[MUSIC] So in this next sequence, I wanted to invite someone who had firsthand experience dealing with governments and decision makers on implementing some of these ideas. So we're fortunate to have Emily McKenzie, who works for WWF and she's joining us today via Skype from her home office in London in the UK. Emily has over a dozen years of experience as the lead responsible on ecosystem services and natural capital. She worked for about eight years with different governments in the UK, in southeast Asia, and in the Caribbean. Helping governments integrate some of theses decisions, and some of these approaches. And for the last eight years, she's also worked with private companies, such as Coca-Cola, setting up the Natural Capital Coalition and trying to get them to appreciate the value of their natural capital and how to protect it. So Emily, thanks for joining us today, and the voice, the floor is yours. >> Thank you Martin. So WWF has been working for over a decade on natural capital approaches. And ten years ago, WWF along with The University of Minnesota, Stanford University, and The Nature Conservancy founded a partnership called The Natural Capital Project. So this partnership develops and applies tools and practical approaches to incorporate natural capital into decisions. To date, the natural capital project and its partners around the world have worked in more than 40 places. So this map shows just 12 of these places where we've worked most closely at WWF. You can see they cover diverse locations around the world and then cover diverse decision contexts. In each case, scientists work closely with stakeholders and decision makers to co develop ecosystem services assessments and apply this information in decision making. So a few years ago when we had had about eight years of experience, we decided to evaluate what we'd learned. We did both quantitative and qualitative research to uncover the key lessons about what factors enable success. And we defined success in different levels which included changing and informing the way people think and understand problems, stimulating action and changing decisions, through to actually leading to real changes and outcomes for biodiversity and human development. So I'm now going to share some of our findings. I'm going to focus on three of the most striking lessons that we learned. So our first lesson was counter intuitive for many of our scientists. We originally started out thinking we would start developing simple ecosystem service models and then have to get increasingly complex in our science. But actually, the opposite was true. Decision makers Instead of develop even simpler models. I'm looking at relative change rather than absolute change. And so, we did develop those models and it didn't form decisions. So, what we learned was that more combat purchase are not always necessary to inform decision making. Our second lesson was that we did not necessarily have to develop monetary metrics. So estimate system values in monetary metrics like dollars to have impact. Sometimes that information was required, but often decision makers, there was unmet demand by development banks and governments in particular, for measures of ecosystem service value that were in social or biophysical terms. For example, how ecosystems support food security and prevent malnutrition or how green space supports improvements in mental health. And those did not have to be in monetary metrics to have impact. So that was our second main lesson. And our third and final lesson which maybe the most important one was that the legitimacy of the information we're producing that was really fundamentally important. The most important factor in determining whether how do you on decision making. And by just legitimacy, what we defined legitimacy as, is the information being perceived as unbiased. And being seen as representing multiple, views of multiple stakeholders. So what was interesting to me about this finding, was that it indicates that the process for us doing our science is as important as the results themselves. I would now like to tell you a story from Belize that illustrates these lessons. So the oceans and coasts are very important for the Belizean economy and society, and the tourism sector is important for their economy. It constituted 36% of GDP in 2013. They have habitats like sea grass, mangroves and coral reefs that are preventing erosion over 300 kilometers of coast, preventing property damage of almost two and a half billion US dollars a year. And a particular fishery from the spiny lobster is very important. Brings in $8 million US of revenue every year. So the oceans ans coast very important for their economy and society. The Belizean government recognized this and asked a local authority called the Coastal Zone Management Authority and Institute to develop a coastal zone management plan. And the challenge they faced was how to balance multiple objectives. Grow their fisheries, sector, grow their tourism, protect communities on the coast, and still conserve habitat for species. And so how could they do all of this in a balanced way? So the team co-developed ecosystem service information in order to develop this plan and it really had an impact, it was used to develop this first plan, the first one we know of in the world that really systematically plays natural capital information. The information showed how nature benefits people in multiple ways and then they co-developed these scenarios which are basically zoning schemes around the coast and the ocean to say what activities can be permitted, where, in a way that is acceptable to balancie across the multiple objectives. So the breaking news is that the Belizean government recently approved this plan. And UNESCO dubbed it one of the most forward thinking ocean management plans in the world. So it's projected to increase coastal protection from storms by more than 25% and also double revenue from fisheries. So at the same time as balancing needs for habitats and species. So what enabled your system service information to play such a pivotal role in planning and decision making in the Belize example, well, I'd like to just illustrate, I think it's a great example that illustrates the three points I made earlier from our research across 30 places. First, in Belize, the plan was based on relatively simple ecosystem service production function models that are in the InVEST software, and that simple information was sufficient to inform this plan. Second, although the decision makers did use some information in monetary metrics like the value of fisheries that were caught in local currency, and the value of property that was avoiding damage from storms. They also wanted information in social and biophysical metric, like the area of the coastline that was protected, the tourist visitation rates, and so on. So this mix of metrics was needed. No one asked for one big dollar value. And in fact, decision makers proved adept at making decisions based on multiple metrics. And finally, this case in Belize really exemplifies this lesson about the importance of an iterative, strong science policy process. It went through two years of planning with multiple stakeholder groups where the scientists were really listening, learning, and co-developing the approaches with stakeholders so that the information ultimately was trusted, legitimate and could inform the plan. >> Thanks, Emily, for showing those experiences. So just one quick follow up question. Can you briefly tell us what changed in practice based on the scenario that was finally retained by the Belizean government? Are there more marine protected areas or more restrictions on where fisheries can occur? And how did, perhaps, those industries take the news that they would be limited in where they could conduct their activities. >> So I think what's exciting about this approach is that you're balancing multiple objectives. So conservation and important sectors of the economy that rely on the environment. So the plan that was agreed has different activities permitted as well as conservation areas where no activity is permitted. And it actually improves both fishery, all the fisheries revenue, but also improves the amount of habitat and species that are protected in mangroves, coral reefs, and sea grasses. So an example whereby balancing across multiple objectives and using rigorous science, you can improve on the status quo. >> This has been very interesting. It's also great that we now have, at least a few years of experience so can gain from the insights and it's nice to see the papers that you've co-authored that were going to make available for the learners where they can read more about these studies and appreciate some of these important take home messages for mainstreaming the ecosystem services approach. Emily, thanks again very much for your time. [MUSIC]
