Jean-Louis Weber Special Adviser to Economic Environmental Accounting European Environmnent Agency

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]

MEGS Working Committee Meeting Statistics Canada

RH Coats building 7, Ottawa13 January 2012

mailto:[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 (Aichi-

Nagoya 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

Ecosystem capital potential (& degradation) can be measured by combining measurements of 3 ecosystem services:biomass/carbon, freshwater and systemic services

The simplified ecosystem capital accounting circuit

there is little or no compensation or tradeoff between them; the use of one should not reduce the use of the othersbiomass/carbon, freshwater are based on conventional balances systemic services (regulating, socio-cultural…) are measured indirectly in relation to ecosystem integrity.

carbon

water

systemic services

The background of Ecosystem Capital Accounts:

Healthy ecosystem benefit

Calculating economic aggregate

Ecosystem degradation

Ecosystem capital depreciationEcological debts

Adapted from

Aoyama Yukiko, Oguro Michio, and Yano Tohru,

Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, November 2011

Land cover, landscape units, 1km2 grids and calculation of

ecosystem capital

44 11

66 44

22 44

44 33

66 55

1010 88

1212 1010

2020 1515

Carbonsurplus

Water surplus

Landscape integrity,

biodiversity

“+”

“=”

“+”

Total ecosystem capital potential

(or capacity)

1212 1010

2020 1515

-3-3 +1+1

-3-3-8-8

Capital1 – Capital2 = Change in capital

Time 1 Time 2

=

Capital1 Capital2 Improvement

Degradation

1212 1010

2020 1515

99 1111

1212 1212_

Adapted from

Aoyama Yukiko, Oguro Michio, and Yano Tohru

Tohoku University, Sendai, Japan, November 2011

2. More detailed narrative

a. Accounting for the performance(s) of 2 co-evolving systems: resources, productivity and health

b. Ecosystems deliver altogether multiple servicesc. Ecosystems deliver altogether services which are private, common and public

goodsd. Only a surplus from ecosystem services is accessible for human use e. 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).

f. Estimation of ecosystem capital depreciation can be derived from physical degradation

g. The integrated ecosystem capital frameworkh. Ecosystem Capital should not be valued as a stock; ecosystem services can be

valued one by one but are not fully additive (functional analysis)i. To address multiple scales, ecosystem capital accounts need to integrate

geographical information

Products &

economic assets

Fossil energy & materials

Biomass/carbon

Water

Land functional services

Economy performance

Economic growthTradeValue-added, income, profit… ConsumptionInvestment 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 productivityFlowsAccumulation Stocks

Ecosystem health (biodiversity, integrity, resilience, interdependence)

Capital maintenance(to remediate degradation)

The narrative behind Ecosystem Capital Accounts:

a. Accounting for the performance(s) of 2 co-evolving systems: resources, productivity and health

Economic systemEc

osys

tem

Use of natural

resources


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

3 – Ecosystem good state: health, sustainable capacity of delivering services, life-support functions, Public Good: non-rival, non-exclusive use, non-transferable rights, taxes or lease

with covenants are possible

1 – ES incorporated into commodities &

economic assets: mostly private goods, market

prices

Payments for restoring

ecosystem potential

Reg

ulat

ing

serv

ices

Recreating services

Provisioning services

2 - Non valued services: mostly common goods, tradable,

transferable rights

Services valuation,

payments for services

GDP, consumption,

trade...

Jean-Louis Weber, CBD Conférence, Libreville, 16 Septembre 2010 Jean-Louis Weber, CBD Conférence, Libreville, 16 Septembre 2010


c. Ecosystems deliver altogether services which are private, common or public goods


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)

Economy

Basic eco-product

Non-basic eco-product

Sources: Kling/U Michigan_2005 & Friend/ISEE_2004

Necessary for ecosystem reproduction (conservation of ecosystem health, integrity, functions & services)

Surplus accessible for harvest/abstraction


d - Only a surplus from ecosystem services is accessible for human use

Basic eco-product

Non-basic eco-product

Sources: Kling/U Michigan_2005 & Friend/ISEE_2004

Possible compensation = artificial input (irrigation,

energy, fertilizers, infrastructures…)

Challenge = maximise yields while maintaining natural functions and biodiversity

Necessary for ecosystem reproduction (conservation of ecosystem health, integrity, functions & services)

Surplus accessible for harvest/abstraction

Non-sustainable harvest/abstraction 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, bio-chemical 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 stressNumber of days when no water was available for plants in 2001, 1 km^2 grid

Source: Blaz Kurnik, EEA, 2011


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 surplus

Accessible water

surplus

Accessibleecosystem functional services

Total Ecosystem Capital Potential/Capacity

&

Ecosystem Capital Improvement/Degradation

Ecological debts in

physical units

Depreciation (money) &

adjustments

Physical accounts of E-services Physical accounts

of E-services

t1

t2

()

t2 t1

Degradation of ecosystem capital

…based on remediation costs

…based on assets values

&

addition

€t2 t1 €

Valuation of E-services

€

Valuation of E-services

€ €Assessment of

remediation costs by issues

Asse

ts

Flow

s

()


f. Estimation of ecosystem capital depreciation can be derived from physical degradation

NPV & addition

€

NPV & addition

€

Asse

ts €

Calculation

of unit costs

Account of pressures

responsible of degradation

Jean-Louis Weber EEA Scientific Committee Workshop 5 October 2011

GDP,National Income,

Final Consumption at Purchasers’ price

Healthy ecosystem deliver services to the economy

& to the public well-being

Ecosystem assets/capital () Ecosystem assets/capital ()


g. The integrated ecosystem capital accounting framework


g. The integrated ecosystem capital accounting framework

Adjusted macro economic aggregates

Adjusted capital consumptionFinal demand at full price

Adjusted net domestic product (or net national income)

ES based economic

benefits (€)

ES based economic benefits (€)

ES based economic

benefits (€)

ES based economic benefits (€)

ES based economic benefits (€) ES based economic benefits (€)

Ecosystem degraded

by over-use ()

Non-paid costs needed to remediate ecosystem

degradation (€)

Economic system(including natural assets & ecosystem services

Economic system(including natural assets & ecosystem services (and €)

Jean-Louis Weber

Stocks & flows HealthLand coverBiomass/CarbonSoilBiodiversityWater catchmentsSeaAtmosphere

VigourOrganisationResilienceAutonomyHealthy populations

Ecosystem / public good protection (all services)

Service 1: e.g. timber provision

Service 3: e.g. eco-tourism

Service 4: e.g. water regulation

Service 2: e.g. fish provision

Service 5: e.g. existence

Service n Operation costs E.S n

Operation costs E.S 5




Operation costs E.S 1Service 1 value

Service 4 value

Service 3 value

Service 2 value

Service 5 value ?

Service n value ??


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…

Ecological Taxes, Subsidies, Tradable Offset Certificates / Depreciation...

Ecosystem services valuation Bottom-up, individual preferences, market and shadow prices,

Costs-Benefits Analysis, General Equilibrium model

Top-Down, collective preferences, multi-criteria decision (economic & social values, long term targets…), Consumption of Ecosystem Capital

Ecosystem restoration costs

Ecosystem capital

1 32 4 5 n

Service 2: e.g. fish provision

2

Impacts assessments, costs & benefits

Local government, Agencies assessment

Corporate accounting results, rating, trade

Markets of specific ecosystem services, PES

Accounting guidelines, norms, geographical data

Action level:

Local scale, management,

Site level, case studies,

Projects,

Business

Beyond GDP Accounting

Sector accounts

Green taxes

Clearing house mechanisms on

[1] ES prices & [2] ecosystem mitigation costs

SEEA 2013SEEA 2013

FrameworkFramework

National & regional government: Environmental agencies,

Ministries of economy, Statistical offices,

Courts

Global trade of ecosystem permits, IPES Programmes assessment (e.g. REDD+)International financial standards (for loans…)Country contribution to international organisations

Simplified accountsGlobal scale:

International Conventions

Markets framing & regulation


i. To address multiple scales, ecosystem capital accounts need to integrate geographical information

Ecosystem physical degradation, sustainable benefits from ecosystem services and non-paid maintenance costs

Consumption of ecosystem capital (non-paid costs)

Sustainable benefits

(income from key ecosystem services)

Sustainable use

coefficients

Economic statistics & national accounts

Mean restoration

prices Improvement

Degradation

Sustainable benefits

(Value Added from key ecosystem

services)

An experimental framework for ecosystem capital accounting in EuropeEEA Technical report No 13/2011

http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/an-experimental-framework-for-ecosystem



The draft framework

Tables by Ecosystem Units Tables by Economic Units

Countries and biophysical geographical breakdowns or administrative regions

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

[B] Ecosystem Capital Carbon/biomass Account: Net Ecosystem Carbon Balance (NECB)

& Net Ecosystem Accessible Carbon Surplus (NEACS)

Physical supply and use tables & economic assets accounts. Agriculture, forestry & fishery statistics

[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. Water use statistics

[D] Landscape green infrastructure accounts: Landscape Ecosystem Potential (LEP),

Green Accessible Landscape Infrastructure (GALI) & Rivers Ecosystem Potential (REP)

[E] Ecosystem Capital Biodiversity Account: 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)

[G] Demand and Accessibility to Ecosystem Services: Ecosystem Carbon/biomass per capita,

Ecosystem Fresh Water per capita, Green Infrastructure Neighbourhood Ecosystem Services (GINES)

[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

[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)

Jean-Louis Weber 22 September 2011

Ecos

yste

m T

otal

Po

tenti

alEc

osys

tem

D

epre

ciati

on

[H] Ecosystem Physical Balance Sheet: Stocks and Change of Physical Assets & Physical Liabilities, in EPUE

[L] Account of Macro-economic Benefits induced by Sustainable Ecosystem Services: Degradation-Adjusted Total Induced Value Added (by SELU & ISIC)

[N] Ecosystem Financial Balance Sheet: Change of Financial Assets and Stocks and Change of Financial Liabilities

Ana

lyti

cal a

nd

repo

rting

uni

ts,

clas

sific

ation

sBa

sic

acco

unts

Polluting emissions and waste generation by sectorsAgriculture, forestry & forestry statistics, Land use accounts

Basic accounts

Synthesis tables in physical units

Monetary accounts

The basic accounts

by ecosystem units by economic sectors

The synthesis tables


The monetary accounts


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

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

Monetary Statistics of Products

Physical Statistics of Products

Land Use: productive land

functions

Land Cover: biophysical land units

Ecosystems:Socio-ecological landscape units (SELU)

(terrestrial, marine & atmospheric)

Land Functions & Ecosystem Services

Institutional & Production Units

(sectors & industries)

Land Ownership(private & public)

(from UNCEEA 2009 – EEA & FAO)

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.

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

SES / SEPLSES / SEPLTheoretical analytical

unit

Theoretical analytical

unit

Candidate observation

units

Candidate observation

unitsModeled

SES/ SEPL

ModeledSES/ SEPL

Administrative or cadastral unit

Administrative or cadastral unit

Basic land cover systems

Basic land cover systems

??Topographic unit (eg.

catchment)

Topographic unit (eg.

catchment)

Land cover functional units: example of EuropeLand 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 ( = 0)

Stock t0

- Consumption of land land cover

+ Formation of land cover

= Stock t1

Ecosystem landscape balance ( ≠ 0)Stock t0

- Decrease in LEP

+ Increase in LEP

= Stock t1

Sprawl of artificial areas 1990-2000

Urban and infrastructure land development "1990" - 2000 - EUR23 - ha/year

0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

Land uptake byhousing, services

and recreation

Land uptake byindustrial &

commercial sites

Land uptake bytransport netw orks &

inf rastructures

Land uptake bymines, quarries and

w aste dumpsites

Origin of artificial land uptake as % of total, "1990"- 2000, EUR23

6%9%

36%

48%

1%Arable land & permanentcrops

Pastures & mixed farmland

Forests and transitionalwoodland shrub

Natural grassland, heathland,sclerophylous vegetation

Open spaces with little or novegetation

Wetlands

Water bodies

Mean annual urban and infrastructures land take as % of Artificial land cover "1990"

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

Mean annual urban and infrastructures land take as % of total Europe-23 urban land take

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Corine land cover map (CLC is derived from satellite images)

Green Landscape Index (derived from CLC)

Nature Value (Naturilis, derived from Natura2000 designated areas)

Fragmentation (Effective Mesh Size (MEFF) derived from TeleAtlas Roads and CLC)

Landscape Ecological Potential (LEP) 2000, by 1km² grid cell

LEP 2000 by NUTS 2/3

From Land Cover to Landscape Ecological Potential (LEP)

and

Land cover flows 1990-2006 and mean Landscape Ecosystem Potential (LEP) by ecosystem landscape unitLand 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)

GDP

Fossil energy

Sand, gravel

Water

Biomass/ Carbon

MetalChemicals

Landscape

Water

Biodiversity

Atmosphere/ Climate

Biomass/ Carbon

Sea

TEP Air

TEPSea

DMCCarbon

TEP Land

Biomass/carbon acccounts (agriculture, forestry, …)

CO2

DMCSand/gravel

DMCWater

DMCother

Water accounts

Total E

cosystem P

otential

Import-Export

Decoupling (1)from

material/energy inputs

Decoupling (2) from

environmental impacts

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 Jean-Louis Weber, CBD Conférence, Libreville, 16 Septembre 2010

Jean-Louis Weber Special Adviser to Economic Environmental Accounting European Environmnent Agency

Documents

Transcript of Jean-Louis Weber Special Adviser to Economic Environmental Accounting European Environmnent Agency