All posts by user

The strange case of Green Bear

Around the world, polar bear researchers use satellite collars to track where bears go, and how they’re adapting to a fast-changing Arctic. We follow a number of these bears on an interactive map:

Because the data is (almost) live, you can watch unusual and exciting behaviour unfold as the researchers do.
This year, researchers at the University of Alberta watched a polar bear mother and cub with interest.
Polar bears in Canada’s Western and Southern Hudson Bay tend to stick to a script – they wait on shore each fall for the ice (and seals) to return, and spend the winter gorging on as many seals as possible. Then spring ice breakup forces them back to shore, where they have little opportunity to eat until the ice returns.
X12777, aka Green Bear, seemed to have a different idea:

Track of bear X12777, Hudson Bay, Canada

Track of bear X12777, Hudson Bay, Canada


Although the 19 polar bear populations are generally well-defined, boundaries shift and bears move between populations from time to time. But to date, no polar bear from Western Hudson Bay had been observed to move so far east.
However, this bear’s journey was not as exciting as it first seemed. The researchers soon realized that the signals sent by the bear collar matched the trajectory of the sea ice – in other words, the collar was no longer attached to a moving bear, and was simply floating along on the melting ice.
Satellite collars can fall off prematurely if, for example, they are unusually loose or the internal clock of the collar is wrong, triggering the release mechanism early. We hope that’s what happened here, although it’s also possible that the bear has succumbed to illness or injury.
If she’s still healthy, we may encounter her again. Each bear receives a permanent tattoo on its lip, so researchers can recognize it, and understand how the bear’s health and condition changes over time in response to its environment.
Although Green Bear’s story is over for now, there are more polar bear tracks to follow:
In Western Hudson Bay, Purple and Blue are finishing a season on the ice and heading back to shore. Follow them on our map here.
And on Svalbard, four new bears (and their cubs) are starting their summer journeys. Follow along here.

Valuing the Arctic in economic decision making: it is not about putting a price on the Arctic’s nature!

The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) presents an approach that can help decision-makers recognize, demonstrate and capture the values of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Tomas Declercq asks whether we have considered the true value of the critical Arctic services we are all so eager to plunder.
The Arctic constitutes about 6% of this planet’s surface and is home to around four million people. For thousands of years Indigenous peoples have subsisted on its natural resources such as fish, soils for reindeer herding and the great Siberian rivers flowing into the Arctic Ocean that provide fresh water. Livelihoods now also rely on income from tourists visiting its incomparable landscapes and participating in activities such as dog-sledding and ice fishing. The Arctic continues to provide inspiration for culture, peace and serenity. Some worship the Arctic for its wide landscapes, with millions of nomadic animals spread out in a vast expanse of wilderness.
However, the Arctic is heating up at about two to three times the global average and its sea ice is retreating and thinning at a rapid pace. Before mid-century it will have a nearly sea ice-free ocean in early autumn months making coastlines vulnerable to possible storm surges. Habitat important for reindeer herding and for key Arctic species such as seals and polar bears is being destroyed. The Arctic also plays a key role in some planetary boundaries that are being crossed – in terms of climate change, biosphere integrity, land system change and ocean acidification. As the ice cap recedes and technologies improve, the Arctic is increasingly seen as the solution to satisfy future strategic oil, gas and mineral needs. Access to the opening Northwest Passage and especially the Northern Sea Route, with tankers, refrigerated vessels carrying fish and cruise liners is sought while commercial fishing in Arctic territories is advocated as crucial to global food security.
 
Why are we degrading some of Arctic´s critical ecosystems unabatedly?
For the rest of the world the Arctic is sometimes seen as a tool for growth and development in terms of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).The Arctic’s abiotic natural capital – oil, gas, minerals and metals – are being privatized. But would we make the same economic decisions if we were to incorporate the real value of Arctic ecosystem services that may be degraded as a consequence? Do we know what it really costs to replace the Arctic services provided for free? Have we weighed the risks of losing some of the Arctic’s irreplaceable services, such as climate regulation?
Arctic waters provide habitat for fish that are caught to be sold for local subsistence and even for food security beyond the Arctic. But some commercial fisheries are treating these waters like a free lunch. The total landed value of marine species in the Arctic region may not represent a critical share of an Arctic country’s GDP, but it is a fundamental revenue share for the coastal communities and subsistence fishers. By-catch of king salmon in the Bering Sea, for example, affects Yupik fishermen on the Yukon River. This may take away their basic livelihood and even deny some fundamental human wellbeing dimensions such as freedom of choice and the right to food.
Valuation as a tool to make the invisible use of nature visible
There is an impressive amount of Arctic cooperation, both at the science and the policy level. Governments work together across borders to implement changes in policy and regulatory frameworks. Providing a bridge between policy and science, valuation can be used as a policy tool to demonstrate to governments that the paradox between nature and development is a false one. While the Arctic should not be completely reduced to measuring its economic value, TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity– is finding a way to use valuation as a policy tool and therefore address some of concerns.
A first concern is that people put a price on the Arctic and treat it as a commodity. The following distinction should be communicated clearly: value does not necessarily equate price. For example, Indigenous Peoples in the Arctic also value nature and consider their natural surroundings as a source of inspiration. Pricing this cultural value is simply impossible and undesirable. But at the same time, the cultural values that approximately 400,000 Indigenous Peoples hold for their nature should be included in policy decisions. Therefore, the open architecture of the TEEB approach advocates plenty of mechanisms for valuing in non-monetary terms such as multi-criteria analysis and participatory appraisal. Valuation as such is also not related to putting blind faith in market mechanisms. The result of a valuation exercise also does not necessarily lead to the introduction of market mechanisms. And even if valuation would be informing a market mechanism, did you know that most payments for ecosystem schemes are between governments?
A second concern is how to deal with an uncertain ecological future due to crossing of imminent ecological thresholds and ´tipping points´, beyond which the capacity to provide useful services may be drastically reduced. For example, the Arctic is increasingly releasing stored carbon as permafrost thaws, leading to feedback loops. Rich Arctic fish stocks may rapidly decline due to interactions among several forces and cumulative impacts. Nobody knows what irreversible damage an oil spill in ice conditions may cause to ecosystem services provisioning. Once this floor or ceiling is reached, the Arctic will change the rules of the game. In these circumstances of radical uncertainty, economic valuation tends to be less useful. Please do not wait for perfect information to act and call upon complementary approaches such as ´safe minimum standards´ and the ´precautionary principle´.
Third, how do we include the plurality of ethical and cultural worldviews of the people that call the far north home in valuation exercises? TEEB considers valuation to be a human institution, largely dictated by socio-cultural values, norms and beliefs. As such, different interpretations of ´value´ will exist, none of which should be perceived as either incorrect or invalid. A valuation exercise at local scales may be easier to deal with in terms of plurality of ethical and cultural standpoints.
A last concern is that certain values simply cannot be measured in the same units; they are incommensurable. Monetary estimates should therefore clearly distinguish which dimensions they do and do not cover. You would for example not claim that reindeer herding is worth X US Dollars in ecosystem services provisioning. Instead, you would communicate that land-use planning and ecosystem-based management of reindeer herding could result in an increase in food provisioning of X USD compared to other scenarios; and you would showcase in non-monetary terms its cultural value for conserving or restoring traditional ecological practices
The Arctic is becoming the symbol of the age of the Anthropocene, with humans as a determinant species for its future. This is an extraordinary responsibility to define the life of future generations. But this vast region should be valued for what it is —irrespective of its current or future use by humans. Monetary values can be a complementary rationale and should not in any way undermine the recognition of the Arctic’s intrinsic values.
The way forward for Valuing the Arctic: Valuing the Unseen
Economic valuation can help the Arctic find the optimal solution for specific policy questions, but it is not a precondition for capturing values. It may be sufficient for some policy questions to only take qualitative values into account. In this regard, economic valuation is never an end in itself and the selected methodologies will be in line with the particular needs of the Arctic. A comprehensive and policy focused valuation exercise can act as a catalyst to accelerate the development of a new economy in the Arctic: one in which its values are fully reflected in public and private decision-making and a broadened focus from short-term stability to long-term resilience.
 
This blog piece is written in the margin of the TEEB for the Arctic scoping study. This study, currently under review by the Arctic Council, provides general information and discussion on Arctic ecosystem services, policy context and governance aspects. As such it represents a first important step towards further policy refining and appropriate scope and boundary setting for valuation.
Tomas Declercq works for the TEEB Secretariat at the United Nations Environment Programme. He has provided guidance to the development of the TEEB Arctic scoping study.
 

Journey to the Kara Sea: Wildlife

Little is known about the polar bears, walrus and whales of Russia’s Kara Sea. This spring, WWF sponsored an expedition to this remote Arctic sea, for a preliminary survey (part 1, part 2). Dmitry Ryabov of WWF-Russia reports:
The area we surveyed is really hard to reach. The only way to get here, and to conduct a survey, is a helicopter. We flew mainly along the ice edge and near the coast, where we’d be most likely to encounter bears.
Immediately after take-off, the team was glued to the windows. Inside the helicopter, it’s too noisy to talk anyway.
Each time we spot something interesting, we note the details – weather conditions, ice conditions, speed and height of the helicopter. We also tried to take plenty of photos, though from a height of 100 meters with constant vibrations, it’s not easy. See the mysterious flash-like device on the camera? This gadget captures the latitude and longitude of each photo within a few metres.

kara sea

Taking photos from the helicopter © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia


Now the fun part – this is a polar bear den. No one was home.
Polar bear den, Kara Sea. © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia

Polar bear den, Kara Sea. © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia


A walrus. One of only three we encountered.
Walrus, Kara Sea.  © Alexandr Chichaev / WWF-Russia

Walrus, Kara Sea. © Alexandr Chichaev / WWF-Russia


Beluga whale.  Our resident experts are divided: some consider it amazing to find belugas in the Kara Sea, others believe they’re not uncommon here.
Beluga in Kara Sea.  © Alexandr Chichaev / WWF-Russia

Beluga in Kara Sea. © Alexandr Chichaev / WWF-Russia


And, finally, the Lords of the Arctic – polar bears.
Polar bear, Kara Sea © Alexandr Chichaev / WWF-Russia

Polar bear, Kara Sea © Alexandr Chichaev / WWF-Russia


Polar bear mother and cub, Kara Sea © Alexandr Chichaev / WWF-Russia

Polar bear mother and cub, Kara Sea © Alexandr Chichaev / WWF-Russia


Over the next few months, the data we collected will be analyzed by staff from Russian Arctic National Park, WWF’s scientific partners for the expedition. The information we gathered is just the first step towards a complete picture of marine mammals in this region.
The results could help expand the system of protected areas around the Kara Sea. We hope to expand the survey in the future to surrounding areas, including the eastern coast of Taimyr and Novaya Zemlya.

Journey to the Kara Sea: Leaving land

Little is known about the polar bears, walrus and whales of Russia’s Kara Sea. This spring, WWF sponsored an expedition to this remote Arctic sea, for a preliminary survey (read part 1 here). Dmitry Ryabov of WWF-Russia reports:
We load into two helicopters – next stop, latitude 80.

Helicopter used in Kara Sea expedition © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia

Helicopter used in Kara Sea expedition © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia


But first, we attach a GoPro!
Attaching GoPro to the helicopter © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia

Attaching GoPro to the helicopter © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia


Before we say goodbye to the land and head out to sea, we land in the middle of the tundra for refueling.  Drums of fuel mar the view – a legacy of the Soviet era.
Drums of fuel on the Russian tundra © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia

Drums of fuel on the Russian tundra © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia


The locals tell us these dogs have been here all winter, on their own. What they ate remains a mystery, but we suspect they hunted Arctic foxes, which are found in these parts. Dogs are a constant presence at Arctic stations, so no doubt we’ll meet more furry friends on this trip.
Dogs at a refueling station near the Kara Sea, Russia. © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia

Dogs at a refueling station near the Kara Sea, Russia. © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia


Fueled up, we head out to the Kara Sea. Even for us, people who have spent much of our lives in the Arctic, the vast ice desert is mesmerizing.

Read part 3 >

Journey to the Kara Sea: To Khatanga

Little is known about the polar bears, walrus and whales of Russia’s Kara Sea. As sea ice melts and industry heats up in Russia’s Arctic, there’s a small window of opportunity to plan for conservation in the Kara Sea. This spring, WWF sponsored an expedition to this remote Arctic sea for a preliminary survey of the region’s wildlife.
Dmitry Ryabov of WWF-Russia reports:

Meet the team

The Kara Sea expedition team. © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia

The Kara Sea expedition team. © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia


The expedition members are WWF polar bear experts, researchers from the Association of Maritime Heritage, Russian Arctic National Park, Moscow State University, and the author of this story – the Press Secretary for WWF’s Murmansk office, Dmitri Ryabov (far left).
One reason the area is poorly researched is logistical. Simply getting to the Kara Sea is a challenge. The expedition members travelled first to Krasnoyarsk, then on to Khatanga, near Russia’s Arctic coast.

Khatanga at -15C


In the local language of Evenki, “Katanga” means “many waters”. Apparently, frozen water. Frosts can occur all year round, and -50C is not uncommon in the winter. In this village of 2,500 people, skis and snowmobiles are the easiest ways to get around.

Skiing in Khatanga. © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia

Skiing in Khatanga. © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia


The sun will stay above the horizon for nearly 3 months starting in May.  Even now, the sun doesn’t set until nearly 23:00. But we have a long day tomorrow, so it’s time to head to sleep at the best (and only) hotel in the village.
Hotel in Khatanga. © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia

Hotel in Khatanga. © Dmitry Ryabov / WWF-Russia


Tomorrow, we head out to the Kara Sea.
Read part 2 >

Managing resources; managing tensions

This article originally appeared in The Circle 02.15.
There are a number of examples of where valuation of ecosystem services has successfully influenced policy and planning. One of those is on the west coast of Vancouver Island, Canada where one of the most diverse, collaborative marine planning processes in the world has been created. It is now serving as a model for marine planning globally. In determining the value of ecosystems and biodiversity, Stacey Solie says consensus and an inclusive decision-making process are crucial to success.

Surfers, Long Beach, Tofino, Vancouver Island. Photo: Mike Gifford, Creative Commons

Surfers, Long Beach, Tofino, Vancouver Island. Photo: Mike Gifford, Creative Commons


Rainfall as high as 22 feet annually supports lush temperate rainforests and raging rivers, and the coast is carved into an array of fjords, inlets and bays. Of the world’s marine mammal species, one out of three live here, including thousands of gray whales that migrate along the coast on their way north to feed and south to breed. Nuu-chah-nulth Indigenous peoples have depended on the west coast’s abundant natural resources for sustenance for thousands of years. They and newer residents in the area pursue a range of livelihoods including fishing, shellfish harvesting, shipping, mining, logging, aquaculture, and supporting a growing tourism industry that brings over a million people each year to whale-watch, kayak, and camp. These activities collectively generate about US $630 million annually, with many sectors poised to grow.
Management of the coast’s resources has long created tension as different sectors are often in competition with each other for access and control. Conflict is common in populated, productive coastal areas around the world. To manage this tension, since the 1990s, residents have been laying the social groundwork for The West Coast of Vancouver Island Aquatic Management Board (WCA), which represents a uniquely inclusive and collaborative approach to coastal management that is now being replicated in other regions, including along the coastline of British Columbia through the Marine Planning Partnership (MaPP). WCA’s planning process uses ecological, economic, and social data to map resources and sensitive areas and to identify zones for development and protection. Lack of data or access to data is often one of the biggest challenges to spatial planning, but WCA was able to gather over 200 data layers, resulting in a publicly available atlas, showcasing rich information about the ecology and human uses of the region. They’ve produced a report—the Integrated Coastal and Ocean Management Strategies—one of the only examples in Canada; created the first implementation strategy under Canada’s Wild Salmon Strategy; and have carried out “millions of dollars worth of work in restoration, assessment, sustainable local fisheries, and other innovative projects,” according to Andrew Day in his report, Innovation and Communications about Marine Protection, Aquatic Conservation.
A key to the success of WCA is that its membership is comprised of trusted representatives from all levels of government including First Nations, the federal government, the Province of British Columbia, and regional representatives, together with representatives from key sectors such as fishing, aquaculture, and tourism, and from non-profit and scientific organizations. To foster widespread trust, board members engaged in extensive communications, conducting repeated community meetings over several years, collecting the community’s visions and values, sharing draft plans, receiving feedback, and continually revising products. The Board also engaged in one-on-one interviews forging and strengthening relationships with thousands of constituents as WCA developed founding principles and objectives, which grew to include sustainable economic growth that maintains the residents’ aesthetic, spiritual and cultural values.
The Natural Capital Project (NatCap) was invited by WCA to help create spatial plans, using NatCap’s approach to including nature’s benefits in spatial planning. For the initial effort the WCA/NatCap team focused on two regions – Barkley and Clayoquot Sounds, where the board faced many difficult questions about balancing growing demands on local ecosystems with conservation of the island’s unique wild character and cultural heritage.
NatCap brought additional science capacity to WCA’s planning process. NatCap developed mathematical models that predict future relationships between local people and nature-based benefits called ecosystem services, such as clean water and shoreline stability. NatCap’s tools (all of which are now available in the free, open source InVEST software) show how different development actions – such as building more homes, or permitting more aquaculture – likely affect ecosystem services such as water quality or recreation opportunities. A habitat risk assessment brought diverse stakeholders together in a participatory process to agree on the best available information and to explore the cumulative effects of multiple activities on local ecosystems and their ability to provide diverse benefits to local communities now and in the future. This clarity about how different future scenarios would play out in specific places allowed the board to engage the community in a transparent decision-making process around how to best achieve development goals along the coast. The NatCap/WCA partnership helped WCA identify clear, measurable metrics with which to measure progress toward their stated goals. These metrics are now being used to guide on-the-ground decisions as plans are continually adapted and implemented.
Stacey Solie is the interim Communications Manager for the Natural Capital Project and the co-creator and founding editor of The Nature Conservancy’s Science Chronicles, She has written for the New York Times, The Daily Beast, and other local and national news outlets.

Mainstreaming biodiversity values

This article originally appeared in The Circle 02.15.
Putting economics and biodiversity in one sentence or one report always generates a lot of discussion. The concept of ecosystem services puts humans square in the centre of everything – what’s in it for us? As Mark Marissink writes, many people object to this view.

Baffin Island, Canada. Photo: Martin von Mirbach / WWF-Canon

Baffin Island, Canada. Photo: Martin von Mirbach / WWF-Canon


People tend to see nature as a complex web of interconnections and with a range of different values – spiritual, intrinsic, material etc. To single out humankind as the centre of attention then seems to be a bit…well, self-centered. The discussion rises even higher when monetary values are mentioned.
The Economics of Ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB), however, is not necessarily about monetary values, or about monetization. Yet it is about nature’s value to us and it does put humankind in the centre. But, whether we like it or not, that is pretty much the way things are done in politics and decision making. That is also why it is so important to mainstream biodiversity values (i.e., to make them visible in all decision making). The need for mainstreaming was confirmed by the Arctic Council when adopting the recommendations from the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, and that’s why it is important to explore what TEEB methodology can contribute in an Arctic context. But how did it come about?
Almost ten years ago, a study was published that changed the debate on climate change. The Stern report showed that climate change would not only affect humankind’s future on earth, it would also affect our economy. Projected changes in temperature would cost us 5-20% of our global GDP by the year 2100. On the other hand, the report also stated that it would cost only a fraction of this to halt the increase in greenhouse gas emissions, if done in time.
Although it was not met with universal acclaim, the impact the Stern report had on policy makers gave food for thought in the international negotiations on biodiversity. Surely an economic case could be made for the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity as well? The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity was launched, led by Pavan Sukhdev at Deutsche Bank, in order to provide answers. Not unlike the Stern report, TEEB found that conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity would indeed be beneficial from an economic point of view.
TEEB was very influential in the discussions leading to the new Strategic plan for biodiversity, adopted by the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in Nagoya in 2010 and subsequently endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly. Target 2 in the plan states: By 2020, at the latest, biodiversity values have been integrated into national and local development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes and are being incorporated into national accounting, as appropriate, and reporting systems.
TEEB studies have since been carried out in a number of countries and also for specific sectors. They have become more policy-focused over time. The approach and methodology for country scoping studies have been detailed in the 2013 TEEB Guidance manual for country studies. Compared with country studies, however, the policy landscape in the Arctic is diverse and complicated and the Arctic TEEB Scoping Study has been broadened to include information and discussion related more generally to improving understanding of the full range of Arctic ecosystem services, as well as information and discussion on aspects of governance and of valuing ecosystem services in the context of the circumpolar Arctic and Arctic Council. It does not conclude with a defined set of specific policies for assessment in a full TEEB study, but rather provides guidance and examples on policy focus areas that could be further refined and assessed using TEEB methodology.
Another acronym that needs to be mentioned is IPBES, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Under the auspices of IPBES global, regional and subregional assessments of ecosystems and biodiversity will be carried out in order to provide guidance for better decision making. IPBES explicitly tries to consolidate different knowledge systems and different world views in an inclusive process. No specific study for the Arctic is foreseen; rather, the Arctic is covered by two regions (the Americas, and Europe and Central Asia). The TEEB Arctic Scoping study and a possible follow-up will bring a much needed Arctic perspective to the regional and sub-regional studies to be carried out in these regions, and will thus ensure that the Arctic is not forgotten in future global decisions on biodiversity and development.
Mark Marissink heads the unit for nature and biodiversity in the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and is the Swedish representative to the Arctic Council working group on the Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna.

Putting a price tag on nature—does it add value?

This article originally appeared in The Circle 02.15.
Valuing of ecosystem services draws attention to the economic benefits of biodiversity and highlights the growing costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation. The Arctic, for example, represents a tremendous wealth in natural resources and provides immense ecosystem services, such as unique biodiversity, culture, tourism, shipping and climate regulation. By valuing these ecosystem services, Esther Wolfs says one can create insight into their economic value. This allows, for example, assessing the possible negative impact that oil and gas extraction efforts may have on the economic value of these ecosystem services and biodiversity.
Ecosystem service valuation research addresses the relevant ecosystems, ecosystem services and their beneficiaries in a defined area and applies a range of economic valuation and evaluation tools. It is extremely important for stakeholders to participate, by providing local information and valuable insights and creating public support for the concept of ecosystem services among target audiences.
Research areas could include: the socio-economic value of the Arctic’s ecosystem services using an ecosystem valuation framework; how environment-degrading economic activities in the Arctic affect economic values; what trade-offs can be identified; and how these trade-offs can be managed to optimize the long-term economic benefits of the Arctic’s ecosystem services.
In our research we use the classification of ecosystem services from The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity (TEEB) as defined in their 2008 interim report derived from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005):

  • Provisioning services (products obtained from ecosystems, such as food and building materials).
  • Regulating services (benefits obtained from regulation of ecosystem processes, such as erosion control and storm protection).
  • Cultural services (non-material benefits obtained from ecosystems, such as spiritual and religious values and recreation and ecotourism).
  • Habitat (nursery service and gene pool protection).

Essential for the valuation of these ecosystem services is to find ways to measure benefits, which do not enter markets and, as such, have no directly observable monetary benefits. Therefore, different methods have been developed to assign a value to non-marketable ecosystem services, such as Contingent Modeling, where one establishes a willingness to pay by stakeholders for environmental services. The approach is to value nature using different market and non-market valuation methods depending on the use or non-use values of the relevant ecosystem services. This is done through the perspective of various stakeholders such as local residents, visitors, tourist industry, international citizens and other relevant users or interested parties. By summing up the worth of the range of valued ecosystem services, the annual Total Economic Value of the natural environment is estimated.
It is important to understand that valuing ecosystem services is an instrument and not a goal in itself. The valuation results should be used for developing tools that can be easily applied to raise awareness for nature conservation, support decision-making on the economic benefits of investing in nature, develop sustainable financing mechanisms to raise funds for nature conservation, serve as input for spatial planning or assess economic loss if natural assets are damaged by, for example, oil spills. These tools can answer questions relating to environmental management issues at stake as identified by stakeholders and local experts. By increasing evidence-based information and transparency on issues that are related to the natural environment more equitable decisions can be made.
One example of such a tool is a value map indicating the most valuable ecosystems in the marine and terrestrial environment of a specific area. By adding up the values for the various ecosystem services, these maps combined form the Total Economic Value (TEV) maps.

Saba - estimated economic value

Saba – estimated economic value


Insight into the value of different areas for different beneficiaries of ecosystem services can be very useful for spatial planning purposes. First, natural areas with higher values are more important to conserve. Second, different uses of ecosystem services might be in conflict with each other. For example, having fishermen and tour operators in the same area can cause friction that is more easily resolved by identification of the important parts of the marine environment for them. Third, the value maps can be combined with spatial information on environmental threats. Spatial analysis of threats and benefits enable conservationists with limited budgets to prioritize their efforts: areas with high values and high threat levels deserve the most urgent attention. It can also inform government priorities. The government of Saba decided to investigate whether it can extend the boundaries of its terrestrial park based on the Saba value map.
Benefits of TEEB Caribbean Netherlands (PDF)
 Esther Wolfs is the founder and director of Wolfs Company which works to show clients the contribution of, and often intrinsically crucial dependence on natural capital.

When you take away our fish, you take away more than just our food

This article originally appeared in The Circle 02.15.
Some of the ecosystem values of the Arctic are very concrete local commodities such as food, shelter, and provisions. As Piama Oleyer writes, these are also linked to cultural values much harder to quantify, but no less precious.

Piama Oleyer with her boat which carries fish from local fishermen to canneries to save time, energy and fuel going back and forth from fishing grounds. She is the Traditional Knowledge Advisor for the Aleut International Association in the TEEB study.

Piama Oleyer with her boat which carries fish from local fishermen to canneries to
save time, energy and fuel going back and forth from fishing grounds. She is the
Traditional Knowledge Advisor for the Aleut International Association in the TEEB
study.


Our ancestors have inhabited the Aleutian region for nearly ten thousand years. We raised our children to eat from our land and sea, not by necessity but by preference.  Every spring I took a big bowl out and we created salads of such variety to feast on. All summer I taught my children to know which plants, roots, seeds and berries were edible. We made teas, salads and recipes and potions from traditional knowledge. Sadly, there came a time when we went to harvest some of the products of the sea and couldn’t eat them due either to toxicity or regulations about who could take products out of our waters. Natural and manmade disasters are already happening with dire consequences. We have already lost so much that it is no longer ‘a matter of time’, it’s a matter of how low we will draw our bottom line. It’s a matter of not allowing the continuance of the degradation of our natural environment.
To what extent must we keep accepting unbalanced policies that weigh heavy on the value of extracted resources? These policies aren’t designed to benefit the people who’ve lived here for thousands and thousands of years. Policies are designed to benefit the few companies who now ‘own’ our resources. Businesses (even our own) trade traditional harvest areas for leases to industry because Grandma can’t afford the $3.25 per square foot for her basket weaving grass. In Unalaska, salmon found their home stream, the Illiuliuk River, only to meet a choking death caused by mining silt and road chemicals washing downstream over the years. When I was a child, I could cross the river on the backs of the fish without getting wet. That abundance no longer exists.   People can no longer eat food from our beaches due to risk of illness and actual death. Unalaska has been declared a ‘dead bay’ due to industrial activity.
Cultural losses can’t be quantified with a dollar value. When you take away our fish you take away more than just our food. So much in life revolves around gathering it, preparing it, sharing it. With the demise of certain activities, entire concepts are lost and the gaps are obvious when trying to teach our language. Our traditional cultural knowledge is altered. My mother spoke about the great depression when the world seemed to have lost the will to live because they lost their money. “We were poor but we didn’t know it because we had everything we needed,” she would say. When all your needs are met, people are not poor even if you don’t have money.
It is our duty to take care of our place on this planet. We Unangan are the stewards of this area. Our oceans provide an abundance of wealth. We should all be living at our peak potential rather than subsisting to exist. Much in our culture is based on sharing our wealth; this was our way of life. In the Aleutians, we live by an ocean harvest in the most bountiful waters in the world. Over the years, we have been forced to adapt to a new way of harvesting the sea. Whether we exist as commercial or subsistence users, we comply with the regulations governing every aspect of what we have always eaten. We are told who can fish, what to fish, where, when, how and how much, and who we can or can’t give or sell our catch to. Today in our region, a continuous stream of gigantic ships carry our resources away and regulations are written based on who has the most money. These policy-makers are the same ones who allowed bottom trawlers to drag their massive ground level nets right up to our front doors destroying the habitat of the ocean floor.  Subsistence users have a near zero by-catch which means they do not accidentally catch and kill anything they aren’t supposed to.
Super-cargo ships and industrial trawlers bear down on a collision course with the local fishermen in the area around Unimak Bight where these monstrous ships regularly plow through their fishing grounds. The only defense our helpless fishermen have is to put their own lives and boats at risk and stand their ground (fishing grounds) and set their gear as usual. Then they plan to document the injuries they suffer when these immense ships run right over them and their gear. This dangerous attitude is a final effort to change the ways in which the mega-fisheries make it impossible for local people to continue their traditional lifestyle.
Who is this Goliath they face, whose visibility is cut off by the sheer height of the stacked containers? These enormous ships don’t even see the fishermen. Is it because of their size or the value of their payload that they believe they have the right-of-way?  Perhaps they just don’t understand; a lot of them are foreign ships so there’s a communication gap. Fishermen can’t call them and talk to them in Chinese so of course they hail them in English, to no avail. There is often very low visibility in the area and even with Automatic Identification System, (AIS) small vessels are still difficult to see on radar (or perhaps hard to distinguish a ship from a whale).  “I wish I had a picture of that whale stuck on the bow of that Maersk ship,” says Tom Robinson, President of the Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska where Dutch Harbor acts as a maritime gateway to the world. The whale he is referring to was run over and killed and it was not the first. Horrific events have been happening for much too long. What will it take for changes to be made when our complaints fall on deaf ears? This is no longer ‘a matter of time’, it’s happening right now and has been happening in my back yard for years.
According to the Risk of Vessel Accidents and Spills in the Aleutian Islands, a special report by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, during the past 15 years there have been 3,400 oil spills in the past 15 years (PDF).  Most of these are small but the report estimates there are up to 5 large ‘damaging’ spills every year. I don’t know how they define “damaging” and why they don’t consider the other 3000-plus “small” spills damaging. I have personally witnessed catastrophic maritime events over the years which have wreaked disaster upon our shores.
As Indigenous people in the region, we need to call the shots on the methodology of cleaning up those spills. With the increased value of organic foods, how can we say our Alaskan waters are pristine, after chemicals are dumped in the waster to disperse crude oil, every time there is an oil spill? Tom Robinson says “There needs to be an efficient, ecologically friendly oil spill response at a mechanical level, not using dispersant. We do not condone or approve of the use of oil-dispersant chemicals in our waters.” We acknowledge that these events are going to happen multiple times and at varying magnitudes in our very near future. We want to be prepared. We need to guarantee that the ecosystem will continue to produce as it has for thousands of years. We need to ensure that our communities can sustain a local economy where children won’t have to move away to have a better life.
Time and time again, our resources have been obliterated by outside merchants, yet our people have adapted as they always have. Our culture remains; our place in the world remains. In spite of the countless regulations placed upon us, we still find ways to harvest our foods. We still manage our own territory, though our voice is not always heard.

Arctic Biodiversity: essential system under threat

This article originally appeared in The Circle 02.15.
Despite its seemingly desolate landscape, the Arctic hosts an astounding diversity of species and habitats, and represents one of the most unique ecosystems on the planet. It is critically important to the biological, chemical and physical balance of the globe. Arctic biodiversity underpins planetary health and well-being, it contributes to the healthy functioning of the global ecosystem and is the foundation for many of the essential ecosystem functions and benefits on which we all depend. Dr. Braulio F. de Souza Dias says The Arctic Biodiversity Assessment, recently launched by Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna (CAFF), the biodiversity working group of the Arctic Council, has made it very clear that Arctic biodiversity is being degraded.

Muskox, Devon Island. © Martin von Mirbach / WWF-Canon

Muskox, Devon Island. © Martin von Mirbach / WWF-Canon


Climate change is by far the most serious threat to Arctic biodiversity, exacerbating other threats such as ocean acidification, habitat degradation, pollution and, in some areas, unsustainable harvesting. The loss of biodiversity is expected to compromise the critical functions and benefits of Arctic ecosystems, with detrimental impacts on local livelihoods and lifestyles.
While climate change is the most significant driver of biodiversity loss, it is also expected to open up potentially significant economic opportunities in the Arctic, ranging from the opening of shipping routes to better accessibility of natural resources and decreasing costs for their extraction. We also know that the impacts of climate change on local livelihoods will not necessarily all be negative. Potential positive impacts might include higher summer salmon stocks, increased root and berry growth and larger whale populations. While net primary productivity may increase overall in the Arctic as a result of climate change, the effects of climate change on Indigenous peoples and local communities in the Arctic are very complex. Positive changes might cause further conflicts between traditional livelihoods and other land-use options. Managing change in the Arctic therefore requires full consideration of all environmental, socio-economic and cultural impacts, in particular on Indigenous peoples and local communities, as part of an ecosystem-based management approach.
The Arctic Biodiversity Assessment recommends “mainstreaming” biodiversity – that is, the incorporation of biodiversity objectives and provisions into ongoing and future international standards, agreements, plans, operations and/or other tools specific to development in the Arctic. This would include economic activities such as oil and gas development, shipping, fishing, tourism and mining. This is well in line with the first goal of the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, which calls for addressing the underlying causes of biodiversity loss.
However, for such mainstreaming to be effective, the methodology and language for achieving mainstreaming needs to resonate with economic decision-making – that is, with economic decision makers, because ultimately all decisions are taken by individuals. While a simple comparison of costs cannot and should not be the sole basis for deciding whether or not a development project should be undertaken, monetary gains and profits are nonetheless regularly considered against environmental impacts.
How, then, to generate such resonance? It is here that the work of the TEEB initiative, with its TEEB Arctic Scoping Study, can play an important role and add further value to the Arctic Biodiversity Assessment. Since its inception, one of the main objectives of the TEEB process has been to foster understanding between the economic and ecologic communities by integrating pertinent knowledge and methodologies in the evaluation of ecosystem services, using appropriate valuation methodologies, thus further operationalizing the concept of ecosystem services for human well-being that was developed and promoted under the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.
When the global TEEB reports were launched in October 2010 at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP) to the Convention on Biological Diversity, held in Nagoya, Japan, they generated significant interest. The reports were recognized as an important methodological tool for implementing the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, and in particular Achi Biodiversity Target 2, which specifically calls for the integration of the manifold values of biodiversity, including economic values, into development and poverty reduction strategies and planning processes. In fact, the COP emphasized that increased knowledge of biodiversity and ecosystem services and the application of that knowledge are important tools for communicating and mainstreaming biodiversity, and invited the Parties to the Convention to make use of the TEEB study findings in order to make the case for investment for biodiversity and ecosystem services.
One of the stated goals of the TEEB initiative has been to examine the economic costs of biodiversity decline, and the costs and benefits associated with actions to reduce these losses. A basic premise of its work has been that valuation may be carried out in more or less explicit ways, depending on the situation at hand. Monetary valuation in particular is recognized as not always being necessary or appropriate – for example, when it is seen as contrary to cultural values or fails to reflect a plurality of values. At the same time, the open architecture of the TEEB approach provides interfaces with non-economic analysis and policy tools for effective interaction and synergy, such as the guidance adopted under the Convention related to Indigenous peoples and local communities. It is these features that make the TEEB approach so useful for the development of practical guidance for policymakers at the international, regional and local levels, in order to foster sustainable development and better conservation of ecosystems and biodiversity, including in the Arctic.
Dr. Braulio F. de Souza Dias is the executive secretary of the Convention on Biodiversity.