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.

摘要

生态系统提供构成人类福祉基础的基本服务。因此，气候变化引起的生态系统服务损失和破坏 (l&d-ES) 对社会产生重大影响。然而，关于损失和损害 (l&d) 的工作很少关注生态系统服务。同样在国际气候谈判中，随着华沙国际机制 (WIM) 的建立而出现辩论，仍有空间更好地理解和解决 l&d-ES。对此的部分解释在于评估此类 l&d 的挑战。为了弥补这一差距，本文回顾了从灾后需求评估 (PDNA) 中获得的科学文献和数据，以探索进行更深入评估的方法。审查确认对该主题的关注很少，确定了 27 篇相关科学论文，只有 6 篇提供了 l&d-ES 的分解货币价值。同样在 64 个分析的 PDNA 中，只有 12 个报告了这种分类值；每个受影响的生态系统只评估一种生态系统服务。审查发现，大多数科学文献和 PDNA 都依赖于从文献中推断出的值。为了加强 l&d-ES 评估，并借此机会更好地理解、认可和采纳 WIM 等，本文提出了三项建议： 1. 建立一个被认可的生态系统基线，其在减少灾害风险和/或气候方面的服务改变适应，同时强调需要一个可访问和具有代表性的利益转移数据库；2. 加强科学家和实践者之间的合作；和 3。

关键政策见解

• 仍有空间可以更好地理解和解决 l&d-ES。

• 为便于评估 l&d-ES，应鼓励为可在其他情况下报告的生态系统服务建立生态基线。

• 此外，还需要一个在地理和生态上具有代表性、明确面向 l&d-ES 并且便于研究人员和决策者访问的利益转移数据库。

• 考虑到不同利益相关者所处理的生态系统的差异，鼓励包括科学家在内的广泛利益相关者的合作可能是明智的，以收集促进对 l&d-ES 的理解的数据。

• 应在数量上增加对 l&d-ES 的分类评估，WIM 可以鼓励报告 l&d-ES，以扩大对 l&d-ES 的数据库和理解。