Assessing losses and damages to ecosystem services: current state and opportunities for the Warsaw International Mechanism under the UNFCCC

ABSTRACT

Ecosystems provide essential services that form the basis of human well-being. Climate change-induced losses and damages to ecosystem services (l&d-ES) thus have significant impacts on societies. Yet, little of the work on losses and damages (l&d) has focused on ecosystem services. Also in international climate negotiations, where the debate emerged with the establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM), there remains space for better understanding and addressing l&d-ES. Part of the explanation of this lies in the challenge of assessing such l&d. To address this gap, this paper reviews scientific literature and data obtained from Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNAs) to explore ways forward for more in depth assessments. The review confirms that little attention has been given to the topic, identifying 27 relevant scientific papers with only 6 providing a disaggregated monetary value for l&d-ES. Also amongst the 64 analyised PDNAs, only 12 report such disaggregated value; valuing just one ecosystem service per impacted ecosystem. The review finds that the majority of both the scientific literature and the PDNAs relies on extrapolating values from the literature. To enhance l&d-ES assessment and, with that, the opportunity for better understanding, recognition and uptake by e.g. the WIM, this paper makes three recommendations: 1. establishing a baseline of ecosystems recognized for their services of disaster risk reduction and/or climate change adaptation, while highlighting the need for an accessible and representative benefit transfer database; 2. enhancing collaboration between scientists and practitioners; and 3. quantitatively increasing data on l&d-ES.

Key policy insights

• There remains space for better understanding and addressing l&d-ES.

• To facilitate assessing l&d-ES, the establishment of ecological baselines should be encouraged for ecosystem services that can be reported on in other circumstances.

• Additionally, a benefit transfer database is needed that is that is geographically and ecologically representative, explicitly oriented towards l&d-ES, and easily accessible to both researchers and decision-makers.

• Considering the divergence of ecosystems addressed by different stakeholders, it may be advisable to encourage the collaboration of a wide stakeholder range, including scientists, to collect data that advance the understanding of l&d-ES.

• Disaggregated assessment of l&d-ES should be quantitatively increased and the WIM could encourage the reporting of l&d-ES, in order to expand the database and understanding of l&d-ES.

KEYWORDS:

• Ecosystem services
• ecological baseline
• benefit transfer
• losses and damages
• disasters
• quantification

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 Note L&D with capital letters is used when referring to the political debate

2 In 2008 the UN, the World Bank and the EU signed the Joint Declaration on Post-Crisis Assessments and Recovery Planning, harmonising PDNA assessments across the institutions.

3 GFDRR. (2019). Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) [online]. Available at: https://www.gfdrr.org/en/post-disaster-needs-assessment-pdna

4 ReliefWeb. (2019) [online]. Available at: https://reliefweb.int/updates?format=5&search=post-disaster#content

5 IRP. (2019). Key Documents on Country PDNAs [online]. Available at: https://www.recoveryplatform.org/pdna/key_documents_on_country_pdnas

6 UNDRR. (2021). Measuring implementation of the Sendai Framework [online]. Available at: https://sendaimonitor.undrr.org/

7 GFDRR. (2017). PDNA Guidelines Volume B: Environment. Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery (GFDRR), World Bank, Washington DC.