Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB

STRENGTHENING INDICATORS AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS FOR NATURAL CAPITAL
Box 3.3: Examples of ESS indicators across sector policies
Agriculture – Abundance, species richness and range of wild pollinators (e.g. insects, mammals)
The indicator can be used to identify what proportion of production depends on pollination by wild insects
or mammals, linking cultivated land to criteria such as abundance, species richness and range of wild
pollinators.
• wild pollinator diversity and activity can vary with distance between natural forest and crop field
for example Ricketts et al. (2004) show that for coffee, those sites near the forest were visited
by a greater diversity of bee species that those further away, and nearer sites were visited
more frequently and had more pollen deposited than further sites. Beyond roughly 1 km from forest,
wild pollination services became insufficient, and coffee produced approximately 20% less as a result;
• an early estimate for the global value of wild and domestic pollination estimated the value
at US$ 120 billion per year (Costanza et al. 1997). More recently, Losey and Vaughan (2006)
estimated that wild pollinators alone account for about US$ 3 billion worth of fruit and vegetables
produced in the US per year. In 2008, French (at INRA and CNRS) and German (at UFZ) scientists
found that the worldwide economic value of the pollination service provided by insect pollinators,
bees mainly, was €153 billion in 2005 for the main crops that feed the world. This figure amounted
to 9.5% of the total value of the world agricultural food production (Gallai et al. 2009).
Building on this type of indicator, agri-environment payments can be linked to the capacity of farmland
to provide pollination services, with the effectiveness of actions undertaken measured against the related
indicator. Subsidies to agriculture could be reformed towards extensive farming systems supporting the provision
of pollination services (see further Chapters 5 and 6).
Health – Atmospheric cleansing capacity (e.g. tonnes of particulates removed per hectare of forest)
related to illness/mortality rate
The UK study on air cleansing capacity (see Box 3.2) estimated the impact of higher air quality in terms
of net health effects (having trees compared to another land use) at between 65-89 cases of avoided
early mortality and 45-62 fewer hospital admissions per year. The estimated net reduction in costs
ranged between £222,308- £11,213,276. The range is dependent on the extent of dry deposition on days
with more than 1mm rain and how early the deaths occur. In terms of health effects, Hewitt (2002)
also found that doubling the number of trees in the West Midlands would reduce excess deaths due to
particles in the air by up to 140 per year (Powe 2002 and references within). One of the measures to
meet urban air quality and health standards (e.g. as set by the World Health Organisation) can include
investments in protected areas to secure provision of these services (see Chapter 8).
Further examples:
Poverty – Number of wild species used as food and/or amount of wild animal/plant products
sustainably collected
Energy – Forest biomass for bioenergy in Mtoe from different resources (e.g. wood, residues) from
natural and/or sustainable managed forests
TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 3: PAGE 18