Economic Valuation as a Tool to Bridge the Science-Policy Gap
Download as PPTX, PDF•0 likes•110 views
The document outlines key outcomes from breakout sessions at the 7th Biennial GEF International Waters Conference, focusing on the economic valuation of ecosystem services. It emphasizes the importance of integrating valuation into decision-making processes while also recognizing the limitations and challenges, such as data gaps and political will. Action points are proposed to enhance the use of economic valuation, including capacity building, stakeholder engagement, and improving data accessibility.
![[ Slide Title ]
7th Biennial GEF International
Waters Conference
Bridgetown, Barbados
Targeted Workshops
Economic Valuation as a Tool to
Bridge the Science-Policy Gap
Session II: Reporting back from breakout session
Edi Interwies, InterSus](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/economic-valuation-as-a-tool-to-bridge-the-sciencepolicy-gap3529-131203021120-phpapp02/85/Economic-Valuation-as-a-Tool-to-Bridge-the-Science-Policy-Gap-1-320.jpg)
![4&5: GEF-action points focus (TDA-SAP)
•
Include values of large ecosystem assets - add information on
economic impacts of options - use CBA (total economic costs) of
options - for strategic action development
• Pilot projects - Demonstration projects: Hot-spot and small
demonstration projects in SAP formulation (feedback loop: go back
from CS to TDA)
• Better links to indicators: Include socio-economic indicators (but
linked to data access and availability) & baseline/trends in GEF-SAP
results framework
Broad(er) approach: incorporate all relevant aspects of social, economic
data/analysis in TDA-SAP – incorporate into effective governance
(“addressing the problems should remain the focus of GEF-projects)”
[Fear: GEF assessors need to be pragmatic in terms of project design &
timing – „just too many hoops to jump through“]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/economic-valuation-as-a-tool-to-bridge-the-sciencepolicy-gap3529-131203021120-phpapp02/85/Economic-Valuation-as-a-Tool-to-Bridge-the-Science-Policy-Gap-9-320.jpg)
Economic Valuation as a Tool to Bridge the Science-Policy Gap
- 1. [ Slide Title ] 7th Biennial GEF International Waters Conference Bridgetown, Barbados Targeted Workshops Economic Valuation as a Tool to Bridge the Science-Policy Gap Session II: Reporting back from breakout session Edi Interwies, InterSus
- 2. KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS 1. What are the main uses of economic valuation of ecosystem services for decision-making? • Awareness (e.g. transboundary impacts) & communication • Supporting improved decision making: • Recognizing different ES service values (esp. for certain ones, e.g. future generations) • Show choices of management, incl. trade-offs • Influence policy & regulatory frameworks • Influence allocation of financial resources/investments by internalizing externalities into CBA • Short and long-term planning for sustainability – leverage resources • Integrating TEV into decision making • Information for mitigation and litigation/compensation • Better governance (consensus, conflict resolution)
- 3. KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS 1. main uses: • Fears: • “scary” • broader perspective needed – sometimes other issues more important • Limited & expensive: narrow it down to specific context • “should not be the sole driving force for future (GEF) projects OVERALL: • For fixing the problems: should be one method/tool out of many • Socio-economic assessments needed – valuation only part of it • Chose the scale of valuation depending on the scale of question you re addressing
- 4. KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS 2. What methods seem most appropriate/usable? • • Be clear on what you what to answer first! “Quick” and rough for overall scale, more detailed for specific issue • Very case specific – depends on available resources, data and political environment • Ensure that human wellbeing is adequately covered • Issues of replicability - comparability • Difficult to quantify, e.g. religious/aestetic: qualitative elements, too Method selection should be “purpose driven, objective specific”: what stakeholder/sector, policy, scale, timeline relevant
- 5. KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS 3. What are the main difficulties in increasing the use of economic valuation of ES for decision making? • Lack of: • Capacity/resources (data gaps, costly, limited long-term/robust data) – in the projects but also in managing institutions • Awareness/understanding (inability to communicate results in a non-technical manner) & appreciation (of ES required by others) & visualisation • Integration (e.g. inter-agency dialogue)
- 6. KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS 3. Main difficulties in increasing the use: • Lack of: • Political will (Gov will not always chose the most appropriate policy intervention) – vested interests (competing world views – bias through strong lobby groups) • Ownership (by involvement of decision makers – key stakeholders); not demand driven • Trust in the approach (human centered) & results („we don t believe the answers“) • Historical: GEF does not focus on socio-economic components…
- 7. KEY OUTCOMES FROM THE BREAKOUT GROUPS 4. and 5. How to overcome them? GEF-action points focus (TDA-SAP) • Identify possible policy decisions – target evaluation to answering specific question; explore PPP • Reasonable simplification of EV to minimize costs • Improve data availability/accessability of information for EV (“do it quicker and easier”) • Increasing buy-in for EV: • Conduct overall LME/RB ES-valuation studies (“quick and dirty”) for initial awareness raising • Success stories (case studies – evidence of advocacy of approach) • Improve decision maker and stakeholder dialogue & their incorporation in the EV-process (also inter-agency) • Show short/long term benefits • Use language decision makers understand • Inclusion in GEF and national planning processes (use their own methods – challenge back)
- 8. 4&5: GEF-action points focus (TDA-SAP) • Capacity building - improving capacity (at early stage: GEF-projects, but also users/authorities) – create a critical mass of expertise – professionalization – community of practice • GEF: Develop Guidance/guidelines/practical manual: show EV-need & success stories (being flexible, not all aspects to be suited to all projects), lessons learned Inclusion of EV in TDA –SAP framework & documents: NEEDS TO BE INTEGRAL PART OF ALL STEPS! • Ecosystem diagnostic analysis (including valuation): for each member country (communication issues, collecting information/data) undertake individual evaluation and then bring together in TDA or SAP – deliverable of PCU, then get financing • Causal chain analysis (between TDA and SAP: assessment of options) to see if/what kind of ES valuation is necessary – when identifying the problems (to see what you need to focus on) • Include in TDA-SAP national action plans
- 9. 4&5: GEF-action points focus (TDA-SAP) • Include values of large ecosystem assets - add information on economic impacts of options - use CBA (total economic costs) of options - for strategic action development • Pilot projects - Demonstration projects: Hot-spot and small demonstration projects in SAP formulation (feedback loop: go back from CS to TDA) • Better links to indicators: Include socio-economic indicators (but linked to data access and availability) & baseline/trends in GEF-SAP results framework Broad(er) approach: incorporate all relevant aspects of social, economic data/analysis in TDA-SAP – incorporate into effective governance (“addressing the problems should remain the focus of GEF-projects)” [Fear: GEF assessors need to be pragmatic in terms of project design & timing – „just too many hoops to jump through“]