The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity and The Cost of Policy Inaction prentation by Patrick ten Brink of IEEP at the EEB biodiversity seminar 9 June 2008

1. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)
The Cost of Policy Inaction (COPI)
Insights into the Sukhdev Report
Patrick ten Brink
Senior Fellow and Head of Brussels Office
TEEB Core Team Member
COPI Deputy project lead responsible for monetary estimate
Building on the Pavan Sukhdev led TEEB, the Alterra and IEEP led COPI.
& building on the work of
TEEB Core team (Pavan Sukhdev, EC, German BMU, EEA, UFZ, IEEP, UoL, IIT)
9 June 2008
EEB Seminar
ptenbrink@ieep.eu www.ieep.eu

2. Presentation Structure
1. Objective, ambitions and process of TEEB and inputs (COPI,
Scoping the Science, Workshop)
2. The Urgency of Action
3. Ecosystems and Ecosystem services
4. The Valuation Challenge
5. First phase numbers
6. Next steps / the implications of the
Sukhdev report
Note some slides for information /
documentation / completeness.
Not all will be shown!
ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/pdf/teeb_report.pdf

3. Objectives
Potsdam 2007: meeting of the environment ministers of the G8
countries and the five major newly industrialising countries
“Potsdam Initiative – Biological Diversity 2010”
1) The economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity
In a global study we will initiate the process of analysing
the global economic benefit of biological diversity,
the costs of the loss of biodiversity and
the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective
conservation.

4. Objectives (TEEB)
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity - TEEB’s goals are
• To mainstream the economics of ecosystems and biodiversity
• To address the needs of the “end-users” of these economics : policy-
makers, local administrators, corporations and citizens
• To review extensively the current state of the science and economics of
ecosystems and biodiversity, and recommend a valuation framework and
methodology
Source: Pavan Sukhdev, Bonn 2008
Phase 1 was some preliminary scoping work, ground work, some first analysis,
clarification as to how to address the wider goals, preliminary identification of experts
and organisations who could contribute to the wider work.
Now that Phase 1 was a success the process (already intense) is intensifying.
Involvement from different organisations will be invaluable for the success.

5. Inputs into the process leading to the
TEEB Report
Pavan Sukhdev
Expert contribution TEEB Core Team &
international participants wider contributions

6. The TEEB “Phase 1” – inputs / outputs
COPI Report ( “The Cost of Policy Inaction : The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target” –
Alterra & IEEP, Braat ten Brink et al )
Synthesis of Evidence (Synthesis of submitted evidence : over 100 papers from the ‘call for evidence’,
Markandya et al, FEEM) and the workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological
Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium
Scoping Science Study (“Review of the Economics of Biodiversity loss : Scoping the Science”, A.
Balmford et al, Cambridge)
Forest Biodiversity Valuation (“Study on the Economics of Conserving Forest Biodiversity” –
Cambridge, Kontoleon et al)
European Wetlands Study (“Ecosystem Accounting for the Cost of Biodiversity Losses : Framework
and Case Study for Coastal Mediterranean Wetlands” – EEA, Weber et al )
COP-9 Report ( “Interim Report : The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity”, Sukhdev et al )
TEEB Core Group & contributions from wide range of experts / steering group
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/index_en.htm

7. The TEEB “Phase 1”: Interim Report

8. The Urgency for Action
The Ecological Case

9. Past Losses
Global Forest Area has shrunk by approximately 40% since 1700. Forests have
completely disappeared in 25 countries [1].
Since 1900, the world has lost about 50%of its wetlands. [2].
Some 20% of the world’s coral reefs - have been effectively destroyed by
fishing, pollution, disease and coral bleaching approximately 24% of the
remaining reefs in the world are under imminent risk of collapse through human
pressures.[3]
In the past two decades, 35% of mangroves have disappeared. Some countries
have lost up to 80% through conversion for aquaculture, overexploitation and
storms.[4]
rate of species extinction is estimated to be 100 to 1,000 times more rapid than the
“natural” extinction rate (MA 2005).
[1] United Nations Forest and Agriculture Organisation, 2001.Global Forest Resources Assessment 2000; United Nations Forest and Agriculture Organisation,
2006 Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005.
[2] http://www.ramsar.org/about/about_wetland_loss.htm
[3] Wilkinson C., 2004: Status of Coral Reefs of the World: 2004 report
[4] Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005: Global Assessment Report 1: Current State & Trends Assessment. Island Press, Washington DC. Detail: Chapter
19 Coastal Systems. Coordinating lead authors: Tundi Agardy and Jacqueline Alder. Original reference: 35%: Valiela et al. 2001; 80% reference: Spalding et
al. 1997

10. Running down our natural capital
THE DEMISE OF GLOBAL FISHERIES
40 %
40 %
20 %
2010
Source: Sea Around Us project

11. Substitution?
We are fishing down the foodweb – D. Pauly (UBC, Canada)
CBD indicator:
Marine Trophic Index
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008

12. Biodiversity loss from 1700 to 2050 accelerates
Richer Ecosystems
Poorer Ecosystems
Source: building on Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium.

13. Rate of Biodiversity Loss
CBD global 2010 target: significantly reducing the rate of biodiversity loss
European Union 2010 target: halting the loss of biodiversity
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008

14. Changes in Ecosystem Services due to loss of Biodiversity
Pristine Original
forest species
Extensive use Extensive use
Plantation Subsistence
agriculture
Fossil fuel
Degraded subsidized
land
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008

15. Level of Biodiversity in the World in 2000
Using Mean Species Abundance (MSA) indicator
Remaining MSA in %
Source: Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium.

16. Level of Biodiversity in the World in 2050
One Scenario of the future : OECD/Globio
Remaining MSA in %
MSA loss from 71% to 60%
Natural Areas decline by 7.5 Million Sq. Km.
Source: Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium.

17. The Global Loss of
Biodiversity
2000
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008

18. The Global Loss of
Biodiversity
2050
Source: L Braat presentation COP9 Bonn May 2008

19. Ecosystems and Ecosystem services
The Ecosystems in which we live and in which our economies
operate provide a range of services that benefits individuals,
society, firms, the economy

20. Ecosystem Services - The Millennium
Ecosystem framework
Source: MEA

21. Different Biomes, different (level) of services
Provisioning services: Food & fibre, Water, Fuel (biofuel)…
Regulating services: Air quality maintenance;
Forests
• Boreal forest Climate regulation (local, regional, global) – carbon storage;
• Temperate forests Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, runoff …);
• Mountain forests Erosion control
• Etc. Natural hazards control (e.g. Fire resistance, storm & avalanche protection
Cultural & Supporting services – ALL (recreation, tourism et al)
Grasslands & Provisioning services: Food & fibre, Water, Natural medicines, Fuel (biofuel)
scrublands Regulating services:
• Natural & semi-natural
grasslands;
Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, runoff);
• Agricultural land; Erosion control;
• Steppe; Natural hazards control (e.g fire resistance) …
• Mediterranean scrubland;
• Mountain grasslands.
Cultural & Supporting services – ALL
Provisioning services: Food & fibre, Water, Fuel …
Wetlands
Regulating services: Climate regulation (local, regional, global);
• Coastal wetlands
Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, runoff …);
• Floodplains
• Swaps, bogs, moors … Water purification and waste management;
• Etc. Erosion control; Natural hazards control …
Cultural & Supporting services – ALL By MK based on MA 2005 classification

22. The link between biodiversity, ecosystems,
their services, and benefits to mankind…
Maintenance and
restoration costs
Biophysical
Structure of Economic and
process social values (&
market values)
(eg woodland Function
habitat or net
(eg slow passage
primary
of water, or Service
productivity)
biomass)
(eg flood
prevention,
harvestable Benefit (value)
products) (eg willingness to
pay for woodland
protection or for
more woodland,
or harvestable
products)
Source: Building on presentation by Jean-Louis Weber (EEA) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6
March 2008, Brussels, Belgium

23. The logic behind current status & trends
- ES use, enhancement & trade offs
Enhancement / investment Use Trade offs
Source: L Braat in COPI study - Braat, ten Brink et al. 2008

24. Land-uses and trade offs for ecosystem services
1natural Climate
regulation 2 extensive Climate
regulation
Food Energy Food
Energy
Soil
Soil protection
protection Freshwater Freshwater
Climate
regulation
Food
Energy
-
Soil
protection
Freshwater
3 intensive
Source: Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium.

25. ESS service provision and spatial relation
Example: carbon storage
t C/ha
Production rates, flows and values all vary spatially – so simple benefits transfer misleading
Services produced and enjoyed in different places – so spatial understanding essential for
interventions to be effective
Costs and benefits of conserving services accrue in different places – so spatial understanding
essential for interventions to be equitable
Source: Andrew Balmford & Ana Rodrigues 2008 Presentation within the Scoping the Science work

26. “Net” ecosystem services
• As land is degraded more artificial inputs are needed to get the same
provisioning service (eg crops) … with due costs
• Share of ecosystem service drops as soil is degraded.
“production function” changes over time
Challenge to estimate clearly the value of biodiversity.
Important as part of an analysis of conversion from one land use to another
What appear as positive gains from a conversion may well not be.
Decision making should be based on the right evidence…..
Climate Food Climate
regulation regulation
Food
Energy Energy
Value – first estimate - -
Upon closer analysis
Net value less
Soil Freshwater Soil Freshwater
protection protection

27. The Evaluation Challenge
What should we measure to understand and communicate the problem?
How can we go about doing this?

28. Measuring Benefits of Ecosystem services: The Benefits Pyramid
What can be said in what terms and what was explored?
Non-Specified Monetary: eg avoided water
Benefits purification costs, tourist value
Increasing up the
benefits Monetary Value
pyramid Quantitative: eg number people
benefiting from wood from forests
Quantitative Review of Effects
Type of benefits; health,
social, income, wellbeing
Qualitative Review
Knowledge gaps
Full range of ecosystem services from biodiversity The “known-
unknowns” and
“unknown-unknowns”

29. Interest and evidence
Level of information Level of press/interest
Quantitative /
qualitative
Monetary
There are different audiences, and different messages are needed for each.
Different types of messages have different power and different reach.
The overall aim is to get the message across to the (range of) key
audiences – in a manner that is representative of the facts and that
engages interest. Hence, we need to work out how best to combine
monetary and non-monetary information.

30. Different Measures to represent the monetary and non-
monetary benefits.
The single global number Politicians, media,
Non
specified Ranges general public
benefits. Local / national numbers
Increasing Partial aggregations
Economists;
up the 1 locality, 1 service numbers
benefits Mon- local politicians
pyramid etary Indexes (eg living planet index)
Indices (eg species richness)
People/population (share) affected
Species at risk, endangered Scientists
Quantitative Risk assessments Policy analysts
Loss of forest cover (ha)
Aggregates and cases
Surveys
Qualitative
Story lines, uniqueness, indispensible
Hotspots All
Maps
Critical trends and thresholds
All
Stakeholder perceptions
Key Objectives: understanding, representativeness and getting the
message across
Source: Patrick ten Brink (IEEP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium

31. Ecosystems, land-use and human well-being :
the extent of this relationship
Services 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 2.1 2.2 2.3 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5
Plant-related
Forest trees-
Prevention
Refugium
Materials
Breeding
Physical
Amenity
Didactic
support
Cycling
Identity
related
Food
Sink
Land cover types
Artificial surfaces/
Urban
Arable land &
permanent crops
Grassland & mixed
farmland
Forests & woodland
shrub
Heathland,
sclerophylous veg.
Open space with
little/ no vegetation
Wetlands
Water bodies
Source: Jean-Louis Weber (EEA) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium

32. Biodiversity values: Techniques and confidence to
calculate the total economic value (TEV)
Use values Non-use values
Direct Indirect Option Existence Bequest
Confidence?
Market
Production Function
Value?
Revealed Preference
Stated Preference
Value?
Confidence?
Source: Alistair McVittie & Dominic Moran presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium

33. Relation of Habitat Area, its loss & Ecosystem Service
Illustration of realities & evaluation challenge
Initially insensitive (eg loss of part of large forest and tourism or recreation) or due to slow
draw down of stock (eg fish) or due to initial substitution possibilities
100%
Threshold – eg change of
recreation desitination, of fish
Linear - eg food or fuel stock collapse for region
provision from land,
carbon storage
EV
Exponential decline – eg for
low resilance / fragile
ecosystem or area near a
threshold such as minimum
0% habitat area for a species.
Pristine Area loss Full area loss

34. Elements of the Evaluation challenge
Data Gaps – how can we work with the gaps before we fill them?
Substitutability (or lack of) and irreversibility
Linear vs non-linear changes / threshold issues
Risks and Scientific Uncertainty
Spatial perspective – provision of service and benefit from service not always in
the same location
Some costs only have an effect in future generations
Inherent biases in the economic valuation system?
eg greater focus & ease of analysis for commodity prices related valuations
Biases in the application of valuation - certain priorities and not others?
eg global issues focus rather than local?
Biases in use of discount rate ?
Ethical issues – anthropocentric approach;
equity, fairness.

35. COPI Results
Based on the Report to the European Commission, May 29, 2008
The Cost of Policy Inaction
L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.)
with
J. Bakkes, K. Bolt, I. Braeuer, B. ten Brink, A. Chiabai, H. Ding, H. Gerdes, M. Jeuken, M.
Kettunen, U. Kirchholtes, C. Klok, A. Markandya, P. Nunes, M. van Oorschot, N. Peralta-
Bezerra, M. Rayment, C. Travisi, M. Walpole.
Wageningen / Brussels, May 2008

36. Mapping changes : from Biodiversity &
Ecosystems to Economic Values
OECD
Baseline
scenario Change
Change in
in Change
Economic
Land use, in
Change Value
Climate, Biodiversity
Pollution, In
Water use Ecosystem
International Services
Policies Change
in
Ecosystem
functions
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.)

37. Biodiversity loss from 1700 to 2050 accelerates
73%
62%
The total biodiversity loss 2000-2050:
All biodiversity of 1,300 million ha converted to asphalt.
(about 1.5 times the United States)
Source: building on Ben ten Brink (MNP) presentation at the Workshop: The Economics of the Global Loss of Biological Diversity 5-6 March 2008, Brussels, Belgium.

38. COPI Figure 4.4a : Contribution of different pressures to the global biodiversity
loss between 2000 and 2050 in the OECD baseline
Main drivers of 11% Biodiversity Loss over the 50 years to 2050
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI

39. Change of Landuse – across all biomes
Actual 2000 2050 Difference
million million
Area km2 km2 2000 to 2050
Natural areas 65.5 58.0 -11%
Bare natural 3.3 3.0 -9%
Forest managed 4.2 7.0 70%
Extensive agriculture 5.0 3.0 -39%
Intensive agriculture 11.0 15.8 44%
Woody biofuels 0.1 0.5 626%
Cultivated grazing 19.1 20.8 9%
Artificial surfaces 0.2 0.2 0%
World Total * 108.4 108.4 0%
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI

40. Valuation and Ecosystem service losses
COPI calculation: A
Relative to 2000
Annual Loss of economic value of ecosystem services that would have been
available had biodiversity remained at 2000 levels. Estimate for 2050.
Services that would
have been there, had
biodiversity been A
Ecosystem
halted.
service level
Losses
continue
into the
future
2000 2010 2030 2050

41. COPI - Some key results
• The loss of natural areas over the period 2000 to 2050 is 7.5million km2
- broadly equivalent to the total area of the Australia.
• When looking at the combined loss of natural and bare natural areas and
extensive agriculture the area is equivalent to that of the entire United
States of America.
• The loss of welfare in 2050 from the cumulative loss of ecosystem
services between now and then amounts to $14 trillion (10^12) Euros
under the fuller estimation scenario
• This is equivalent in scale to 7% of projected global GDP for 2050.
• The loss grows with each year of biodiversity and ecosystem loss
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.) 2008 COPI

42. COPI - Some key results (cont.)
• In the early years (e.g. period 2000 to 2010) less biodiversity has been lost
(than in later years), less land-conversion has taken place, and less damage
has occurred due to fragmentation, climate change or pollution. The loss over
the period 2000 to 2010 is, however, still substantial.
• For the fuller estimate the welfare losses from the loss of ecosystem services
amount to 545 billion EUR in 2010 or just under 1% of world GDP by 2010.
•This amounts to around 50 billion Euros
extra loss per year, every year – in the
early years.
•The value of the amount lost every year
rises, until it is around 275bn EUR/yr in
2050.

43. Global COPI - Loss of Ecosystem services
from land based ecosystems – all biomes
Relative to
Relative to 2000 2000
Equivalent to
% of GDP in
Area Billion EUR 2050
Natural areas -155678 -7.97%
Forest managed 1852 0.95%
Extensive Agriculture -1109 -0.57%
Intensive Agriculture 1303 0.67%
Woody biofuels 381 0.19%
Cultivated grazing -786 -0.40%
World Total -13938 -7.1% Land based ecosystems only
The loss grows with each year of biodiversity and ecosystem loss.
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.)

44. Global COPI - Loss of Ecosystem services
Forestry biomes
Partial
Forest biomes Estimation Fuller Estimation
Boreal forest -163 -1999
Tropical forest -536 -3362
Warm mixed forest -249 -2332
Temperate mixed forest -190 -1372
Cool coniferous forest -47 -701
Temperate deciduous forest -133 -1025
Forest Total -1317 -10791
Natural areas -1552 -12310
World GDP in 2050 (trillion (10^12) EUR)* 195.5
Losses of ESS from forests as share of % GDP -0.7% -5.5%
Losses of ESS from natural areas in forest biomes as share
of % GDP -0.8% -6.3%

45. What ESS could already be included (forests)?
Included - (8 services) Not included - (10 services)
Provisioning services Provisioning services
Food, fiber, fuel Biochemicals, natural medicines,
Regulating services pharmaceuticals
Air quality maintenance Ornamental resources
Soil quality maintenance Fresh water
Climate regulation (i.e. carbon storage) Regulating services
Water regulation (i.e. flood prevention,, Temperature regulation, precipitation
aquifer recharge etc.) Erosion control
Water purification and waste Technology development from nature
management Regulation of human diseases
Cultural services Biological control and pollination
Cultural diversity, spiritual and religious Natural hazards control / mitigation
values, educational values, aesthetic and
cultural Cultural services
Recreation and ecotourism • Living comfort due to environmental
amenities

46. COPI – Forestry Biome
Different ways of calculating the loss
A : 50-year impact of inaction B : Natural Capital Loss every year
Lost Welfare equivalent Natural Capital Lost from
to 5.5 % of GDP (from forest USD 1.35 x 10 12 to 3.10 x 10 12
(@ 4% Discount Rate) (@ 1% Discount Rate)
biomes overall) … or…
Source: L. Braat & P. ten Brink (eds.)

47. Three Hidden Stories of “Discounting”
Inter-generational Equity…
Marginal Utility of $1 to the Rich vs Poor ….
Declining Growth Paths …
Present
Cash flow 50 Annual
value of the
years in the discount
future cash
future rate
flow
1,000,000 4% 140,713
1,000,000 2% 371,528
1,000,000 1% 608,039
1,000,000 0% 1,000,000
Source: Pavan Sukhdev, Bonn 2008

48. Valuation and Ecosystem service losses
Relative to 2000 GDP, with feedback on
GDP (OECD Scenarios) economic losses from
2.8%/year biodiversity losses integrated -
illustrative
GDP: 41.4$ trillion (PPP) (10^12)
Population
GDP/capita: 680$ (PPP)
9100 million
Population: 6092 million
GDP adjusted for impact of
biodiversity loss - illustrative
Services that would have been there,
had biodiversity been halted
Ecosystem
service level
2000 2050
Source: Patrick ten Brink (IEEP), Leon Braat (Alterra), Mark van Ooorshot (MNP), Matt Rayment (GHK)

49. Navigation Challenge Ahead
Should we set sail on a complex 3-D growth voyage …
l
ita
ap
C
an
Natural Capital
um
H
Physical Capital
… with a simple economic compass ?
Source: Pavan Sukhdev, Bonn 2008

50. Next Steps
TEEB Phase 1 Launch at Bonn. Phase 2 up to June 2009. Final report COP-10
Launch led to high level commitment to Phase 2.
A range of interest from wide set of organisations
High level Advisory Board
Core team and wider expert team - being developed
Contributions from far and wide
A wide range of tasks expected to be addressed in the work
Estimation of loss of value from ecosystem & biodiversity losses (global & local)
Estimation of costs and benefits of action
Guidance/Toolkit of instruments / policies where benefits valuation may help
improve practice – for range of stakeholders (policy makers, to local authorities, to
corporations to individuals).

51. Issues needing exploration (own view)
• Fine-tuning of valuation framework and development of
recommended valuation framework
• More valuation of the benefits of ecosystems/biodiversity
and the COPI & analysis of the costs and benefits of action
• Risk assessment of different action/inaction
strategies/scenarios
• Sectoral analysis: Sector role in drawing down natural
capital, sectors benefitting from natural capital, and which
sectors have the most potential to improve things?

52. Issues needing exploration
Broad messages (and areas to explore),
Rethink today’s subsidies to reflect tomorrow’s priorities;
eg Fisheries subsidies
Reward unrecognized benefits, penalise uncaptured costs
eg PES, liability, PPP
Share the benefits of conservation;
eg Benefits sharing
Measure what you manage.
Valuation for local decision making to national accounts
Valuation and role for individuals and corporations.
TEEB can contribute to processes behind each of the above.

53. Summary – Implications of the Report
• The beginning of an important process leading to improved appreciation of
biodiversity and ecosystems.
• Better understanding of value, and uncosted value
• Engagement by wide group of experts started and more en route / beneficial.
• Opportunity to contribute – integrated into the process, coordinated /
communicated and in parallel.
• Foresee significant advance in benefits and cost of biodiversity valuation
• Need complementary tools and indicators
• Better information for better evidenced based decision making
(contribution to Beyond GDP related efforts)
• Improving tools and decisions (eg local, regional, national)
• More difficult to make the wrong decisions / inappropriate tradeoffs
• Contribute to thinking, understanding, commitment and tools to help
slow/stop biodiversity loss.

54. Questions ?
Thank You
Patrick ten Brink
ptenbrink@ieep.eu
not-for-
IEEP is an independent, not-for-profit institute
dedicated to the analysis, understanding and promotion
of policies for a sustainable environment in Europe
Brussels Office London Office
55 Quai au Foin/Hooikaai 28 Queen Anne's Gate
B-1000 Brussels London SW1H 9AB
Belgium UK
Tel: +44 (0)207 799 2244
Tel: +32 (0) 2738 7482
Fax: +44 (0)207 799 2600
Fax: +32 (0) 2732 4004
www.ieep.eu

55. TEEB ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
for information
Source: The Economics of Ecosystems & Biodiversity: Interim Report. Sukhdev et al

56. Study Authors and Contributors

57. Study Authors & Contributors (cont.)