Estimating the Overall Economic Value of the Benefits provided by the Natura 2000 Network Inception Meeting - Brussels, 20 January 2011 IEEP, Metroeconomica, GHK, Ecologic & EFTEC Patrick ten Brink, Institute for European Environmental Policy On behalf of the wider team

2 Content of this presentation:  Aim & objectives of the study  Overview of tasks & approach (a) Task1 - Methodology (b) Task 2 - Assessment Overall; Provisioning & MPAs and Ag land within PAs; Water purification/provision; Natural hazard; Climate regulation; (c) Task 3 – Recommendations  Overview of team and planning  Questions for the other studies

3 Aim & objectives of the study 1) set out an economic evaluation approach that can be applied to the quantifiable benefits across the Natura 2000 network, by defining a common typology of benefits suggesting a valuation framework describing the policy context (policy-on/policy off scenarios, baseline) spatial provision of benefits 2) apply different approaches to develop overall, well justified, estimates of the economic benefits - whole Natura 2000 network. 3) provide recommendations assessing the progress achieved, identifying further challenges and formulating follow up steps for the Natura 2000 benefits recognition process.

4 Tasks Task 1: Defining a common typology of benefits linked to Natura 2000, suggesting valuation frameworks within which analyses of benefits should be completed, describing the adopted assumptions and conditions (here: ‘Methodology’) Task 2: Initial calculations of the overall benefits created by (connected with) the whole European Natura 2000 network, justification of both the achieved result and the methodology applied (here: ‘Assessment’) Task 3: Recommendations for follow up (here: ‘Recommendations’)

5 Task 1: Typology of benefits Benefits typology : issue to bear in mind for benefits assessments Private and public Current and future Local to global Connectivity Use and non use values –Real money – market values, lost output, damage cost, substitute cost –Welfare values – WTP, consumer surplus –Intrinsic values – biodiversity Different levels of data exist; different methods exist; there are different degrees of difficulty in taking the range of benefits into account.

Total Economic Value (TEV) Use ValueNon-Use Value Direct use Indirect use Option Existence value Philanthropic value Bequest & Altruist Direct benefits from use of primary goods Benefits from secondary goods and services (Including non consumptive use) Option for future use (direct or indirect) of goods & services Bequest value (value for future generations) Altruist value (value for others) Value of existence without use / consumption of goods or services Provisioning services: Timber & Fuel wood Food/fodder & other forest products (latex) Bioprospecting : bio-chemicals, medicines Fresh Water Cultural services: Recreation Tourism Education / science Provisioning services: Fresh Water Bioprospecting Regulating services: Carbon storage Air quality & water purification Erosion control and Natural hazards mgt Cultural services: Scenery, recreation, Supporting services: Soil quality Cultural services: Scenery / landscape, Community identity/ integrity Spiritual value Wildlife / biodiversity ` Provisioning services: Fresh Water Regulating services: Carbon storage Air quality Cultural services: Scenery / landscape Recreation, Education / science Supporting services: Soil quality Valuation Framework: TEV

Designation as protected area … Before designation as protected area Costs Ecological services that would have remained without protected area Risk of degradation and loss of value of services without protected area Additional benefits from designation, management and investment Opportunity Costs Cost of management, implementation, investment, control Time Illustrative schematic for analysing the value of protected areas over time: Policy Context Policy On Policy Off

Spatial Provision of Benefits: Mapping links between supply of ecosystem services and beneficiaries Populated areas benefiting from fuller flow of services from Forest A Forest in wider watershed Populated areas in watershed not benefitting from river related flow of services Populated areas benefiting from services, but also directly impacting the ecosystem and its services (positively or negatively) Flow of ecosystem services via river – from source ecosystem to beneficiaries

Mainly local benefit Additional national benefit Mainly global benefit Spatial Provision of Benefits: Local to Global

10 Tasks 2: Assessment Task 2: Initial calculations of the overall benefits created by (connected with) the whole European Natura 2000 network, –Range of services justification of both the achieved result –Note assumptions, caveats, limitations, interpretations and the methodology applied –different methods for different services –Top down and bottom up –Benefits transfer / scaling up methods –etc –Other methods available (cases & future focus...Task 3)

11 Market Valuation Techniques Non-market Valuation Techniques Physical Linkages Behavioural Linkages Revealed PreferenceDose-response Functions Change in Outputs (productivity) Change in Inputs (production costs) Avoided Damage Cost Replacement Cost Preventative Expenditure Travel Cost Method Hedonic Property Analysis Hedonic Wage-risk Analysis Contingent Valuation Method Stated Preference Benefits Transfer Conjoint Analysis (choice models) Market & Non-Market Valuation Methods: Landscape Types of Environmental Benefits

12 Task 2: Benefits assessment coverage

Economic valuation methodologies for valuing the overall benefit of N2K sites Insights on the methodology for climate regulation Helen Ding

Valuation approach Identification of land- use patterns and ecosystem types within the N2K network Land-use changes & bio-physical assessments of the selected EGS Economic Valuation of the overall N2K benefits and reporting to the EC (e.g. GIS value maps) Identification, selection and mapping of EGS Step1 Step2 Step3 Step4 Source: TEEB (2008)

15 Economic valuation: methodological framework Ecosystem goods and services provided by N2K sites Market priced benefits Wood products Market price analysis Natural medicines Fish landings Un-priced benefits Carbon stocks Avoided costs, IAM Watershed protection Recreation Meta analysis, value transfer (SP/RP) Passive use values Value type Examples Valuation methods Ecosystem type Provisioning Services Regulating Services Cultural Services

16 Task 3: Recommendations for follow up What was possible to do What could be possible to do in the future What would we recommend being done and how Aim of task: provide methodological recommendation for future & put the results in context to help readers understand the final benefits of Natura 2000 report Task 3 - Recommendations

Project planning Month 1Month 2Month 3Month 4Month 5Month 6Month 7Month 8Month 9 Weeks Management Task 1: Methodology Task 2: Assessment Task 3: Recommendations Meetings IMm PM m m m FM Deliverables IR FR DR FR key development of tasks Signature date: 21 December 2011 finalisation End of contract date 20 September 2011

18 The project team

19 The project team - names IEEP - P ten Brink, S Bassi, S Gantioler, M Kettunen, L Mazza, K Hart GHK - M Rayment, M Pieterse and E Daly Ecologic - R Landgrebe, H Gerdes, S Naumann, M Lago Metroeconomica - P Nunes, H Ding, A Markandya EFTEC - R Tinch, I Dickie

20 Major links 0073 – value of tourism/recreation (overall values and examples) a needed input to our study (our final report should provide an overall picture of the benefits of Natura 2000) Important link 0072 – insights on measures and associated methods to help inform assessment approaches + useful data to help benefits transfer/scaling up & case examples Will be key to have open communication and occasional meetings between study leads. For mapping work it could be key to have EEA and JRC engagement Links to other studies

21 Thank you! IEEP is an independent not for profit institute dedicated to advancing an environmentally sustainable Europe through policy analysis, development and dissemination. Contacts: Patrick ten Brink Samuela Bassi