[ Slide Title ] Session II: Reporting back from breakout session Edi Interwies, InterSus 7 th Biennial GEF International Waters Conference Bridgetown, Barbados Targeted Workshops Economic Valuation as a Tool to Bridge the Science-Policy Gap

1.What are the main uses of economic valuation of ecosystem services for decision-making? Awareness (e.g. transboundary impacts) & communication Supporting improved decision making: Recognizing different ES service values (esp. for certain ones, e.g. future generations) Show choices of management, incl. trade-offs Influence policy & regulatory frameworks Influence allocation of financial resources/investments by internalizing externalities into CBA Short and long-term planning for sustainability – leverage resources Integrating TEV into decision making Information for mitigation and litigation/compensation Better governance (consensus, conflict resolution) KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS

1.main uses: Fears: “scary” broader perspective needed – sometimes other issues more important Limited & expensive: narrow it down to specific context “should not be the sole driving force for future (GEF) projects OVERALL: For fixing the problems: should be one method/tool out of many Socio-economic assessments needed – valuation only part of it Chose the scale of valuation depending on the scale of question you´re addressing KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS

2. What methods seem most appropriate/usable? Be clear on what you what to answer first! “Quick” and rough for overall scale, more detailed for specific issue Very case specific – depends on available resources, data and political environment Ensure that human wellbeing is adequately covered Issues of replicability - comparability Difficult to quantify, e.g. religious/aestetic: qualitative elements, too  Method selection should be “purpose driven, objective specific”: what stakeholder/sector, policy, scale, timeline relevant KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS

3. What are the main difficulties in increasing the use of economic valuation of ES for decision making ? Lack of: Capacity/resources (data gaps, costly, limited long-term/robust data) – in the projects but also in managing institutions Awareness/understanding (inability to communicate results in a non-technical manner) & appreciation (of ES required by others) & visualisation Integration (e.g. inter-agency dialogue) KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS

3. Main difficulties in increasing the use: Lack of: Political will (Gov will not always chose the most appropriate policy intervention) – vested interests (competing world views – bias through strong lobby groups) Ownership (by involvement of decision makers – key stakeholders); not demand driven Trust in the approach (human centered) & results („we don´t believe the answers“) Historical: GEF does not focus on socio-economic components… KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS

4. and 5. How to overcome them? GEF-action points focus (TDA-SAP ) Identify possible policy decisions – target evaluation to answering specific question; explore PPP Reasonable simplification of EV to minimize costs Improve data availability/accessability of information for EV (“do it quicker and easier”) Increasing buy-in for EV: Conduct overall LME/RB ES-valuation studies (“quick and dirty”) for initial awareness raising Success stories (case studies – evidence of advocacy of approach) Improve decision maker and stakeholder dialogue & their incorporation in the EV-process (also inter-agency) Show short/long term benefits Use language decision makers understand Inclusion in GEF and national planning processes (use their own methods – challenge back) KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS

Capacity building - improving capacity (at early stage: GEF-projects, but also users/authorities) – create a critical mass of expertise – professionalization – community of practice GEF: Develop Guidance/guidelines/practical manual: show EV-need & success stories (being flexible, not all aspects to be suited to all projects), lessons learned Inclusion of EV in TDA –SAP framework & documents: NEEDS TO BE INTEGRAL PART OF ALL STEPS! Ecosystem diagnostic analysis (including valuation): for each member country (communication issues, collecting information/data) undertake individual evaluation and then bring together in TDA or SAP – deliverable of PCU, then get financing Causal chain analysis (between TDA and SAP: assessment of options) to see if/what kind of ES valuation is necessary – when identifying the problems (to see what you need to focus on) Include in TDA-SAP national action plans 4&5: GEF-action points focus (TDA-SAP)

Include values of large ecosystem assets - add information on economic impacts of options - use CBA (total economic costs) of options - for strategic action development Pilot projects - Demonstration projects: Hot-spot and small demonstration projects in SAP formulation (feedback loop: go back from CS to TDA) Better links to indicators: Include socio-economic indicators (but linked to data access and availability) & baseline/trends in GEF-SAP results framework Broad(er) approach: incorporate all relevant aspects of social, economic data/analysis in TDA-SAP – incorporate into effective governance (“addressing the problems should remain the focus of GEF-projects)” [Fear: GEF assessors need to be pragmatic in terms of project design & timing – „just too many hoops to jump through“] 4&5: GEF-action points focus (TDA-SAP)