Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB

STRENGTHENING INDICATORS AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS FOR NATURAL CAPITAL
3.2.4 MEASURING ECOSYSTEM
SERVICES
Policy makers need information from measurement of
ecosystem services for integrated decision-making that
responds to environmental, social and economic
needs. If wisely used and well researched, ecosystem
services (ESS) indicators can reflect the impacts of
biodiversity and ecosystem loss and degradation
on livelihoods and the economy. This move from
measurement of biophysical capacities to measurement
of benefit flows and economic values of ecosystem
services can provide an effective tool that takes
the whole value of our natural capital into account.
ECOSYSTEM SERVICE INDICATORS
Ecosystem service indicators make it possible to
describe the flow of benefits provided by biodiversity.
They contribute to better measurement and communication
of the impacts that change an ecosystem’s
capacity to provide services supporting human wellbeing
and development. Within the analytical DPSIR framework
(see Figure 3.2 above), they can complement
other indicators by focusing on the social impact of loss
of natural capital and thus describe and communicate
interactions between nature and society.
Compared to ‘traditional’ biodiversity indicators on
status and trends in species diversity and richness, long
recognised as important, ecosystem services indicators
are a relatively new tool. The publication of the Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (MA) catalysed increased
attention to ecosystem services in the political arena.
This shift also led to increased development and use of
related indicators, very often derived from other sectors
e.g. for timber production and the forestry sector.
Because these were often available immediately, initial
indicators mostly focused on provisioning services.
However, the MA’s final report in 2005 noted that “there
are at this time no widely accepted indicators to
measure trends in supporting, regulating or cultural ecosystem
services, much less indicators that measure
the effect of changes in these services on human
well-being”. Some years on, despite ongoing efforts, this
statement remains largely valid. This is mostly due to the
complexity of functional relationships between ecosystem
components and how they affect the provision of
services, and the multi-dimensional character of these
services. It is essential to continue efforts to develop reliable
indicators of the provision of the main types of ecosystem
services, including regulating, supporting and
cultural services. The technical difficulties reflect to a large
extent the relatively recent focus on ecosystem services.
They are no reason to stop exploring and promoting the
potential use of existing indicators – what we have is
already useful for policy discussions and instrument
choice and design, even if much remains to be done.
VALUING WHAT ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
INDICATORS MEASURE
Table 3.4 offers a useful, but far from extensive, first set
of ecosystem services indicators, based on the MA
framework, that are already in use or being developed.
It includes a wide range of quantitative (e.g. timber, crop
and fish production) and some qualitative indicators (e.g.
probability of natural hazards) which well reflect the value
of some ecosystem services.
However, for some services and some audiences, economic
valuation is seen as essential. When considering
potential trade-offs between provisioning services
(usually captured by market prices) and regulating
services (often non-marketed services), the absence of
monetary values for regulating services can create a bias
towards provisioning services. The approach, importance
and examples of monetising ecosystem services
indicators are explored in Chapter 4 below.
Each type of information is important. Although
qualitative indicators do not quantify and monetise
benefits arising from ecosystem services,
they are an important tool to underpin quantitative
and monetary information and help to close
gaps where no such information exists. It is
possible to develop widely-recognised qualitative
indicators, if based on sound judgment, experience
and knowledge. This is particularly true for supporting
ecosystem services which, in the MA framework, include
all natural processes that maintain other
ecosystem services (e.g. nutrient cycling, soil formation,
ecological interactions) and whose benefits
TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 3: PAGE 14