Ecosystem Accounting for the Cost of Biodiversity Losses: Framework and Case Study for Coastal Mediterranean Wetlands Jean-Louis Weber, EEA The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium “ Because National Accounts are based on financial transactions, they account for nothing Nature, to which we don’t owe anything in terms of payments but to which we owe everything in terms of livelihood.” Bertrand de Jouvenel 1968

Ecological truth & market prices in the GDP Risks of unsustainable use of the living natural capital are ignored: the negative impacts of over-harvesting, force-feeding with fertilisers, intoxication, introduction of species, fragmentation by roads, or sealing of soil by urban development have no direct monetary counterpart. The natural capital is not even amortised in accounting books of companies and in the national accounts – no allowance is made for maintaining ecosystems’ critical functions and services. The full cost of domestic products is not covered in many cases by their price. This is as well the case of the price of imported products made from degraded ecosystems: their full cost is not covered by their price. Actual value for people of free ecosystem services is not accounted (the market tells: price is zero).

Report draft outline Introduction: Benefits from biodiversity, ecosystem services First Part: Framework 1.Framework of ecosystem accounting 2.Biodiversity focus: definition, measurement and valuation Second Part: Case study of Mediterranean Wetlands 3.The broad pan-Mediterranean picture 4.Summary accounts of stocks and flows of Mediterranean wetland socio-ecosystems ( ES,FR, IT, GR, BG, RO – 10 km strip ) 5.Selected local case studies i.Doñana (Spain) ii.Camargue (France) iii.Amvrakikos Wetlands (Greece) iv.Danube Delta (Romania) v.Comparative results Conclusion

The link between biodiversity and the output of ecosystem services… ‘Intermediate Products’ ‘Final Products’ Maintenanc e and restoration costs Economic and social values (sometimes market values).

Biodiversity and services Biodiversity supports ecosystem resilience ecosystem functioning and therefore possible services  The assessment should distinguish between ecosystem services according to their dependence from biodiversity: o Closely dependent (products of family agriculture, picking plants, some recreation and regulation services) o Dependent on a longer term (e.g. intensive agriculture or forestry, fish farming) o Not directly dependent from biodiversity (e.g. extraction of salt in wetlands)

Benefits from biodiversity: accounting for ecosystem services value and sustainability Distance to stated targets & additional maintenance/restoration costs Capital stocks and functions Services Market values Physical measurement and shadow prices

Accounting for ecosystems and ecosystem services Analysis:  Accounts in physical units: Ecosystem services (non market; dependant from biodiversity) Ecosystem assets integrity (stocks, flows, resilience…)  Accounts in monetary units: Ecosystem services: –market prices for the marketed services; –physical units + valuation in money (shadow prices) for non marketed end use services. Ecosystem assets: full maintenance and restoration costs Action:  Framing and assessing public policies  Accounting for values and costs as basis for founding ES markets: For individual ES (payment for use) For the full range of ES (payment for maintaining/restoring ecosystem functions) Accounting at typical scales:  Macro scale (framing and monitoring the issue – global to continental)  Meso scale (implementation, trade offs – countries, districts, sub-river basins, landscape systems)  Micro scale (concrete action, mitigation and compensation, assessment of benefit values, at the local level)

Ecosystem services, land use and well-being

Mediterranean Region Exceptionally diverse eco-region:  Most original bio-geographical world region  One of the most threatened –in world hot-spots list Main reservoir of plant biodiversity  10 % of known plant species in biosphere on 1.5 % of total land area  More than half are endemic Migratory birds: 200,000,000 birds of 150 species stop over in Med wetlands 7 % of known marine species in 0.8 % of total ocean area  Coastal population: 143 M in 2003 (+48 M in 30years);  + 35 M projected in 2025

(Pan-)Mediterranean case study: a nested approach Mediterranean and close neighbourhood: the broad picture & trends EEA member countries (with Corine land cover): regional maps, statistics & accounts 4 local case studies: the complexity of socio- ecosystem analysis

Chapter 3: The macro scale picture on the report Identification of wetlands not declared at Ramsar Sources: GlobCover2005 – courtesy European Space Agency Ramsar database – courtesy Wetlands International

Chapter 3: Definition and Mapping of Wetland Socio-Ecological Systems (SES) Core classes > 5% in a 5 km radius + Adjacent classes CORINE In practice: Group of municipalities Parc or reserve or site Hydro-morphological unit  or methodology for automatic mapping

1990 Chapter 4: Land cover change accounts Change in Ecological Potential of SES Wetlands, ES,FR, IT, GR – 10 km strip Change

Chapter 4: Land cover change accounts Land cover change accounts for SES Wetlands, ES,FR, IT, SI, HR, GR, BG, RO – 10 km strip Consumption of Wetlands 1990 – 2000 by processes (flows) and wetland types (Corine land cover)

Chapter 5: 4 local case studies Introduction to 4 local case studies Maps and land cover accounts Nomenclature of ES Standard tables Synthesis Doñana - Spain Camargue - France Amvrakikos - Greece Danube Delta - Romania

Example: land cover change in Doñana Preliminary results – Source: Berta Martin, UAM

Example: Picking of medicinal plants, Danube Delta Source: Iulian Nichersu, DDNI

Working nomenclature of ES for Wetlands SES (1)

Working nomenclature of ES for Wetlands SES (2)

Standard tables currently tested

Monetary accounts: tests Marketed services  According to existing statistics End use non market services  Preliminary results for some services Maintenance and restoration costs  Preliminary results for actual environmental protection expenditure (SERIEE/SEEA methodology): local protection agencies  Additional maintenance and restoration costs: exploitation of budgetary documents of local agencies

Development opportunities: Policy Beyond GDP – a strong policy demand MA2 – the new assessment process IPES – an operational objective Source: GlobWetlands - Courtesy ESA

Development opportunities: Knowledge UN SEEA 2003 revision to create a global statistical standard by 2010 – will include ecosystem accounts – basis for mobilising statistical offices GEO/GEOSS – GMES/SEIS: huge resource for space and in situ monitoring – basis for mobilising science Source: GlobWetlands - Courtesy ESA

Ecosystems and services