This article was accepted into the corpus but its outbound wikilinks were never NER-processed — typical at the deepest BFS hop or when the run's entity cap was reached. No expansion funnel to show.
| The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) | |
|---|---|
| Name | The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity |
| Abbr | TEEB |
| Launched | 2007 |
| Coordinator | Pavan Sukhdev |
| Partners | United Nations Environment Programme, European Commission, German Federal Environment Ministry |
| Focus | Biodiversity valuation, ecosystem services, environmental economics |
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) is an international initiative initiated in 2007 to highlight the economic value of biodiversity and ecosystem services and to integrate those values into policy and decision-making. The initiative brought together economists, ecologists, and policymakers from bodies such as the United Nations Environment Programme, the European Commission, and the German Federal Environment Ministry to produce multidisciplinary assessments and policy guidance.
TEEB originated from mandates in international fora including the G8 environment ministers' discussions and drew on precedents like the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the Convention on Biological Diversity. Launched with leadership from figures such as Pavan Sukhdev and involving institutions like the United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank, TEEB aimed to respond to calls from the 2005 World Summit and the 2007 G8 Heiligendamm Summit. The program produced staged reports between 2008 and 2010 and was linked to processes at the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity and discussions at the United Nations General Assembly.
TEEB sought to make visible the economic significance of ecosystems for sectors represented in forums such as the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and to inform instruments used by entities like the European Parliament and the Food and Agriculture Organization. Its objectives included influencing agendas at meetings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and shaping guidance for bodies such as the World Trade Organization and the International Monetary Fund by promoting natural capital accounting and valuation for ministries comparable to the United States Department of the Interior and national treasuries.
TEEB compiled valuation methods drawn from literature produced by scholars affiliated with the Stockholm Resilience Centre, the Beijer Institute, and the University of Cambridge. Methods included stated-preference techniques used in studies related to the Nashville Convention Center valuation debates, revealed-preference approaches reflected in analyses by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and benefit-transfer applications discussed at meetings of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. TEEB promoted tools such as natural capital accounting aligned with frameworks from the United Nations Statistical Commission and valuation guidance referenced by the International Union for Conservation of Nature.
Major outputs included synthesis reports and sectoral briefs that communicated findings to audiences at the World Economic Forum and the French Presidency of the European Union. Reports highlighted values for services like pollination relevant to stakeholders such as the Food and Agriculture Organization and flood regulation cited by authorities in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. The reports influenced national assessments in countries including Germany, India, and South Africa and were presented at international events like sessions of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity.
TEEB's messaging fed into policy instruments at institutions such as the European Commission's Directorate-General for Environment, the United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative, and national ministries including the Ministry of Environment and Forests (India). Its work informed ecosystem accounting pilots under the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting and influenced corporate guidance discussed at meetings of the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the International Finance Corporation. Implementation examples include incorporation of natural capital considerations in planning frameworks used by municipal authorities in cities like Cape Town and Bonn.
Critics from academic circles such as those at the London School of Economics, the University of Oxford, and the University of Cambridge argued that TEEB's monetary framing risks commodifying nature and marginalizing rights emphasized by activists at the World Social Forum and NGOs like Friends of the Earth. Debates involved scholars associated with the Stockholm Resilience Centre and policy analysts from the Overseas Development Institute over methodological uncertainty, equity implications raised in briefs by the International Institute for Environment and Development, and tensions evident in exchanges at the Convention on Biological Diversity meetings.
TEEB case studies spanned contexts assessed by institutions such as the World Bank Group, national agencies like the South African National Biodiversity Institute, and foundations including the Rufford Foundation. Examples included valuation for peatlands considered by officials in Indonesia and floodplain restoration projects commissioned by authorities in Bangladesh and the United Kingdom. Corporate pilots influenced by TEEB-informed frameworks were reported by firms involved with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the International Finance Corporation, while municipal applications appeared in planning documents from cities such as Bonn, Cape Town, and Rio de Janeiro.
Category:Environmental economicsCategory:Biodiversity