Download (PDF, 6.71MB) - TEEB

Where the free provision of ecosystem services is
regulated, we tend to better recognise their value – but
we also modify the rights to such services. Use rights
to water, fish or grazing grounds are often informally
distributed and well managed under communitybased
regimes. When external interventions change
such informal rights – either to create markets or for
other purposes linked to sustainable use – policy
makers need to carefully consider whose livelihoods
depend on these services.
Where traditional rights are not registered, they
risk being ignored unless new rules explicitly
respect former uses. This process of defining and
officially recognising rights to resources is fundamental
for conservation and sustainable use and will determine
the level of social impact that any new instrument
will have – it is of particular importance for implementing
PES schemes. This is highlighted in Paraguay’s
experience with a new PES scheme where official
RESPONDING TO THE VALUE OF NATURE
recognition of such rights added financial value to
land of low conventional economic value but of high
importance for subsistence (Global Forest Coalition et
al. 2008).
Recognition of rights to resources is also about
protecting collective rights – i.e. rights to enjoy public
goods. Biodiversity and ecosystems are often public
goods or common goods: even if they provide services
and private benefits for some individuals, they still deliver
collective benefits to the rest of society like
fresh air, rainfall and pollination. However, when land
cover is changed and some ecosystem services
exploited under mere consideration of private gains, public
good ecosystem services may be disturbed, (e.g.
erosion control, water supply). Another case is that of
common goods where regulation of access is crucial.
Marine fisheries provide a challenging example: overexploitation
has turned fisheries into an ‘underperforming
natural asset’ (see Box 10.19).
Box 10.19: Fish stocks – an underperforming natural asset
Global marine capture fisheries are yielding far lower harvests and contributing far less to
the global economy than they could do under stronger policies to manage fish stocks. Since industrial fishing
began, the total mass of commercially exploited species has been reduced by 90% in much of the world.
This tragedy results from an economic race to the sea-bottom in a ruthless competition between industrial
fishing companies. Poorly regulated access to the resource and insufficient enforcement of
regulations worsen the situation.
The industry currently has an
annual value (landed catch) of
US$ 86 billion (FAO 2008).
Using a stylised and simple
model, a World Bank report
estimates the lost economic
benefits to be in the order
of US$ 50 billion annually –
representing the difference
between the potential and
actual net economic benefits
from global marine fisheries.
Source: World Bank
and FAO 2008: 21
TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 10: PAGE 24