LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Jean-Louis Weber
European Environment Agency jeanlouis.weber@eea.europa.eu
“Global warming may dominate headlines today.
Ecosystem degradation will do so tomorrow”
Corporate Ecosystems Services review, WRI et al. March 2008
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008


 take the responsibility of organising the drafting of a volume on land and ecosystem accounts to be issued at the same time as volume 1
UNCEEA answer:



 review of the proposal by Brasil, Canada, Eurostat land possibly integrated to Volume 1, ecosystem to Volume 2
Volume 2 shortly after Volume 1 opinion of London Group
 interest by UNEP to particpating into the process (LG sub-group on land and ecosystem accounts)
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008




The SEEA classification of assets (Chapter 7 – Table 7.2) refers to 3 categories:
1.natural resources
2.land and water surfaces
3.ecosystems
Note:
Ecosystems are made of component [natural resources] and land. Natural resources and land are [are prone to be] private goods [withexclusive right of use]. They are more than the sum of components and land: their capacity of reproducing life [and continue delivering a bundle of services over time] is their fundamental characteristic; it is a public good [and therefore the objectives such as “halt biodiversity loss”].
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

2 - Non produced Assets/
Other Services
1 – Produced & Non produced
Assets/SNA:
Resource & land
3 – Ecosystem as a Public Good: non-transferable rights on ecosystem sustainable potential
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

SEEA2003: enlargement of SNA1993 for a better description of the economy-environment relation
Revision

SEEA2012
Impacts on ecosystems & related services/benefits assets stocks stocks
Statistical Standard
State
Non Standard transactions
 and other stocks
NAMEA,
 activities, natural physical quantities, processes, sub-soil, energy, land (?), etc.
value of economic assets
 C in state quality, valuation… stocks stocks state
RANESA Workshop June 12-16, 2005 Maputo
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
(non-linear feedback, spatial issues)

Land integration of ecosystem accounts
Production &
Consumption
Economic
Assets
Infrastructures
& Technologies
Population
Inclusive use of market & non market ecosystem services
Land use economic & social functions
Intensity of use & full maintenance costs
Ecosystem services
Ecosystem assets
Stocks
Material & energy flows
Resilience
Atmosphere/
Climate
Water system
Flora & Fauna
Soil
ECOSYSTEM ACCOUNTS
CORE LAND COVER ACCOUNT
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

The approach used to generate land cover accounts records
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

Corine land cover types 1 2A 2B 3A 3B
LEAC: from changes to flows of land cover
3C
2000
Change Matrix
(44x43=1932
LCF1 Urban land management possible changes) summarized into flows
LCF5 Conversion from other land cover to agriculture
LCF7 Forests creation and management
LCF9 Changes due to natural & multiple causes
LCF2
LCF1
No Change
LCF5
LCF1 Urban land management
LCF2 Urban residential sprawl
LCF3 Sprawl of economic sites and infrastructures
LCF4
LCF4 Agriculture internal conversions
LCF5 Conversion from other land cover to agriculture
LCF9 Land Cover due to natural & multiple causes
No Change
4 5
737 15 19
1924 1867
0
200
8
145
77 2728 1595
17252 10062
273
665 451
935 1796 1734
254
191
311
0
8
35
0
3
22
155 96
2393 2860
252
44
253
35803 5166 1048 1063
117 190 17
15 1317 1323 1041 229
2
53
780
4149
5627
27314
5039 50
5253
3 43337
21
252
1042
4534
1843 24608 17607 39899 9018 2304 1413 381 97074
160016 1149717 802502 990736 255914 50289 45502 45473 3500149
161860 1174325 820109 1030635 264932 52593
LCF8
45854 3597223
780
4149
5627
LCF7
LCF6
15695 11619
2450 2590
1124 2792 1244 23
42547 766 24
21
4 2167 1790
70
313
0
1021
260
10556 18144 15333 45343 4177 1858 383 1280 97074
160016 1149717 802502 990736 255914 50289 45502 45473 3500149
170572 1167861 817835 1036079 260090 52147 45885 46754 3597223
LCF9
780
4149
5627
27314
5039
5253
43337
1042
4534
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

Accounting for and mapping flows: urban sprawl, by grid
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

-
Assessing the direct costs and benefits of environmental protection and management as well as the costs of inaction, at the local, regional & national levels
-
Supplementing or mitigating GDP and National Income measurements of economic performance:
Should relate to sustainability and human well being
Can be physical, better in money
Should include a clear bottom line
Existing long lists of indicators don’t really work for that purpose
Previous attempts (e.g. “green GDP”) have not been convincing…
November 2007: Beyond GDP International Conference in Brussels
EEA: Ecosystem accounts of assets and services open a new way forward…
Full costs of goods and services including non covered ecosystem maintenance and restoration costs for meeting stated targets
Total benefits for human wellbeing from ecosystem services , used after production and monetised as well as directly available for end use and free
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

1 .
is the renewable natural capital maintained over time at the amount and quality expected by the society?
 physical measurement of stocks and resilience in reference to stated social norms. [no monetary valuation of ecosystem assets needed at this stage]
2.
is the full cost of maintaining the natural capital covered by the price of goods and services?
 measurement of additional costs not currently covered for maintaining and restoring domestic ecosystems potentials (provision for depreciation, consumption of ecosystem
capital) and addition to the value of goods and services
3.
is the full cost of ecosystems services covered by import prices?
 calculation of the “concealed cost” (virtual transfer in capital) and addition to the value of imported goods and services
 Add additional domestic costs (2.) and imported “hidden costs” (3.) to the value of products for calculating the full cost of goods of services (and in the full cost of the final demand after deduction of costs in exports
4.
is the total of goods and services supplied to final uses by the market (and government institutions) as well as for free by ecosystems, developing over time?

measure and value free end-use services and add these benefits to Final Demand
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

CO
2
Society
Input of fossil energy, materials
Services Economy
Maintenance/restoration of ecosystem functions
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

Maintenance and restoration costs
Biophysical structure or process
(e.g. woodland habitat or net primary productivity
)
Limit pressures via policy action?
Maintenance, restoration
Σ Pressures
Function
(e.g. slow passage of water, or biomass )
Service
(e.g. flood protection, or harvestable products)
Economic and social values (sometimes market values).
Benefit
(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for more woodland, or harvestable products)
Courtesy Roy Haines-Young
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

Impacts to the ecosystem
Core accounts of assets & flows
 systems: land systems, rivers, soil, sea,
 atmosphere...
components: biomass, water, C, N, P, species...
Counts of ecosystem integrity/health
(focus on vigor, robustness, resilience, dependance from inputs, healthy populations & stress)
Ecosystem Rating
& Aggregates
Sector accounts of flows of ecosystem services
Material/energy flows
[biomass, water, nutrients, residuals, physical units]
Functional Ecosystem Services
[Marketed & Non-market end use
ES (physical units and
€
)]
Supply & use of ecosystem services by sectors,
I-O analysis,
NAMEA

Natural assets/ ecosystem capital
Natural capital stocks, health/resilience, distance to objective (physical
•
•
•
• units, by sectors)
Consumption of Ecosystem Capital /restoration costs (
€
)
Consumption of Ecosystem Capital concealed in imports/exports (
€
)
NPV or market value of selected assets, SNA rules (
€
)
Ecosystem assets inclusive wealth (
€
)
Sector accounts of ecosystem natural capital
SNA sectors activities products flows assets
Feedbacks to the economy
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

Mock-up account
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

Spatial Integration of Environmental & Socio-
Economic Data Collection
Mapping
Statistics
Sampling
Individual Sites
Monitoring
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

Action level : local scale, site level, management, projects, case studies, business
Accounting guidelines, charts
National & regional government: environmental agencies, ministries of economy, statistical offices, courts
SEEA 2012
Framework
Corporate accounts, costs & benefits, trade of ES
PES: specific markets
Clearing house on [1] ES prices & [2] ecosystem mitigation costs
Prices & costs reference tables for legal compensation
Green taxes
Beyond GDP Accounting
Global scale : monitoring of
International Conventions and framing & regulation of markets
Simplified accounts
Derived from global monitoring programmes & international statistics
IPES: global trade of ecosystem permits
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

Markets need accounts, regulations [= control]
Land ecosystems are spatially distributed => grid data [e.g. 1 km2]
Globally, change matters [degradation or improvement of ecosystem functioning and attached cost], not the value of the stock
Global multicriteria rating based on a small number of ecological potential [derived from ecosystem accounts]:





Landscape ecological potential [LEP]
HANPP
Biodiversity rarefaction
Exergy loss [river basins]
Dependance from external inputs [material/energy, footprint]
 losses/gains of “points of ecological potential”
 computation of restoration costs [needed for compensating losses // or accumulated by gains of points]
Rating can be detailed as necessary for the policy [national, regional] and action scales [local, business]
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

Corine land cover map
(derived from satellite images)
Green Background
Landscape Index (derived from CLC)
Naturilis (derived from
Natura2000 & CDDA)
Effective Mesh Size
(MEFF, derived from
TeleAtlas and CLC) net Landscape Ecological
Potential (nLEP) 2000, by
1km² grid cell nLEP 2000 by NUTS 2/3
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

LEAC/ Landscape Ecological Potential 19902000, 1km² grid
(Source: Ecosystem Accounting for Mediterranean Wetlands, an EEA feasibility study for TEEB)
Natural Park of Camargue (France)
1990-2000
Legend
Camargue Regional Park, France
Change in net LEP 1990 to 2000
1 km² grid, range : -100 to +100
Improvement/ Highest : 47
Degradation/ Lowest : -33
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

e.g. effect of land cover change
U its
S rfa f c a tla d S rb n p ra 2 0
C a e rb n p ra 1 9 -2 0
-1 0
-1 0 te s A ric T m ra 2 0 -1 0
C a e te p ra s
1
A
9 ric re
-2 0
-1
L n c e c lo ic l P te tia 0 0
0
C a e L n
P te c l 1 e
9 -2 c
0 lo ic l
N tu d s a in x
N 0 & tio l) in d
-1
-1
0
0 e n ffe tiv e h e S S 0 N F
P p tio D s (in a ²) 2 0 in a ita
A V
G
IK
E
S
1 2
C M G
FR N
8 7
D N ELTA
R M IA
5 8
D Ñ A
1 3
1
2
5
.8
.5
.9
2
3
9
1
2
.0
.5
.1
0
.5
1
9
.8
.7
1
4
8
1
.4
.2
.0
.1
Next step: calculation of ecosystem maintenance & restoration costs
Field actions ’ budget
1 490 000 €
254 000 €
1 600 000 €
760 000 €
1 744 000 €
Overall budget of the Natural Regional Park of Camargue
2 360 000 €
1 650 000 €
790 000 €
2 440 000 €
1 600 000 €
1 020 000 €
2 620 000 €
PNRC, 2008.
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008


Soil (see session 4): start from priority services ==> fertility, carbon storage
==> accounts for organic matter/biomass/carbon [composition, quality], erosion and sealing [quantity] + additional salinisation and biodiversity counts + next, losses of income linked to soil degradation

Sea: start from coastal sea service of nursery [spawning] and fish stocks
[including age structure and interactions between stocks]

Atmosphere: start from GHGs accounting
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

Land Use Functions & Ecosystem Services
LUF analysis and mapping
 address cross-cutting issues e.g.: Urban/Rural,
Agro/Environment
 detect & measure ES services = ecosystem functions which benefit to people, somewhere
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008
Expert meeting on Land Use and Ecosystem accounting, 18-19 May 2006, EEA

 interest:



 inclusion of free services contributing to quality of life, health and the regulation of natural processes (pollination, water purification, floods, erosion, nursery for wildlife...); extended calculation of impacts; enforcement of legal compensations; valuation of rents [e.g. bioprospecting...], creation of new activities/income.
 difficulties



 from micro to macro; the “benefit transfer” issue; the aggregation issue shadow prices are linked to specific purposes of valuation – ranges of prices are acceptable in case studies, not so much in national accounting feasibility; limits to calculation of the “total economic value”; case of the “non-use” or “existence values”; case of regulating services; focus on “most important services” one by one and the multifunctional character of ecosystems
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

The
Zanzibar table adapted from
Glenn-Marie et alii 2008
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

SEEA revision 2012/2013 from GlobCover to GlobCorine: European Space Agency & EEA
Source: ESA, 2008
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008


Land accounts within volume 1 ?


Ecosystem accounts in volume 2 ?
SEEA-Ecosystem in perspective ?


Prioritisation:



1 - simplified accounts for all ecosystems [and input to MA2015]
2 - support to initiatives at local & business levels
3 - full integrated accounts
Need further discussion of contents =





 classification of ecosystem services valuation of ecosystem services definition of accounting units [socio-ecological systems] calculation of ecosystem capital consumption upscaling of ecological potential assessments physical & monetary aggregates
==> periodic meetings of the sub-group enlarged to UNEP experts [IPES, MA.
TEEB, Green Economics] ? Meeting on ES classification at EEA, 10 & 11
December 2008
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008

Physical flows
Monetary flows/valuation
Assets valuation
Natural capital / assets
Rest of the World
Subsoil Assets
[stocks]
Ecosystem Assets
[stocks and resilience]
Material & Energy Flows
Ecosyste m
Services
Subsoil Assets
[stocks]
Ecosystem
Assets
[stocks and resilience]
NAMEA
Ecosystem
Services
Environmental
Expenditures, Taxes
Additional
Ecosystem
Maintenance
Costs
SNA flows & assets
Additional
Ecosystem
Costs in Imports
(less in Exports)
LONDON GROUP MEETING
BRUSSELS, 29 SEPTEMBER – 3 OCTOBER 2008