Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB

STRENGTHENING INDICATORS AND ACCOUNTING SYSTEMS FOR NATURAL CAPITAL
CHALLENGES AND NEXT STEPS
The extent to which ESS indicators are ready for
use varies depending on the availability of data,
the capacity to summarise characteristics at
multiple spatial and temporal scales and communication
of the results to non-technical policymakers
(Layke 2009). There are more and better
indicators for provisioning services than for regulating
and cultural services, due to our clear and immediate
dependency on provisioning services which are mostly
incorporated into marketed commodities (e.g. wood
for timber, fuel and food).
The flow of benefits from regulating and cultural
services is not as visible or easily measurable: many
non-market services are therefore enjoyed for free.
Proxy indicators can help us estimate benefits associated
with these services by referring to the capacity
of an ecosystem to provide them – but these are only
a short-term solution. More widespread use of ecosystem
services in decisions will require us to improve
regulating and cultural service indicators
(Layke 2009). Promising ideas such as the trait concept
(Layke 2009), which seeks the clear definition of
characteristics required for the provision of services,
are available but need further elaboration.
ESS indicators need to take account of the
sustainability of provisioning and other services
over time, to ensure that the long-term benefit
flow of services is measured. Overexploitation of
benefits arising from some provisioning services (e.g.
overexploitation of fish stocks) as well as cultural services
(e.g. tourism) and regulating services (e.g. reforestation
activities for carbon capture) could lead to a
depletion of benefits and social trade-offs. Indicators
referring to those services therefore need to take
sustainable productivity into account. This calls for a
clear definition of what sustainability actually means
with regard to those services. It is crucial to develop a
baseline in order to determine where critical thresholds
(e.g. population of fish stock within safe biological
limits, soil critical loads) and alternative future pathways
under different policy scenarios (e.g. fisheries subsidies
reform, subsidies in the agriculture sector) may lie.
However, settingcritical thresholds raises substantial
problems linked to ignorance, uncertainties and risk
associated with ecological systems. Safe minimum
standards may be a way to overcome these challenges
(see TEEB D0 Chapter 5).
Not all ecosystem service indicators can be
quantified: there is a risk that policy makers focus
more on those for which quantifiable information is
available. As stated in TEEB D0 Chapter 3, “reliance
on existing indicators will in all likelihood capture the
value of a few species and ecosystems relevant to food
and fibre production, and will miss out the role of biodiversity
and ecosystems in supporting the full range
of ecosystem services, as well as their resilience into
the future.” To avoid risks of creating a policy bias by
focusing on a subset of indicators high on the political
agenda or the agenda of vested interests, we need to
increase efforts to find complementary non-quantified
indicators.
In parallel, ESS valuations that focus on a single service
should be systematically cross-checked with broader
measurements to assess the capacity of ecosystems
to continue delivering the full variety of other services
potentially of interest. This capacity depends on ecosystem
robustness, integrity and resilience, not on
asset value. We therefore need to compare eco-nomic
benefits from ecosystem services exploitation to the
additional costs required to maintain ecosystem capital
in the broadest sense (i.e. to mitigate overall degradation),
rather than sticking to narrow measurement of
the losses of benefits resulting from natural resource
depletion.
TEEB D0 Chapter 3 discusses in more detail the
lessons learned from initial application of existing indicators
and highlights key opportunities and constraints
arising from their use.
To better identify the beneficiaries of ecosystems
services and those who guarantee their provision to
society, we need more research on the link between
biodiversity and ecosystem condition and on the provision
of ecosystems services. This is particularly acute
for indicators on regulating and cultural services: data
are often insufficient and indicators inadequate to characterise
the diversity and complexity of the benefits
they provide (Layke 2009).
TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 3: PAGE 21