What Do the Services of Bees Cost?

By: Jon Dougal
Date: November 21, 2009

If bees stopped pollinating and man had to replace the service, what would it cost society. $33 billion 0r $33 trillion? Much or our food production is dependent on bees. What about the services that wetlands perform in purifying the water before it goes into the streams, rivers and seas? Or of forests to sequester carbon and produce oxygen?

In ancient times there was the “Commons”. A meadow or valley where everybody grazed their flocks & herds. The “Commons” belonged to everybody and everybody protected and maintained the Commons for the good of all.

What are the commons? Generally speaking they are the gifts of nature, belonging to and used by everyone, e.g. the sun, the atmosphere, nature, rivers, lakes, etc. From a modern legal perspective the Commons might refer to things we own collectively like the oceans, radio frequencies, wind. Economically and politically speaking, commons can also refer to publicly owned, common pool resources that are collectively managed by human systems, e.g. creative works, scientific research, and libraries.

The Commons could be defined as the gifts of nature and society, the wealth we inherit or create together and must pass on undiminished or enhanced, to our children, a sector of the economy that compliments the corporate sector.

What are the commons worth? What value can we place on a forest, a lake, coral reefs, a virgin river? The forests, viewed as the lungs of the planet are used by corporate interests for profit and the society uses the products of the forest to build a society. What is the carbon sequestration or oxygen production of that forest worth?

We plant trees to break high winds that could impact crop production. We plant hillsides to keep landslides from occurring. We depend on some natural entities for our very existence. Bees are just doing their own genetically endowed internal societal mission by pollinating plants. Calculating what they do for humans, however, is a more dubious pursuit. If they weren’t there what would it cost to replace their services.

Throughout history we haven’t calculated the cost of replacement we’ve only considered what they provide as equal to what they take away, basically nothing.

Rarely is there a calculation of the wider ecosystem services, like water purification by wetland flora or, on a larger scale, carbon emissions that affect agriculture, medicinal research, and global fisheries.

A new report from the United Nations Environment Program (www.unep.org) identifies the economic contribution of ecosystems and biodiversity as significant—and lucrative. Mangroves in Vietnam, it turns out, save annual expenditures on dike maintenance of more than $7 million. And in another example: it would cost $200 million to replicate the services provided by natural springs in New Zealand.

Commissioned by the G8 collection of environmental ministers, researchers on the project—labeled the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (www.TEEBweb.org) set out to attach dollar values to the planet's omnipresent structures and systems, which had long been considered an impossibility due to the number of variables involved. But measuring ecological contributions is becoming more feasible.

By examining past data from industries that rely, directly or indirectly, on natural resources or systems, the analysts estimated the monetary equivalent of those resources or systems being wiped away. In one example, the plight of island communities dependent on fish protein and ecotourism can be measured. How? Researchers found that every hectare of coral reef—a modest area of land equal to just under two and a half acres—is worth more than $1 million annually.

By looking more closely at regional scenarios, researchers can make more precise estimates of how a community would be affected if a resource it relies on for food or protection would be wiped out. Developing countries are the most affected by the disruption of ecosystems because their lower financial resources cause them to rely more on the limited natural ones their land provides.

With agriculture alone, addressing problems with soil consistency or water contamination would pay substantial dividends, they found—an average global rate of return of $60 for every $1 invested. Jeff Wise, director the Alliance for Global Conservation, a consortium of U.S. conservation groups, remarks, "There's certainly a range in some of the larger estimates, but the net return from conservation is higher when you protect these resources than when you exploit them economically,”

See the report below

TEEB report released on the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policymakers

Brussels, 13 November 2009 - Policy-makers who factor the planet's multi-trillion dollar ecosystem services into their national and international investment strategies are likely to see far higher rates of return and stronger economic growth in the 21st century, a new report issued today says.

Some countries have already made the link to a limited extent and are glimpsing benefits in terms of jobs, livelihoods and economic returns that outstrip those wedded to older economic models of the previous century.

• In Venezuela, investment in the national protected area system is preventing sedimentation that otherwise could reduce farm earnings by around US$3.5 million a year (Pabon-Zamora et al.2008).
• Planting and protecting nearly 12,000 hectares of mangroves in Vietnam costs just over US$1 million but saved annual expenditures on dyke maintenance of well over US$7 million (Tallis et al. 2008).
• One in 40 jobs in Europe are now linked with the environment and ecosystem services ranging from clean tech 'eco-industries' to organic agriculture, sustainable forestry and eco-tourism.
• Investment in the protection of Guatemala's Maya Biosphere Reserve is generating an annual of income of close to US$50 million a year, has generated 7,000 jobs and boosted local family incomes (CBD 2008).

The new report, prepared by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) initiative hosted by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), calls on policy-makers to accelerate, scale-up and embed investments in the management and restoration of ecosystems.

It also calls for more sophisticated cost benefit analysis before policy-decisions are made. The report cites a study on mangroves in south Thailand on the conversion of mangroves into shrimp farms.

Subsidized commercial shrimp farms can generate returns of around US$1,220 per hectare by clearing mangrove forests. But this does not take into account the losses to local communities totaling over US$12,000 a hectare linked with wood and non-wood forest products, fisheries and coastal protection services (Barbier 2007).

Nor does the profit to the commercial operators take into account the costs of rehabilitating the abandoned sites after five years of exploitation - estimated at over US$9,000 a hectare.

Speaking at a press conference in Brussels today, Pavan Sukhdev, TEEB's Study Leader, said: "Nature's multiple and complex values have direct economic impacts on human well being and public and private spending. Recognizing and rewarding the value delivered to society by the natural environment must become a policy priority.

The economic invisibility of ecosystems and biodiversity is increased by our dominant economic model, which is consumption-led, production-driven, and GDP-measured. This model is in need of significant reform. The multiple crises we are experiencing - fuel, food, finance, and the economy - serve as reminders of the need for change.

It is now up to governments to provide fiscal or other incentives to move us from short-term opportunism to long-term stewardship. The right policies can help us move toward a resource efficient economy."

The report comes in advance of the UN climate convention meeting in Copenhagen where governments are expected to give the green light to funding developing countries to maintain forests.

Close to 20 percent of current global greenhouse gas emissions are linked with deforestation. Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) aims to counter this while also generating financial flows from North to South.

REDD and REDD+, which includes not only maintaining forests but planting and recovering forest systems, secured the backing of close 15 presidents and prime ministers at a special meeting hosted last month by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said:

"Paying developing countries under REDD marks a fundamental step forward in terms of bringing the huge financial importance of ecosystems and biodiversity into the centre of economic activity."

"It could open the door to more creative and forward-looking funds and mechanisms covering other nature-based infrastructure such as peatlands and wetlands en route to support for the services generated by coastal and marine ecosystems such as coral reefs to mangroves," he said.

The report outlines a ten-point plan aimed at catalyzing a transition to more ecosystem savvy economies able to meet the multiple challenges and deliver the multiple opportunities on a planet of six billion people, rising to nine billion by 2050.

The report has a number of key recommendations for policymakers to consider:

1: Invest in ecological infrastructure: This can provide cost-effective opportunities to increase resilience to climate change, reduce risk from natural hazards, improve food and water security, and contribute to poverty alleviation. Up-front investments in maintenance and conservation are almost always cheaper than trying to restore damaged ecosystems, and the social benefits that flow from restoration can be several times higher than the costs. Preliminary TEEB estimates suggest that the potential rates of return can reach 40 percent for mangrove and woodlands/shrublands, 50 percent for tropical forests and 79 percent for grasslands when the multiple ecosystems services are taken into account.

2: Reward benefits through payments and markets: Payments for ecosystem services (PES schemes) from local (e.g. water provisioning) to global (the REDD-Plus proposal for Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation, as well as from afforestation, reforestation, and effective conservation).

3: Reform environmentally harmful subsidies: Reforming subsidies that are inefficient, outdated or harmful makes double sense during a time of economic and ecological crisis.

4: Address losses through regulation and pricing: The cost of losses of biodiversity and ecosystem services should be tackled through regulatory frameworks that establish environmental standards and liability regimes. Designing a robust instrumental and market framework to confront resource users with these costs is a key priority for policy makers.

5: Recognize that protected areas are a cornerstone of conservation policies and provide multiple benefits: The global PA network covers around 13.9 percent of the Earth's land surface, 5.9 percent of territorial seas, and only 0.5 percent of the high seas: nearly a sixth of the world's population depend on protected areas for a significant percentage of their livelihoods. Investing US$45 billion in protected areas could secure vital nature-based services worth some US$5 trillion a year, including the sequestration of carbon, the protection and enhancement of water resources and protection against flooding (Balmford et al. 2002). There are also employment incentives, for example, in Bolivia protected-area tourism generates over 20,000 jobs, indirectly supporting over 100,000 people (Pabon-Zamora et al. 2009)

The TEEB study shows that benefits of reform are multiple. It also reinforces the growing evidence that there are a number of urgent strategic ecosystem priorities that require policy shifts to address them:

6: Halt deforestation and forest degradation should be an integral part of climate change mitigation and adaptation focused on 'green carbon'. It has the added benefit of preserving the huge range of services and goods forests provide to local people and the wider community.

7: Protect tropical coral reefs - and the associated livelihoods of half a billion people - through major efforts to avoid global temperature rise.

8: Save and restore global fisheries, which are currently under threat of collapse from over fishing.

9: Recognize the deep link between ecosystem degradation and the persistence of rural poverty and align policies across sectors with key Millennium Development Goals.

10: Agree to a forest carbon deal at Copenhagen.

Over 100 experts from science, economics and policy from across the globe have been involved in the research, analysis and writing of the TEEB for Policy-makers Report, which has been co-ordinated by Patrick ten Brink of the Institute of European Environmental Policy in Brussels.

TEEB is an independent study, lead by Pavan Sukhdev, hosted by United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) with financial support from the European Commission, Germany, United Kingdom and the Netherlands, and recently joined by Norway and Sweden.

TEEB for policy-makers is one of a series of five interconnected reports. These include the Report on Ecological and Economic Foundations (parts of which were published online in September 2009) and targeted end-user outputs for local and regional administrators, business and citizens. These will be released in the coming months until the final TEEB synthesis report in October 2010. Work is also taking place to analyze a large number of economic values for the main types of ecosystem services around the world and these findings will also be available in 2010. Further information is at www.teebweb.org.

Georgina Langdale
UNEP-TEEB
Tel: +49 228 929 87 572
Mobile: +49 1707 617 138
Email: georgina.langdale@unep-teeb.org