TEEB puts a clear emphasis on the importance of:
using ecosystem services to link biophysical aspects of
ecosystems with human benefits for assessing the tradeoffs
(ecological, socio-cultural, economic and monetary)
involved in the loss of ecosystems and biodiversity;
making ecosystem assessment spatially and temporally
explicit at scales meaningful for policy-making since
both ecological functioning and economic values depend
on context, space and time;
using several contrasting scenarios as both the values of
ecosystem services and the costs of actions are best
measured as a function of changes among alternative
options;
including all ecosystem services provided by different
conversion and management options; staying aware of
the cost side of the equation, as an exclusive focus on
benefits ignores important societal costs such as missed
opportunities;
integrating an analysis of risks and uncertainties,
acknowledging the limitations of knowledge on the
impacts of human actions on ecosystems and their
services and on their importance to human wellbeing.
Apart from the last recommendation, that sacrifice to
the ideology of transparency, but may be difficult to meet,
these recommendations appear of real interest when faced
to the existing studies. In a pure economist’s perspective,
the determination of the biophysical basis of the services is
not generally required. But it is here of importance, once
acknowledged that some of the services might be poorly
perceived or understood by individuals. The integration of
the biophysical basis plays as a safety belt against the risk
of too short a checklist.