Barbara Engels Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN, Bundesamt für Naturschutz)

Ladies & Gentlemen,

It is a real pleasure for me to introduce you to the brand new study “The benefits of

natural World Heritage: Identifying and assessing ecosystem services and benefits

provided by the world's most iconic places“, which has been elaborated by the IUCN

World Heritage Programme with support from the German Federal Agency for Nature

Conservation (BfN) within our research & development programme.

Today, natural World Heritage sites are getting into the media for mainly two reasons:

first when they are inscribed in the precious World Heritage list and second when they

are threatened or endangered. And this is mirrored here in the Committee meeting.

Often forgotten in the communication is the wealth of benefits and ecosystem services

that these sites provide on local, national or international level.

The German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation has supported this study as we

recognize the need for a greater understanding, to inform decision makers of the

linkages between ecosystem services and their relationship with human well-being.

This is necessary because no natural World Heritage site is unaffected from human

influence or can be considered ecologically pristine”.

The actual values of World Heritage sites extend beyond the values that were indicated

when the sites were inscribed on the World Heritage List – the so-called Outstanding

Universal Value – and the biodiversity conservation benefits they provide.

In the context of protected areas - and this equally applies to World Heritage sites - it

has been acknowledged that the socio-economic benefits can contribute to five

dimensions of well-being through direct and indirect use, as well as non-use values.

We can broadly distinguish several dimensions of well-being:

Subsistence: non-economic benefits that contribute to well-being, such as

health, nutrition, clean water and shelter.

Economics: benefits that provide the ability to earn an income, to consume and

to have assets.

Cultural and spiritual dimension: pride in community and protected areas,

confidence, living culture, spiritual freedom, education.

Environmental services: role in environmental stability and provision of natural

resources, and

Politics: relating to issues of governance and thus influence in decision-making

processes.

Examples of ecosystem services include resources for subsistence, maintenance of

the quantity and quality of water resources that can be used for drinking and irrigation,

erosion control, and the maintenance of social and cultural values.

Why is it important to assess these benefits and contribution to human well-being for

World Heritage sites? There are two main reasons:

First, there is a need to mainstream biodiversity and ecosystem services into

development and planning. This is especially important for World Heritage sites as they

are increasingly threatened by human development. And second, the international

discussions on biodiversity conservation have shifted from pure conservation and a

view on species and protected areas, to a broader approach looking at ecosystem

services. This approach aims to back up the discussions on conservation and

sustainable use of ecosystems and biodiversity with additional economic arguments

on the benefits and costs associated to these actions and to integrate them into the

relevant decision-making processes. It is important for World Heritage to take up this

approach and link to these important discussions.

The study which will has been launched at the WPC in Sydney in November last year

is the first of its kind: it presents the first global assessment of ecosystem services and

benefits from all natural World Heritage sites and sets a milestone for a new approach

for communication of World Heritage sites to a broader audience.

But, let me emphasize one point: Natural World Heritage sites enhance our lives

economically, as well as socially, culturally and spiritually – so the full range of benefits

they provide go far beyond monetary gain. It is our collective responsibility to ensure

that we care for these inspiring places and maintain their values, so that future

generations can continue to enjoy them.

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

IDENTIFYING AND UNDERSTANDING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES PROVIDED BY NATURAL WORLD HERITAGE SITES

Elena Osipova IUCN World Heritage Programme

IUCN World Heritage Outlook IUCN’S WORK ON WORLD HERITAGE

• Official Advisory Body to the World Heritage Committee on natural sites

• Monitoring of existing sites and evaluation of new sites

• 228 natural sites globally as of 2014

NEW STUDY ON ES PROVIDED BY NATURAL WH SITES • Developed by IUCN in collaboration with

UNEP-WCMC • With financial support from BfN

(Bundesamt für Naturschutz)

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK - Adapted from the UK NEA (2011)

Air, land, water & all living things

Drivers of change (direct & indirect) •Demographic, economic, socio-political, technological & behavioural •Management practices (e.g. resource consumption, invasive alien species) •Environmental changes (e.g. climate change)

Ecosystems

Ecosystem services

Goods/benefits

Human well-being & poverty alleviation

Global Site

THREE MAIN COMPONENTS OF THE STUDY

Information on benefits collected through

Conservation Outlook Assessments (all 228

natural sites)

Global analysis of selected ecosystem

services: Carbon stock and Water

provision

Case studies

THE IUCN WORLD HERITAGE OUTLOOK

1. INFORMATION COLLECTED THROUGH CONSERVATION OUTLOOK ASSESSMENTS

IUCN World Heritage Outlook FULL RANGE OF BENEFITS

• More than 90% of natural WH sites are important tourism and recreation, provision of jobs, education and research

• 66% of sites are important for water quantity and quality

• 45% of sites provide flood prevention services

IUCN World Heritage Outlook DRIVERS OF CHANGE

• Provision of these benefits continues to be impact on by a number of factors

• Particularly, land use change and overexploitation of resources

GLOBAL ANALYSIS

• Carbon stock • Water supply

Pantropical Forest Biomass Carbon in natural World Heritage sites

Total forest biomass carbon in World Heritage sites in the pantropics

Total carbon (ton) Forest area (km2) Density (ton/km2) Uncertainty (ton) Relative uncertainty

Africa 1,713,446,437 150,617 11,376 5,786,431 0.34%

Americas 2,208,806,766 169,388 13,040 6,666,542 0.30%

Asia 1,792,490,002 121,587 14,742 7,225,983 0.40%

Total 5,714,743,205 441,591 12,941 19,678,956 0.34%

Water provision

Examples of the importance of water provision from World Heritage sites

• The Dong Phayayen-Khao Yai Forest Complex,

with its high annual rainfall, acts as a critically important watershed for Thailand, draining into and feeding five of the country’s major rivers: Nakhon Nayok river, Prachin Buri river, Lamta Khong river, Muak Lek river, and Mun river

CASE STUDIES

• Types of ecosystem services and benefits (natural hazard regulation, ecotourism, cultural and spiritual values etc.)

• Examples of economic valuation • Governance and benefits sharing and

management

CASE STUDIES

• Water provision – Morne Trois Pitons NP, Dominica • Coastal protection and flood prevention – The

Sundarbans, India/Bangladesh • Climate change mitigation – Canadian Rocky

Mountains, Canada and Ibiza, Spain • Cultural and spiritual values – Golden Mountains of

Altai, Russian Federation • Wilderness and nature appreciation – Laponian Area,

Sweden • Nature-based tourism – Wadi Al-Hitan, Egypt • Knowledge building – Sian Ka’an, Mexico • Provisioning services – Great Barrier Reef, Australia

and Gunung Mulu NP, Malaysia

ECONOMIC VALUATION CASE STUDIES

• Pantanal (Brazil) • Doñana (Spain) • Skocjan Caves (Slovenia) • Virunga (DRC) • Tubbataha Reefs (Philippines) • New Caledonia (France)

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

World Heritage (WH) site

Type of study

Values reported

References

Dorset Jurassic Coast

Semi-quantitative informal local economic impact study based on a survey (2008).

Public and private investment; and business attitudes.

Jurassic Coast 2009. An Economic, Social and Cultural Impact Study of the Jurassic Coast: A summary of findings.

Shiretoko

Exploration of ecosystem-based management of fisheries via policy analysis.

Some quantitative: (administration) costs and the value of tourism and harvested fish.

Makino, M., Matsuda, H., Sakurai, Y. 2009. Expanding fisheries co-management to ecosystem-based management: A case in the Shiretoko World Natural Heritage area, Japan. Marine Policy 33, pp 207–214.

Serengeti National Park

Tourism studies, reporting figures for revenues from tourism expenditure.

Number of visitors, park fees, and total revenue. How revenues might be maximized.

Eagles, P.F.J., Wade, D. 2006. Tourism in Tanzania: Serengeti National Park. Bois et Forets des Tropiques, 290 (4), pp 73-80. Economics Research Associates 2007. Maximizing the Economy of the Serengeti National Park through Conservation. Project report prepared for Frankfurt Zoological Society, Frankfurt, Germany.

…. 21 studies reviewed

ECONOMIC VALUATION CASE STUDIES

• Doñana (Spain) • EEA, 2010 – collation of existing studies

• Virunga (DRC) • WWF/Dalberg, 2013

• Tubbataha Reefs (Philippines) • Subade (2010) – willingness to pay

NEW CALEDONIA (FRANCE)

• 8800 households benefit from flood prevention • Total value of avoided damage – € 7M/year • Fisheries linked to coastal ecosystems generate

annually an added value of € 15.5M for the local economy

• tourism represents an added value of €8.4M for the local economy

GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT CASE STUDIES

• Yellowstone NP (USA) • Belize BRRS (Belize) • Kakadu NP (Australia) • Mount Athos (Greece) • Atlantic Forest South-Eastern Reserves

(Brazil) • The Wadden Sea (Denmark, Germany,

Netherlands) • Cape Floral Region Protected Areas (South

Africa)

INTERNATIONAL UNION FOR CONSERVATION OF NATURE

THANKS!

Questions?

worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org