Accounting and integrating ecosystem services: European experience Jean-Louis Weber Special Adviser on Economic-Environmental Accounting European Environment Agency ProEcoServ Partnership Meeting UNEP Headquarters, Nairobi 7-8 th June 2011

GDP and Beyond Recurrent policy demand (“green GDP”…) For GDP level aggregates For general policy making (annual budget discussion  annual updates, fresh data…) Remediating environmental and social weaknesses of GDP Debate influenced by welfare economics Micro economics first, individual preferences for utilities Wealth more important than current income (because wealth secures future welfare) Wealth to be calculated as net present value of expected future benefits of assets Difficulties for national accounting National accounts are first of all empirical statistics (which can be interpreted by the economic theory (ies) Market transactions aggregate conflicting individual preferences (they do the job) Out of the market (e.g. public good, economic externalities, non-priced well being…), need to simulate markets Theoretical issues: consistency of prices, NPV time horizon, integration of multiple options (including public good), limits to the aggregation of independent local or sector assessments Statistical issues: collection and update of micro data on individual preferences (the “benefit transfers” issue)  Wealth calculations still remain incomplete modeling exercise, not accounting

Wealth is not just about money Invaluable asset  no monetary value… Paid maintenance/ restoration costs Estimated cost of repairs (not yet paid) = Measurement of asset depreciation …but maintaining wealth may have a cost

Estimation of ecosystem capital depreciation… Valuation of E-services NPV & (  ) Physical accounts of E-services  t1  t2  t2  t1 t2  t1 ()() Degradation of ecosystem capital NPV & (  ) …based on mitigation costs …based on assets values    € € € € € € € Assessment of remediation costs Assets  Assets € Flows ()() Estimation of ecosystem capital depreciation: 2 possible ways Account of pressures responsible of degradation

Ecosystem Capital Consumption or Depreciation CEC is the monetary estimation of ecosystem depreciation resulting from physical degradation alike “fixed capital consumption” (UN System of National Accounts) alike “capital depreciation” in financial corporate accounts (International Financial Reporting Standard) CEC measures altogether the depletion of the private or common good (the economic resource, such as timber or managed fish stocks) and the degradation of the public good (such as forest or fisheries) “To be reliable, the information in financial statements must be complete within the bounds of materiality and cost. An omission can cause information to be false or misleading and thus unreliable and deficient in terms of its relevance” Therefore, capital depreciation must be estimated and deducted when calculating profit. This is of highest importance for shareholders (dividends, stocks value…) as well as for the fiscal authority… However, neither IFRS nor SNA record complete Consumption of Ecosystem Capital: IFRS resource only and SNA, nothing… CEC is an unpaid cost. An unpaid cost is a debt. CEC is the measurement of the increase in ecological debts (to future generations) and should be recorded accordingly.

Ecologically sustainable macro-economic benefit (VA) supported by ES (n) Coefficients of Ecosystem Services (Un)Sustainability  Flows Extraction Calculation of total effect on VA of extraction of ES (n) (Source: Jose Acosta, Wuppertal Inst. and EEA-ETCSCP) € Total effect Input-Output Tables € €  Physical accounts of E-services  t1  t2 t2  t1 Degradation of ecosystem capital Assets  ()()  Ecologically sustainable benefits from ecosystem services: the macro-economic approach

Main outcome of ecosystem capital accounts Loss/gain of Ecosystem Capital Potential (degradation/improvement): – Loss of capacity (or potential) to deliver ecosystem services to the economy (resources) and directly to people (public good) – Capacity/potential integrates quantitative balances and ecosystem health (vigour, integrity, resilience) – Measurement based on physical accounts of key assets: land, water, biomass/carbon, biodiversity – Multiple scales: from local units (ecosystem units) to regions, rivers basins and countries Consumption of Ecosystem Capital – Loss of ecosystem capital potential assessed by causes (overharvesting, disposal of residuals, introduction of species, restructuring) – Unitary costs of remediation by analogy to actual cost of works – CEC is part of the final demand at full costs Ecologically sustainable benefits supported by ecosystem assets/services – Benefits as Value Added of agriculture, forestry, fishery, water management…, – Ecological sustainability = no loss of ecosystem capital potential.

Assessment of ecosystem capital accounts: Implicit norms “JRC input to the Interdepartmental Coordination Group (ICG)” by Andrea Saltelli and Angela Pereira The 3 issues highlighted: The relation between (statistical) evidence – policy (based on statistics), and the issue of the explicit and implicit norms contained by indicators The capacity of composite/aggregated indicators to represent evidences in a fair way regarding policy making prerogatives The risk of “extreme reduction” in particular when monetary valuation is used as a method for producing aggregates of the most general nature.

Ecosystem capital accounting assumptions: – Ecosystem degradation is measured from multicriteria diagnosis: assumption that maintenance of good state equals maintenance of ecosystem capacity of delivering full range of services (options) – Annual maintenance of ecosystem capital’s potential to deliver services: general target expressed in all accounting standards (SNA, IFRS), good farming practices, insurance standards… – Restoration of historical damages up to stated targets (regulations, plans, Water FD objective of good environmental quality …) – Mitigation/compensation of observed degradation of capital’s potential: consensus in ELD2004, N2000 management (conservation/ restoration/ replacement), US wetlands mitigation banking system – Payment of demand at full costs (domestic and imported): growing public consensus to pay more for fair trade, organic food… – Recording of non paid costs: not in past flows  ecological debt to be recorded in a special financial accounts; debt should vary according to physical degradation and prices of remediation actions. – Ecologically sustainable benefits vary according to economic activity (+) and ecosystem degradation (-). Their increase is a target… which depends broadly on the reduction of ecosystem degradation

Indicators: Resource efficiency : CEC, an additional dimension Improvement of economy’s environmental performance referred as “eco- efficiency” or “first decoupling”. MFA/ GDP… Inter-generational optimisation of non-renewable resource use in order to maximise the income flow by means of resource savings and/or substitutions between forms of capital (the “weak sustainability” paradigm). Improvement of the current ratio: value of commodities/ impacts on ecosystems due to extraction & residuals; combines MFA and Life Cycle Analysis; called “second decoupling” or Environmentally Weighted Material Flows… Maintenance over time of the living and/or cycling natural capital’s capacity to supply altogether economic resource and life support (clean water, clean air, stable climate, food…). Efficiency = no ecosystem capital degradation Social dimension, wellbeing, consumption patterns: Final consumption at full costs… Reflected in the (full) price of imports

Statistical soundness Accounts based on objective and comprehensive data – Radiometry observed by satellites – Derived land cover maps – Official statistics, physical (crops, timber, fish, domestic and imported…) and monetary (maintenance activities, Input-Output Tables and VA by sectors) – Meteo – + sampling (ad hoc or mostly of in situ monitoring data) – + physical modeling All data documented No subjective surveys In line with current developments in statistics (see next slide on Brazilian population census)

Low Cost Images Handheld Devices (PDA) GIS/Web Brazilian Geospatial Statistics Growing Application at IBGE for both Cartography and Statistics Evolution of Geo-Technologies

Assimilation of statistics into regular grids

UN manual for environmental-economic accounting: SEEA2003 Enlargement of SNA1993 (now 2008) RM HASSAN - UN The System of Environmental and Economic Accounting (UN 2003) - RANESA Workshop June 12-16, 2005 Maputo Volume 1 The SNA satellite accounts for the environment expenditure, taxes, hybrid accounts, physical flows, sub-soil, energy, water land, economic assets depletion Volume 2 Ecosystem approach to accounting Ecosystem stocks and quality, valuation… Revision  SEEA2012/13 Negative feedbacks of ecosystem degradation on production and wellbeing Impacts on ecosystem capacity of delivering services/benefits

First expert meeting on SEEA part 2, ecosystem accounts Copenhagen May Co-organised by the EEA, UNSD and the World Bank Discussion of concepts, accounting units and classifications Correspondance between economic and ecosystem units – Economic assets // Ecosystem assets – Establishments // Land Cover Functional Units – Institutional Units // Socio-Ecological Landscape Units – Commodities // Ecosystem Services Discussion of valuation options (SNA compatible…) Outcome presented to the UNCEEA meeting, June

SNA & SEEA: economic and ecosystem assets

Main relations between classifications & accounting units

Land Cover Types and derived Land Cover Functional Units sampling mapping Based on FAO LCCS3

Mapping & classification of socio-ecological landscape units (SELU) 1- river basins and 2- relief Courtesy Emil D. Ivanov, 2011

Mapping & classification of socio-ecological landscape units (SELU) 3- dominant landscape types (urban, intensive agriculture, mosaics, grassland, forests, other natural types and no-dominance) Courtesy Emil D. Ivanov, 2011

Application: NECB (net ecosystem carbon balance) here by 1x1 km grid Courtesy Emil D. Ivanov, 2011

Classification of socio-ecological landscape units (SELU)

Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (draft) CICES: Table E.2: Proposed Thematic, Class and Group Structure – source: EEA- Roy Haines-Young

Change in Total Ecosystem Potential – Clear and focussed indicator: loss of TEP = ecosystem degradation = future loss of ecosystem services – Main dimensions (quantity and health) integrated via specific balances and multicriteria diagnoses – Land/landscape accounts produced for ; nowcasting 2010 of Landscape Ecological Potential under development – Carbon ecosystem accounts (first generation) under production – Water accounts: first accounts for soil water stress, under production; rivers and aquifers under development – Biodiversity accounts under test – TEP/ Ecosystem Degradation methodology under test – Accounts supported by existing statistics on resource use and consumption (agriculture, forestry, fishery…) – Accounts supported by Earth Observation monitoring programmes and by in situ monitoring Implementation

Make it happen? Make it simple! : a “Cubist” approach of physical accounts Multi-criteria rating Georges Braque – Harbour in Normandy, 1909 Water Index (exergy loss from evaporation & pollution) Bio-productivity Index (carbon, biomass, diversion from Nature) Biodiversity Index (rarefaction, loss of adaptability) Dependency Index (land, soil, energy, water, N,P,K...) Landscape Index (the Landscape Ecological Potential) Health Index (human, wildlife and plants populations) Total Ecological Potential (terrestrial ecosystems) Total Ecosystem Potential (terrestrial ecosystems ) Health Index (human, wildlife and plants populations) Water Index (exergy loss from evaporation & pollution) Landscape Index (the Landscape Ecological Potential) Carbon/Biomass Index (carbon, biomass, diversion from Nature) Biodiversity Index (rarefaction, loss of adaptability) Dependency Index (land, soil, energy, water, N,P,K...) Change in TEP = Ecosystem capital degradation or improvement All indexes computed by 1 km² grid when possible and then aggregated into functional units (small catchments, socio-ecological systems, NUTS…)

Corine land cover map (CLC is derived from satellite images) Green Landscape Index (derived from CLC) Nature Value (Naturilis, derived from Natura2000 designated areas) Fragmentation (Effective Mesh Size (MEFF) derived from TeleAtlas Roads and CLC) Landscape Ecological Potential (LEP) 2000, by 1km² grid cell LEP 2000 by NUTS 2/3 Land Ecosystem Account: Landscape Ecological Potential  and

Landscape ecosystem potential and change Improvement Degradation

Land cover flows and mean LEP by landscape ecosystem units Land cover flows are measured according to the EEA LEAC methodology based on Corine land cover (J-L Weber and E. Ivanov, 2011)

Landscape Ecological Potential change , by ecosystem landscape unit (J-L Weber and E. Ivanov, 2011)

Example of application of the ecosystem accounting methodology for Biomass/carbon Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance by socio- ecological landscape units (SELU), 2000 Source: Emil D. Ivanov/Jean-Louis Weber, ETCSA/EEA. 2011

Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance by ecosystem landscape units (J-L Weber and E. Ivanov, 2011)

Soil water stress: % of days when no water is available for plants One point in Germany One point in Spain Surplus streaming to rivers or infiltrating to groundwater Source: Blaz Kurnik, EEA, 2011 No water available for plants below this point (Wilting point)

Soil water stress in 2001: number of days when no water is available for plants Provisional results Source: Blaz Kurnik, EEA, 2011

Thank you!