living in harmony with nature

Living in harmony with nature

HIGH-LEVEL PANEL ON GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OFRESOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR BIODIVERSITY 2011-2020

Summary of the Regional Research

Pyeongchang, 7 October 2014

Matt Rayment, ICF InternationalConsultant supporting High Level Panel

a. Develop an assessment of the benefits of meeting the Aichi Biodiversity Targets, examining both direct biodiversity benefits and wider benefits to society that result from the investments and policy developments required.

b. Assess the range of the costs of implementing the activities needed to achieve the targets, taking into account the further work proposed in High Level Panel report to COP-11.

c. Identify opportunities to secure the benefits most cost effectively through actions in both the biodiversity sector and across economies as a whole that can mobilize / make better use of resources, to deliver greatest progress towards meeting the Aichi targets.

For further information, visit http://www.cbd.int/financial/hlp/or email [email protected]

Aims of the High Level Panel

http://www.cbd.int/financial/hlp/

mailto:[email protected]

• While HLP 1 report presented a global “top-down” assessment of resources required to meet the Aichi Targets, HLP 2 sought to provide a “bottom up” assessment

• Regional research collected evidence and examples from all world regions, in order to inform the work of the Panel

• Regional research covered all 6 of the elements of the HLP’s remit:

• Benefits of meeting Aichi Targets• Types of investment required• Financial resource needs at different levels• Alignment with other policy and development agendas• Cost effectiveness of investment strategies• Balance of benefits vs. costs of action


Objectives of the regional research



• 6 regional research reports were commissioned from following regions and consultants:

• Africa - Anchor Environmental• Asia - Brander Environmental Economics• Australasia and the Pacific - Brander Environmental Economics• Europe - Intersus• Latin America and the Caribbean – ICF GHK• North America - Wildlife Conservation Society

• Regional researchers followed a common research brief, with work co-ordinated by UNEP-WCMC and ICF International

• Work involved desk research, based on review of existing information, sourced from web and literature review and consultations with regional stakeholders

• Reports have informed the global report of the High Level Panel and are published as annexes and CBD technical series

MethodsFor further information, visit http://www.cbd.int/financial/hlp/

or email [email protected]



Research findings - AfricaFor further information, visit http://www.cbd.int/financial/hlp/


There are many examples of the benefits of biodiversity and ecosystem services (e.g. wetlands), and the value of wildlife tourism to the economy. African economies are heavily dependent on provisioning services.

Studies have indicated that unsustainable natural resource use is adversely affecting economic development (e.g. reducing GDP in Malawi by 5.3%)

Report identifies a typology of investment needs to meet the Aichi targets, emphasising the importance of institutional frameworks and preparatory actions (research, awareness raising) as well as direct conservation action

All African countries are spending much less than 1% of their GDP on direct conservation activities, and the majority spend less than 0.1%. Few estimates of resource needs are available, but there are significant funding gaps.

Report suggests there are strong synergies between the targets, and with the development agenda

Sequencing of action (e.g. early action on subsidy reform and IAS) will enhance cost effectiveness



Case Study - AfricaFor further information, visit http://www.cbd.int/financial/hlp/


The Okavango Delta in Botswana generates an estimated:

• US$111.5 million in tourism revenues• $1.8 million in income to households from agriculture and natural resources• $1.6 million in groundwater recharge• $8.6 million in Carbon sequestration• $7.7 million in refuge value• $0.22 million for water purification• $1.8 million in scientific and educational value.

Overall, it contributes 2.1% to the country’s GNP, including direct and indirect impacts (Turpie et al. 2006).

Wildlife tourism is now Botswana’s second biggest income earner after diamond mining, contributing 5% to national GDP.



Research findings - AsiaFor further information, visit http://www.cbd.int/financial/hlp/


There is much evidence of the benefits of biodiversity action in Asia – especially SE, S and E Asia

The benefits of biodiversity action are shown to be substantial and higher than the costs in most but not all cases. There are examples of negative net benefits in areas with low local demand / high opportunity costs

Net benefits of biodiversity action are often locally negative (i.e. local resource users lose out, particularly in the short term) but nationally or globally positive (i.e. beneficiaries that use natural resources indirectly gain from conservation).

There is relatively little quantitative evidence on the investment needs, resource requirements and cost-effectiveness of options to meet the Aichi Targets.

Qualitative assessments indicate that there are significant funding gaps in most areas, with the possible exception of East Asia

There is some evidence of economies of scale, e.g. for Marine Protected Areas



Case study - AsiaFor further information, visit http://www.cbd.int/financial/hlp/


Case study: Ecosystem services from Seoul’s Greenbelt, South Korea

A study estimated the value of ecosystem services provided by the forest and cropland in the Greenbelt – an area where development is restricted and nature protected - for over twenty four million inhabitants in the Seoul metropolitan area.

The total annual economic value of ecosystem services of the Greenbelt was estimated at KRW 2,463 billion (US$2.3 billion; Ryu et al., 2013).



Case study - AsiaFor further information, visit http://www.cbd.int/financial/hlp/


0100200300400500600700800

US$

mill

ions

Annual value of ecosystem services from Seoul metropolitan area greenbelt (millions of US$)



Research findings – Australasia and the Pacific


There is much evidence of the benefits of biodiversity action in Australasia and the Pacific – especially for coral reefs, mangroves and coastal ecosystems. All studies reviewed estimated the benefits of biodiversity action to outweigh the costs

Investment needs are better understood in Australia and New Zealand than in the Pacific Island Countries. There is relatively little quantitative evidence of resource requirements. However, the costs of eradication of invasive alien vertebrates (AT9) on small islands (Australia, New Zealand, French Polynesia, Northern Mariana Islands, Fiji) is estimated at just over US$ 350 million.

Examples indicate strong synergies between biodiversity and other agendas (e.g. sustainable management of coastal ecosystems for tourism, fisheries, economic development and coastal protection) but effective action requires stronger policy frameworks and institutional capacity



Case Study – Australasia and the Pacific


Economic Value of the Coral Reefs of Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

The ecosystems of coral reefs in Saipan provide valuable goods and services such as tourism and fisheries. The Total Economic Value (TEV) of the services supported by Saipan’s marine environment was estimated at US$61 million per year. Market values make up 73% of the TEV, while the remaining 27% consist of non-market values.

With an annual value of US$42 million, the tourism industry is by far the greatest beneficiary of the services provided by coral reefs on Saipan. This economic importance is not reflected in the funds made available by the CNMI Government to manage the reefs. The study used Geographic Information System (GIS) tools to understand spatial variations in the value of these goods and services. The average value of reefs per square kilometre was estimated at US$ 0.8 million, and the highest value (at the most popular diving and snorkelling sites) at around US$9 million. The study found that the more valuable reefs tend to be in poorest condition and under greatest threat.



Research findings - EuropeFor further information, visit http://www.cbd.int/financial/hlp/


Many studies have examined the benefits of biodiversity action in Europe; these extend to a wide range of sectors and groups in society. Studies have highlighted the role of biodiversity action in supporting employment; it has been estimated that 16% of all jobs in the EU are dependent on the environment, and the EU Biodiversity Strategy could create 200,000 new jobs

Investment needs are relatively well defined in the EU but evidence is more patchy elsewhere

Quantitative estimates of financial resource needs are available for some actions (e.g. protected areas and ecosystem restoration in the EU) but lacking for Russia and much of eastern Europe

There are synergies with other policy areas – e.g. reform of agricultural and fisheries subsidies and full implementation of water policies will contribute substantially to meeting the Targets



Case Study - EuropeFor further information, visit http://www.cbd.int/financial/hlp/


The Natura 2000 protected area network comprises about 18% of the EU land area. It is estimated that, when fully implemented, the network will deliver benefits worth US$ 280 - 430 billion, equivalent to between 1.7% and 2.5% of EU GDP. This estimate includes a range of provisioning, regulating and cultural services. The stock value of the carbon stored by the network (i.e. mitigated emissions of CO2) is estimated at between US$ 812 and 1,513 bn.

Natura 2000 is very important for tourism and recreation, attracting between 1.2 and 2.2 billion visitor days per year across the EU27, and direct and indirect economic spending of US$70 - 118 billion. The value of these recreational visits (based on users’ willingness to pay) is estimated at between US$ 6.9 – 12.5 billion.

The financial costs of full implementation of the network are estimated at $8 billion annually; there is a significant funding gap



Research findings – Latin America and the Caribbean


There is much evidence of the benefits of biodiversity action, but this varies by Targets, actions and spatial scales. Few national or regional assessments have been made. Strongest evidence relates to the benefits of conservation and restoration of forests, wetlands, mangroves and coral reefs. The value of forests in regulating the global climate is immense.

Much is known about the types of investments needed. Priorities include creating the right enabling frameworks and developing incentive mechanisms.Total annual conservation expenditures were estimated at $632 million p.a. in LAC (2002-2008). Some estimates have been made of financial resource needs – e.g. Ecuador national assessment; regional estimates for protected areas (suggest funding needs to increase 1.5 – 3.2 times to meet targets)

Most biodiversity challenges are strongly related to poverty alleviation. Synergies with other policy agendas mean that mainstreaming is important, with implications for awareness, governance, capacity and co-ordination of delivery.



Case study - Latin America & Caribbean

Resources needed to deliver the Aichi Targets in Ecuador – study by Conservation International for CBD Secretariat

The assessment examined financial needs for each of the Aichi Targets in turn. It produced a total estimate of US$ 4.6 billion for the resources required to deliver the 20 Targets nationally, equivalent to US$ 669.8 million per year over 7 years.

The largest components of this cost were estimated to relate to Target 4 on sustainable consumption and production (28%) and to Target 15 related to the cost of restoring degraded ecosystems (28%), followed by Target 8, reduction of pollution (10%). This amount represents 19% of the Ecuadorian national government budget for the year 2013. The current budget for the entire environment sector of the Government for the year 2012 is US$ 163.4 million and the Ministry for the Environment (MAE) budget for year 2013 is US$ 110.6 million. This indicates the need to mobilise resources in addition to the national environment budget in order to achieve the Targets.

Research findings – North America


Many estimates of benefits are available, but most evidence relates to single ecosystem services. The report presents two case studies that demonstrate the substantial value of multiple ecosystem benefits from biodiversity action in Chesapeake Bay and expansion of Canadian protected areas.

Financial resources dedicated for biodiversity conservation in North America are significant - in the billions of U.S. dollars per year. However, resources dedicated to threats (e.g. extractive resource development, harmful subsidies) are much larger. Much can therefore be achieved through better use of existing government expenditures, including through mainstreaming and reform of subsidies and incentives.

Case Study – North America


Watershed protection is cheaper than new grey infrastructure

Research findings - overviewFor further information, visit http://www.cbd.int/financial/hlp/


Many examples were found of the benefits of ecosystems and biodiversity action, and their value, though relatively few studies address the Aichi Targets themselves. Evidence varies, and is strongest for particular ecosystems (forests, wetlands, coral reefs) and types of action (protected areas).

The reports identified examples of the types of investment needs in all regions. These are broadly consistent with the identified needs in the first report of the HLP.A need for investment in stronger institutional and policy frameworks, and in mainstreaming, is common to all regions. Few quantified examples of financial resource requirements could be found. Available “bottom up” evidence is mostly consistent with the “top down” estimates made in the first HLP report, though estimates are higher in some regions (e.g. EU) and targets (e.g. Target 4). For most countries, there is likely to be a substantial gap between available and required resources for achieving the Aichi Targets.

Regional research points to clear synergies between biodiversity action and other policy agendas, but few studies examine how policies should be aligned.

Many studies were found that the benefits of biodiversity action exceed the costs. Biodiversity continues to be lost because net benefits are often locally negative but nationally or globally positive.

Research findings – overview (cont.)


Regional research points to clear synergies between biodiversity action and other policy and development agendas, but few studies examine how policies should be aligned.

Limited evidence was found regionally of the cost effectiveness of different approaches to meeting the Targets. Synergies and overlaps between Targets were noted, as well as the need for sequencing and early action on some agendas (e.g. subsidy reform, IAS) to minimise costs.

Many studies were found that the benefits of biodiversity action exceed the costs. Biodiversity continues to be lost because net benefits are often locally negative but nationally or globally positive.

High Level Panel reportFor further information, visit http://www.cbd.int/financial/hlp/


High Level Panel built on a synthesis of the regional research findings to present its report on the costs, benefits and resourcing of the Aichi Biodiversity Targets

Regional research findings were supplemented by a review and analysis of global evidence in order to address the Panel’s research questions

The High Level Panel used this evidence to draw key messages and make recommendations

Living in harmony with nature

HIGH-LEVEL PANEL ON GLOBAL ASSESSMENT OFRESOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTING THE

STRATEGIC PLAN FOR BIODIVERSITY 2011-2020

Thank you


living in harmony with nature

Documents

benefits of biodiversity

aichi biodiversity targets

direct biodiversity

high level panel report

wider benefits

global report

high level paneldevelop

naturehighlevel panel