Ķ P P C P P a a a a h r r r r 9 t t t t

I I I I I : I V : I : : C C C C C C C C C

h h h h h h h h h 2 1 6 1 4 3 5 7 8 0 M R T f T A I S T I o A R F R R n o n h h f r h t d v e e e e t e a r

r v e e a e n s c e d e f w

m a o d g

e p o i

n a

r g l n s a r r e r e e a o g g s t m o a l u r e s u o w c b n n d t t t a s r e h i b r i i n d i i l o i n i s s i n e a d n e d n n a g i r g i i n g

l n n

k o g

g l g

s a

f g s c

i g b e

o n

a n o b

h l u w

a

o c i i n - g t r e l o t b e n o u p

m s o h d h

n a d s a i

s t

i e s n a e t t c i g i e i a d e d h y v

o a d t f u v t k s s e c i i e

l n i t e i a w i c o

t e s d r

o s t s e l s v a

u h n r i e n t : m a i l s t t

e h r

o g o i y l o m u n

r

r

o o g a u p e c s s a f n u g r

r i t

i o a n c i p d n g r h s u n f a c r

h

a i

s b o r d m n i g

e p l

p t i a

a o e g e l a e e i a t n d n c : u c u s n y

d i t i l c r f v m a n t f e e

o r s o e t r d f a e i r e

o r u o f

s n T t T O A l a s o n r n a h i E t m t r t r t

t e s y e i E a e

r n

b N a H a p B n a d u v g F s e t o a d n

c i f p t s l o o l d

i u t D c p t y o r E

n e

e

y u m s r l N

r i

i s t c c t E r r

a e a

e o s y e i

i t n m n r s t o i

B o k c g e p t C l E n s o e h s w o a

t

a n f p s I l a o

l s a l o C O O r r e e n

d l n i n d c s g a

y h I D O t e n S

u a i t p e r s a r

I s n Y N l e

V a c s t a i s o S p E O m n i a t e a l

R T n P l M t o l S i E c y I

M I M C T a k e Y r S S s

Chapter 9: Investing in ecological infrastructure

Coordinating Lead Author: Carsten Neßhöver (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ)

Lead authors: James Aronson, James Blignaut

Contributing authors: Florian Eppink, Alexandra Vakrou, Heidi Wittmer

Editing and language check: Clare Shine

Acknowledgements: Thanks for comments and inputs from Jonathan Armstrong, Patrick ten Brink, Jo - hannes Förster, Dolf de Groot, Philip James, Marianne Kettunen, Dorit Lehr, Sander van der Ploeg, Chris - toph Schröter-Schlaack, Monique Simmonds, Paul Smith, Graham Tucker and many others.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this chapter are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the organisations involved.

Citation: TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers (2009).

URL: www.teebweb.org

TEEB for Policy Makers Team

TEEB for Policy Makers Coordinator: Patrick ten Brink (IEEP)

TEEB for Policy Makers Core Team: B ernd Hansjuergens (UFZ), Sylvia Kaplan (BMU, Germany), Katia Karousakis (OECD), Marianne Kettunen (IEEP), Markus Lehmann (SCBD), Meriem Bouamrane (UNESCO), Helen Mountford (OECD), Alice Ruhweza (Katoomba Group, Uganda), Mark Schauer (UNEP), Christoph Schröter-Schlaack (UFZ), Benjamin Simmons (UNEP), Alexandra Vakrou (European Commission), Stefan van der Esch (VROM, The Netherlands), James Vause (Defra, United Kingdom), Madhu Verma (IIFM, India), Jean-Louis Weber (EEA), Stephen White (European Commission) and Heidi Wittmer (UFZ).

TEEB Study Leader: Pavan Sukhdev (UNEP)

TEEB communications: Georgina Langdale (UNEP) THE ECONOMICS OF ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY TEEB for National and International Policy Makers

Chapter 9 Investing in ecological infrastructure

Table of Contents

Key Messages of Chapter 9 2 9.1. Is natural capital a worthwhile investment? 4 9.1.1. The ecological feasibility of natural capital enhancement 4 9.1.2. Potential costs of ecosystem restoration 8 9.1.3. Comparing costs and benefits of ecosystem restoration 8 9.1.4. An indispensable role for governments 12 9.2. Providing benefits beyond the environmental sector 16 9.2.1. Benefits for natural resource management 16 9.2.2. Benefits for natural hazard prevention 18 9.2.3. Benefits for human health 19 9.3. Potential of natural capital for climate change adaptation 21 9.4. Making investment happen: proactive strategies for restoration 24 9.4.1. Turning catastrophes and crises into opportunities 24 9.4.2. Putting precaution into practice through green investment 25 References 28 Annex Direct costs and potential benefits of restoration: selected examples by ecosystem 34

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 1 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Key Messages of Chapter 9

Investing in ‘ecological infrastructure’ makes economic sense in terms of cost effectiveness and rates of return, once the whole range of benefits provided by maintained, restored or increased ecological services are taken into account. Well-documented examples include investing in mangroves or other wetland ecosys - tems as well as watersheds, instead of man-made infrastructure like dykes or waste water treatment plants, in order to sustain or enhance the provision of ecosystem services.

It is usually much cheaper to avoid degradation than to pay for ecological restoration. This is parti - cularly true for biodiversity: species that go extinct can not be brought back. Nonetheless, there are many cases where the expected benefits from restoration far exceed the costs. If transformation of ecosystems is severe, true restoration of pre-existing species assemblages, ecological processes and the delivery rates of services may well be impossible. However, some ecosystem services may often be recovered by restoring simplified but well-functioning ecosystems modelled on the pre-existing local system.

Recommendations:

Investments in ecosystem restoration can benefit multiple policy sectors and help them to achieve their policy goals. This applies – but is not limited to – urban development, water purification and waste water treatment, regional development, transport and tourism as well as protection from natural hazards and policies for public health.

In the light of expected needs for significant investment in adaptation to climate change , investing in res - toring degraded ecosystems also has important potential for many policy sectors. Obvious examples include enhancing the productive capacity of agricultural systems under conditions of increased climate fluctuations and unpredictability, and also providing buffering services against extreme weather events.

Investment in natural capital and conservation of ecosystems can help to avoid crises and catastrophes or to soften and mitigate their consequences. However, if catastrophes do strike, they should be regarded as opportunities to rethink policy and to incorporate greater investments in natural capital into new programmes and rebuilding efforts – e.g. mangrove or other coastal ecosystem restoration and protection following a tsu - nami or hurricane, wetland restoration and protection after flooding in coastal areas, forest restoration after a catastrophic mudslide.

Direct government investment is often needed , since many returns lie in the realm of public goods and interests and will be realised only over the long term. This applies especially to degraded sites and ecosystems such as post-mining areas, brownfield sites, converted forests, dredged wetlands and areas prone to erosion or desertification.

Proactive strategies for investment in natural capital need to be further developed and implemented and link natural capital explicitly with natural hazard risks. Systematic assessments of natural capital, creating na - tural capital accounting systems and maps pave the way for combining environmental risk reduction with economically efficient investment.

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 2 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Investing in ecological 9 infrastructure

“More and more, the complementary factor in short supply (limiting factor) is remaining natural capital, not manmade capital as it used to be. For example, populations of fish, not fishing boats, limit fish catch worldwide. Economic logic says to invest in the limiting factor. That logic has not changed, but the identity of the limiting factor has.”

Herman Daly, 2005, former chief economist with World Bank

“If we were running a business with the biosphere as our major asset, we would not allow it to depreciate. We would ensure that all necessary repairs and maintenance were carried out on a regular basis.”

Prof. Alan Malcolm, Chief Scientific Advisor, Institute of Biology, IUPAC

This chapter focuses on ways to augment renewable situations in which policy makers should consider natural capital – upon which our economies ultimately directly investing public money in natural capital. 9.2 depend –by investing in the maintenance, restoration highlights the benefits of ecosystem restoration and rehabilitation of damaged or degraded ecosystems. beyond the environmental sector , particularly with Such investments can promote many different policy regard to water management, natural hazard preven - goals including secure delivery of clean drinking water, tion and mitigation and protection of human health. natural disaster prevention or mitigation, and climate 9.3 explores the potential of ecosystem investments change adaptation. to deliver concrete benefits for climate change mi - tigation and adaptation policies. 9.4 concludes the 9.1 shows how investments in renewable natural ca - chapter by identi-fying opportunities for developing pital are a worthwhile investment. Building on Chapter proactive investment strategies based on precau - 8 (protected areas), it discusses the costs and tion to provide benefits across a range of sectors. benefits of restoration and focuses on specific

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 3 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

IS NATURAL CAPITAL A 9.1 WORTHWHILE INVESTMENT?

Does investing in natural capital make economic the restoration and rehabilitation of degraded eco - sense? To answer this we have to determine: systems suggests that this is a viable and important direction in which to work, provided that the goals • if it is ecologically feasible to restore degraded natural set are pragmatic and realistic (Jackson and Hobbs capital or to invest in ecological infrastructure; 2009). • whether restoring the natural capital in question is expected to generate significant benefits; and Success stories exist , such as providing nurseries • if investment is both possible and a high priority, what for fish in mangroves, reconstructing natural wetlands might it cost? for water storage, restoring entire forest ecosystems after centuries of overuse and reintroducing valuable Only a few studies have addressed these questions species e.g. sturgeon in the Baltic Sea for replenis - comprehensively to date. However, there are encou - hing fisheries. As catastrophic destruction of the raging examples that illustrate the potential for a world’s coral reefs accelerates, effective restoration positive economic outcome. The following section techniques are at last being developed (Normile highlights and synthesises these results. 2009). Over the last thirty years, considerable pro - gress has been made in our know-how both in fun - damental (Falk et al. 2006) and practical realms 9.1.1. THE ECOLOGICAL FEASIBILITY (Clewell and Aronson 2007). Ways and means to OF NATURAL CAPITAL ENHANCE- integrate restoration into society’s search for global MENT sustainability are moving forward quickly (Aronson et al. 2007; Goldstein et al. 2008; Jackson and Hobbs There is a lively debate between ecologists, planners 2009). and economists about the extent to which building ‘designer’ or engineered ecosystems – such as arti - Box 9.1 shows how the concept and focus of resto - ficial wastewater treatment plants, fish farms at sea ration has been gradually broadened in recent years or roof gardens to help cooling cities– can adequately to encompass natural capital in order to better inte - respond to the huge problems facing humanity today. grate ecological, environmental, social and economic Increasingly, ecological restoration – and more goals and priorities. broadly, the restoration of renewable natural capital – are seen as important targets for public and private Depending on an ecosystem’s level of degradation, spending to complement manmade engineering so - different strategies can be applied to improve its lutions. state and to enhance or increase its capacity to provide services in the future. Box 9.2 illustrates a True restoration to prior states is rarely possi - conceptual framework for decision-making on resto - ble , especially at large scales, given the array of ration within the broader context of integrated eco - global changes affecting biota everywhere and that system management at the landscape scale . ‘novel’ ecosystems with unprecedented assembla - ges of organisms are increasingly prevalent (see Hobbs et al. 2006; Seastedt et al. 2008). Neverthe - less, the growing body of available experience on

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 4 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Box 9.1: Key definitions and the expanding focus of restoration

Ecological restoration is defined as “the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded, damaged, or destroyed” and is “intended to repair ecosystems with respect to their health, in - tegrity, and self-sustainability” (International Primer on Ecological Restoration, published by the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER) International Science and Policy Working Group 2004). In a broader context, the ultimate goal of ecological restoration, according to the SER Primer, is to recover resilient ecosystems that are not only self-sustaining with respect to structure, species composition and functionality but also integrated into larger landscapes and congenial to ‘low impact’ human activities.

The concept of restoring natural capital is broader still.

‘Natural capital’ refers to the components of nature that can be linked directly or indirectly with human welfare. In addition to traditional natural resources such as timber, water, and energy and mineral reserves, it also includes biodiversity, endangered species and the ecosystems which perform ecological services. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2003), natural capital is one of four types of capital that also include manufactured capital (machines, tools, buildings, and infrastructure), human capital (mental and physical health, education, motivation and work skills) and social capital (stocks of social trust, norms and networks that people can draw upon to solve common problems and create social cohesion). For further details, see TEEB D0 forthcoming, Chapter 1 and glossary.

Restoring renewable and cultivated natural capital (Restoring Natural Capital – RNC) includes “any activity that integrates investment in and replenishment of natural capital stocks to improve the flows of ecosystem goods and services, while enhancing all aspects of human wellbeing” (Aronson et al. 2007). Like ecological restoration, RNC aims to improve the health, integrity and self-sustainability of eco - systems for all living organisms. However, it also focuses on defining and maximising the value and effort of ecological restoration for the benefit of people, thereby helping to mainstream it into daily social and economic activities.

RNC activities may include, but are not limited to:

• restoration and rehabilitation of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems; • ecologically sound improvements to arable lands and other lands or wetlands that are managed for useful purposes i.e. cultivated ecosystems; • improvements in the ecologically sustainable utilisation of biological resources on land and at sea; and • establishment or enhancement of socio-economic activities and behaviour that incorporate knowledge, awareness, conservation and sustainable management of natural capital into daily activities.

In sum, RNC focuses on achieving both the replenishment of natural capital stocks and the improvement in human welfare, all at the landscape or regional scale. Source: Aronson et al. 2007

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 5 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Box 9.2: An ecosystem-based framework for determining restoration strategies

Where the spatial scale of damage is small and the surrounding environment is healthy in terms of species composition and function, it may be sufficient to implement measures for ‘passive restoration’ so that the ecosystem can regenerate itself to a condition resembling its pre-degradation state in terms of their “health, integrity, and self-sustainability”, as per the SER (2004) definition of restoration. This of course re - quires a series of decisions and trade-offs and thus is ultimately not a passive process at all. If self-rege - neration is not possible in a reasonable time period, active interventions may be necessary to ‘jump-start’ and accelerate the restoration process (e.g. by bringing in seeds, planting trees, removing polluted soil or reintroducing keystone species).

In both the above cases, reduction, modification and/or rationalisation of human uses and pressures can lead to full or at least partial recovery of resilient, species-rich ecosystems that provide a reliable flow of ecosystem services valued by people. In both cases it is important to clarify objectives and priorities ahead of time (Society for Ecological Restoration International Science and Policy Working Group 2004; Clewell and Aronson 2006 and 2007).

If transformation is severe and ecosystems have crossed one or more thresholds of irreversibility (Aron - son et al. 1993), ecological rehabilitation may be a more realistic and adequate alternative. This aims to repair some ecosystem processes at a site and help recover the flow of certain ecological services, but not to fully reproduce pre-disturbance conditions or species composition. It is typically done on post- mining sites as well as grazing lands (Milton et al. 2003) and in wetlands used by people for production (see example in Box 9.4).

Where profound and extensive transformations of ecosystem structure and composition have taken place, it may be advisable to implement measures for reallocation of the most degraded areas . This means assigning them a new – usually economic – main function which is generally unrelated to the functioning of the original ecosystem e.g. farmland reallocated to housing and road construction.

Conceptual framework for resto - ration

As part of a holistic planning ap - proach, all three interventions can – and generally should be – undertaken simultaneously within appropriate landscape units. This type of land - scape or regional scale programme, if conceived and carried out effectively in close collaboration with all stakehol - ders, can provide the much-needed bridge between biodiversity conserva - tion objectives and local, regional or national economic development needs (Aronson et al. 2006 and 2007). Source: Aronson et al. 2007

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 6 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The timescale required for ecosystem restoration only become obvious at some time in the future, which varies considerably (see Table 9.1). As noted, full res - reinforces the need to protect functioning ecosystems toration is not feasible for many ecosystems destroyed to maintain current levels of biodiversity and flows of or degraded beyond a certain point. Even the more rea - ecosystem goods and services. listic goal of rehabilitation (recovery to an acceptable state of ecosystem resilience and performance) tends However, the flow of some goods and services may to be a slow process though recovery may be quick in increase from the early stages of a restoration pro - some instances (Jones and Schmitz 2009). This means gramme (Rey-Benayas et al. 2009), even if the optimum that the full benefits from restoration or rehabilitation may is only reached much later. Detailed information remains

Table 9.1: Feasibility and time-scales of restoring: examples from Europe

Ecosystem type Time-scale Notes Temporary pools 1-5 years Even when rehabilitated, may never support all pre-existing organisms. Eutrophic ponds 1-5 years Rehabilitation possible provided adequate water supply. Readily coloni - sed by water beetles and dragonflies but fauna restricted to those with limited specialisations. Mudflats 1-10 years Restoration dependent upon position in tidal frame and sediment supply. Ecosystem services: flood regulation, sedimentation. Eutrophic grasslands 1-20 years Dependent upon availability of propagules. Ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, erosion regulation and grazing for domestic livestock and other animals. Reedbeds 10-100 years Will readily develop under appropriate hydrological conditions. Ecosys - tem services: stabilisation of sedimentation, hydrological processes. Saltmarshes 10-100 years Dependent upon availability of propagules, position in tidal frame and sediment supply. Ecosystem services: coastal protection, flood control. Oligotrophic grasslands 20-100 years + Dependent upon availability of propagules and limitation of nutrient input. Ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, erosion regulation. Chalk grasslands 50-100 years + Dependent upon availability of propagules and limitation of nutrient input. Ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, erosion regulation. Yellow dunes 50-100 years + Dependent upon sediment supply and availability of propagules. More likely to be restored than re-created. Main ecosystem service: coastal protection. Heathlands 50-100 years + Dependent upon nutrient loading, soil structure and availability of propa - gules. No certainty that vertebrate and invertebrate assemblages will arrive without assistance. More likely to be restored than re-created. Main ecosystem services: carbon sequestration, recreation. Grey dunes and dune 100-500 years Potentially restorable, but in long time frames and depending on inten - slacks sity of disturbance Main ecosystem service: coastal protection, water purification. Ancient woodlands 500 – 2000 years No certainty of success if ecosystem function is sought – dependent upon soil chemistry and mycology plus availability of propagules. Restoration is possibility for plant assemblages and ecosystem services (water regulation, carbon sequestration, erosion control) but questiona - ble for rarer invertebrates. Blanket/Raised bogs 1,000 – 5,000 years Probably impossible to restore quickly but will gradually reform themsel - ves over millennia if given the chance. Main ecosystem service: carbon sequestration. Limestone pavements 10,000 years Impossible to restore quickly but will reform over many millennia if a glaciation occurs.

Source: based on Morris and Barham 2007

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 7 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

scarce but recent reviews show clearly that when done The breadth and quality of information available, howe - well, restoration across a wide range of ecosystem types ver, varies from study to study: Some only provide ag - can achieve enhancement of services even if full reco - gregate costs, others only capital or only labour costs. very is rarely possible (Rey-Beneyas et al. 2009; Palmer Some restoration activities are conducted on a small and Filoso 2009). The modern approach for ecological scale for research An analysis of the studies gives an restoration and RNC is therefore pragmatic. Jackson overview of restoration project costs and outcomes. and Hobbs (2009) state, for example, that “restoration They cover a wide range of different efforts in different efforts might aim for mosaics of historic and engineered ecosystem types as well as very different costs, ranging ecosystems, ensuring that if some ecosystems collapse, between several hundreds to thousands of dollars per other functioning ecosystems will remain to build on. In hectare (grasslands, rangelands and forests) to several the meantime, we can continue to develop an under - tens of thousands (inland waters) to millions of dollars standing of how novel and engineered ecosystems per hectare (coral reefs) (see Figure 9.2). Costs also vary function, what goods and services they provide, how as a function of the degree of degradation, the goals they respond to various perturbations, and the range of and specific circumstances in which restoration is car - environmental circumstances in which they are ried out and the methods used. sustainable”. One way to decide whether investments are worthw - In summary, many restoration processes take consi - hile from an economic perspective is to compare the derable time but can often have rapid effects with re - costs of services provided by ecosystems with spect to at least partial recovery of some key those of technically-supplied services . The most functions. From an ecological perspective, a strategy famous example of this type of cost-effectiveness to avoid damage and maintain ecosystem functions estimation is New York City’s decision to protect and and services should be preferred. However, given the restore the Catskill-Delaware Watershed (see Box 9.3). scale of current damage, ecological restoration is increasingly required and understood to play an im - Cost effectiveness analysis often focuses only on one portant role in bridging conservation and socio-eco - particular ecosystem service e.g. in the example dis - nomic goals, linked to better appreciation of the values cussed in Box 9.3, watershed protection and restora - of natural capital (see Aronson et al. 2007; Goldstein tion costs were more than compensated by the single et al. 2008; Rey-Benayas et al. 2009). Its crucial role service of water purification. However, investing in na - is further illustrated by the fact that billions of dollars tural capital enhancement becomes even more eco - are currently being spent on restoration around the nomically attractive if the multitude of services that world (Enserink 1999; Zhang et al. 2000; Doyle and healthy ecosystems provide is also taken into account Drew 2007; Stone 2009). (e.g. climate regulation, food and fibre provision, ha - zard regulation). This calls for identification and valuation of the broad range of benefits of natu - 9.1.2. POTENTIAL COSTS OF ral capital investment in order to adequately ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION compare costs and benefits of ecosystem resto - ration approaches . Thousands of projects are carried out each year to im - prove the ecological status of damaged ecosystems. Un - fortunately and surprisingly, cost-benefit analyses of those 9.1.3. COMPARING COSTS AND projects are scarce. Even simple records of restoration BENEFITS OF ECOSYSTEM costs are rare in the peer-reviewed literature, let alone a RESTORATION full discussion of the benefits to society (Aronson et al. in press). Over 20,000 case studies and peer-reviewed pa - As noted above, few studies analysing the costs of res - pers were reviewed for this chapter (and for Chapter 7 in toration were found and even fewer provided values or TEEB D0 forthcoming) yet only 96 studies were found to detailed analysis of the achieved or projected benefits. provide meaningful cost data on restoration. This section uses the findings of two studies on benefits

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 8 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Figure 9.2: Summary of cost ranges of restoration efforts

Bars represent the range of observed costs in a set of 96 studies. The specific studies identified and listed in the annex serve as illustrative examples of the studies in which cost data has been reported in sufficient detail to allow analysis and reflection.

Sources for examples given (for detailed list, see Annex to this Chapter): [1] Eelgrass restoration in harbour, Leschen 2007 [2] Restoration of coral reefs in South East Asia, Fox et al. 2005 [3] Restoration of mangroves, Port Everglades, USA, Lewis Environmental Services, 2007 [4] Restoration of the Bolsa Chica Estuary, California, USA, Francher 2008 [5] Restoration of freshwater wetlands in Denmark, Hoffmann 2007 [6] Control for phosphorus loads in storm water treatment wetlands, Juston and DeBusk, 2006 [7] Restoration of the Skjern River, Denmark, Anon 2007a [8] Re-establishment of eucalyptus plantation, Australia, Dorrough and Moxham 2005 [9] Restoring land for bumblebees, UK, Pywell et al. 2006 [10] Restoration in Coastal British Columbia Riparian Forest, Canada, Anon 2007b [11] Masoala Corridors Restoration, Masoala National Park, Madagascar, Holloway et al. 2009 [12] Restoration of Rainforest Corridors, Madagascar, Holloway and Tingle 2009 [13] Polylepis forest restoration, tropical Andes, Peru, Jameson and Ramsey 2007 [14] Restoration of old-fields, NSW, Australia, Neilan et al. 2006 [15] Restoration of Atlantic Forest, Brazil, Instituto Terra 2007 [16] Working for Water, South Africa, Turpie et al. 2008 and costs of mangrove restoration as an illustrative exam - shrimp farming’ mangroves in Southern Thailand as ple followed by a synthesis of findings across a range of natural barriers to future coastal storm events (see also studies. 9.4.1). Yields from commercial shrimp farming sharply de - cline after five years, after which shrimp farmers usually Following the 2004 tsunami disaster, there is now consi - give up their ponds to find a new location. One study derable interest in rehabilitating and restoring ‘post- found that the abandoned mangrove ecosystems can be

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 9 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

rehabilitated at a cost of US$ 8,240 per hectare in the first are accounted for on a gradual basis, starting at 10% in year (replanting mangroves) followed by annual costs of the second year and then increasing them every year until US$ 118 per hectare for maintenance and protecting of they were eventually capped in the sixth year at 80% of seedlings (Sathirathai and Barbier 2001: 119). Benefits pre-degradation levels. Applying these assumptions and from the restoration project comprise the estimated net a 10% discount rate, the rehabilitation project would pay income from collected forest products of US$ 101 per off after thirteen years. If lower discount rates – as argued hectare/year, estimated benefits from habitat-fishery lin - for in TEEB D0, Chapter 6 – are applied, the cost-benefit kages (mainly the functioning of mangroves as fish ratio of the restoration project improves. At a discount rate nursery) worth US$ 171 per hectare/year and estimated of 1%, the project would pay off after nine years. If one benefits from storm protection worth US$ 1,879 per extends the calculation to 40 years, the project generates hectare/year (Barbier 2007: 211). a benefit/cost ratio of 4.3 and a social rate of re - turn 1 of 16% . It should be noted that these calculations In order to compare costs and benefits of restoration, it still do not account for the wide range of other ecosystem has to be recognised that rehabilitating mangroves and services that may be attached to the presence of man - the associated ecosystem services will take time and may groves, ranging from microclimate effects and water pu - never reach pre-degradation levels. Therefore the benefits rification to recreational values.

Box 9.3: Cost effectiveness of protection over engineered solutions: example of a US watershed

“It represents a commitment among all of the parties – the city, state and federal government – to focus on the challenges of protecting the source water supply rather than pursue a costly and gargantuan construction project.” Eric A. Goldstein, senior lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council Even in industrialised countries, such as the USA, restoration of watersheds is an increasingly attractive alter - native. The decision summarised below sustainably increased the supply of drinking water and saved several billion dollars that would have otherwise have been spent on engineering solutions (Elliman and Berry 2007). A similar project is underway on the Sacramento River basin in northern California (Langridge et al. 2007).

About 90% of the more than one billion gallons used daily in New York City comes from huge reservoirs in the adjacent Catskill and Delaware watersheds, located approximately 120 miles north of the city. The remaining 10% are drawn from the nearer Croton reservoirs in Westchester County (these are surrounded by development and thus have to be filtered). A US$ 2.8 billion filtration plant for the Croton water supply is under construction in the Bronx and is scheduled to be operational by 2012.

In April 2007, after a detailed review lasting several years, the US federal Environment Protection Agency con - cluded that New York’s Catskill and Delaware water supplies were still so clean that they did not need to be fil - tered for another decade or longer and extended the City’s current exemption from filtration requirements. This means that at least until 2017, the City will not have to spend approximately US$ 10 billion to build an additional filtration plant that would cost hundreds of millions of dollars a year to operate.

In return for this extended exemption, the City agreed to set aside US$ 300 million per year until 2017 to acquire upstate land to restrain development causing runoff and pollution. It will purchase land outright or work with non-profit land trusts to acquire easements that would keep land in private hands but prohibit their development (see Chapter 5.4). The City also committed itself to reduce the amount of turbidity (cloudiness) in certain Catskill reservoirs by erecting screens, building baffles and using other technology to allow sediment to settle before water enters the final parts of the drinking water system. Sources: New York Times 2007 April 13 th ; Elliman and Berry 2007; Langridge et al. 2007

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 10 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The example mentioned above is one of the few cases Along the Mata Atlantica in Brazil a non-profit organi - where decisions can be taken on a solid data base. For zation named Instituto Terra undertakes active resto - cases in other biomes where only cost data was availa - ration of degraded stands of Atlantic Forest by ble, the TEEB team estimated potential benefits establishing tree nurseries to replant denuded areas based on a ‘benefits transfer’ approach , i.e. taking (Instituto Terra 2007). The costs for this approach are results from valuation studies in similar ecosystems as estimated at € 2,600 per hectare as one off invest - a basis for estimating potential benefits for the biomes ment. Benefits include biodiversity enhancement, concerned. The estimation of benefit values was based water regulation, carbon storage and sequestration as on the results of 104 studies with 507 values covering well as preventing soil erosion. Using the benefit trans - up to 22 different ecosystem services for 9 major bio - fer approach a 40 years NPV of tropical forests may mes. These documented values were the basis to esti - reach € 80,000 per hectare (1% discount rate). mate the benefit of a restored or rehabilitated ecosystem. Recognizing that projects take time to res - In South Africa the government-funded Working for tore flows of benefits, an appropriate accreting profile Water (WfW) (see also Box 9.6) programme clears was modelled for annual benefits, growing initially and mountain catchments and riparian zones of invasive then stabilising at 80% of undisturbed ecosystem be - alien plants in order to restore natural fire regimes, the nefits (see TEEB D0, Chapter 7 forthcoming). This ap - productive potential of land, biodiversity, and hydro - proach makes it possible to carry out an illustrative logical functioning. WfW introduces a special kind comparison. Clearly, careful site specific analysis of Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) scheme (for costs and benefits is required before any investment de - PES see Chapter 5): previously unemployed indivi - cision: therefore the example listed below should be duals tender for contracts to restore public or private seen as indicating the scope for potential benefits. lands. By using this approach costs to rehabilitate catchments range from € 200 to € 700 per hectare When calculating the potential benefits for the biome in (Turpie et al. 2008) while benefits may reach a 40 year question, we found high potential internal rates of NPV of € 47,000 per hectare (using the benefit trans - return for all biomes . These calculations are rough first fer approach described above and a 1% discount estimates for two reasons: they do not include opportu - rate). nity costs of alternative land use (which can be expected to be rather low in many degraded systems) and the value As the above-mentioned case studies and benefits base on which the benefit transfer is based is small for transfer analysis show, restoration can pay . Howe - some of the services considered. A detailed analysis is ver, the costs are also quite high and many ecosys - therefore recommended before investing in restoration. tems cannot be effectively restored within reasonable Nevertheless, these values indicate that in many situations timescales (see Table 9.1). For these reasons, it is high returns can be expected from restoration of ecosys - much better to conserve these ecosystems rather tems and their services. than letting them degrade and then trying to under - take restoration. Moreover, systematic estimation of For example, a study by Dorrough and Moxham (2005) the potential costs and economic benefits of preser - found that cost for restoring eucalyptus woodlands vation and restoration needs to be better incorpora - and dry forests on land used for intensive cattle farming ted into the projects themselves. Valuation of in southeast Australia would range from € 285 per ecosystem services can help, by enabling policy hectare for passive restoration to € 970 per hectare for makers to decide which investments are worthwhile active restoration. Restoration of tree cover yields nume - from an economic point of view and to make informed rous benefits including i) reversing the loss of biodiversity, choices (TEEB D0 forthcoming), especially as many ii) halting land degradation due to dryland salinisation and ecosystems currently have unrecognised economic thereby iii) increasing land productivity. Using a benefit and social benefits (Milton et al. 2003; FAO 2004; Bul - transfer approach and a discount rate of 1% over 40 lock et al. 2007; de Groot et al. 2007; Blignaut et al. years these services may constitute a NPV of more than 2008; Blignaut and Aronson 2008). € 13,000 per ha (D0 Chapter 7 forthcoming).

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 11 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

9.1.4. AN INDISPENSABLE ROLE the best way to minimise long-term socio-economic FOR GOVERNMENTS and environmental costs (see example of invasive species in Box 9.5). In spite of the potentially high internal rates of return, investment in natural capital seems to be a story of Government investment may also be called for in si - unrealised potential. One important reason is that the tuations where potential beneficiaries are unable to benefits of such investments often lie far in the future afford restoration costs. Box 9.6 illustrates how live - or accrue over long periods of time. This means that, lihoods can be improved alongside with degraded with some exceptions, private investment is unli - ecosystems. kely to occur unless this is supported or requi - red by governments . Governments can provide Innovative and integrated regional or landscape scale incentives for this purpose by paying for or subsidi - programmes to restore or rehabilitate degraded na - sing private activities such as reforestation (see tural systems can make use of instruments such as Chapters 5 and 6) and/or prescribe mandatory off - payments for ecosystems services (PES) (Blignaut et sets to mitigate ecosystem disturbance caused by al. 2008; see further Chapter 5 on the Clean Deve - human interventions (see Chapter 7). lopment Mechanism (CDM) and the proposed REDD mechanism for Reducing Emissions from Deforesta - There are several key reasons why governments tion and Forest Degradation). In Ecuador, two PES- should consider also directly investing public funded restoration programmes include the six-year funds in natural capital and its restoration. The first old Pimampiro municipal watershed protection relates to large-scale and complex interrelated eco - scheme and the 13-year old PROFAFOR carbon-se - systems, where the costs of restoration can be very questration programme (Wunder and Albán 2008). high due to the size of the restoration site, the level ‘Pimampiro’ is mostly about forest conservation, but of degradation and/or uncertainties about the tech - it has also achieved some abandonment of marginal nical efforts needed e.g. potentially contaminated lands that have grown back into old fallows, enrolled brownfields, mining areas or other heavily degraded in the scheme. PROFAFOR is a voluntary programme areas. An interesting example in this regard is the Aral on afforestation and reforestation mainly on degraded Sea (Box 9.4) which has suffered from catastrophic lands that sought and got carbon credit certification. environmental damage. Many more are under way elsewhere in Latin Ame - rica, Asia and, with some lag time, Africa and Mada - Typically, large scale and complex restoration pro - gascar. Countries making significant strides in this jects involve costs that exceed the benefits iden - area include Costa Rica (Janzen 2002; Morse 2009), tified by private parties - even though the public Indonesia (Pattanayak 2004; Pattanayak and Wend - benefits of restoration are likely to be higher . It land 2007) and South Africa (Holmes et al. 2007; may therefore be worthwhile only for governments to Mills et al. 2007; Blignaut and Loxton 2007; Turpie et invest in such efforts, although opportunities to de - al. 2008; Koenig 2009). velop public-private restoration partnerships need to be considered. To ensure the success and replicabi - In summary, there is growing evidence of a positive lity of such projects, investments in restoration correlation between investment and benefits from should include a multidisciplinary research compo - ecological restoration, both in terms of biodiversity nent. and ecosystem services (Rey-Benayas et al. 2009). However, the funds available are far less than what The second justification for direct government invest - is needed. It is critical to plan and budget invest - ment relates to situations where early action is li - ments at the landscape and regional scales so as to kely to be the most cost-effective approach . maximise returns on investments in ecological, social Here policy makers need to understand the close re - and economic terms. lationship between prevention and response. Up- front precautionary measures to avoid damage are

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 12 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Box 9.4: A natural capital ‘mega-project’: example of the Aral Sea restoration

Fifty years ago, the Aral Sea was the world’s fourth largest freshwater lake and supported a large and vibrant economy based on fisheries, agriculture and trade in goods and services. In the 1960s, however, the two main rivers flowing into the Aral Sea were massively diverted for cotton cultivation and the Sea began to shrink and to split into smaller pieces – the ‘Northern Aral’ and ‘Southern Aral’ seas. Although large amounts of cotton were grown and exported in subsequent decades, thousands of jobs were lost in other sectors, the surrounding environment was severely degraded and the health of local people deteriorated. By 1996, the Aral Sea’s surface area was half its original size and its volume had been reduced by 75%. The southern part had further split into eastern and western lobes, reducing much of the former sea to a salt pan. Images of the Aral Sea: 1989 (left) and 2003 (middle) and 2009 (right) Source: NASA Earth Observatory. URL: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=9036

Against this background, neighbouring countries made several approaches to restore the Aral Sea. In 2005, Kazakhstan built the Kok-Aral Dam between the lake’s northern and southern portions to preserve water levels in the north. The Northern Aral actually exceeded expectations with the speed of its recovery, but the dam ended prospects for a recovery of the Southern Aral. According to Badescu and Schuiling (2009), there are now three main restoration options: (1) halting cotton production and letting the waters of the two feed rivers (Amu Darya and Syr Darya) flow naturally into the Aral Sea; (2) diverting waters from the Ob and other major Si - berian rivers to the Aral Sea; and (3) building a new inter-basin water supply canal, including a long tunnel from Lake Zaisan to the Balkhash Lake. All three options involve very high costs and there are considerable uncer - tainties about the ultimate restoration benefits.

To further illustrate the scale and complexity of the problem and its possible solutions, the implications for climate regulation also need to be considered. The discharge of major Siberian rivers into the Arctic Ocean appears to be increasing which could affect the global oceanic ‘conveyor belt’, with potentially severe consequences for the climate in Western and Northern Europe. By diverting part of this river water towards the Aral Sea, a resto - ration project may have potential beneficial effects on climate, human health, fishery and ecology in general (Ba - descu and Schuiling 2009). Sources: Micklin and Aladin 2008; Badescu and Schuiling 2009; World Bank 2009a

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 13 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Box 9.5: The economic case for government-led rapid response to invasive species

Invasive species are widely recognised to be one of the major threats to biodiversity and ecosystem functioning (Vitousek et al. 1997; Mack et al. 2000; van der Wal et al. 2008). Several economic studies estimate the scale of damage and management costs they impose on society (e.g. van Wilgen 2001; Turpie 2004; Turpie et al. 2008). A well-known assessment of environmental and economic costs in the US, UK, Australia, South Africa, India and Brazil carried out in 2001 and updated in 2005 (Pimentel et al. 2001, Pimentel et al. 2005) estimated costs of invasive species across these six countries at over US$ 314 billion/year (equivalent to US$ 240 per capita). Assuming similar costs worldwide, Pimentel estimated that invasive species damage would cost more than US$ 1.4 trillion per year, representing nearly 5% of world GDP. A recent review by Kettunen et al. (2009) suggests that damage and control costs of invasive alien species in Europe are at least € 12 billion per year. The following table 9.2 shows some examples of the costs of single invasive species in European countries (Vilà et al. 2009).

Table 9.2: Alien species in Europe generating high costs

Source: Vila et al. 2009

A biological invasion is a dynamic, non-linear process and, once initiated, is largely self-perpetuating (Richardson et al. 2000; Kühn et al. 2004; Norton 2009). In the majority of cases, invasions are only reversible at high cost (Andersen et al. 2004). Introduced species may appear harmless for a long time, and only be identified as harmful after it has become difficult or impossible – and costly – to eradicate, control or contain them and to restore or rehabilitate formerly infested sites (Ricciardi and Simberloff 2008). For these reasons, prevention should always be the preferred management option where feasible, consistent with CBD provisions and guiding principles (CBD 1993; Bertram 1999; CBD 2002; Finnoff et al. 2006).

Delayed intervention increases the cost of intervention and thus the period required before the benefits potentially outweigh the costs. For example, Japanese knotweed (Fallopia japonica) is invasive in several EU Member States. It is estimated that in Wales, a three-year eradication programme would have cost about € 59 million (£ 53.3 million) if started in 2001 but around € 84 million (£ 76 million) if started in 2007 (Defra 2007).

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 14 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Box 9.6: Valuation of livelihood benefits arising from ecosystem rehabilitation in South Africa

The Manalana wetland (near Bushbuckridge, Mpumalanga) was severely degraded by erosion that threatened to consume the entire system if left unchecked. The wetland supports about 100 small-scale farmers, 98 of whom are women. About 70% of local people make use of the wetland in some way, with about 25% de - pending on it as their sole source of food and income. The wetland was thus considered to offer an important safety net, particularly for the poor, contributing about 40% of locally grown food. As a result, the ‘Working for Wetlands’ public works programme intervened in 2006 to stabilise the erosion and improve the wetland’s ability to continue providing its beneficial services.

An economic valuation study completed in 2008 revealed that: • the value of livelihood benefits derived from the degraded wetland was just 34% of what could be achieved after investment in ecosystem rehabilitation; • the rehabilitated wetland now contributes provisioning services conservatively estimated at € 315 per year to some 70% of local households, in an area where 50% of households survive on an income of less than € 520 per year; • the total economic value of the livelihood benefits ( € 182,000) provided by the rehabilitated wetland is more than twice what it cost to undertake the rehabilitation works ( € 86,000), indicating a worthwhile return on investment by ‘Working for Wetlands’; • the Manalana wetland acted as a safety-net that buffered households from slipping further into poverty during times of shock or stress. Sources: Pollard et al. 2008

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 15 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

PROVIDING BENEFITS BEYOND 9.2 THE ENVIRONMENTAL SECTOR

Investing in natural capital does not only concern Box 9.7: Socio-economic benefits from grass - the environmental sector. Other policy sectors land restoration projects, South Africa can also reap benefits from public investment to ensure or enhance the delivery of services provi - In the Drakensberg mountains, local communi - ded by natural capital. Considering all benefits ties depend heavily on various ecosystem ser - provided by ecosystems can make investments vices for their livelihoods. By restoring degraded worthwhile whereas approaches focused on sin - grasslands and riparian zones and changing the gle sectors and services may not. regimes for fire management and grazing, early results suggest that it may be possible to in - A wide range of sectors – especially those dealing with crease base water flows during low-flow periods natural hazard prevention, natural resource manage - (i.e. winter months when communities are the ment, planning, water provision, alternative energy most vulnerable to not having access to any other sources, waste management, agriculture, transport, source of water) by an additional 3.9 million m 3. tourism or social affairs – can gain from explicitly consi - Restoration and improved land use management dering and valuing the services provided by natural ca - should also reduce sediment load by 4.9 million pital. Investing in natural capital can thus create m3/year. additional values, especially where natural capital has itself become the limiting factor to economic develop - While the sale value of the water is approximately ment (Herman Daly, quoted in Aronson et al. 2006). € 250,000 per year, the economic value added of the additional water is equal to € 2.5 million per year. The sediment reduction saves € 1.5 million 9.2.1. BENEFITS FOR NATURAL per year in costs, while the value of the additional RESOURCE MANAGEMENT carbon sequestration is € 2 million per year. These benefits are a result of an investment in restoration The limits of natural capital are most obvious in natural that is estimated to cost € 3.6 million over seven resource management . Fisheries, agriculture, years and which will have annual management forestry and water management directly depend on its costs of € 800,000 per year. The necessary on - maintenance in a healthy state. Ecological degradation going catchment management will create 310 per - (e.g. soil erosion, desertification, reduced water supply, manent jobs, while about 2.5 million person-days loss of waste water filtering) impacts on productivity, of work will be created during the restoration livelihoods and economic opportunities (see Box 9.7). phase. Source: MTDP 2008 Increased investments in natural infrastructure to har - ness and optimise fresh water resources can comple - York and Jakarta all rely on protected areas to provide ment or replace technical infrastructure systems residents with drinking water, which offer a local alter - (Londong et al. 2003). Optimising microbial activity in native to piping water from further afield and cost less rivers through re-naturalisation of river beds has been than building filtration plants (see also Box 9.3). Further shown to improve water quality at lower costs than by examples include: clean-up through water treatment plants. Big cities like Rio de Janeiro, Johannesburg, Tokyo, Melbourne, New

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 16 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

• in Venezuela, just 18 national parks cater to the Box 9.8: Multiple benefits from wetland fresh water needs of 19 million people (83% of the restoration in the Everglades, Florida country’s population that inhabit large cities). About 20% of the country’s irrigated lands depend on Much of the unique Everglades ecosystem, of protected areas for their irrigation water; enormous natural beauty and the region’s pri - • Venezuela has a potential for generating hydroelect- mary source of water, was drained in the early ricity equivalent to the production of 2.5 million barrels 1900s to make way for the cities of Miami and of oil per day (it currently produces 3.2 million barrels Fort Lauderdale. The remaining wetlands (outside of oil per day); of course careful planning is required the 600,000 km 2 Everglades National Park) have in order to minimise negative ecological impacts; suffered heavily from pollution and further drai - • in Peru, around 2.7 million people use water that nage in the last two decades (Salt et al. 2008). originates from 16 protected areas with an estimated value of US$ 81 million/year (Pabon 2009). To improve the quality and secure the supply of drinking water for south Florida and protect Like sponges, forests soak up water and release it dwindling habitat for about 69 species of endan - slowly, limiting floods when it rains and storing water gered plants and animals (including the emble - for dry periods. Watershed and catchment protection matic Florida panther of which only 120 near cities is therefore smart – economically, ecologi - individuals survive in the wild) the US Congress cally and socially (Benedict and McMahon 2008) – enacted the Comprehensive Everglades Res - and as noted above, may justify payments for envi - toration Plan (CERP) in 2000. The total cost of ronmental services (see Chapter 5). the 226 projects to restore the ecosystem’s na - tural hydrological functions is estimated at close These benefits are attributable not only to protected to US$ 20 billion (Polasky 2008). areas but also to wider ecosystems. Sound manage - ment is needed to maintain and ensure the continu - The return on this investment, generally lower ous provision of these ecosystem services. Restoration than the costs, relates to different areas including agricultural and urban water supply, flood con - trol, recreation, commercial and recreational fishing and habitat protection (Milon and Hodges 2000). However, many benefits – especially as regards the cultural value of the intact ecosystem – can only be measured indirectly as there are no markets for these non-use values. For the Everglades, a study covering non-use values shows that the overall benefits are in a similar range to the costs of restoration, depending on the discount rate used (Milon and Scroggins 2002).

can help to keep ecosystems functioning at levels that can in principle be calculated and managed. Boxes 9.6 (above) and 9.8, and 9.9 (below) present some examples of costed approaches from Africa.

Copyright: Riandi. Licensed under http://commons.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Commons:GNU_Free_Documentation_License

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 17 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Box 9.9: Reducing poverty by investing in floodplain restoration in Cameroon

The Waza floodplain (8,000 km²) is a high productivity area and critical for biodiversity. Whilst extremely im - portant for the population, it is also very fragile with fluctuating levels of rainfall, widespread poverty and pre - carious living conditions. 125,000 people depend for subsistence livelihoods on services provided by this floodplain ecosystem, which in turn depends to a large extent on the annual inundation of the Logone River. In 1979, construction of a large irrigated rice scheme reduced flooding by almost 1,000 km² which had de - vastating effects on the region’s ecology, biodiversity and human populations (UNDP-UNEP 2008).

Engineering works to reinstate the flooding regime have the potential to restore up to 90% of the floodplain area at a capital cost of approximately US$ 11 million (Loth 2004). The same study found the socio-economic effects of flood loss to be significant, incurring livelihood costs of almost US$ 50 million over the 20 years since the scheme was constructed. Local households suffer direct economic losses of more than US$ 2 million/year through reduced dry season grazing, fishing, natural resource harvesting and surface water sup - plies (see Table below). The affected population, mainly pastoralists, fishers and dryland farmers, represent some of the poorest and most vulnerable groups in the region.

By bringing around US$ 2.3 million dollars additional income per year to the region, the economic value of floodplain restoration, and return on investment, would be significant in development and poverty alleviation terms. The benefits of restoring the pre-disturbance flood regime will cover initial investment costs in less than 5 years. Investment in flood restoration measures was predicted to have an economic net present value of US$ 7.8 million and a benefit: cost ratio of 6.5: 1 (over a period of 25 years and using a discount rate of 10%). Ecological and hydrological restoration will thus have significant benefits for local poverty alleviation, food security and economic well-being (Loth 2004).

Effects of land conversion in the Waza floodplain and costs and benefits of its restoration (in US$)

Losses of floods to local households Measures of economic profitability Pasture US$ 1.31 mio/year Net present value US$ 7.76 mio Fisheries US$ 0.47 mio/year Benefit: cost ratio 6.5 : 1 Agriculture US$ 0.32 mio/year Payback period 5 years Grass US$ 0.29 mio/year Surface water supply US$ 0.02 mio/year Costs and benefits of flood restoration Total US$ 2.40 mio/year Capital costs US$ 11.26 mio Physical effects of flood restoration Net livelihood benefits US$ 2.32 mio/year Additional flow 215 m³/sec Flood recovery 90 percent Sources: UNDP-UNEP 2008; Loth 2004

9.2.2 BENEFITS FOR NATURAL re-planting by volunteers cost US$ 1.1 million but saved HAZARD PREVENTION US$ 7.3 million annual expenditure on dyke mainten - ance and benefited the livelihoods of an estimated 7,500 The damage potential of storms for coastal areas, floods families in terms of planting and protection (IFRC 2002). from rivers and landslides can be considerably reduced The reduction of the impact of cyclones was also one by a combination of careful land use planning and of the main reasons for Bangladesh to invest in their co - maintenance or restoration of ecosystems to enhance astal green belt. Since 1994 a continuous effort is done buffering capacity. In Vietnam, for example, mangrove to implement forestry along the belt. The program with

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 18 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

the overall scope of US$ 23.4 million also helps local far - amount of money was wasted in the Philippines when mers to use the newly accreted areas in a sustainable two decades of replanting of mangroves, including way (Iftkehar and Islam 2004; ADB 2005). very intensive post-tsunami replanting, were not based on sound science (see Box 9.10). The success of this type of project is closely linked to integrated planning and implementation. A huge Letting ecosystems degrade can exacerbate the de - vastating impact of natural disasters. Many cases Box 9.10: Restoration failures: an example have shown that deforestation, destruction of man - from coastal protection in the Philippines groves and coral reefs or wetland drainage have sig - nificantly increased the vulnerability of regions to Over the past century, the islands that make up natural hazards and the level of damage caused (Ha - the Philippines have lost nearly three-quarters of rakunarak and Aksornkoae 2005; Barbier 2007). their mangrove forests. These provide key habi - tats for fish and shellfish but were routinely clea - Haiti is a tragic example of this. Following steady red for development and fish farming ponds. To forest degradation for firewood over many decades, reverse the trend, conservation groups started re - Hurricane Jeanne in 2004 caused 1800 deaths in planting projects across the archipelago two de - Haiti, mainly by mudslides from deforested slopes. On cades ago, planting 44,000 hectares with the other side of the island, in the Dominican Repu - hundreds of millions of mangrove seedlings. blic, which was equally hard hit by Hurricane Jeanne, very few deaths were reported (IUCN 2006; see also In practice, one of the world's most intensive pro - Chapter 3, Box 3.5). grammes to restore coastal mangrove forests has produced poor results, largely because trees were planted in the wrong places. A survey of 70 9.2.3. BENEFITS FOR HUMAN HEALTH restoration sites in the archipelago (Samson and Rollon 2008) found mostly dead, dying or "dis - Healthy ecosystems are recognised as essential for mally stunted" trees because seedlings were maintaining human health and well-being (see the sum - planted in mudflats, sandflats or sea-grass mea - mary report of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: dows that could not support the trees. Some of WHO 2006). Yet around the world, collapsing ecosys - these areas have inadequate nutrients; in other tems pose increasing risks for human health (Rapport places, strong winds and currents batter the et al. 1998). seedlings. Ironically, the failed restoration effort may sometimes have disturbed and damaged ot - The spread of many infectious diseases can be accele - herwise healthy coastal ecosystems, thus entai - rated by converting natural systems into intensively used ling a double ecological and economic cost. ones (e.g. following deforestation or agricultural deve - lopment: see Box 9.11) and the concurrent spread of To get mangrove restoration back on track, Sam - invasive harmful species (Molyneux et al. 2008). The ma - son and Rollon (2008) suggest that planters need nagement of watersheds and water borne diseases are better guidance on where to place the seedlings interlinked as shown for example in watershed-level ana - and that the government needs to make it easier lyses in South East Asia (Pattanayak and Wendland to convert abandoned or unproductive fish ponds 2007). Deforestation creates new edges and interfaces back to mangrove swamps. However, the study between human populations and facilitates population recognises that this is a thorny legal and political growth in animal reservoir hosts of major insect vector issue as landowners are reluctant to consider the groups, creating opportunities for several serious disea - 'voluntary surrender' of potentially valuable sho - ses like leishmaniosis and yellow fever to spread (Moly - refront back to nature. neux et al. 2008). The destruction of forest habitat can Sources: Malakoff 2008; Samson and Rollon 2008 also result in common vector species being replaced by more effective disease vectors e.g. where one Anophe -

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 19 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

les species replaces a more benign native mosquito. Box 9.11: Dams, irrigation and the spread This has occurred following deforestation in some parts of schistosomiasis in Senegal of Southeast Asia and Amazonia (Walsh et al. 1993). In the 1980s, the Diama Dam on the Senegal River Negative impacts of ecosystem change and degrada - was constructed to prevent intrusion of salt water tion on human health can also occur much more directly. into the river during the dry season. While it suc - For example, the degradation of agricultural areas can ceeded in reducing salinity, it also dramatically al - lead to decreased harvests and thus contribute to mal - tered the region’s ecology. One organism that nutrition in many areas of the world (Hillel and Rosen - made its appearance and prospered after the dam zweig 2008; IAASTD 2008). In addition, livestock and was built was the snail Biomphalaria pfeifferi, an im - game form a key link in a chain of disease transmission portant intermediate host for Schistosoma man - from animal reservoirs to humans - as recently seen in soni , which is the parasite that causes intestinal the bird flu pandemic outbreak. schistosomiasis . Bulinus globosus , the main snail species that B. pfeifferi replaced in many areas For these reasons, the degradation of ecosystems also around the river, is not a S. mansoni host. directly compromises efforts to achieve several Millen - nium Development Goals (WHO 2006; UNDP-UNEP Previously unknown to the region, S. mansoni Poverty-Environment-Initiative 2008). There is conse - quickly spread in the human population. By the end quently an urgent need to further explore the relations - of 1989, almost 2000 people were tested positive hips between healthy ecosystems and human health in for S. mansoni . By August 1990, 60 % of the order to better incorporate these considerations into 50,000 inhabitants of the nearby town of Richard- ecosystem and landscape management and restoration Toll were infected. planning (WHO 2006; Crowl et al. 2008). Since 1990, schistosomiasis has continued to spread in the Senegal River basin upstream from the Diama Dam. This provides a cautionary tale about the potential effects of dam construction and human-caused changes of ecosystems on the spread of vector-borne diseases and illustrates the complexity of human-ecosystem interactions. Source: adapted from Molyneux et al. 2008

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 20 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

INVESTING IN ECOSYSTEMS 9.3 FOR CLIMATE CHANGE ADAPTATION

“We cannot solve biodiversity loss Box 9.12: The restoration of wetlands and without addressing climate change lakes in the Yangtze River basin and vice versa. We therefore need to look for the ‘triple win’ of biodiversity The extensive lakes and floodplains along the that can actively contribute to climate Yangtze River in China form large water retention mitigation and adaptation.” areas which attenuate floods during periods of Message from Athens on the Future of Biodiversity Policies heavy precipitation and provide a continued flow European Commission Conference on Biodiversity of water during dry periods. Due to the conversion (Athens, April 2009) of the floodplains to polder the wetland area has Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems - and been reduced by 80% and the flood retention ca - using them sustainably in the case of culturally pacity reduced by 75%. Consequently, the risk of modified systems - is the best way to preserve floods increases, whereas during dry periods the and enhance their resilience and one of the most reduction in water flow increases pollutants con - cost-effective defences against the adverse im - centration in the remaining water bodies, thereby pacts of climate change. An ecosystem-based causing the decline in fish stocks. It is anticipated approach to adaptation is crucial to ensure eco - that under continued climate change the fre - system services under conditions of climate quency of extreme events with heavy precipitation change. and droughts will increase, having negative con - sequences for the livelihoods of the 400 million Climate adaptation is a challenge to many different people that are living in the basin of the Yangtze sectors. Benefits from investment in natural capital may River. provide cost-effective solutions across multiple policy areas by focusing on the maintenance and enhance - In 2002 WWF initiated a programme in the Hubei ment of the joint provision of ecosystem services. All Province to reconnect lakes and restore wetlands ecosystems provide a set of services and this creates – so far 448 km3 of wetlands have been rehabili - opportunities to streamline policy making. Flood pro - tated which can store up to 285 million m3 of tection, water provision and water quality regulation (in - floodwaters. On the one hand this is expected to cluding reduction of infectious diseases) may be significantly contribute to the prevention of floods. provided by one and the same wetland area and thus On the other the increased water flow and better buffer the effects of changing climate regimes (see Box management of aquacultures and improved agri - 9.12). By making sure that climate adaptation and cultural practices enhanced the water quality to water provision policies are coordinated, it will be pos - drinking water levels. This contributed to an in - sible to minimise implementation costs whilst maximi - crease in the diversity and population of wild fish sing the appropriated flow of services or dividends from species in recent years and in turn catches increa - relevant natural capital (World Bank 2009b). as shown sed by more than 15 %. The restoration of the for example in watershed-level analyses in South East wetlands thus not only reduces the vulnerability of Asia (Pattanayak and Wendland 2007). local communities to extreme events but also im - proves their living condition. There is clearly a need to address biodiversity loss Source: WWF 2008 and climate change in an integrated manner and

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 21 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

to develop strategies that achieve mutually supportive stressed that ecosystem-based adaptation is key to outcomes for both policy challenges. One way to successful strategies. This can ensure the long-term achieve this is by promoting sustainable adaptation and success of relevant strategies while the wider ecosys - mitigation based on ecosystem approaches (e.g. World tem challenges can be addressed appropriately in cli - Bank 2009b). Ecosystem-based approaches seek mate change negotiations under UNFCCC e.g. by to maintain ecological functions at the landscape establishing a REDD-Plus mechanism and by in - scale in combination with multi-functional land cluding ecosystem-based approaches in the Frame - uses. They represent potential triple-win measures: work for Climate Change Adaptation Action (see also they help to preserve and restore natural ecosystems; Chapter 5.2 and TEEB 2009). mitigate climate change by conserving or enhancing carbon stocks or by reducing emissions caused by Given the uncertainties surrounding future rates and ecosystem degradation and loss; and provide cost-ef - mpacts of climate change, as well as the gaps in fective protection against some of the threats resulting knowledge and uncertainty of responses to policy ini - from climate change (for discussion, see Paterson et al. tiatives, a precautionary approach is necessary. 2008). Strong emissions-cutting policies need to be comple - mented with plans to adapt to major environmental, The CBD AHTEG (2009) on biodiversity and climate social and economic changes during the period when change supports this way forward. This expert group we are likely to overshoot safe levels of global war - concluded that "maintaining natural ecosystems (in - ming, as suggested in recent IPCC reports (IPCC cluding their genetic and species diversity) is essential 2007). This will require much more investment in to meet the ultimate objective of the UNFCCC be - adaptation than is currently planned (Parry et al. cause of their role in the global carbon cycle and be - 2009; TEEB 2009). Furthermore, mitigation activities cause of the wide range of ecosystem services they need to be designed to create synergies with adap - provide that are essential for human well-being" and tation , biodiversity conservation and sustainable

Box 9.13: Climate Change adaptation in Bolivia

In Bolivia the frequency of natural disasters such as floods and forest fires has increased over the past years and is expected to rise further as climate change continues. This has negative impacts in particular for the rural communities that are heavily dependent on agricultural production. In the Altiplano farmers always had to cope with the risks from natural climate variability but over the past decades the depletion of vegetation, soil erosion, desertification and the contamination of water bodies decreased their resilience. Climate change puts additional stress on the agricultural sector and exacerbates the living conditions for rural communities. Although farmers try to adapt their management of crops to the changing climate conditions this is often not sufficient and the migration of farmers to cities is becoming a bigger problem. As the agricultural sector is contributing 20% to the national GDP and employs 65% of the work force, climate change poses a real threat to the national economy. Therefore, the government of Bolivia has identified key adaptation strategies which are of importance for national development: (i) Sustainable forest management; (ii) Enhancing the ef - ficiency of industrialization processes; (iii) Reducing habitat fragmentation; (iv) Improving soil and water re - source management, agriculture research and technology transfer; (v) Identifying pastures resistant to climate change and improving livestock management; (vi) Coordinating water use and water conservation. Five out of the six adaptation strategies are directly related to ecosystem management which highlights the signifi - cance of ecosystem services for human well-being and development under climate change. The World Bank has initiated a study on the Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change (EACC) and is assessing the costs of adaptation within a broader national and international context. Similar efforts of identifying adaptation stra - tegies and their costs are undertaken in Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mozambique, Samoa and Vietnam. Source: World Bank 2009c

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 22 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

development (Paterson et al. 2008; Galatowitsch Analysis of measures targeting emission reductions il - 2009). Where such activities have negative impacts on lustrate that there are ‘low cost co-benefit’ measures biodiversity, such as biofuel production, they need to which can add significantly to biodiversity conservation be carefully planned and controlled and their impacts and sustainable use (GTZ & SCBD 2009, CBD AHTEG continuously assessed. This type of ‘mal-adaptation’ 2009). These include restoring degraded forestland should be avoided and remedial measures implemen - and wetlands, increasing organic matter in soils, redu - ted. Conversely, mitigation measures with positive out - cing the conversion of pastureland and use of ‘slash comes represent opportunities that should be sought and burn’ practices and improving grassland manage - and promoted. ment. These ecosystem-based approaches and land management practices also help to maintain services Ecosystem-based approaches can be applied to vir - important for human wellbeing and vital to reinforce tually all types of ecosystems, at all scales from local nature’s adaptive capacity in the face of climate to continental, and have the potential to reconcile change. The costs of such actions may be much lower short and long-term priorities. Green structural ap - than those of major technological actions. They require proaches – e.g. ecosystem-based adaptation - con - policy incentives, rather than actions such as carbon tribute to ecosystem resilience. They not only help to pricing or research and development, and are there - halt biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation and fore easier to develop. restore water cycles but also enable ecosystem functi - ons and services to deliver a more cost-effective and Agricultural productivity is affected by rising tempera - sometimes more feasible adaptation solution than can tures and increased drought. Agricultural resilience is be achieved solely through conventional engineered therefore a key part of adaptation, especially in coun - infrastructure. Such approaches also reduce the vul - tries with large populations dependent upon subsis - nerability of people and their livelihoods in the face of tence farming. A recent study has illustrated its climate change. Many pilot projects in this area are potential (see Box 9.14). under way (Box 9.13, for a summary of important ini - tiatives, see World Bank 2009b). The experience gai - ned needs to be mainstreamed across countries and regions.

Box 9.14: Ecosystem gains from sustainable agricultural practices

Agricultural sustainability centres around the world respond to the need to develop best practices and deliver technologies that do not adversely affect the supply of environmental goods and services, but still improve yields and livelihoods. A study of 286 recent ‘best practice’ initiatives in 57 developing countries covering 37 million hectares (3% of cultivated area in developing countries) across 12.6 million farms showed how pro - ductivity increased along with improvement to the supply of ecosystem services (e.g. carbon sequestration and water quality). The average yield increase was 79%, depending on crop type, and all crops showed gains in efficiency of water use. Examples of these initiatives included:

• pest management: using ecosystem resilience and diversity to control pests, diseases and weeds; • nutrient management: controlling erosion to help reduce nutrient losses; • soil and other resources management: using conservation tillage, agro-forestry practices, aquaculture, nd water harvesting techniques, to improve soil and water availability for farmers. Source: Pretty et al. 2006

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 23 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

PROACTIVE STRATEGIES FOR 9.4 MAKING INVESTMENT HAPPEN

TEEB findings show that a proactive strategy to a series of severe shocks (Costanza et al. 2006b). Un - maintain natural capital and ecosystem services, fortunately, so far wetland restoration has not actually especially regulating services, should be a high been undertaken, and rebuilding of seafront levies has priority for decision-makers. Reactive restoration been favoured instead. efforts are generally the fall-back option for se - vere cases where ecosystem degradation has al - Other opportunities include coastal area restoration ready taken place. However, both natural and activities implemented after the catastrophic 2004 tsu - man-made catastrophes and crises provide im - nami in the Indian Ocean, and Cyclone Nargis in 2008. portant opportunities to rethink political practice The goal is to improve the buffering function of coral and procedures and to undertake major public- reefs and mangroves for future events (UNEP-WCMC private or all-public investments. Investing in na - 2006; IUCN 2006). In 2005, the Indonesian Minister tural capital can be a very beneficial strategy in for Forestry announced plans to reforest 600,000 the follow-up after catastrophes. hectares of depleted mangrove forest throughout the nation over the next five years. The governments of Sri Lanka and Thailand, amongst others, have launched 9.4.1 TURNING CATASTROPHES AND large programmes to recover the natural barriers pro - CRISES INTO OPPORTUNITIES vided by mangrove areas, largely through reforestation (Harakunarak and Aksornkoae 2005; Barbier 2007). When natural crises strike, the necessary rebuilding can be designed to allow future economic develop - ment and protection from disasters to go hand in hand (SER-IUCN 2004). After Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, a billion dollars were allocated by the fe - deral government to the city’s reconstruction. The goal was to restore and revitalise the region to make it less vulnerable to future hurricanes and other natural dis - asters. The US Army Corps of Engineers initiated a massive Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System that has focussed on repairing and rebuilding the artificial levees along the Gulf of Mexico seafront. However, environmental engineers and restoration ecologists pointed out that over the past century, large wetland areas surrounding the city and providing bar - riers against storms have been lost to urban sprawl. Now, in the wake of Katrina the opportunity existed to restore them in conjunction with reconstructing the city’s built environment by using high-performance green buildings (Costanza et al. 2006a). It was argued

that New Orleans could become a model of how to Source: U.S. Navy photo by Philip A. McDaniel. URL: move towards a sustainable and desirable future after http://www.news.navy.mil/view_single.asp?id=19968

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 24 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Box 9.15: Launch of the Sloping Land Conversion Programme after flooding in China

In 1998, the Yangtze River overflowed causing severe floods. The protection capacities of nearby dams were hindered because of the river’s heavy sedimentation, leading to worse damage occurring along the river. After the flood, the river’s high sediment yield was linked to the erosion from intensively farmed sloping land (Tallis et al. 2008).

As a consequence, the Chinese government implemented the Sloping Land Conversion Programme which aims to reduce soil erosion in key areas of 24 provinces by converting farmland back into forest land (Sun and Liqiao 2006). Farmers are offered cash incentives, or quantities of grain, to abandon farming and restore forests on their land on steep slopes along key rivers. By the end of the programme in 2010, the aim is to have reconverted 14.6 million hectares into forest (Tallis et al. 2008).

The cost of the overall investment in this project, undertaken mainly by the Chinese government, is Yuan 337 billion (about US$ 49 billion, see Bennett 2009). The government aims to combine soil protection activities with activities for socio-economic improvement of underdeveloped regions along the Yangtze River to improve local living standards by helping families to create new means for earning their livelihoods. Sources: Sun and Liqiao 2006; Tallis et. al. 2008; Bennett 2009

Another example is provided by China’s land conser - provide additional jobs in sustainable agriculture and vation programme launched after severe flooding of conservation-based enterprises. the Yangtze River (see Box 9.15).

Current interest in – and increased funding opportuni - 9.4.2 PUTTING PRECAUTION INTO ties for – climate change adaptation and mitigation PRACTICE THROUGH GREEN provide new possibilities for integrating a natural ca - INVESTMENT pital perspective into projects and programmes. The result should be to reduce the future vulnerability of Do we have to wait for crises to occur or natural dis - societies to new catastrophes, not only by reducing asters to strike or should we invest in securing our the impact of future events but also by increasing the common future before severe damages occur? The ability of local people to cope with the effects of cli - World Bank (2004) supports taking a precautionary mate change and ensure their livelihoods in a approach and estimates that every dollar invested changing world (IUCN 2006). in disaster reduction measures saves seven dollars in losses from natural disasters . In other Lastly, financial crises, like all major upheavals, should words, investment in natural capital pays - not only to be regarded as an opportunity for major investments improve environmental conditions and livelihoods but in natural capital. The financial crisis of 2008/2009 led also in economic terms. to multi-billion dollar investment in ‘stimulus packages’ in many countries. If this money were used for investing When tackling the many challenges we face (wide - in natural capital, it would present a unique opportunity spread environmental degradation, climate change for the environment and for redirecting economic and major threats by catastrophes), an integrated eco - growth towards sustainability. Some governments rea - nomic perspective can and should be developed by lise that investments in green infrastructure can lead to national governments to improve capacity to identify multiple benefits such as new jobs in clean technology and address the benefits of maintaining and restoring and clean energy businesses (see Box 9.16). Invest - our limited and increasingly threatened stocks of re - ment in natural capital in the broader sense could se - newable natural capital (see examples of South Korea cure the sustainable flow of ecosystem services and and Great Britain in Box 9.16 above).

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 25 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Box 9.16: Investing in the environment during the financial crisis

South Korea: The government is linking its strategy to revitalise its national economy under the current crisis with green growth (Hyun-kyung 2009). In early 2009, President Lee Myung-bak announced that US$ 10 billion would be invested in restoration of four major degraded rivers to build dams and protect water reservoirs. The aim is to prevent neighbouring areas from flooding and to create 200,000 new jobs. “Our policies of green de - velopment will benefit the environment and contribute to the fight against climate change, but it is not only an environmental plan: it’s primarily a plan for economic development” (Statement of Korea's Permanent Repre - sentative to the OECD, Kim Choong-Soo).

United Kingdom: In June 2009, the government decided to enhance research in the environmental sector and invest £ 100 million (US$ 160 million) to prepare for climate challenges and related environmental changes (LWEC 2009) through new and innovative solutions for environmental problems. The programme supports the design of more energy-efficient buildings, better public transport systems and better water solutions for cities, as well as tackling the spread of diseases and addressing the economic impact of our changing environment. Pro - gramme expectations are that the outcomes will bring benefits for the public in different sectors. Sources: Hyun-kyung 2009; LWEC 2009

A crucial step towards more proactive strategies is to de - TEEB recommends that each country carries out a sys - velop overviews of ongoing losses of and threats to na - tematic assessment of their national stocks of na - tural capital. All countries require more detailed tural capital by creating natural capital accounting information at regional and national scales on ecosystem systems and maps . These tools will enable restoration services and the factors that threaten their provision, as needs to be identified in different ecosystem types, espe - well as better accounting systems that reflect the impor - cially with regard to endangered biodiversity and the ser - tance of natural capital (see Chapter 3). This information vices that ecosystems provide to people, and should be will enable policy makers to develop investment strate - developed at local up to national scales. High priorities gies that include schemes to maintain or restore ecosys - should include: tems that provide key services, e.g. via targeted payment • water provision and purification for cities; schemes (see Chapter 5) or other means, including the • climate change adaptation and associated natural designation of protected areas (see Chapter 8). hazard management, risk management and natural capital; Achieving this transition will require much closer links bet - • carbon storage and sequestration; and ween different actors in development and restoration • protecting biodiversity hotspots and other ecosys- projects, especially in developing countries. Too often, tems considered valuable from a conservation and academic institutions, government forestry and agricul - landscape management perspective. tural research partners, communities and commercial A structured scientifically-based framework for natural operators are not adequately connected and therefore capital accounting will open up new possibilities for de - do not adequately use the potentials of working together cision-makers to systematically and proactively invest in closely. Environmental agencies and institutions have a ecological infrastructure. This will not only protect com - critical role to play in promoting strong cross-sectoral po - munities and societies against natural hazards – including licy and project coordination, facilitating the development those most exposed to environmental risk – but also of efficient and cost-effective actions and ensuring that makes economic sense by providing a positive return on the benefits of such actions are fairly shared across dif - investment in the mid-term (see e.g. World Bank 2004). ferent stakeholder groups. Such investments in a resource-efficient economy are fundamental to help humanity move towards a sustaina - To pave the way for combining environmental risk re - ble future in the long-term, including fairer sharing of na - duction with economically efficient investment , ture’s social and ecological benefits.

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 26 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Chapter 9 has, complementing the chapters 5 to 8, outlined the role of direct investment in ecological infrastructure , stressing the economic argument for proactive strategies and the precautionary principle, but also outlining the needs and the costs and benefits for restoration efforts on different scales.

Chapter 10 will sum up the findings from the study and give an overview for the future steps needed to respond to the value of nature .

Endnotes

1 Instead of ‚internal rate of return’ we use ‚social rate of return’ to highlight that besides private benefits some of the public benefits have been considered.

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 27 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

REFERENCES

ADB – Asian Development Bank (2005) Coastal Greenbelt Project Bennett, M. T. 2009. Markets for ecosystem services in China: An (Loan 1353-BAN[SF]) in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh. exploration of China’s ‘eco-compensation’ and other market- Project Completion Report. URL: http://www.adb.org/Docu - based environmental policies. Forest Trends. URL: ments/PCRs/BAN/pcr-ban-25311.pdf (last access Dec 3, 2009) http://www.forest-trends.org/documents/files/doc_2317.pdf (last access Nov 20, 2009). Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand (1997) The National Weeds Strategy: A Strategic Bertram, G. (1999) The impact of introduced pests on the New Approach to Weed Problems of National Significance. Canberra. Zealand economy. A blueprint for action. Wellington, New Zealand URL: http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/1709376/UserCom - Conservation Authority: 45-71. ments?&#details (last access Nov 20, 2009). Blignaut, J. N. and Loxton C. E. (2007) An approach to quantify Andersen, M. C.; Adams, H.; Hope, B. and Powell, M. (2004) Risk the economic value of restoring natural capital: A case from South assessment for invasive species: general framework and research Africa. In Aronson, J.; Milton, S. J.; Blignaut, J. N. (eds.) Restoring needs. Risk Analysis 24(4): 787-793. Natural Capital: Science, Business, and Practice. Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 154-161. Anonymous (2007a) Skjern River Restoration. URL: http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org, http://www.skovogna - Blignaut, J. N. and Aronson, J. (2008) Getting serious about main - tur.dk/common/404.htm and www.skovognatur.dk/Lokalt/Jylland - taining biodiversity. Conservation Letters 1: 12-17. syd/Oxboel/Skjern_Enge/Skjern+River+Wetlands.htm (last access Nov 20, 2009). Blignaut, J. N.; Aronson, J.; Mander, M.; and Marais, C. (2008) In - vesting in natural capital and economic development: South Afri - Anonymous (2007b) British Columbia: Restoration in Coastal Bri - ca’s Drakensberg Mountains. Ecological Restoration 26: 143-150. tish Columbia Riparian Forests. URL: http://www.globalrestorati - onnetwork.org/database/case-study/?id=102 (last access Nov Building Canada (2009) Canada launches $1-billion Green Infra - 20, 2009). structure Fund. URL: http://www.buildingcanada-chantiersca - nada.gc.ca/media/news-nouvelles/2009/20090529whitehorse-en Aronson J.; Floret, C.; Le Floc'h, E.; Ovalle, C. and Pontanier, R. g.html (last access Nov 29, 2009). (1993) Restoration and rehabilitation of degraded ecosystems. A view from the South. Restoration Ecology 1: 8-17. Bullock, J. M.; Pywell, R. F. and Walker, K. J. (2007) Long-term enhancement of agricultural production by restoration of biodiver - Aronson, J.; Blignaut, J. N.; Milton, S. J. and Clewell, A. F. (2006) sity. Journal of Applied Ecology 44: 6-12. Natural capital: the limiting factor. Ecological Engineering 28: 1-5. CBD (1993) Convention on biological diversity (with annexes). Uni - Aronson, J.; Blignaut, J. N.; Milton, S. J.; le Maitre, D.; Esler, K.; ted Nations- Treaty Series, UN. Limouzin, A.; Fontaine, C.; de Wit, M. W.; Mugido, W.; Prinsloo, P.; van der Elst, L. and Lederer, N. (in press) Are socio-economic CBD (2002) Review and consideration of options for the imple - benefits of restoration adequately quantified? A meta analysis of mentation of article 8(h) on alien species that threaten ecosystems, recent papers (2000-2008) in Restoration Ecology and 12 other habitats or species. C. Convention of the parties. scientific journals. Restoration Ecology 18(2). CBD AHTEG – Convention on Biological Diversity (2009) Draft fin - Aronson, J.; Milton, S. J. and Blignaut, J. N. (2007) Restoring na - dings of the Ad Hoc Technical Expert Group on Biodiversity and tural capital: definitions and rationale. In: Aronson, J.; Milton, S. J. Climate Change. CBD, Montreal. URL: http://www.cbd.int/doc/ and Blignaut, J. N. (eds.) Restoring natural capital: science, busi - meetings/cc/ahteg-bdcc-01/other/ahteg-bdcc-01-findings-en.pdf ness and practice. Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 3-8. (last access Nov 20, 2009).

Badescu, V. and Schuiling R. D. (2009) Aral Sea; Irretrievable Loss Chen, L. Y. (2001) Cost savings from properly managing endan - or Irtysh Imports? Water Resource Management. DOI gered species habitats. Natural Areas Journal 21: 197-203. 10.1007/s11269-009-9461-y. City of Seoul (2007) Restoration of the Cheonggyecheon River in Barbier, E. B. (2007) Valuing ecosystem services as productive in - Downtown Seoul. URL: http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org; puts. Economic Policy 22(49): 178-229. http://www.metro.seoul.kr/kor2000/chungaehome/en/seoul/main .htm (last access Nov 20, 2009). Benedict, M. A.. and McMahon E. T. (eds.) (2008) Green infra - structure: linking landscapes and communities. Island Press, Wa - Clewell, A. F. and Aronson, J. (2007) Ecological Restoration: Prin - shington, D.C. ciples, Values, and Structure of an Emerging Profession. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 28 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Clewell, A. F. and Aronson, J. (2006) Motivations for the Restora - Francher, J. (2008) California: Restoring Bolsa Chica Wetlands. tion of Ecosystems. Conservation Biology 20: 420-428. URL: http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org, http://www.ami - gosdebolsachica.org/ and http://www.fws.gov//bolsachica/ (last Costanza, R.; Mitsch, W. J. and Day, J. W. Jr. (2006a) Creating a access Nov 20, 2009). sustainable and desirable New Orleans. Ecological Economics 26:317-320. Galatowitsch, S. M. (2009) Carbon offsets as ecological restora - tions. Restoration Ecology 17: 563-570. Costanza, R.; Mitsch, W. J. and Day, J. W. Jr. (2006b) A new vision for New Orleans and the Mississippi delta: applying ecological Goldstein, J.H.; Pejchar, L. and Daily, G.C. (2008) Using return- economics and ecological engineering. Frontiers in Ecology and on-investment to guide restoration: a case study from Hawaii. the Environment 4: 465-472. Conservation Letters 1: 236-243.

Crowl, T. A.; Crist, T. O.; Parmenento, R. R.; Belovsky, G. and GTZ and SCBD – Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit Lugo, A. E. (2008) The spread of invasive species and infectious und Scretariate of the Convention on Biologicla Diversity (2009): disease as drivers of ecosystem change. Frontiers in Ecology and Biodiversity and Livelyhoods – REDD benefits. Eschborn. the Environment 6: 238-246. Harakunarak, A. and Aksornkoae, S. (2005) Life-saving belts: Defra. 2007. Impact Assessment of the Order to ban sale of cer - Post-tsunami reassessment of mangrove ecosystem values and tain non-native species under the Wildlife & Countryside Act management in Thailand. Tropical Coasts, July: 48-55. 1981. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Avai - lable at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/wildlife-countryside/pdf/wildlife- Hillel, D. and Rosenzweig, C. (2008) Biodiversity and Food pro - manage/non-native/impact-assessment-order.pdf duction. In Chivian, E. and Bernstein, A., eds., Sustaining life – how human health depends on biodiversity, Oxford University De Groot, R.; De Wit, M.; Brown, E. J.; Brown, G.; Kousky, C.; Press, Oxford: 325-381. McGhee, W. and Young, M. D. (2007) Making Restoration Work: Financial Mechanisms. In Aronson, J.; Milton, S. J.; Blignaut, J. Hobbs, R. J.; Arico, S.; Aronson, J.; Baron, J. S.; Bridgewater, P.; N. (eds.) Restoring Natural Capital: Science, Business, and Cramer, V. A.; Epstein, P. R.; Ewel, J. J.; Klink, C. A.; Lugo, A. E.; Practice. Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 286-293. Norton, D.; Ojima, D.; Richardson, D. M.; Sanderson, E. W.; Valla - dares, F.; Vilà, M.; Zamora, R. and Zobel, M. (2006) Novel ecosys - Dorrough, J. and Moxham, C. (2005) Eucalypt establishment in tems: theoretical and management aspects of the new ecological agricultural landscapes and implications for landscape-scale res - world order. Global Ecology and Biogeography 15: 1-7. toration. Biological Conservation 123: 55-66. Hoffmann, C. and Baattrup-Pedersen, A. (2007) Re-establishing Dorrough, J.; Vesk, P. A. and Moll, J. (2008) Integrating ecological freshwater wetlands in Denmark. Ecological Engineering 30: 157- uncertainty and farm-scale economics when planning restoration. 166. Journal of Applied Ecology 45: 288-295. Holloway, L. L. and Tingle, C. C. D. (2009) Direct costs of Te - Doyle, M. and Drew, C. A. (eds.) (2007) Large-Scale Ecosystem tik'asa Mampody Savoka (TAMS). Ankeniheny-Zahamena- Restoration. Island Press, Washington D.C. Mantadia Biodiversity Conservation Corridor and Restoration Project, Madagascar. URL: http://wbcarbonfinance.org/ Elliman, K. and Berry, N. (2007) Protecting and restoring natural Router.cfm?Page=BioCF&FID=9708&ItemID=9708&ft=Pro - capital in New York City’s Watersheds to safeguard water. In jects&ProjID=9638 (last access Nov 20, 2009). Aronson, J.; Milton, S. J.; Blignaut, J. N. (eds.). Restoring Natural Capital: Science, Business, and Practice. Island Press, Washing - Holloway, L. L.; Andrianjara A. H. and Zafindrandalana, J. M. ton D.C.: 208-215. (2009) Direct costs of Masoala Corridors Restoration Project. Ma - soala National Park, Madagascar. Enserink, M. (1999) Plan to quench the Everglade’s thirst. Sci - ence 285(5425): 180. Holmes, P. M.; Richardson, D. M. and Marais, C. (2007) Costs and benefits of restoring natural capital following alien plant inva - Falk, D.A.; Palmer, M. A. and Zedler, J. B. (eds.) (2006) Founda - sions in fynbos ecosystems in South Africa. In Aronson, J.; Milton, tions of Restoration Ecology. Island Press, Washington D.C. S. J. and Blignaut, J. N. (eds.) Restoring Natural Capital: Science, Business, and Practice. Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 188- FAO (2004) Payment schemes for environmental services in wa - 197. tersheds: Regional Forum, June, 9-12 2003, Arequipa, Peru. Land and Water Discussion Paper No. 83, FAO, Rome. Holmes, T.; Bergstrom, J.; Huszar, E.; Kask, S. and Orr III, F. (2004) Contingent valuation, net marginal benefits, and the scale Finnoff, D.; Shogren, J. F.; Leung, B. and Lodge, D. M. (2006) of riparian ecosystem restoration. Ecological Economics 49: 19- Take a risk: Preferring prevention over control of biological inva - 30. ders. Ecological Economics 62(2): 216-222. Hyun-kyung, K. (2009) “Green Growth” Project to Start. Acces - Fox, H.; Mous, P.; Pet, J.; Muljadi, A. and Caldwell, R. (2005) Ex - sed via URL: http://www.greengrowth.org/articles-etc/articles- perimental Assessment of Coral Reef Rehabilitation Following etc-1.asp (last access Nov 20, 2009). Blast Fishing. Conservation Biology 19(1):98-107.

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 29 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

IAASTD – International assessment of agricultural knowledge, sci - Langridge, S.; Buckley, M. and Holl, K. (2007) Overcoming obs - ence and technology for development (2008) Global Report. Is - tacles to restoring natural capital: large-scale restoration on the land Press, Washington D.C. Sacramento River. In Aronson, J.; Milton, S. J.; and Blignaut, J. N. (eds.) Restoring Natural Capital: Science, Business, and IFRC – International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Practice. Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 146-153. Societies (2002) World Disasters Report 2002. Eurospan- London. URL: http://www.grida.no/publications/et/ep3/page/ Leschen, A. (2007) Massachusetts: Boston Harbor Eelgrass Res - 2610.aspx (last access Nov 20, 2009). toration. URL: http://www.globalrestorationnetwork.org/ and http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/hubline/h Iftekhar, M.S. and Islam, M.R. (2004) Managing mangroves in ubline_5yr_eelgrass_restoration.pdf (last access Nov 20, 2009). Bangladesh: A strategy analysis. Journal of Coastal Conservation 10: 139-146. Lewis Environmental Services (2007) Florida: Mangrove Restora - tion at West Lake (Broward County). URL: http://www.globalres - Instituto Terra (2007) Restoration of the Atlantic Forest (Mata At - torationnetwork.org/, http://www.lewisenv.com/html/mangrove_ lântica). URL: www.institutoterra.org/index.htm and www.global - restoration.html, http://www.lewisenv.com, http://www.mangro - restorationnetwork.org/ (last access Nov 20, 2009). verestoration.com (last access Nov 20, 2009).

IPCC – Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) The Londong, J.; Kolisch, G.; Wulf, G. and Borchardt, D. (2003): Mea - Physical Science Basis. In: Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; sures and costs of integrated river basin management - the Wup - Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Tignor, K. B. M. and Miller, H. L. (eds.) per case study. Water Science Technology 46 (6-7): 47-53. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and Loth, P. (ed) (2004) The Return of the Water: Restoring the Waza New York, NY, USA. Logone Floodplain in Cameroon. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge UK. IUCN – International Union for the Conservation of Nature (2006) Ecosystems, livelyhoods and disasters – An integrated approach LWEC (2009) £ 100 million for UK’s environmental challenges. to disaster risk management. Ecosystem Management Series 4, Press Release: URL: http://www.lwec.org.uk/sites/default/ 57. files/LWEC_pr_08-06-09.pdf (last access Nov 20, 2009).

Jackson, S. T. and Hobbs, R. (2009) Ecological Restoration in the MA – Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003) Ecosystems and Light of Ecological History. Science 325: 567-569. human well-being. A framework for assessment. Island Press, Wa - shington, D.C. Jameson, J. and Ramsay, P. (2007) Changes in high-altitude Po - lylepis forest cover and quality in the Cordillera de Vilcanota, Peru, MA – Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and 1956-2005. Biological Conservation 138: 38-46. human well-being: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

Janzen, D. H. (2002) Tropical dry forest: Area de Conservacion Mack, R. N.; Simberloff, D.; Lonsdale, W. M.; Evans, H.; Clout, M. Guancaste, northwestern Costa Rica. In Perrow, M. R. and Davy, and Bazzaz, F. (2000) Biotic Invasions: Causes, Epidemiology, A. J. (eds.) Handbook of Ecological Restoration. Cambridge Uni - Global Consequences and Control. Issues in Ecology 5: 1-20. versity Press, Cambridge, UK: 559-83. Malakoff, D. (2008) Massive Mangrove Restoration Backfires. Sci - Jones, H. P. and Schmitz, O. J. (2009) Rapid recovery of damaged enceNOW Daily News July 17 2008. URL: http://sciencenow.sci - ecosystems. PLoS One: e5653. encemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/715/1 (last access Nov 20, 2009). Juston, J. and DeBusk, T. (2006) Phosphorus mass load and out - flow concentration relationships in stormwater treatment areas for Marais, C. and Wannenburgh A. M. (2008) Restoration of water Everglades restoration. Ecological Engineering 26: 206-223. resources (natural capital) through the clearing of invasive alien plants from riparian areas in South Africa – Costs and water be - Kettunen, M.; Genovesi, P.; Gollasch, S., Pagad, S.; Starfinger, U.; nefits, South African. Journal of Botany 74: 526-537. ten Brink, P. and Shine, C. (2009) Technical support to EU strategy on invasive species (IS) – Assessment of the impacts of IS in MDTP – Maloti-Drakensberg Transfrontier Project (2008) Payment Europe and the EU (Final module report for the European Com - for Ecosystem Services: Developing an Ecosystem Services Tra - mission). Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brus - ding Model for the Mnweni/Cathedral Peak and Eastern Cape sels, Belgium. June 2009. Drakensberg Areas. INR Report IR281. Development Bank of Southern Africa, Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, De - Koenig, R. (2009) Unleashing an Army to Repair Alien-Ravaged partment of Environment Affairs and Tourism, Ezemvelo KZN Wild - Ecosystems. Science 325 (5940): 562-563. life, South Africa. URL: http://www.futureworks.co.za/maloti_ drakensberg_pes.htm and www.inr.org.za (last access Nov 20, Kühn, I.; Brandenburg, M. and Klotz, S. (2004) Why do alien plant 2009). species that reproduce in natural habitats occur more frequently? Diversity and Distributions 10: 417-425. Micklin, P. and Aladin, N. V. (2008) Reclaiming the Aral Sea. Scien - tific American 298: 64-71.

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 30 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Mills, A. J.; Turpie, J. K.; Cowling, R. M.; Marais, C.; Kerley, G. I. Pagiola, S. (2008) Payments for environmental services in Costa H.; Lechmere-Oertel, R. C.; Sigwela, A. M. and Powell M. (2007) Rica. Ecological Economics 65: 712-724. Assessing costs, benefits, and feasibility of restoring natural capital in subtropical thicket in South Africa. In Aronson, J.; Milton, S. J.; Palmer, M. A. and Filoso, S. (2009) Restoration of Ecosystem Ser - Blignaut, J. N. (eds.) Restoring Natural Capital: Science, Business, vices for Environmental Markets. Science 325 (5940): 575-576. and Practice. Island Press, Washington, D. C.: 179-187. Parry, M.; Lowe, J. and Hanson, C. (2009) Overshoot, adapt and Milon, J. W. and Hodges, A. W. (2000) Who wants to pay for Ever - recover. Nature 458(30): 1102-1103. glades Restoration? Choices 15: 12-16. Paterson, J. S.; Araújo, M. B.; Berry, P. M.; Piper, J. M. and Roun - Milon, J. W. and Scroggins, D. (2002) Heterogenous preferences sevell, M. D. A. R. (2008) Mitigation, adaptation and the threat to and complex environmental goods: The case of ecosystem res - biodiversity. Conservation Biology 22: 1352-1355. toration. In List, J. and de Zeeuw, A. (eds.) Recent advances in environmental economics. Edward Elgar, Chelterham. Pattanayak, S. K. (2004) Valuing watershed services: concepts and empirics from Southeast Asia. Agriculture. Ecosystems and Milton, S. J.; Dean, W. R. J. and Richardson, D. M. (2003) Eco - Environment 104: 171-184. nomic incentives for restoring natural capital in southern African rangelands. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1: 247-254. Pattanayak, S. K. and Wendland, K.J. (2007) Nature's care: Diar - rhea, watershed protection, and biodiversity conservation in Flo - Molyneux, D. H.; Ostfeld, R. S.; Bernstein, A.; Chivian, E. (2008) res, Indonesia. Biodiversity and Conservation 16: 2801-2819. Ecosystem disturbance, biodiversity loss and human infectious disease. In Chivian, E. and Bernstein, A.. Sustaining life – how Pimentel, D.; McNair, S.; Janecka, J.; Wightman, J.; Simmonds, human health depends on biodiversity. Oxford University Press, C.; O'Connell, C.; Wong, E.; Russel, L.; Zern, J.; Aquino, T. and Oxford: 325-381. Tsomondo, T. (2001) Economic and environmental threats of alien plant, animal, and microbe invasions. Agriculture. Ecosystems and Morris, R. K. A. and Barham, P. (2007) The Habitats Directive as Environment 84: 1-20. a driver for sustainable development in the coastal zone: the example of the Humber estuary. In Larson, B. A. (ed.) Sustainable Pimentel, D.; R. Zuniga and D., Morrison. 2005. Update on the development research advances. Nova Science Publishers, New environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive York: 109-138. species in the United States. Ecological Economics, 52: 273-288.

Morse, W. C.; Schedlbauer, J. L.; Sesnie, S. E.; Finegan, B.; Har - Polasky, S. (2008) Rivers of Plans for the Rivers of Grass. In Doyle, vey, C. A.; Hollenhorst, S. J.; Kavanagh, K. L.; Stoian, D. and Wulf - M. and Drew, C. A. (eds.): Large-Scale Ecosystem Restoration. horst, J. D. (2009) Consequences of environmental service Island Press, Washington, D.C.: 44-53. payments for forest retention and recruitment in a Costa Rican biological corridor. Ecology and Society 14(1): 23. Pollard, S. R.; Kotze, D. C. and Ferrari, G. (2008) Valuation of the livelihood benefits of structural rehabilitation interventions in the Neilan, W.; Catterall, C.; Kanowski, J. and McKenna, S. (2006) Do Manalana Wetland. In Kotze, D. C. and Ellery W. N. WET-Outcome frugivorous birds assist rainforest succession in weed dominated Evaluate: An evaluation of the rehabilitation outcomes at six wet - oldfield regrowth of subtropical Australia? Biological Conservation: land sites in South Africa. WRC Report No. TT 343/08. Water Re - 129: 393-407. search Commission, Pretoria.

New York Times (2007 April 13th) City’s Catskill water gets 10- Pretty, J. N.; Noble, A. D.; Bossio, D.; Dixon, J.; Hine, R. E.; Pen - Year approval. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/13/nyre - ning de Vries, F. W. T. and Morison, J. I. L. (2006) Resource-Con - gion/13water.html?_r=3 (last access Nov 20, 2009). serving Agriculture increases yields in Developing Countries. Environmental Science and Technology 40: 1114-1119. Normile, D. (2009) Bringing coral reefs back from the living dead. Science 325(5940): 559-561. Pywell, R.; Warman, E.; Hulmes, L.; Hulmes, S.; Nuttall, P.; Sparks, T.; Critchley, C. and Sherwood, A. (2006) Effectiveness of new Norton, D. A. (2009) Species Invasions and the Limits to Restora - agri-environment schemes in providing foraging resources for tion: Learning from the New Zealand. Science 325 (5940): 569- bumblebees in intensively farmed landscapes. Biological Conser - 571. vation 129: 192-206.

Pabon-Zamora, L.; Escobar, J.; Calvo, L. M. and Emerton, L. Rapport, D. J.; Costanza, R. and A. J. McMichael (1998) Asses - (2009) Valuing nature: Why Bolivia’s Protected areas Matter for sing ecosystem health. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 397- Economic and human Wellbeing. TNC, Arlington. 402.

Pabon-Zamora, L.; Bezaury, J.; Leon, F.; Gill, L.; Stolton, S.; Gro - Rey-Benayas, J. M.; Newton, A. C.; Diaz, A. and Bullock, J. M. ver, A.; Mitchell, S. and Dudley, N. (2008) Nature's Value: Asses - (2009 in review) Enhancement of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Ser - sing protected area benefits. Quick Guide Series. In Ervin, J. (ed.) vices by Ecological Restoration: A meta-analysis. Science Ex - The Nature Conservancy. Arlington, VA: 34. URL: www.protecte - press. dareatools.org (last access Nov 20, 2009).

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 31 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Ricciardi, A. and Simberloff, D. (2008) Assisted colonization is not UNDP–UNEP Poverty-Environment-Initiative (2008) Making The a viable conservation strategy. Trends in Ecology and the Environ - Economic Case: A Primer on the Economic Arguments for Main - ment 24: 248-252. streaming Poverty-Environment Linkages into National Develop - ment Planning. UNEP and UNDP. Richardson, D. M.; Pysek, P.; Rejmanek, M., Barbour, M. G.; Pa - netta, F. D.; West, C. J. (2000) Naturalization and invasion of alien UNEP–WCMC (2006) Shoreline protection and other ecosystem plants: concepts and definitions. Diversity and Distributions 6: 93. services from mangroves and coral reefs. UNEP–WCMC Biodi- versity Series No. 24. URL: http://www.unep-wcmc.org/resour - Salt, T.; Langton, S. and Doyle, M. (2008) The challenges of res - ces/publications/UNEP_WCMC_bio_series/24.cfm (last access toring the Everglades Ecosystem. In Doyle, M. and Drew, C.A. Nov 20, 2009). (eds.) Large-Scale Ecosystem Restoration. Island Press, Washing - ton, D.C.: 5-34. van der Wal, R.; Truscott, A-M.; Pearce, I. S. K.; Cole, L.; Harris, M. P. and Wanless, S. (2008) Multiple anthropogenic changes Samson, M. S. and Rollon, R. N. (2008) Growth Performance of cause biodiversity loss through plant invasion. Global Change Bio - Planted Mangroves. Development 33(2): 237-253. logy 14: 1428-1436.

Seastedt, T. R.; Hobbs, R. J. and Suding, K. N. (2008) Manage - van Wilgen, B. W. (2001) The Economic Consequences of Alien ment of novel ecosystems: are novel approaches required? Fron - Plant Invasions: Examples of Impacts and Approaches to Sustai - tiers in Ecology and the Environment 6: 547-553. nable Management in South Africa. Environment, Development and Sustainability 3: 145. SER – Society for Ecological Restoration – International Science and Policy Working Group (2004) The SER International Primer on Vilà, M.; Basnou, C.; Pysek, P.; Josefsson, M.; Genovesi, P.; Gol - Ecological Restoration. Tucson: Society for Ecological Restoration lasch, S.; Nentwig, W.; Olenin, S.; Roques, A.; Roy, D.; Hulme, P. International. URL: www.ser.org (last access Nov 20, 2009). E. and DAISIE partners (2009) How well do we understand the impacts of alien species on ecosystem services? A pan-European, SER–IUCN (2004) Ecological restoration, a means of conserving cross-taxa assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environmnet biodiversity and sustaining livelihoods. Society for Ecological Res - doi:10.1890/080083. toration, Tuscon, Arizona, USA and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland. Vitousek, P. M; D’Antonio, C. M.; Loope, I. L.; Westbrooks, R. Stone, R. (2009) Nursing China’s Forest back to health. Science (1997) Biological invasions as global environmental change. Ame - 325: 557-558. rican Scientist 84: 468-478.

Sun, C. and Liqiao, C. (2006) A Study of Policies and Legislation Walker, B.; Carpenter, S.; Anderies, J.; Able, N.; Cumming, G.; Affecting Payments for Watershed Services in China (Research Janssen, M.; Lebel, L.; Norberg, J.; Peterson, G. D. and Pritchard, Center of Ecological and Environmental Economics Beijing and R. (2002) Resilience management in social-ecological systems: A International Institute for Environment and Development, London. working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conservation Biology 6: 14. Tallis, H.; Kareiva, P.; Marvier, M. and Chang, A. (2008) An eco - system services framework to support both practical conservation Walsh, J. F.; Molyneux, D. H. and Birley, M. H. (1993) Deforestation and economic development. Proceedings of the national: aca - – effects on vector disease. Parasitology 106: S55-S75. demy of sciences 105(28): 9457-9464. WHO – World Health Organisation (2006) Ecosystems and Human TEEB (2009) TEEB Climate Issues Update. September 2009. well-being: Healtch Synthesis – A report of the Millennium Eco - URL: www.teebweb.org (last access Nov 20, 2009). system Assessment. WHO, Geneva.

TEEB D0 – Ecological and Economic Foundations (forthcoming), World Bank (2004) Natural Disasters. Counting the costs URL: draft chapters URL: www.teebweb.org (last access Nov 20, http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,con - 2009). tentMDK:20169861~menuPK:34457~pagePK:34370~piPK:3442 4~theSitePK:4607,00.html (last access Nov 20, 2009). Turpie, J. (2004) The role of resource economics in the control of invasive alien plants in South Africa. South African Journal of Sci - World Bank (2009a) The sea is coming back. URL: ence 100: 87-93. http://go.worldbank.org/DR6H6N4GQ0 (last access Nov 20, 2009). Turpie, J.; Marais, C. and Blignaut, J. (2008) The working for water programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services me - World Bank (2009b) Convenient solutions to an Inconvinient truth: chanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service de - Ecosystem-based approaches to climate change. Environmental livery in South Africa. Ecological Economics 65: 788-798. Department World Bank, Washington.

Turpie, J. K.; Marais, C. and Blignaut, J. N. (2008) Evolution of a World Bank (2009c) Economics of Adaptation to Climate Change. Payments for Ecosystem Services mechanism that addresses URL: http://beta.worldbank.org/content/bolivia-economics- both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Eco - adaptation-climate-change-study (last access Dec 3, 2009) logical economics 65: 788-798.

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 32 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Wunder, S. and Albán, M. (2008) Decentralized payments for en - vironmental services: The cases of Pimampiro and PROFAFOR in Ecuador. Ecological Economics 65: 685-698.

WWF – World Wildlife Fund for Nature (2008) Water for life: Les - sons for climate change adaptation from better management of rivers for people and nature. WWF International, Gland, Switzer - land. URL: http://assets.panda.org/downloads/50_12_wwf_cli - mate_change_v2_full_report.pdf (last access December 2, 2009).

Zhang, P.; Shao G.; Zhao G., Le Master, D. C.; Parker, G. R.; Dun - ning, J. B. Jr. and Li, Q. (2000) China’s forest policy for the 21st century. Science 288: 2135-2136.

Quotes

Page 3: Herman Daily, 2005, former chief economist with World Bank, personal communication. Cited in Aronson et al. (2006): 1.

Page 3: Prof. Alan Malcolm, Chief Scientific Advisor, Institute of Biology, IUPAC. URL: http://www.naturalcapitalinitiative.org.uk/34- quotes/ (last access Dec 6, 2009).

Page 21: Message from the European Commissions conference on biodiversity in Athens: Message from Athens on the Future of Biodiversity Policies April 2009. URL: http://biodiversity- chm.eea.europa.eu/stories/european-message-athens-future- biodiversity (last access Nov 20, 2009).

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 33 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE X - E - d d - - a - s n n n a n , e N - s r

a a n o b s t c r

a e e r l c o e a f a y e s i i i v

N l

e o t l c l t t r i h n

h s s n n l a a o t i i r e

o A r g

r u , b o i v m c s c o i o i r t r

a u t p a g a o a i

b o

c a e r f a ) d l o n

m s f

i i o d e m r d r , s i

u

n t o

e h g n h o h h b s , e a o p t u t t n n s n a s

t i s

e i o i l

h s

f o o t o

o f s t

g h r

s a y e

m p c l c d r e t f i s d

n d i o l i s e a

R n c i f o m o e

a h n

I r n p

f b r r

.

r ,

s c h a

o u i u u u m p n

t n n s t f d u I n e c m

r a p o u o o e

o

o k i

o t i l s d . r e o s l s o ,

s t l b s r i

m a o e e u i

e y e

p f d r t m n , o o r o t

a

b t i . r w t ) o

d t e s p

e e i a i c r

o s s

e s s d e r

n t l o c t r 2 t u

s

i r l

.

e o s a s n u a n i g e i r a t o a

a e n s 2 y

e r r b o e r t h c n v s t o t t a i - d t

o a d

€ u u s

a t d

s b h e

a m t e t

r e g

r i d i r e m g c e m a . e d m l n

e n d u r e o b i b o i

n v n s o n n t r

o i s

t o e

r v a k i

l r h , f u e o a i a f i ) h t s f i u c a i

r

o h c

h i a -

h n n i s o i

a e l r c i i . f n e

p f

s

e

r t f i e h y e e l , e

t p

l o f o d p o r m

l l s i v

m

s m l u l

a ) m o p e w i l t n t o c a t i t u l

n

o v i e e

n s o i o j

i , a t n y m t c

f

e t

o c t

i h o

s c b f i m , i , a a a e , v t m

t a e s n g t t t l s t n i o e 0 s b l i

t i i e g a . p c

i

r , a

u o n m

y a l a l 1 b b t a n e l d u n s d b o e o

r r e m e r o 4 s a r a y s o i a n r n o h m t s i o u o e o o B H t s a p C a t r s s t H b a f l t € h D o e c l e

p - - 0 0 0 0 0 0 8

y 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 b m 0 0 0 , , , , , , ,

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 7 , , , a s

5 0 0 7 2 0 : 0 0 0 e t x 5 0 1 3 2 0 a 0 0 l , , s 0 0 3 h 1 1 e , , p / o

1 0 5 C € 8 m d a e x t e n r

c a o d i e e t a e l t Y c t

a t e e c 7 2 5 6 l d l s 0 0 9 0

e s l f a o 0 0 9 0

o c L 2 2 1 2 e : s n

: & & o

n i s s f o - e e s t s i e s s v v s t s w e e e a o o i i y r a o r r a r r

r r l s g g r d a a g a o a n n u u r a o o m t t e a a c o t e t s s e m E t S e M e C M s s e r e

r f - r

n o f o

e

. r l s m o e n s e a t

n e i c e

h t f r o h s c c e i s r i 7 5 7 8 i

c e u n v k t v 0 0 0 0 x s w r

a l o i n n n 0 0 0 0 e o e r e a i f S l L 2 F 2 L E t s 2 F 2 e e b

l n - - a l e o s i - r e a t d

t l

a e p v n t

- a v e b n o t i l l e n n r

o s e a a : e r t a i r m a e l l m s r s c t t r f g s e e t e p f s e r a b a l n k s

o v

s o

l o r

i . a

u e e o m n

a c r p o n i r g

e t e d i

h r s a

r . m

i t n p r d t h

w y o i e

t d f t

n d t n , s e

e s

e r s

d m f o s m o n i u v g e i u

n f e

e i K

n e i

t o

m d a h d f a

s e e e c a t a

c a i t t t r a o

n e

e h e u r

r i , r l r e

g n a n

d f e d o i a s R ( s c o r d p 0 o u t e r

l o l

n w

e t p o l n s i s 0 s i g

o

a e o o v l

t p c r a w s

e r l 5 e v e l n o r F

a m c e s E a

l d f r i n r n o

t o A

r i r n f g y t h h

o g o

o o d e : t t

c t o f f P n o s h i i o t n t i t

o s n t o t a a s

n s t s n w w

o c h h i y f o i

s l t n i e g u u n s i

g h c t

o m n n

e n t

a e f

m o i f o n u f a m i t i r t e o o

o r o n d r a t o

m

o o o e n r s s i r n m

r e i i f o o e a c ) i s t

h i s c s r e t r r l e e g a v t h

k s u a s o l o e

s t e a a a i t c r r n

t i h a l c D

e m s i

m v t a

e r r h d t i i p p o b r o c e e t s g s p l t e 0 s

n w o r c

d m a t l c m t n m m n s p o b e e 8 a t i e o u n l a

a a s a r

o r o o o e e l l s y h f r h o p o e l e i o t o i i T G t C E s P M c s T C C r M f t o R f g v c

t

e

s c h s e

t f a

v e e e s

g

l o n

e i r

r n n r l o i i a &

i i n

) l g

e i B

w t n n a

n

A p r i r r g o D o y e a l i S l o r p o t n o f h

i i l o a m t c U f l i a f

h f r

u f f f , a o )

t s

o i e s o o o t f d C s a

n i

e s e e t , n n n a s n

d

y e s b f o o o r r e A i i i a o

a a l

t t t i o l a k t s

e t g a a a u b a s s r r r r n s

t t a ( L a a e o

o o o s g

r i r x t t t r v t E t e n

g s s s i

o u s e l a E l t

h t e e e l a o e e t w t s a r c b n R R R E i u o t

r

l W o l e ] ] ] ]

h s o o a o 3 4 P 2 1 n n f [ S C [ ( i h i R c [ [

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 34 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE ) , r d i . i - d s 6 i h e i e y r

- t n s

, r - e b g i l i r o l a a f j l

g o

o

a m n

i a e f o e i f m l F a a t n f ( s w n

i h a i e e

.

o )

h a

n l

t r V i

a a t i e d e

g i s p

t e e 5

e s

u c m l r f r h , s n u n n n p n n 6 t l p i d t a o a i e b s o .

r o o o a A s o

a r i o n e v i b t g i o a

i 5 -

t t p c

t t v t s i e a

ø f S c i p

l l 1 n a i w R o a s c

n r t l

d k t m r l

o e a r o a

n g e o w e t l n y o e a g o o n i c l a t e r t t u r n r E v . o n i o c h

i n b f f w a

i b ) s t

c

e e

u s e

c k d l j o d ) e l s

n

s e f h n R s o o d k a a v

r n t

h a t

i e e m o o

r a d f e s

) t r i

a t o S

, t a c n

w m a n u

v n

d e o a u

t l

c t

r n t a n e s o a o o i

e , n e

t i a a l r d t n r a

r a i i a t

r r d s e h u e n i

o n a w n

g t b v n s h a u a t c

h e b b d a e o t f d u t n i n u l n s

p r a o n c a

a i f l i a

n o h

e a m u

o e r e

e c a )

e

h

r r i

l n l e t a ) n

e ) c n )

r m

t

i r c e i e t f o i a a v i e i i o i i e n e o a v o

n v o d f

a t r

o h f r i , m i r c , t a , l g

e n o a o p r n a y v a p r e r s s o c s

o

d o t o t j h i l e e i r i . s r e c n f i f p n m ) e m t s t t i s t r c i

n l i i o t i o e e ,

i e n a y m o n t n l

r w a r e e e f m r n r h

r i

s

s o

e

) a p ) c e g m

e i i i i f

m

t n ) )

p i o l t e o v v t i i d i n t

m i i n t s

o s

o f 2 v

a a r

r c a n

s w , o

l

e , i

r i o o o c . o y c n e r e d r u a t n t t

i o i a

t h t b e

o

c l s

i

t ) o

n u a t - q o r c / g d r s f h i i a i e e e n v t d ( n i a s t t n o a f i r e g r r a n o

v

f l

l

t r n e o v c d w

n a a o a i i d s 3 y r o e c e o e

t

a t w t i u

r

l o o o t d

n 0 f l n h s s R s r a n o i .

a b d m

o t t t b s . n n d l a i r i i e o i

l e r

t

t

e f f h 4

e e n t a n i r c , o

f e a e e r r b a s

r e l e e s i t

a r e o s p n v h r o i g i e e h t g s e n n j t m

e e e d e r l g t a o w u i i c g t g a

e e e n k i

r o h h h o s n i u n ) e e r a o r i i n T r T u w R T i f m B S p a s s m t B t t b i f r ) ) ) ) ) ) 0 0 5 0 m m m m m m 0 0 7 0 k k k k k k 0 0 3 0 / / / / / / , , , , 0 0 8 5 € € € € € € ( ( ( ( ( ( 2 3 2

1 1 0 5 0 8 1 2 7 2 7 4 4 0 8 8 6 3 3 3 , , , , , , 7 4 7 6 7 2 1 4 3 5 5 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 s e - i n r

o z & & & d d

n n

n n s s s n a a s s d d i i r r r a a a r r l l e e n n i e e e t t r a a n n a a v v v l l e e i i i a p p o o i i n n I w I w R p R r z R r z . l l a u a

d 7 o t n 0 n e e

a n 0 S

k s

a 2 f s n e

o u o m n 7 7 6 4

t f m f l B y o 0 0 0 0 s t o o i e n 0 0 0 0 u 2 H 2 J D 2 H 2 A C t - e e s a t t i i t o l s s t n

c a - - e

n

s e l n r c n n h i o g s o a a t e i i o o

t t g n e c c r

f i i

r a a o a l e e c o r g g p r r

w p o n o o i n e

e e r l g i t r r f e

f h h d o n s c s i o

r l a a y

t e l n

w w e d r i h

n u e e

t

g g y f i s s ” o

o n h t t i n n h v i i i e t

h h n g t n n t t v h h a i i d i a u c e e r t s s n i i e h a o l l w w l o a

r

m m a c t t

, , b b t t b

n h s n s s t n a a e e a d l

t t o e t t e i e i v v o r l n i t s s n s s s

a t e e b a a o o e e r r o e v d i

c r

r a t c c f f f f l a n u n i

o

p a r o o o o r r t t a r o a t

i e

s e e t t t t o v t s o f f n t f f e R s s s s n n n a a n r ”

s o u u

o o o o i

o o o g f i i i e t e e c c c c t b t b a t r c r r i

o

c

a a

e e l l e e e e n n s u n d d x i m r u u i

a a g g g g e

w w n n t i i r

p p r r s a a a a i i d a a s m l l s s r e r r r r r

a a t t f n n o n f e e e e e e u e e e e p p a a o o i i v v v v e e u l o v v i i r r r c F C t A b A t t A W m W A R m R t r n e e n s - t r a u g m e j t o n w r k a - o

o l e S e h e r

l h u t s h t k

e t p o r e r i C l h r s e a

e t f

t o

e e S f f , m

a h r h h , o o n r t t

e p w

k

e e f f r n n v a r i v m o o a i o o n D o i i i

r

R l f t t

R

n n o m n l o

a a i t e r

o o r r n o n i i s e r a s s t t

e o o o t s t t a a d d n C D e i n s r r s s

n n , h e o e e o o h r s a a t t t l l c n e R C R r t t d s s

e n v ] ] ] e e a o e i e y e 7 6 5 o [ R R g N T R w l [ w [

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 35 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE - i y f y

t h d e . s i n o d l t e r

r l o e s e e o a i t i d h a m d m a y g r s c

t t d n b i s r a n m i a n

e e i u

s v a t e f t e v e a e e t a v l h d r i r

r t

r

n v t o s i t i o t u e r n

m g s s

n r o l . c e s s c s d s a t o y e h i

r

a

s

f p

o

u w t r s , s

s d e r l o i s e o d

l o f o m o m m g o d l l h a f

o s e f i p o g

t b

f u e e c n n

r ) i

h e c t t c n e i a

o h / e i a m s g s p s s t

h

i

u r v [ h l , d d t ) r a r e n

y y r t s s i

y o a

n e e f z t e s s c t b t e e d r i p i t r

l e

a i a d o s e s o o t n u s

a . s .

s

l e t i l r e a m e r s b c c d r a

s r n

l r

a h a e a t h u a g

e e e m s r t l c ) e y i t

o

v v n i

s i n

v e i h i r i e u c v

t i s - e e t d t i t y

a , d e

v g l d l b v o a , r h n y r o s i i b g r n

d t u t u o e t p s m

i n i y

u i o l

f , n a p n d c o c d i e i t s

o s b n n r a

n i t o i r a

w

n u s l t

s a

o

m y o h u

e s i t t e g e a i

t a i d r a c s

c e

d i

q d s v t a x h s d i

o o b r d o

e g t p

a o t g f e r r n f t e

r n

a a a r

f

s o d a o n e e r p o i a e e t s i h g s t l

o

n o o r n n r

(

f g e

s w e

p t a

t e

d e

a u f y m e y l ) b c m e s i u i u l e i g e n r s e

n o w l

y d e

a

d v n o r h a n

e a n g a e

, t

o r . w r

t

e r t v y t a t t d t

d e s r s i n s e

t

r l w

o a m t n i s ) y e

n l

e t e n s

e e i i d i e i o L

e

v e r t e b a b i

t t i d d l r b a

n i

d . m n

d m

a t d l ,

e m n ) n

i o a s a n s d i e e n o l f i t

e r a i d t g e a s n u i

r u e t c a l

w t e s , t n l

s o i r n n ,

g

, a i f y w a n n m y r n e o a e m t s d a a r k i t i e n

o a o

s n i e e v r p l n u n i s m s s n l m h l g r m d v d a t o s l r a o a

a s o e o n e n f a o s o n r h o c a e b o B l v P a c M ( o c s c C d c e o c E e w n 0 2 3 0 0 0 5 1 7 7 2 5 0 7 8 0 6 3 2 2 2 9 2 1 , , - - - 1 2 5 9 1

1 1 1 –

0 7 5 3 3 2 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 2 s s d d s s n n e d d t a a l l n n a l l r e e a a a a l l s s s e g g t t t c c s s i i p n n s s s s s p p a a e e e a a m r r r r r o o r r

r r e o o o G & G & T f T f T f m . b t l a 7 e a e

h l 0 t h y y x g 0 e g a a o

n 9 2 l i u l

w w 0 M T o e n 5 9 6

o o r 0 l l l l r o 0 0 0 w d d 2 o o

o y n 0 0 0 n l n a 2 P 2 D a H a 2 A H

d d

- . n n e e s a a r . r r

t u g e g g t s s f n i

i x n n u t i i i t l n a z z n p o

m r a a

a c d l r r u

a e g g

P s e

v t h i r s e e t g o i s n e e v v

f i i n i i e o w m n i s s r g

s n t t e o

n n n i a r i u a o f t

t e e r e s o t t a s r C s e

o i e r

i n n t e a , i i g d r x

o

s e s t n a r r e e y r i t e e

t t s s e e r d n

c r m t t e

n e r f f

u e r n u s e a t

e l a a e a n v a

r s i e m s

d p

l n t t e

n n e f s v l d i e a n a d t s o o o t e

i i e w

a r e t t

n c a l n

d e r i g s a a a t p A P s o n

a

t t

n

n

e t i : : a r g

e e g o d s

i m d g g n e u r

t g g n s n i i t t e n n a e e e d a a c i i i s n f t c

e r r i v v s e n n u e - - s u i m m g n r r

r r a e e e e t l o f h m o o r a a R f R f R o T S a c T P F S e t - s s s r n l e i a e a

] a p r , e , t c n n n r i S a a i o

s d

s

a

f f c

i c e s a a n s r s M r n n o a

s i r i

e a o g a e a

s l A a t a d o

l e a e

r p T a o C d r n i n ,

e a d

'

t t a d i b f

e i o

a n r o k R b a l n l i a i e o i

r d s

l o t s

k

o a m s i a o r n u d b i e a M n n o w t a t h g

a T e v b C , o o l s [ s d e p m i i M

i y

a l k t t

u y r m n u a s , r m l g R l a a r b S

a A s b a n r r u A a

n a

l a a i

a c a t f y t c o o o r , r P o i o

r t t n s

s s t i s l d u o o s y g s s r a f l t C a s e a

a e o

a s

e e r

s - r e o g e t a n e p h v e e e o e a s d h R M R i i o K t g s

t v m i i e r s i ] ] m d ] R R t s t a m r r t u

a U i a a n r r 2 1 0 ] ]

a e r o a o o o e o o 1 1 1 9 8 n [ N R [ M M T c F i [ B t f [ s f n [

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 36 INVESTING IN ECOLOGICAL INFRASTRUCTURE s s e r n .

- . p s o g s n

i n s

e

n

, g

r n . r i a n p n o o o

n i u d

l i d o . t e t l s o o r

a y l n l i a e l o s o e r a

l t l y r

p

d a s a

r l , l f ã

t

i

a a

. y e s y n , n e r p t

r c s e n o n o v l e t v s

a r k o s t u t i i d

d s a o s l o

a u

n e

e

e

s u s e e f s e c r e g s d v o r B d d s i a e n i

o d a u i e s i s h o n r e e

e

n i v r f r

t e e n n l o q

v s c i a n n n e m i e g s i h

o e A e n o /

s u

t r o t n h

h m h n i i

s i e h s

t c t a t e a d s a

s r p

r

i n g e T e f d c h e e e A n m u e

e r o n e e F t r

r b i . e o

t v t u

:

o t o i e

d

e , l b , r e t e

d n o e d

o e s f b e i y e b r n t r s s

r n a t s c

e 0 v e

i

c i r m r r i g o r e a

l y o h i a

s s 2 e e l i e n u e u t n

l h r r r s c s t p t e h s s h t a

o c a

e e u o d t g

f , a t a p i h u , o

, e r y S v v s t r n f n o l i t u c s m

i

o w w n

o i

o e r

u

o s p a d o g n

d , f l e

o v

i p r l p p o i y

p r o n m n s s o e g i r g , i t l p x s

i

s r i o e u r m

a o

l a a a n b i l t e

s r r s

e s r

o

p p

a e w , f f r

o a ,

a

e i f s n e e s t r s s c y i d o e t o

i

l d l

s t v h o

w s h e i f r e v n t c t

. i y t i c t a p

w s o a f v

r e a c i e o n c e d a h e d o

- c o t t

o o

h d l r w u

e o

l e d y h t o t

t i c o c w d i

r t t e o

d h t

r a n i p l a e

o r t u l n f b e s i

o c g s h d d o p s

t h h e i a i r d

a

. a t d t t b o u s t e e

s i e u

h

n o p e t n a a

m v v a d e s

r r e w i o l g r e e i l t m a o

t a i m o o e l f n i s d l p w

u n e i h s

r r r c a

i t e a s u l t

l a a o r h h s i g n e

e d v p p

l t t d y e e o g e r c r i i u e e

o y r n a n r r

t u e h o m m f I a I h D w s A e B b v S o t r w m c d R n e e b

0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 6 v 3 6 7 0 7 , , , - a 9 2 6 0 h -

1 0 0 s 2 t 0 i f 8 , e 8 n e b

c i l b u p

e h 5 4 9 8 7 t

0 0 9 0 0 f 0 0 9 0 0 o

2 2 1 2 2 e m o s

- s s d b e t i v n f u l l l r a o e a a a l r s s s h n t t t c c c d s i i i g e s s s

o n p p p d e e e b d o a r r r

o o o n n r r r o o o e a l M T f T f T f W a t a v i r 7 y p . .

l 0 l e s 7 a a s 0

e 0 t n t 2 m

0 d e e o o r i

a t 2 s e s

n i e u R i e e t 7 6 8

a a i b l p r t i r b 0 0 0 d m r r

s e a 0 0 0 t n a u e n a 2 N 2 I a T J T 2 B h t

t

l h n a g e i r l r o

i

u r

h t e t f n e a g a i w o r o h

n t

h ) e

l s

d f s o n d f a g

o e o e e e t c o t

n d i s r

i t d g l t ’ n i n p o n n e n d a t n o a l r i o o e r

a i e r e l l n l p t t s l u e

m a t p o a e o r

s e t h e e

r t e u n r e m c r e m t e

t e s

f g w n i

e a l g e w a r e o o a e n

r t a n

r e

v i

h v s u , - e g a e d e n t o e s - r d e i r v n b r e a i a h d

e c

g r l a t s e i

s

e d d d l i n o a

L s

e p n n a a ( m f v i s

e

s e a a t o n

c a

s i i m n

n

e

e s o e n n f o n s

r i v g s s e e i o o t o o n i i ‚ a r d t i

n a t t

p i t a

o e s a

t t g i a a e a i e l t d s r r a n d n i n s s c i

r a e e i o o a a r r b e s t l u t t r n c e

a e a h n d s s p g c n t e o e h i h a

l n e e e r l e t u e h a n w R l R p A t o d s i C R r

’ n r u , h - t t - s n a e i u a d l r a , l r l

) o a n s t f e o r i a S t o t f o A i

m c

- s t , i s r r t e e e d a u a l t e r r n f h t

A a t o â t o

r l a t p , f f

t s l s s w o o e A a m

r e e

i r l r r n n n o

a r a o f t h o o f

e i i e

a s t t v s t W

i g

r a a o n M p r r i n r h ( e i ‚ t

e o o

g l t k u t t f u m r r y n s s s l r o o e o a

e e e o o r S f l P d i

a W M R R P

o

, a z c ] ] ] ] ] F w i m e n

a r 6 7 5 4 3 t e r f o c o i i r s 1 1 1 1 1 f B [ A [ [ t N t [ [ n I i

TEEB FOR NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL POLICY MAKERS - CHAPTER 9: PAGE 37