Valuation of damage to ecosystems due to air pollution Preliminary findings ECLAIRE-project Rome, 7-10 April 2014 Rob Maas, TFIAM.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Extending the external costs framework Prof. Anil Markandya University of Bath External costs of energy and their internalisation in Europe Dialogue with.

Advertisements

Ecological Economics Lecture 10 Tiago Domingos Assistant Professor Environment and Energy Section Department of Mechanical Engineering Doctoral Program.

Air quality in Europe report. Air pollution impacts human health, contributes to climate change and damages ecosystems. Here are some of the pollutants.

Current UK and EU Policy on Water Management Thames Tunnel Commission 29/7/11.

1 An overview of the potential of environmental valuation to inform protected area management. Dr Mike Christie University of Wales Aberystwyth ICS-UNIDO.

Economics of Nitrogen and Water Quality Anthony Dvarskas Stony Brook University May 19,

Sabina L. Shaikh University of Chicago Economic Valuation of Ecosystems Conference May 29, 2009 Ecosystems and Economics: Progress and Optimism for the.

Integrated Ecological Economic Modeling of Ecosystem Services from Brazil's Amazon Rainforest By Rosimeiry Portela At Conservation International Washington,

2 April, InVEST Introductory Seminar, Bangkok

The Ecosystem approach: from theory to application in England Tom Tew Natural England Delivering Nature’s Services.

Marine ecosystem services and their contributions to health and well-being Caroline Hattam 28 th November 2013 Growing Plymouth’s Health and Wealth through.

Benefits Analysis and CBA in the EC4MACS Project Mike Holland, EMRC Gwyn Jones, AEA Energy and Environment Anil Markandya, Metroeconomica.

The Clean Air For Europe (CAFE) program: Scientific and economic assessment Markus Amann International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis.

 Timber, wood fiber, fuel wood  Gas regulation and climate control  Carbon sequestration  Watershed services (water supply and quality)  Clean air.

Integrated science for our changing world Monitoring and Managing Ecosystem Services: An Integrated Approach Professor Mark Bailey Centre.

A Policy Evaluation of Planting Street Trees in Morgantown, West Virginia: A Spatial and Benefit-Cost Analysis GIS Conference and Workshop 2004 Vishakha.

Baseline emission projections for the revision of the Gothenburg protocol All calculations refer to Parties in the EMEP modelling domain Markus Amann Centre.

A Tool for Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services in Flanders Sara Ochelen – Flemish Ministry of Environment, Nature and Energy.

Gordon Hughes QUALIDADE DO GASTO PÚBLICO NO BRASIL Meio Ambiente.

Conservation Biology Human Activities Threaten Biodiversity! Conservation biology is concerned with maintaining the natural diversity in ecosystems. The.

The stock is the present accumulated quantity of natural capital. It is a supply accumulated for future use; a store. The natural income is any sustainable.

Local Air Pollution and Global Climate Change A Cost-Benefit Analysis by Bollen, J., Brink, C., Eerens, H., and van der Zwaan, B. Johannes Bollen Dutch.

Non-pollutant ecosystem stress impacts on defining a critical load Or why long-term critical loads estimates are likely too high Steven McNulty USDA Forest.

1 SURF to Biodiversity 2020 Maria Tiefenbach Environment Agency Austria.

Multi-Metric Indicator Use in Social Preference Elicitation and Valuation Patrick Fogarty UW-Whitewater Economics Student.

6. Values and externalities Joint Nature Conservation Committee.

Challenges in using indicators to quantify ecosystems services for a CBA in the framework of ECLAIRE Wilfried Winiwarter.

Coordination Centre for Effects Jean-Paul Hettelingh, EC4MACS kick off meeting, IIASA, 6-7 March 2007 EC4MACS Task 3: Ecosystem Impact Assessment by the.

The Benefits of Ecosystem Services, Environmental Economics and Eco-Compensation Schemes Christian Susan UNIDO Water Management Unit.

A hybrid approach for an economic valuation of marine and coastal ecosystem services 2nd Meeting of the Expert Group on Marine Research Infrastructure.

Commodification and Financialisation of nature Advocacy NGOs networks for sustainable use of energy and natural resources in the Western Balkans and Turkey.

Ecology: Community Structure & Ecosystem Services David Mellor, PhD Citizen Science Coordinator Virginia Master Naturalists.

Ecosystem Valuation Social and Environmental Aspects Kathryn Benson CE 397 November 25, 2003.

Agriculture’s Dual Challenge of Delivering Food While Protecting the Environment Tamsin Cooper A Future for a Strong CAP – European Symposium.

Managing the Natura 2000 network: state of play, challenges and opportunities.

Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution Task Force on Integrated Assessment Modelling Review of the Gothenburg Protocol UNITED NATIONS ECONOMIC.

The economic value of nature? Pricing habitats and species - Possibilities and Ivan Olsson and Stefan Jendteg.

Baseline emission projections for the revision of the Gothenburg protocol Markus Amann Centre for Integrated Assessment Modelling (CIAM) International.

Sub-global Assessments: Synthesis and Case Studies (Portugal) June 2004 Tiago Domingos.

Baseline emission projections and scope for further reductions in Europe up to 2020 Results from the CAFE analysis M. Amann, I. Bertok, R. Cabala, J. Cofala,

Scenarios for the Negotiations on the Revision of the Gothenburg Protocol with contributions from Imrich Bertok, Jens Borken-Kleefeld, Janusz Cofala, Chris.

TF HTAP, TF IAM, Vienna, February HTAP-GAINS scenario analysis: preliminary exploration of emission scenarios with regard to the benefits of global.

Project update Each step builds on the previous step Each step builds on the previous step Your problem statement uses your literature review to tell a.

An outlook to future air quality in Europe: Priorities for EMEP and WGE from an Integrated Assessment perspective Markus Amann Centre for Integrated Assessment.

Scope for further emission reductions: The range between Current Legislation and Maximum Technically Feasible Reductions M. Amann, I. Bertok, R. Cabala,

Economic Valuation of Environment: Overview

Group F: Economic Consequences of Invasive Species Q1: Critical Scientific Issues Quantifying and verifying non-market impacts and their value Costs of.

Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network Inception Meeting - Brussels, 20 January 2011 IEEP,

Tony Whitbread, Chief Executive Taking forward Biodiversity in Sussex.

Readings Invasions –Pimentel et al Environmental and economic costs of nonindigenous species in the United States. BioScience 50: Environmental.

Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services at the CSIR. © CSIR What is biodiversity? Biological diversity – the variety and richness of plant.

ECLAIRE: Effects of climate change on air pollution impacts and response strategies for European ecosystems.

Preliminary ECLAIRE findings Budapest, 2 October 2014 Rob Maas, RIVM.

The case of the Cork oak ecosystem, TUNISIA

5. Impact assessment world café: Ecosystem services

CAFE CBA – Draft Baseline Results

Joint Nature Conservation Committee

No effect of Nitrogen? Something wrong? Not exceeded sites?

M. Amann, I. Bertok, R. Cabala, J. Cofala, F. Gyarfas, C. Heyes, Z

Good riparian management Financial benefits for the public

Coordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature

Mapping and assessment of ecosystem and their services

Green Infrastructure and Natura 2000

CAFE CBA Paul Watkiss and Steve Pye, AEA Technology Environment

Environmental objectives and target setting

Leon C. Braat Alterra, Wageningen

Steve Pye / Mike Holland NEC-PI Working Group, 19th June 2007

What does it mean to have a forest in a Natura 2000 area?

Tentative Ideas for Co-operation

Valuing the city’s trees- An evaluation of CAVAT and i-Tree Forest Assessments Using Public Perception of Ecosystem services Hazel Mooney

Presentation transcript:

Valuation of damage to ecosystems due to air pollution Preliminary findings ECLAIRE-project Rome, 7-10 April 2014 Rob Maas, TFIAM

Can we monetise ecosystem benefits in Integrated Assessments Models? Will monetised ecosystem benefits put more emphasis on ozone & N?

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) Wood production (easy to monetise) WTP recreation income dependent Oxygen production is not valued! Carbon sequestration can be valued

Stocks, flows, damage and benefits Natura 2000 value €

Stocks, flows, damage and benefits Natura 2000 value € Ecosystem services € /yr

Stocks, flows, damage and benefits Natura 2000 value € Ecosystem services € /yr Damage € /yr

Stocks, flows, damage and benefits Natural 2000 value € Ecosystem services € /yr Damage € /yr Benefits /yr

Benefits of ozone reduction Natura 2000: 100 mln ha (GDP: € 100,000 bn) Total value (€50,000/ha) € 5,000 bn Services (€2500/ha/yr) € 250 bn/yr* (0.25%) 5% ozone damage (€125/ha/yr) € 12.5 bn/yr Benefits 40% less ozone (€50/ha/yr) € 5.0 bn/yr * Source: P ten Brink (IEEP) Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network, average of 35 valuation studies

Benefits of ozone reduction Natura 2000: 100 mln ha (GDP: € 100,000 bn) Total value (€50,000/ha) € 5,000 bn Services (€2500/ha/yr) € 250 bn/yr* (0.25%) 5% ozone damage (€125/ha/yr) € 12.5 bn/yr Benefits 40% less ozone (€50/ha/yr) € 5.0 bn/yr Costs of current legislation: € 70.0 bn/yr Additional Costs of MFTR € 40.0 bn/yr * Source: P ten Brink (IEEP) Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network, average of 35 valuation studies

Benefits of ozone reduction Natura 2000: 100 mln ha Total value (€50,000/ha) € 5,000 bn Services (€2500/ha/yr) € 250 bn/yr* 5% ozone damage (€125/ha/yr) € 12.5 bn/yr Benefits 40% less ozone (€50/ha/yr) € 5.0 bn/yr Other benefits (damage in 2000 in brackets) – Source: EC4MACS Health benefits PM2.5 €255 bn/yr (€430 bn/yr) Health benefits ozone € 0.7 bn/yr (€3.8 bn/yr) Crop benefits€ 2.4 bn/yr (€3.7 bn/yr) Materials benefits€ 1.5 bn/yr (€2.0 bn/yr) * Source: P ten Brink (IEEP) Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network, average of 35 valuation studies

Nitrogen makes it complex ! N increases ecosystem services: wood production and carbon sequestration (compensates ozone damage) N-deposition leads to more N 2 O-emissions (~¼ of C-uptake) No significant N-impact on cultural services (recreation) N + ozone reduction = no change in ecosystem services Conclusion: ecosystem services approach will not help us!

Nitrogen makes it complex ! N increases ecosystem services: wood production and carbon sequestration (compensates ozone damage) N-deposition leads to more N 2 O-emissions (~¼ of C-uptake) No significant N-impact on cultural services (recreation) N + ozone reduction = no change in ecosystem services But: N-deposition decreases biodiversity – Heather  grasses – Undergrowth of forests  grasses, scubs, nettle – Alpine vegetation  grasses

Species richness in grasslands, 2000

What is biodiversity worth? 1. Ask the public (‘willingness to pay’ approach)  Are people well informed to appreciate species? What metric? Pictures? Wishful answers? (Does this get the money flowing?) 2. Revealed preference by governments 2a. Restoration cost approach What do we have to spend on nature management? Benefits of N-reduction = Less management costs 2b. “X=X” approach What N-elimination costs were implied in the Bird & Habitat Directive? Benefits of N-reduction = Reduction of the remaining elimination costs.

1. Willingness to pay for 25% restoration of biodiversity €10-30 per household per year = €80-240/ha/yr Benefits of 25% biodiversity improvement of total Natura 2000 € 8-24 bn/yr Assuming UK-values are representative for all EU: Income level OK, significantly less Natura2000 area per capita in UK Source: Laurence Jones et al, in: Ecosystem Services, 2013 Mike Christie et al, in: Ecological Economics, 2006 and Report on UK Biodiversity Action Plan, 2011

1. Willingness to pay for 25% restoration of biodiversity €10-30 per household per year = €80-240/ha/yr Benefits of 25% biodiversity improvement of total Natura 2000 € 8-24 bn/yr Costs of MFTR Ammonia: € 5 bn/yr Source: Laurence Jones et al, in: Ecosystem Services, 2013 Mike Christie et al, in: Ecological Economics, 2006 and Report on UK Biodiversity Action Plan, 2011

2a. Restoration costs approach

Policy inaction would increase restoration costs For Natura2000 areas a ‘favourable conservation status’ is required Worst case: Complete ‘rebuilding’ of a forest requires an investment of €40.000/ha (NEEDS, 2006) = €2000/ha/yr (Ecoystem services: €2500/ha/yr) Restoration costs depend on level of CL-exceedance: average EU-restoration costs per kg NH3 = €2 per kg NH3 = €8 bn/yr (Costs of MTFR for NH3 = €5 bn/yr ~ 25% deposition reduction) (WTP > €8 bn/yr)

2b. X = X Approach Assumption: costs of NH3-elimination needed to meet CL in Natura 2000 areas were already implied in the Bird & Habitat Directive Costs of NH3-elimination: -MTFR for NH3 < €5 bn/yr (only where CL nut is exceeded) -Additional removal of stables in and around Natura2000 areas where CL nut is exceeded even after MTFR ….. Where? How much ?

Plant species diversity in Natura 2000 areas Current Policy 2020 Current Policy 2020 Maximum Feasible N emission reduction Source:CCE Status Report 2008

2b. X = X Approach Assumption: costs of NH3-elimination needed to meet CL in Natura 2000 areas were already implied in the Bird & Habitat Directive Costs of NH3-elimination: -MTFR for NH3 < €5 bn/yr (only where CL nut is exceeded) -Additional removal of stables in and around Natura2000 areas where CL nut is exceeded even after MTFR ….. 100% of NL livestock = € 3 bn/yr -Total implied elimination costs: €8 bn/yr

Benefits of N-reduction = reduction of the remaining elimination costs Costs of 25% reduction of NH3 = €5 bn/yr Benefits = €5 bn/yr

Conclusion 1.Different valuation methods lead to a biodiversity benefit in European Natura2000 areas of > €8 bn/yr 2.Benefits of N-reduction are not significantly higher than the costs (compared to B/C ratio for health) 3.Will the use of the values lead to additional NH3-reduction requirements?

What will be risks? If biodiversity benefits would be lower than the costs of action, should we then refrain from taking action? If biodiversity benefits would be higher than the costs of action, can we then leave biodiversity protection to the free market? If monetary values are not decisive, policy makers have to think harder about what they want to protect and gain more knowledge about what biodiversity is!