ES04 - Water quality regulation o ES05 – Water flow regulation and flood protection o ES06 – Regional and local climate regulation o ES07 – Soil formation and composition maintenance o ES08 - Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection
Cultural services o ES09 – Physical and experient. interactions (recreation) o ES10 - Intellectual interactions (education, heritage...)
Why were these Ecosystem Services selected
70
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 assessment
Spreadsheet 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 where
The results of the valuations conducted been have been party used. They have been used for publications and for local government. This is still ongoing
What impact, if any, have the results had?
Raising public awareness on the importance of ecosystem services
If ‘no’, is there a plan to use the results?
There is a plan to use the results for policy makers
What are/were the barriers (if any) preventing the use of the results
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 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/A
Is 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.
71
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 selected
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).
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 where
The 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
72
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 results
Any 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/A
Is there a plan to carry out any valuation studies and what are the barriers?
N/A
What 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 selected
N/A
What 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/A
Have the results of the valuations conducted been used and if ‘yes’, how and where
N/A
What impact, if any, have the results had?
N/A
If ‘no’, is there a plan to use the results?
73
N/A
What are/were the barriers (if any) preventing the use of the results
N/A
If no valuation work has yet been conducted as part of your national (/other scale) assessment process, why was this?
N/A
Is 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.
