Download EEA_ecosystem - Eionet Projects

MEGS Working Committee Meeting
Statistics Canada
RH Coats building 7, Ottawa
13 January 2012
Development and Implementation of
Simplified Ecosystem Capital Accounts
by the European Environment Agency
Jean-Louis Weber
Special Adviser to Economic Environmental Accounting
European Environmnent Agency
[email protected]
Background
• Europe:
– European Strategy for Environmental Accounting 2003/2008 includes
ecosystem accounts (under EEA responsibility)
– EEA-MB/ Eurostat-DIMESA Seminar, Luxembourg, 24 November 2009: Fast
Track Implementation of Simplified Ecosystem Capital Accounts
– Demand by the European Parliament for further inclusion of ecosystems in
the new environmental accounting regulation
• Request from UNCEEA at its 5th meeting (June 2010) for UNSD,
World Bank and EEA to report back with a broad outline and road
map for ecosystem accounts
• 6th UNCEEA meeting: endorsement of the outline and roadmap of
SEEA part 2 on experimental ecosystem accounts to be presented
at UNSC 2013
Policy Demand
• Europe:
– GDP and Beyond process
– Resource Efficiency Flagship Initiative 2020
– Water Framework Directive
– Environment Liability Directive of 2004
– Forthcoming ecosystem assessment 2014
• International (as expressed at the UNCEEA meeting of 15-17 June 2011)
– Wide range of emerging measurement/monitoring initiatives require an
ecosystems perspective of sustainability and information on the links
between ecosystems and human well-being
– Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 2015 under preparation;
– World Bank’s WAVES partnership
– At the UNCEEA, demands by UNEP (Green Economy), OECD, CBD (AichiNagoya Strategy), FAO (SEEA Agri), the UN Coordinator of the Rio+20
Conference...
• EEA asked to deliver first (physical) accounts by MAY 2012
Simplified ecosystem capital accounts
•
Make it feasible NOW – keep it simple
•
Don’t miss important issues: needs a good narrative and checklist
•
All ecosystems need to be addressed: land/sea/atmosphere, and for land: urban,
agriculture, forest, other natural and soil.
•
Basic accounts of biomass/carbon, water and landscape/biodiversity combined with
diagnoses (instead of mere additions): ref. to the “ecosystem distress syndrome”
approach of David J. Rapport integrated into an accounting framework
•
Physical accounts first (2012), stocks, flows (natural flows and economic use),
accessible surplus and integration; ecosystem capital potential/ capacity and
degradation measured with a composite equivalent-unit.
•
Physical accounts followed by valuation of selected ecosystem services and of
ecosystem restoration costs. No valuation of ecosystem stocks.
 The “fast tract implementation of ecosystem capital accounts” in Europe, based on
land accounts.
 Nov. 2011: publication of an experimental framework based on the EEA experience
in land accounting, assessments and valuation (in particular in the context of TEEB)
and the tests carried out in 2010-2011.
Characteristics of ecosystem capital accounts
•
•
•
Top-down approach
Compiled at the European scale; member countries involved progressively on a
voluntary basis
Geo-referenced approach to 1) detect issues and hotspots and 2) connect
global/EU to national to local scales
– 1km2 EU standard grid to integrate multiple dimensions
– Small analytical functional units: “Land cover functional units”, “Socio-ecological
systems” or “socio-ecological production landscapes” or proxies…
– Reporting units: countries, regions/provinces, catchments…
•
•
Meet the policy demand: annual updates for t – 1; first time serie for 2000-2010
Deep rooted in the best available datasets:
– Socio-economic statistics
– Monitoring by satellites (land use, biomass, climate variables…)
– Best available in situ monitoring data
•
•
•
Necessary additional estimations transparent and reproducible
Relevance matter more than accuracy
Measure ecosystem capital degradation
Ecosystem capital approach: narrative and practicalities
1. Narrative: an ultra-short version by 3 Japanese students
2. Narrative: additional details
3. Practicalities: focus on statistical units
1. Ultra-short story
The background of Ecosystem Capital Accounts:
 Ecosystem capital potential (& degradation) can be measured by combining
measurements of 3 ecosystem services:
biomass/carbon, freshwater and systemic services
there is little or no compensation or tradeoff between
them; the use of one should not reduce the use of the
others
biomass/carbon, freshwater are based on conventional
balances
systemic services (regulating, socio-cultural…) are
measured indirectly in relation to ecosystem integrity.
carbon
systemic
services
water
The simplified ecosystem capital accounting circuit
Ecosystem capital
depreciation
Ecological debts
Calculating economic aggregate
Healthy
ecosystem
benefit
Adapted from
Aoyama Yukiko, Oguro Michio, and Yano Tohru,
Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, November 2011
Ecosystem degradation
Land cover, landscape units,
1km2 grids and calculation of
ecosystem capital
6
5
10 8
2
4
“+”
4
3
Water
surplus
4
1
6
4
Landscape
integrity,
biodiversity
“+”
“=”
12 10
20 15
Carbon
surplus
12 10
20 15
Total ecosystem
capital potential
(or capacity)
12 10
Improvement
Capital2
Capital1
_
9 11
20 15
12 12
Time 1
Time 2
=
-3 +1
-8 -3
Degradation
Capital1 – Capital2 = Change in capital
Adapted from
Aoyama Yukiko, Oguro Michio, and Yano Tohru
Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, November 2011
2. More detailed narrative
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
Accounting for the performance(s) of 2 co-evolving systems: resources,
productivity and health
Ecosystems deliver altogether multiple services
Ecosystems deliver altogether services which are private, common and public
goods
Only a surplus from ecosystem services is accessible for human use
Ecosystem capital produces altogether 3 broad types of services between which
there is little or no tradeoff: biomass/carbon AND freshwater AND functional
services. Ecosystem capital potential (& degradation) can be measured by
combining measurements of these 3 broad services (accessible resources).
Estimation of ecosystem capital depreciation can be derived from physical
degradation
The integrated ecosystem capital framework
Ecosystem Capital should not be valued as a stock; ecosystem services can be
valued one by one but are not fully additive (functional analysis)
To address multiple scales, ecosystem capital accounts need to integrate
geographical information
The narrative behind Ecosystem Capital Accounts:
a. Accounting for the performance(s) of 2 co-evolving systems:
resources, productivity and health
Economic system
Economy performance
Fossil energy
& materials
Biomass/carbon
Ecosystem
Water
Economic growth
Use of
natural
resources
Land functional
services
Products
&
economic
assets
Trade
Value-added, income, profit…
Consumption
Investment
Wealth (non-financial and
financial assets)
Economic health
(net savings, assets and debt
quality, accountability, prices,
well-being, knowledge)
Ecosystem potential
(capacity to deliver services)
Ecosystem productivity
Flows
Accumulation
Stocks
Ecosystem health
(biodiversity, integrity, resilience,
interdependence)
Capital
maintenance
(to remediate
degradation)
The narrative behind Ecosystem Capital Accounts:
b. Ecosystems deliver altogether multiple services
Source: Gilbert Long, 1972
A propos du diagnostic écologique appliqué au milieu de vie de l'homme.
Options Méditerranéennes, 13 , CHIEAM, Montpellier, Juin 1972
The narrative behind Ecosystem Capital Accounts:
c. Ecosystems deliver altogether services which are private, common
GDP,
or public goods
consumption,
trade...
2 - Non valued services:
mostly common goods, tradable,
transferable rights
Services
valuation,
payments for
services
1 – ES incorporated into
commodities &
economic assets:
mostly private goods, market
prices
Payments for
restoring
ecosystem
potential
3 – Ecosystem good state: health, sustainable capacity
of delivering services, life-support functions, Public Good: nonrival, non-exclusive use, non-transferable rights, taxes or lease
with covenants are possible
Jean-Louis Weber, CBD Conférence, Libreville, 16 Septembre 2010
The narrative behind Ecosystem Capital Accounts:
d - Only a surplus from ecosystem services is accessible for human use
Ecoproduct (of cycling and reproductive systems/ capital) are
produced by means of other ecoproducts. The ecosystem
production function includes a surplus ecoproduct that can be
used by the economy. (from Anthony Friend 2004)
Non-basic ecoproduct
Surplus accessible for
harvest/abstraction
Basic ecoproduct
Sources: Kling/U Michigan_2005 & Friend/ISEE_2004
Necessary for
ecosystem reproduction
(conservation of
ecosystem health,
integrity, functions &
services)
Economy
The narrative behind Ecosystem Capital Accounts:
d - Only a surplus from ecosystem services is accessible for human use
Challenge = maximise yields while maintaining
natural functions and biodiversity
Possible compensation = artificial input (irrigation, energy,
fertilizers, infrastructures…)
Non-basic ecoproduct
Surplus accessible for
harvest/abstraction
Non-sustainable
harvest/abstractio
n
Basic ecoproduct
Sources: Kling/U Michigan_2005 & Friend/ISEE_2004
Necessary for
ecosystem reproduction
(conservation of
ecosystem health,
integrity, functions &
services)
Economy
Natural resource: availability, appropriation, accessibility
• Available resource: the total resource (actual stocks and flows) which can be used
in principle (but should to be shared between economy and nature…).
• Appropriated resource: the share of the total potential resource flows (flows
which would be available in an ecosystem in the absence of human activities or
flows from managed ecosystems) which is used (abstracted, harvested or
destroyed during harvest). N.B.: Once used, the resource is considered as
appropriated in total, even though one part is returned to the ecosystem.
• Accessible resource: the surplus (actual stocks and flows) which can be used
considering 1) physical constraints (timeliness and location, cyclical risks, biochemical quality) & 2) the amount to be left to nature for ecosystem
reproduction. N.B.: When returned to the ecosystem (leftovers in agriculture or
forestry, water returns…) the resource destroyed or modified during the production
process becomes accessible again.
Ecosystem capital accounts refer to accessible resource and intensity
of use.
Accessible resource: carbon/biomass, freshwater, systemic services
Accessible resource =
Stocks (soil, forests, aquifers, reservoirs, landscapes…)
Plus/minus change in stocks (from the previous year)
Minus inaccessible stocks
Physical inaccessibility (deep aquifers …)
Inappropriate quality (salted or polluted water, non arable land…)
Plus flows (NPP, effective rainfall…)
Minus inaccessible flows
Physical inaccessibility (most of flood water, distance, non transportable
resource, timeliness issues, water evaporated by irrigation…)
Inappropriate quality (polluted water)
Maintenance of stocks (soil carbon, forests, aquifer level, dilution of
pollutants in rivers…)
Plus/minus adjustment for stress, risk
Example of accessible water adjustment: occurrence of soil water stress
Number of days when no water was available for plants in 2001, 1 km^2 grid
Source: Blaz Kurnik, EEA, 2011
The narrative behind Ecosystem Capital Accounts:
e. Ecosystem capital produces altogether 3 broad types of services
between which there is no compensation or tradeoff:
biomass/carbon AND freshwater AND systemic services. Ecosystem
capital potential (& degradation) can be measured by combining
measurements of these 3 broad services (accessible resources).
Accessible
carbon
Total
Ecosystem Capital
surplus
Potential/Capacity
Accessible
& ecosystem
functional
Ecosystem Capital
services
Improvement/Degradation
Accessible
water
surplus
Ecological
debts in
physical units
Depreciation
(money) &
adjustments
The narrative behind Ecosystem Capital Accounts:
f. Estimation of ecosystem capital depreciation can be derived from
physical degradation
Assets j
t1
j
t2
Flows
j j
(-)
Physical accounts
of E-services
Calculation
of unit
costs
Valuation of E-services
€
€
NPV & addition
Assets €
j
Account of
pressures
responsible of
degradation
j
Valuation of E-services
€
NPV & addition
(-)
t2 - t1
Jean-Louis Weber
Degradation of ecosystem capital
Physical accounts
of E-services
j
€
t2 - t1
€
Estimation of ecosystem
capital depreciation…
…based on
remediation costs
…based on
assets values
€
EEA Scientific Committee Workshop 5
October 2011
Assessment of
remediation
costs by
issues
&
€
addition
The narrative behind Ecosystem Capital Accounts:
g. The integrated ecosystem capital accounting
Non-paid costs needed
framework
to remediate ecosystem
degradation (€)
Ecosystem degraded
by over-use (j)
Healthy ecosystem deliver
services to the economy
&
to the public well-being
Ecosystem assets/capital (j)
Jean-Louis Weber
j
Ecological debts
National
Income,
 Adjusted
capital
consumption
Final
demand at full priceat
Final
Consumption
Adjusted net domestic product (or
Purchasers’
price
net national income)
ES based economic
benefits (€)
j
j
Adjusted macro
GDP, economic
aggregates
ES based economic
benefits (€)
ES based economic benefits (€)
Economic system
(including natural assets &
ecosystem services (j and
€)
The narrative behind Ecosystem Capital Accounts:
h.Ecosystem Capital should not be valued; ecosystem services can be
valued one by one but are not fully additive (functional analysis)
National Accounts =
the macro-economic picture
adjusted for natural capital depreciation
Benefits & Costs Assessments =
accounts for projects, sectors…
Ecosystem capital
Stocks & flows
Land cover
Biomass/Carbon
Soil
Biodiversity
Water catchments
Sea
Atmosphere
Health
Vigour
Organisation
Resilience
Autonomy
Healthy populations
1
2
3
4
5
n
Ecosystem services valuation
Bottom-up, individual preferences, market and shadow prices,
Costs-Benefits Analysis, General Equilibrium model
Service n
Service n value ??
Operation costs E.S n
Service 5: e.g. existence
Service 5 value ?
Operation costs E.S 5
Service 4: e.g. water regulation
Service 4 value
Operation costs E.S 4
Service 3: e.g. eco-tourism
Service 3 value
Operation costs E.S 3
Service 2:
2: e.g.
e.g. fish
fish provision
provision
Service
Service 2 value
Operation costs E.S 2
Service 1: e.g. timber provision
Service 1 value
Operation costs E.S 1
Ecosystem / public good protection (all services)
Ecosystem restoration costs
Top-Down, collective preferences, multi-criteria decision (economic & social
values, long term targets…), Consumption of Ecosystem Capital
Ecological Taxes, Subsidies, Tradable
Offset Certificates / Depreciation...
The narrative behind Ecosystem Capital Accounts:
i. To address multiple scales, ecosystem capital accounts need to
integrate geographical information
Global scale:
International Conventions
Simplified accounts
Markets framing & regulation
National & regional
government:
Environmental agencies,
Ministries of economy,
Statistical offices,
Courts
SEEA 2013
Framework
Site level, case studies,
Projects,
Business
Beyond GDP Accounting
Sector accounts
Green taxes
Clearing house mechanisms on
[1] ES prices & [2] ecosystem
mitigation costs
Impacts assessments, costs &
benefits
Action level:
Local scale, management,
Global trade of ecosystem
permits, IPES
Programmes assessment (e.g.
REDD+)
International financial standards
(for loans…)
Country contribution to
international organisations
Accounting guidelines,
norms, geographical data
Local government, Agencies
assessment
Corporate accounting results,
rating, trade
Markets of specific ecosystem
services, PES
Ecosystem physical degradation,
sustainable benefits from ecosystem services
and non-paid maintenance costs
Consumption
of ecosystem
capital (nonpaid costs)
Degradation
Mean
restoration
prices
Economic statistics
& national
accounts
Sustainable
benefits
(Value
Added
(income
from from
key
key
ecosystem
ecosystem
services)
Sustainable
use
coefficients
Improvement
An experimental framework for ecosystem capital accounting in Europe
EEA Technical report No 13/2011
http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/an-experimentalframework-for-ecosystem
The draft
framework
Analytical and
reporting units,
classifications
Tables by Ecosystem Units
Countries and biophysical geographical breakdowns or
administrative regions
Tables by Economic Units

Countries and administrative regions or biophysical
geographical breakdowns
Ecosystem statistical and accouting units:
socio-ecological landscape units, elementary functional units

(land cover, river reaches…), ecosystem assets, ecosystem
service units
Economic statistical and accouting units:
institutional units, establishments, economic assets,
commodities
[A] Land cover stocks and flows basic account :
Gross and Net Land Cover Change

Land use statistics

Physical supply and use tables & economic assets accounts. Agriculture,
forestry & fishery statistics
[B] Ecosystem Capital Carbon/biomass Account:
Basic accounts
Basic accounts
Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance (NECB)
& Net Ecosystem Accessible Carbon Surplus (NEACS)
[C] Ecosystem Capital Water Account:
Total Ecosystem Accessible Fresh Water (TEAW)
& Net Ecosystem Accessible Fresh Water Surplus (NEAWS)

Physical supply and use tables & economic assets accounts.
use statistics
Water
[D] Landscape green infrastructure accounts :
Landscape Ecosystem Potential (LEP),
Green Accessible Landscape Infrastructure (GALI)
& Rivers Ecosystem Potential (REP)
[E] Ecosystem Capital Biodiversity Account:
Synthesis tables in
physical units
Ecosystem Total
Potential
Biodiversity Infrastructure Integrity (BII)
& Ecosystem's Biodiversity Rating (EBR)
[F1] Ecosystem Total Potential Account, Net Change &
Ecosystem Capital Degradation (ECD),
in Ecosystem Potential Unit Equivalents (EPUE)
[F2] Account of Territorial Ecosystem Capital Degradation
(TECD) by Stress Factors (in EPUE)

Polluting emissions and waste generation by sectors
Agriculture, forestry & forestry statistics, Land use accounts
[G] Demand and Accessibility to Ecosystem Services :
Ecosystem Carbon/biomass per capita,
Ecosystem Fresh Water per capita,
Green Infrastructure Neighbourhood Ecosystem Services (GINES)
Ecosystem
Depreciation
[H] Ecosystem Physical Balance Sheet: Stocks and Change of Physical Assets & Physical Liabilities, in EPUE
Monetary accounts
[I] Estimation of unit costs of ecosystem capital restoration by

Stress Factors
Environmental protection and management expenditure (part)
[J] Ecosystem Capital Depreciation:
Territorial Consumption of Ecosystem Capital in money
[K] Account of Ecosystem Capital Degradation & Depreciation
Embedded into Imports and Exports,
in EPUE & in money
[L] Account of Macro-economic Benefits induced by Sustainable Ecosystem Services :
Degradation-Adjusted Total Induced Value Added (by SELU & ISIC)
[M] Economic aggregates and additional adjustments for CEC,
in money: Gross Domestic Consumption of Ecosystem Capital
(GDCEC), GDCEC Adjusted Net Domestic Product, Final
Consumption at Full Price (including GDCEC)
[N] Ecosystem Financial Balance Sheet: Change of Financial Assets and Stocks and Change of Financial Liabilities
Jean-Louis Weber 22 September 2011
The basic accounts
by ecosystem units
by economic sectors
The synthesis tables
by ecosystem units
by economic sectors
The monetary accounts
by ecosystem units
by economic sectors
N
From economic-ecological theory to statistical practice
and accounts
statistical units
& classifications
Source: Joel de Rosnay, The Macroscope
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/MACRBOOK.html
From theory to statistics and accounts
Theoretical background (very incomplete…):
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Georgescu-Roegen (The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971),
Odum (emergy)
Resource depletion: Hotelling, El Serafy
System approach : Joel de Rosnay (The macroscope, 1975)
Dissipative structures: Prigogine (The New Alliance, 1986)
L'économique et le vivant: René Passet (1977)
Natural resource economy: Naredo (1987)
Urban metabolism: Duvignaud
Global biotic regulation: Gorshkov
Co-evolving systems: Norgaard
Ecosystem services: Long (1972), Costanza and De Groot, Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (2003)
Interaction between scales: Hollin (“panarchy”)
Landscape ecology (UK)
Ecosystem units: socio-ecological systems (Gallopin, Carpenter, Rockström,
MA2003…)
Ecosystem health (D. J. Rapport), resilience (the Resilience Alliance)
 from economic-ecological theory to statistical practice and accounts :
statistical units and classifications
From theory to statistics and accounts
Theoretical background (very incomplete…):
– Georgescu-Roegen (The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971), Odum
(emergy), Hollin (panarchy,interaction between scales)
– Co-evolving systems (Norgaard)
– Ecosystem services: Long (1972), Costanza and De Groot, Millennium
Ecosystem Assessment (2003)
– Landscape ecology (UK)
– Ecosystem units: socio-ecological systems (Gallopin, Carpenter, Rockström,
Stockholm Resilience Centre, MA2003…)
– Ecosystem health (D. Rapport), resilience (the Resilience Alliance)
from economic-ecological theory to statistical practice
and accounts : statistical units and classifications
Main relations
between
classifications &
accounting units
Ecosystems:
Socio-ecological landscape units (SELU)
(terrestrial, marine & atmospheric)
Land Cover:
biophysical land units
Monetary Statistics
of Products
Land Functions & Ecosystem Services
(from UNCEEA 2009 – EEA & FAO)
Physical Statistics
of Products
Land Use:
productive land
functions
Institutional &
Production Units
Land Ownership
(sectors & industries)
(private & public)
Ecosystem accounting and statistical units
SNA statistical units don’t record ecosystem
degradation  need for other units…
Theoretical units vs. observation units
(proxies for collecting data)
• Theoretical units: characteristic
systems into which natural and
socioeconomic elements interact to
transform ecosystem functions into
goods and services:
– Functional units producing elementary
services
– “Socio-ecological systems”, “socio
ecosystems” or “Socio-ecological
production landscapes” (the Japanese
satoyama and satoumi)

• Observation units:
– For which we can collect data in a
systematic way
– Mostly surface units: “geo-systems”, land
cover units, functional administrative
units, ownership units…
Japan Satoyama Satoumi Assessment, 2010.
Satoyama-Satoumi Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Socio-ecological
Production Landscapes of Japan – Summary for Decision Makers.
United Nations University, Tokyo, Japan.
Theoretical units vs. observation units
Theoretical
analytical
unit
Candidate
observation
units
Modeled
SES/ SEPL
Basic land cover
systems
SES / SEPL
?
Topographic
unit (eg.
catchment)
Administrative or
cadastral unit
Land cover functional units: example of Europe
Land cover units are homogenous considering production
of ecosystem services: crops, timber, water…
Land cover functional units &
Socio-ecological landscape units
(SELU)
Dominant land cover types (more than
50% criteria)
In grey are areas where no land cover type is dominant
Relief and river basins limits
The SELU map/database
SELU classified by landscape types
ZOOM: SELU in Central Europe
ZOOM: Land cover functional units by SELU
The land/ landscape account
Land cover balance, by land cover types (S = 0)
Stock t0
- Consumption of land land cover
+ Formation of land cover
= Stock t1
Ecosystem landscape balance (S ≠ 0)
Stock t0
- Decrease in LEP
+ Increase in LEP
= Stock t1
Urban and infrastructure land development
"1990" - 2000 - EUR23 - ha/year
Land uptake by
transport netw orks &
infrastructures
Land uptake by
industrial &
commercial sites
Land uptake by
housing, services
and recreation
0
10000
20000
30000
40000
Origin of artificial land uptake as % of total,
"1990"- 2000, EUR23
6% 1%
9%
50000
60000
Arable land & permanent
crops
Pastures & mixed farmland
Forests and transitional
woodland shrub
Natural grassland, heathland,
sclerophylous vegetation
48%
Open spaces with little or no
vegetation
Wetlands
36%
Water bodies
Mean annual urban and infrastructures land take
as % of Artificial land cover "1990"
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
si
sk
E U uk
R2
3
pt
ro
lv
nl
pl
lt
lu
it
ie
fr
gr
hu
ee
es
cz
de
dk
at
be
bg
0.0
Mean annual urban and infrastructures land take
as % of total Europe-23 urban land take
25.00
20.00
15.00
10.00
5.00
uk
si
sk
ro
pt
pl
nl
lv
lu
lt
it
ie
hu
fr
gr
es
dk
ee
cz
de
bg
0.00
at
be
Sprawl of artificial areas 1990-2000
Land uptake by
mines, quarries and
w aste dumpsites
From Land Cover to Landscape Ecological Potential (LEP)
Corine land cover map (CLC
is derived from satellite
images)

Green Landscape Index
(derived from CLC)
Nature Value (Naturilis,
derived from Natura2000
designated areas)
and
Landscape Ecological Potential
(LEP) 2000, by 1km² grid cell
LEP 2000 by NUTS 2/3
Fragmentation (Effective
Mesh Size (MEFF) derived
from TeleAtlas Roads and
CLC)
Land cover flows 1990-2006 and mean Landscape Ecosystem
Potential (LEP) by ecosystem landscape unit
Land cover flows are measured according to the EEA LEAC methodology based on Corine land cover
(J-L Weber and E. Ivanov, 2011)
Landscape Ecological Potential change 1990-2006, by
ecosystem landscape unit
(J-L Weber and E. Ivanov, 2011)
Conventional DMC
DMC
Carbon
Atmosphere/
Climate
Fossil
energy
TEP
Air
Biomass/ Biomass/carbon acccountsBiomass/
Carbon
(agriculture, forestry, …) Carbon
DMC
other
Metal
Biodiversity
Chemicals
DMC
Sand/
gravel
Sand,
gravel
DMC
Water
Water
Decoupling (1)
from
material/energy
inputs
GDP
Landscape
Water accounts
Decoupling (2)
from
environmental
impacts
TEP
Land
Water
Sea
Total Ecosystem Potential
Total material Input
Import-Export
TEP
Sea
Resource efficiency:
TMI/DMC-Carbon
& TEP Land
Conclusion: biodiversity & finance, a few questions…
•
•
•
•
•
Back to the first quotation by Bertrand de Jouvenel, 1968: “Because National
Accounts are based on financial transactions, they account nothing for Nature, to
which we don’t owe anything in terms of payments but to which we owe
everything in terms of livelihood.”
We certainly owe nothing to Nature, but by degrading biodiversity and ecosystem
don’t we create debts to future generations?
These ecological debts don’t they come in addition to conventional debt, private
and public - which will have to be repaid one day, one way or another?
Should not the international financial and monetary system take into account(s)
ecological debts, in addition to conventional debt?
Can ecosystem capital accounts contribute to this endeavour?
Jean-Louis Weber, CBD Conférence, Libreville, 16 Septembre 2010