Upload
dinhmien
View
217
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Klik op het pictogram als u een afbeelding wilt toevoegen
Klik op het pictogram als u een afbeelding wilt toevoegen
Klik op het pictogram als u een afbeelding wilt toevoegen
Klik op het pictogram als u een afbeelding wilt toevoegen
The science and practice of ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities
(Ru)Dolf de Groot, Env. Systems Analysis Group Wageningen University, The Netherlands
Int. Symposium “X Eugen Warming Lectures in Evolutionary Ecology: Biodiversity and ecosystem
services in the tropics, now and beyond” 2–4 December 2014, Belo Horizonte, Brasil
Click to edit Master subtitle style
30/01/15
http://www.crisisoflife.net/the-destruction.html
This is Where the Subtitle Goes
www.MAweb.org
2001-20051360 scientists 95 countries
Global assessment to investigate effects of ecosystem andbiodiversity loss on human wellbeing -> ecosystem services
The Austrialian, 30 March 2005
+ 33 sub-global assessments
UNEP & Conventions (CBD, Ramsar)
Recreatio
n
Inspiratio
n
Habitat/
Support
Food
Medicins&
models
Timber
Water
Pollination
Air quali
ty
C-seq
Biol.
control
Ecosystem Services
> 60% in decline (fisheries and other natural resources, air-& water quality control, pollination etc.)
Cost of ecosystem loss 2-5% of GDP per year (Science, 2002)(2-3 Trillion$ damage-costs, replacement & restoration costs, etc.)
Cost of ecosystem loss
Erosioncost
Lively-Hoo
dloss
Water
pollutio
ncost
Flooding
cost
Air pollutio
ncost
Crop
loss
+ 1-2 trillion US$ Perverse Subsidies ..
Potsdam 2007-Meeting of the Environmental Ministers of the G8+5
“Potsdam Initiative – Biological Diversity 2010” The economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity - 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.
Sponsors: UNEP & EUGermany + several other EU Countries (& Japan)
Stern (2006): “Invest 2% of GDP/year to avoid damage of 20%”
2008 – 2010 www.teebweb.org
Millennium EcosystemAssessment:
Ø 60% of ecosystem services are in decline
9 Oct 2010
2-3 Trillion US$/y [2002]
TEEB: 7.3 Trillion $/y 2012 (13% of global GDP)
Externality costs of (unsust.) agriculture,forestry, fishery, mining, oil & gas explor. and primary processing industry (eg. steel,petrochemicals) incl. erosion, soil, water &air pollution and other damage and mitigation costs (www.teebforbusiness.org “Natural Capital at Risk” April 2013)
www.teebweb.org(2008 – 2010)
Rapid increase in Ecosystem Service science and policy awareness
(Potschin & Haines-Young, 2011)
MA (2005)
TEEB (2010)
Costanza et al, 1997Daily, 1997
(De Groot, 1987)
CBD, Nagoya, Oct 2010
www.ipbes.net
Westman, 1977
No goats Goats
Fence
In Practice ?
Baviaanskloof, S. Africa
Public costs Private benefits
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
www.es-partnership.org
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
1. Frameworks, definitions & typologies2. Role of Biodiversity in ES provision3. Measuring ES -> Indicators4. Mapping ES (spatial analysis and visualisation)5. Modelling ES (in time and space)6. Valuing ES (measuring the importance)7. Trade-off analysis and project evaluation8. Es and Disaster Risk reduction9. Application in planning, management & restoration10. Co-investment and reward mechanisms11. Accounting and greening the economy12. Governance and Institutional Change
ESP Thematic Working groupsMain challenges ..
Click to edit Master subtitle style
30/01/15
Many frameworks ...
IPBES, currently under development
MA, 2005 TEEB, 2010
Many others ....
Ecosystems & Biodiversity
Institutions & human Judgments determining
(the use of) services
Service(eg. flood-
protection,products
Human wellbeing(socio-cultural context)
•Health•Safety•Livelihood
Linking Biodiversity and Human Wellbeing
Gifts?
MA conceptual frameworkto link Ecosystems with Human Wellbeing
“link” not really solved
TEEB framework: linking ecosystems and wellbeing
Ecosystems & Biodiversity
*) subset of biophysical structure or process providing the service (or “Service Providing Unit” (SPU))
Service(eg. flood-
protection,products
Feedback betweenvalue perception and use of eco-system services
Management/Restoration
Institutions & human Judgments determining
(the use of) services
Function*(eg. slow water passage, biomass)
(eg. vegetation cover or Net Primary Productivity
Biophysical Structure or process
(contributionto health,safety, etc)
Benefit(s)
Human wellbeing(socio-cultural context)
(econ) Value
(eg. WTP for protection or products)
De Groot et al., 2010 TEEB D0-Chapter 1(adapted from Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010)
Biophysical structure or
process(e.g. woodland habitat or net
primary productivity )
Service(e.g. flood
protection, or harvestable products)
Service(e.g. flood
protection, or harvestable products)
Function(e.g. slow
passage of water, or biomass)
Function(e.g. slow
passage of water, or biomass)
Benefit (Value)(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for
more woodland, or harvestable products)
Benefit (Value)(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for
more woodland, or harvestable products)Σ Pressures
Limit pressures via policy action?
Biophysical structure or
process(e.g. woodland habitat or net
primary productivity )
Service(e.g. flood
protection, or harvestable products)
Service(e.g. flood
protection, or harvestable products)
Function(e.g. slow
passage of water, or biomass)
Function(e.g. slow
passage of water, or biomass)
Benefit (Value)(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for
more woodland, or harvestable products)
Benefit (Value)(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for
more woodland, or harvestable products)
Biophysical structure or
process(e.g. woodland habitat or net
primary productivity )
Service(e.g. flood
protection, or harvestable products)
Service(e.g. flood
protection, or harvestable products)
Function(e.g. slow
passage of water, or biomass)
Function(e.g. slow
passage of water, or biomass)
Benefit (Value)(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for
more woodland, or harvestable products)
Benefit (Value)(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for
more woodland, or harvestable products)Σ Pressures
Limit pressures via policy action?
Distinguishing functions, services and benefits
Ecosystem Services-are “conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and species …, sustain and fulfill human life” (Daily, 1997) -are ”the benefits people derive from ecosystems” (Mill. Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) (… directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions” (Costanza et al, 1997)
TEEB: Services are the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystemsto human well-being (De Groot et al, 2010)
Ecosystem Function: „Capacity of ecosystem components and processes to provide goods and dervices that satisfy human needs (directly and indirectly)“ (De Groot, 1992)
Intermediate &final services ?
Haines-Young & Potchin, 2009
Typology of ecosystem services
www.maweb.org
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)
www.teebweb.org
The Economics of Ecosystemsand Biodiversity (TEEB)
Provisioning-FoodRegulating-Flood preventionCultural & Amenity-RecreationHabitat-Nursery service-Genepool prot.
No Supporting Services(= Functions)
Provisioning1 - Food 2 - Water 3 - Raw Materials 4 - Genetic resources5 - Medicinal resources 6 - Ornamental resources
Regulating7 - Air quality regulation8 - Climate regulation (incl. C- sequestration)9 - Moderation of extreme events 10 - Regulation of water flows 11 - Waste treatment
12 - Erosion prevention13 - Maintenance of soil fertility14 - Pollination15 - Biological control
Habitat/Supporting16 – Nursery service17 – Genepool protection
Cultural [provide opportunities for:]18 - Aesthetic enjoyment19 - Recreation & tourism20 - Inspiration for culture, art & design21 - Spiritual experience22 - Cognitive development
4 types, 22 Services:
Click to edit Master subtitle style
30/01/15
MA, 2005 (21) TEEB, 2010(22) CICES, under dev.
Provisioning services
Food (fodder) FoodTerrestrial plants and animal foodstuffs
Freshwater plants and animal foodstuffsMarine algae and animal foodstuffs
Fresh water WaterPotable waterNon-potable water
Fibre, timber Raw Materials Biotic materialsGenetic resources Genetic resources Biotic Materials (Genetic resources)
Biochemicals Medicinal resources Biotic Materials (Medicinal and cosmetic resources)
Ornamental resources Ornamental resources Biotic Materials (Ornamental resources)
Biomass based energy
Regulating & Supporting
services (MA)
Regulating & Habitat services
(TEEB)
Regulating and maintenance
(CICES)
Air quality regulation Air quality regulation Atmospheric regulation
Water purification & w. treatment Waste treatment (water purification) BioremediationDilution and sequestrationWater quality regulation
Water regulationRegulation of water flows
Water flow regulationModeration of extreme events
Erosion regulation Erosion prevention Mass flow regulation (erosion protection)
Climate regulation Climate regulationAtmospheric regulationAir flow regulation
Soil formation (supp. services) Maintenance of soil fertility Pedogenesis and soil quality regulation
Pollination Pollination Lifecycle maint.,habitat & gene pool prot (pollination)
Pest regulationBiological control Pest and disease control including alien species
Disease regulation
Primary productionNutrient cycling
Maintenance of life cycles of migratory sp. (incl. nursery service)
Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection
Maintenance of genetic diversity (especially in gene pool protection)
Lifecycle maint., habitat & gene pool protection
Cultural services
Spiritual and religious values Spiritual experience SpiritualAesthetic values Aesthetic information Aesthetic, HeritageCultural diversity Inspiration for culture, art & design Spiritual
Aesthetic, HeritageRecreation and ecotourism Recreation and tourism Recreation and community activities
Knowledge syst. & educ.values Information for cognitive developm. Information After Maes et al.,2012
Ecosystem Services Typology still under discussion ....
Click to edit Master subtitle style
30/01/15
Will there ever bea fina l ans w er ..? ?
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
TWG 2: B iodivers ity & E c os ys tem S ervic esPatricia Balvanera, Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico
Isabelle Durance, Cardiff University, United Kingdom+ Edmundo Barrios (CGIAR) + Piran White (BESS)
This working group aims to analyse the relations between biodiversity and other ecosystem properties with ecosystem functioning to better understand, and predict, the capacity of ecosystem s to provide ecosystem services.
Influence of vegetation (forests) on air quality Capacity of an average
broadleaved forest inthe Netherlands to filter aerosols (dust particles)is 30-70 Tons/ha/year
Concentration parts/M3- in forest 500- in open field 5.000 (10x)- in industrial > 10.000 (20x) area
Actual Service ->Performance Indicators
No. of dustparticles captured
orAir quality
How measure (individual) Services (& Functions)Function ->
State Indicators
Leaf Area Index
Multiple relations between Functions & Services
Ecosystems & Biodiversity
*) subset of biophysical structure or process providing the service (or “Service Providing Unit” (SPU))
Function*(eg. slow water passage, biomass)
(eg. vegetation cover or Net Primary Productivity
Biophysical Structure or process
MA categ TEEB categ CICES class
Provisioning services
Food (fodder) Food
Terrestrial plants and animal foodstuffs
Freshwater plants and animal foodstuffs
Marine algae and animal foodstuffs
Fresh water WaterPotable waterNon-potable water
Fibre, timber Raw Materials Biotic materials
Genetic resources Genetic resources Biotic Materials (Genetic resources)
Biochemicals Medicinal resources Biotic Materials (Medicinal and cosmetic resources)
Ornamental resources Ornamental resources Biotic Materials (Ornamental resources)
Biomass based energy
Regulating & Supporting
services (MA)
Regulating &
Habiat services (TEEB)
Regulating
and maintenance
(CICES)
Air quality regulation Air quality regulation Atmospheric regulation
Water purification and water treatment Waste treatment (water purification)
Bioremediation
Dilution and sequestration
Water quality regulation
Water regulationRegulation of water flows
Water flow regulationModeration of extreme events
Erosion regulation Erosion prevention Mass flow regulation (erosion protection)
Climate regulation Climate regulationAtmospheric regulation
Air flow regulation
Soil formation (supporting services) Maintenance of soil fertility Pedogenesis and soil quality regulation
Pollination Pollination Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection (pollination)
Pest regulationBiological control
Pest and disease control including alien speciesDisease regulation
Primary productionNutrient cycling
Maintenance of life cycles of migratory species (incl. nursery service)
Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection
Maintenance of genetic diversity (especially in gene pool protection)
Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection
Cultural services
Spiritual and religious values Spiritual experience Spiritual
Aesthetic values Aesthetic information Aesthetic, HeritageCultural diversity Inspiration for culture, art and design Spiritual
Aesthetic, HeritageRecreation and ecotourism Recreation and tourism
Recreation and community activities
Knowledge systems and educational values Information for cognitive development Information
After Maes et al.,2012
?
?
Ecosystem Services
Minimum requirements? S ervic e providing U nit Loss of pollination services
by bees in Nepal
“It takes 20-25 people to performthe work of two bee-colonies”
Local: how many Bleu Jays do we need to maintain the (oak) forest in an urban park (Stockholm) …?
Service Providing Unit (SPU) (Luck et al, 2003) www.rubicode.net (2006-2009)
Sustainable use / thresholds How much wood
can we cut ...?
(or how much can wepollute the air …)
How many bees & birds canwe lose …?
Bleaching
How much coral can we destroy …? How much fish can we catch …?
Tipping points / points of no return?
Negative “return” of 50 billion $/yearsince 1990’s “Sunken billions”
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
TWG 3: E c os ys tem S ervic e Indic a tors
“Problem: Present frameworks for ESI's are frag mentary and most ecosystem services have few applicable indicators to monitor the potentia l and ac tua l delivery of services”.
•Felix Mueller, University of Kiel, Germany [EiC of “Ecological Indicators]•David Vackar, Czech Globe & IUCN-CEMCollaboration with ao: Matt Walpole, UNEP-WCMC,UK [ES Indic a tor Partners hip ]& Belinda Reyers, CSIR, South Africa [Lead indicator group Geobon-Earth Observation Network]
Aim: the ES Indicators TWG will develop indicators for quantifying the capacity, and actual “delivery” of ecosystem services.
ConditionStateStock
FunctionSupplyFlow
ServiceDemandUse
BenefitNeedValue
ImportanceHWIGDP etc
Proposed typology of ES indicators
PROPERTYIndicator(EPI)
-WHAT is providing the service
CAPACITYIndicator(ECI)
-POT. sust use -> incl. resilience, thresholds
USEIndicator(EUI)
Actual use⇒ Sustainable use is linked to Capacity Ind.
BENEFITIndicator(EBI)
“Why are people inte-rested in a service”
VALUEIndicator(EVI)
“Impact” (social, economic, environm.)
Regulation-climate=> Carbon
C stock & flow (role of veg., soil, water-bo-dies in C-cycle
Sustainable rate of C-seq. (eg. acidifica-tion problem
Net carbon storage (tC/time unit)
effect on climate (T, P)(reduced cli-mate change)
- Avoided damage cost- Avoided repl. cost
Provisioning
Cultural
Habitat
Indicators to measure ecosystem services
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
TWG 4 M apping E c os ys tem S ervic es•Benjamin Burkhard, University of Kiel, Germany
•Neville Crossman, CSIRO Adelaide, Australia•Joachim Maes, JRC-EC Ispra, Italy [Lead EU Mapping 2014 ]
Aim: to develop tools, guidelines and standards for improving s patia l ana lys is of ec os ys tem s ervic es and their representation in mapping tools (in close collaboration with TWG5 on Modelling Ecosystem S ervices)
EU Biodiversity Strategy2020 (May 2011)“our life insurance, our natural capital”All member states should have National TEEB studydone by 2014
STEPS:
< 2014: map & quantify
TEEB in Europe1. Identify & Asses
a. Indicatorsb. Mappingc. Quantification
2. Estimate Valuesa. In physical unitsb. Monetary
3. Capture Values-subsidies/taxes-Payments for ES-Policy change-Institutional change
< 2020: Valuation ready
< ?? : Instit. change ?
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
I s s ues and C ha lleng es for E S mapping•What do we need for proper mapping of multiple
ec os ys tem s ervic es and respective practical applications?
•How can we provide better maps for ecosystem service s upply (and demand)
•Are our results appropria te for the s takeholders ? Can they understand them?
•Do the maps and quantifications s a tis fy the us er needs ?
•How can the outcomes be us ed for further ana lys es (not only visualization but additional analysis, synthesis, metrics to under-stand complex spatial and temporal patterns of ecosystem services)?
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
TWG 5 (M odelling E S )
Aim: to develop tools , g uidelines and s tandards for improving dynamic analysis of ecosystem services and the representation in modelling tools (in close collaboration with TWG4 on Mapping Ecosystem Services) + provide easy access, support collaboration + provide testing platform
Thematic Working Group Leads•Rob Alkemade, PBL, Netherlands•Stoyan Nedkov, NIGGG, Bulgaria•Peter Verburg, IvM-VU, The Netherlands
The ES-Partnership and Earth Inc. have developed a repos itory for ec o-models . This repository is steadily growing to include all of the best models in one convenient location. •Dynamic Global System Models•Spatial Regional Models•Specific Ecological Models
-MIMES, GUMBO (UVM, USA)-InVest (Stanford, USA)-IMAGE (PBL, NL)-Others (see ESP-website)
Click to edit Master subtitle style
30/01/15
GUMBO: Global Unified Model of the Biosphere
Roel Bouwmans
MIMES: for Multi-scale Integrated Models of Ecosystem Services.
http://www.afordablefutures.com/
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
I s s ues & c ha lleng es re E S M odelling ...
How deal with bundles of ec os ys tem s ervic es ?
“to define optimal ecosystem management ...” ....“Modelling ES supply as a function of processes and management interventions requires multi-s c a leapproac hes that are able to incorporate drivers that function across a range of scales” (Levin, 1992, Limbug et al, 2002 ( ecol. compl. Paper section 6.3.1)
“there is a need to incorporate complex ec os ys tem dynamic s in ecosystem management models with the thres holds and state variables of the models also present at a range of scales (see eg. Scheffer et al., 2001, Hein 2006).( ecol. compl. Paper section 6.3.1)
“Ec onomic drivers need to be modelled at the appropriate inst.scales, and theIntegration of ecol. and economic drivers and scales required further effort, alsoIn view of different modelling paradigms applied in ecology and economics (egVan den bergh, 1996, Turner et al., 2003) ( ecol. compl. Paper section 6.3.1)
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
TWG 6 V a luing E S
Problem: “To make balanced decisions, better information about the ‘fu ll value’ (importance) of ecosystems to human wellbeing is essential. The importance of ecosystems and their services can be m easured in m any ways: ecolog ically , socio-cu ltu rally and econom ically. S ome of the associated values can be expressed in monetary terms. If and how this can best be done is still subject of much discussion”
A im: This WG will provide a pla tform for dis c us s ion on ES valuation and develop g uidelines and 's tandards ' for integ ra ted as s es s ment of the full va lue (importance) of ecosystem services (ecological, socio-cultural and economic) and conduct meta-analysis to support the ES Valuation database work.
Luke Brander, Environmental Economists, Hong KongRudolf de Groot, Wageningen Univ. [TEEB database]
Several Task Forces have been created or are planned:6A. Cultural Services & Values (led by Kai Chan (USA) and Helen King (UK)6B. Ecosystem Services and Public Health (led by Hans Keune and Conor Kretsch)6C. Economic and Monetary Valuation (Sebastian Villasante (Arg),and others)6D. Value integration (Sander Jacobs)
How to measure ‘Total Value’ (importance)
?Cultural value(traditional whaling,Inspiration etc.)
Economic value Effect on welfare and ‘the’ economyusually/conveniently expressed inmonetary units.Whale: meat, tourism (DUV), biol.control (IUV), donations (NUV)
Additional value (information) in decision making process[but very important/trade-offs]
Intrinsic [= “in” nature]/existence [= in/by humans]value
Ecological value /importance(role in ecosystem)
Log-scale of value range (TEV) in US$/ha/yr (2007 PPP corrected)
= Average value() = number of
used estimates (522 out of > 1250
92.775 US$/ha/yr [tourism & storm protectionCoral Reefs
46.239 US$/ha/yr [waste treatment & nursery] Mangroves
49 US$/ha/yr [climate regulation & fishery]Oceans
Only 25-30%market values
10 1 million
De Groot, et al., 2012
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
V a luation ques tions & c ha lleng es ...
- Appropriate methods ? (for measuring ecological, socio-cultural and economic value)
- How include perceptions of stakeholders (& beneficiaries)- How to make the values consistent and comparable - Inclusion of externalities (positive and negative)- What is the influence of scale, esp. on economic value, both in time discounting) and space (eg. influence of distance between “supply & demand” (or impact and effect) + effect of size of study area, etc. [“determining factors”]- Can benchmark ‘values’ help to determine economic value ??- How can values be aggregated?- How can values be mapped?- use in spatial planning & design
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
TWG 7: Trade-off ana lys is & projec t eva luationLead: Inge Liekens (VITO, Belgium) and Sophie Schetke (Germany)
+ many WG members
Problem : most land use change dec is ions a re bas ed on in-c omplete information about the consequences for the involved ecosystems, their services and effects on human wellbeing. Better tools are therefore needed to c apture a ll the trade-offs involved in land use change and project evaluation, including the economic effects now only partially captured by conventional cost-benefit analysis.
A im : this working group will focus on the development of tools and g uidelines to include information on ES capacity and values in project evaluation and decision making, including among others (expanded) Benefit-Cost Analysis, MCA, MCDA or more complex Dec is ion S upport -tools such as InVEST, ARIES, VALUES, BBN, etc.
“Pristine”
Degraded
Extensive use
Intensive use
FOREST GRASSLAND
Trade offs ?
Oil Palm Plantations(& other “energy crops”
Multi-funct.
Mono-funct.
NEED MORE COMPLETE (HONEST) COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Mangrove ecosystem
shrimp
housing
crops
Mangrove Services:• nursery and adult
fishery habitat• fuelwood & timber• carbon sequestration• traps sediment• detoxifies pollutants• protection from
erosion & disaster
Trade-offs among ecosystem services
46.239 US$/ha/yr [waste treatment & nursery] mangroves:
NPV Mangrove Mexico 600.000 US$/hasold for recreational development for 1.000 US$/ha (Nature, 2008)[<0,2% of TEV]
Light-brown = sustainably managedDark-brown = converted
Wetland
MangrovesSust.Forestr
y
3,6x 3,8
x
logging
“The total economic value of managing ecosystems more sustainably is often higher than the value associated with conversion”
Balmford et al (2002, Science Vol 297) „Economic reasons for conserving wild nature“
Conversion <-> sustainable management: “honest” CBANet Present Value/ha
farming
Trad.Forest use
Shrimpfarm
Benefit – Cost Ratio of Ecosystem Restoration
Grasslands: 75 x
Coral reefs: 3 x
Blignaut et al. screened 20.000 publ.; 95 selected for further analysis *
Assumptions: high cost scenario, average benefit scenario, time horizon = 40 years (including 10% annual operation costs; discount rate = 1 %)
Benefits of Ecosystem Restoration
* De Groot et al., 2013
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
TWG 8 E S and D is as ter R is k R educ tionLead: Fabrice Renaud (UNU), Blanka Louckova (Czech Globe, CZ)
+ IUCN-CEM DRR init. (Angela Andrade & Karen Sudmeier) + W. Veening
“It is better to work with nature than against nature”
A im:This working group aims to integrate the concept of ecosystem services into disaster risk reduction approaches dealing with environmental hazards at diverse spatial scales. One of these approaches might be so called “E c os ys tem-bas ed Adaptation”[or N ature B as ed S olutions ], which builds on sustainably managing, conserving and restoring ecosystems so that they continue to provide the services that allow society to adapt to global changes. This group also provides a platform for developing g uidelines and s tandards for vulnerability and ris k indic a tors , incorporating ecosystem services notions at the outset of analysis
“the annual value of coastal wetlands ranged from $250 to $51,000/ha/yr, with a mean of $8,240/ha/yr “
From: Costanza, R., O. Pérez-Maqueo, M. L. Martinez, P. Sutton, S. J. Anderson, and K. Mulder. 2008. The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 37:241-248
“Coastal wetlands in the US were estimated to currently provide $23.2 Billion/yr in storm protection services”
Avoided Damage cost: value of storm protection
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
TWG 9 P lanning & M anag ement
Task Force: RestorationJames Aronson (SER-RNC) and Sasha Alexander (IUCN-CEM)
Lead: Christian Albert & Christina v Haaren (ZALF), Germany+ James Aronson (CNRC, SER) and Christine Fuerst (Uni. Bonn)
A im : This working group aims at furthering understanding of the potentials and implications of integrating the ecosystem services concept in land planning, management, governance and decision-making. It will synthesize theory and review case studies of ec os ys tem s ervic es integ ration in prac tic e in order to extract lessons learned for wider application.An important aspect is involvement of local communities based on livelihood analysis (link TWG ...) and participatory approaches.It will consider various approaches to land and regional governance (eg. IWM, ICZM, EBM, CBEM, etc.), as well as concepts for ecosystem restoration. Eight primary research areas for the thematic working group have been proposed
Taking steps toward marine and coastal ecosystem based management – An introductory guide by UNEP (Agardy, 2011)
Nurseryhabitat
Genepool protection
Waste treatment
Erosion reduction
Storm protection
Carbon sink
Fish & other food
Energy & raw mat.
Medicins
Whole system analysisRecrea-
tion
Inspiration/Spiritual exp.
Cult. IdentityCognitive Dev.
Natural pest control by “green infrastructure”
Hoeksche Waard (Geertsema et al 2006)
Restoring the landscape
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
TWG 10 C o-inves tment & R ew ard mec hanis msLead: Beria Leimona (ICRAF/CGIAR) – coordinator RUPES program+ Frederiek van Lienen (ESA-WUR): ES & Biodiv as business opportunity+ Dieter Mortelmans (INBO-Belgium): ISEP /PES Belgium
Collaboration-TEEB for Business Coalition-IUCN Leaders for Nature Initiative-RUPES & CRP6 program (ICRAF/CGIAR)
A im: This working group will contribute to develop ins truments and g uidelines how to use the concept of ecosystem services in financ ing mec hanis ms for biodiversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management (eg. PES, REDD, etc). This working group will also look at how the bus ines s c ommunity can be involved more, building, for example, on the recommendation from the TEEB D3-report.
- Reward/Pay providers of “free services”-“Punish” environmental damage (liability)
1. Government run finance mechan. (public incentives: subsidies/taxes) - Agri-environmental schemes [“farming for nature”] - Conservation payments (e.g. watershed-prot. [NYC]
REDD+ (forests->blue C. & restoration) - Other (eg. tax-incentives for green investments)
2. Government supported market creation - Offsets, eg Carbon credits [145 billion$ 2009/800 US$/ha/y – Ecosystem Market
Place] - Other “eco-assets” (eg. salinity credits, wetland banking, high-rise buildings(!))
3. Private market arrangements [PES – payment for use of ES] - User fees (eg. resources (water), eco-tourism, bioprospecting) - Biorights (compensate local people for not damaging ES, i.e cons.easem/Perrier) -Ecolabelling: Cert.Agr.Products (40 billion $ 2008/2,5% of total market)
FSC: 5 billion, Fair Trade, etc)
Investing in nature (restoration) pays !
„Every dollar invested ....saves any-where between 7,5 and 200 US$ in damage & repair costs“TheEconomist (23 April 2005)
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
TWG11- ES Accounting and Greening Economy
„Society must urgently replace its defective economic compass“ (Pavan Sukhdev, TEEB study leader, 29.05.2008 CBD COP9)
“Outdated economics” [eg:]- “Free” services (75%) [pollination]- Neglect of externalities [pollution]- Perverse subsidies [fishery, forestry]- Wrong assumptions (paradigms) about people & markets
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
M eas uring Prog res s Tow ard S us ta inability
UNESCO, UNU, UNEP
For the 2014-reportthe ESP Ecosystem ServiceValuation Database (ESVD)is used to estimate the Value of Natural Capital
30/01/15
Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
TWG12 Governance and Institutional AspectsLead: Bernd Hansjuergens & Christoph Aicher (UFZ, Germany)
Leon Braat, Alterra, NLAims:1. Address questions of instrument des ign, policy processes; stakeholder analysis, and communication with decision-makers.2. Help rais ing the capacity and profile of policy and governance issues within the ESP community (‘inward perspective’) and influence policy and governance relevant research, thereby strengthening the science-policy interface.3. Help rais ing awareness among public and private decis ion makers for the potential of the ecosystem service concept (including but going far beyond narrowly valuation) and the interrelation of coupled socio-ecological systems for improving nature conservation, social well-being, public health, and sustainable development (‘outward perspective’).4. Facilitate the integration of the ecosystem service concept into mainstream of decis ion making and tangible actions at all levels of society, business and policy.
- How to communicate the social and economic importance of ES to all stakeholders- Need for Tools and Guidelines: -> GIZ, SGA, Environment Canada
Challenges
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
www.es-partnership.org
30/01/15
Editor-in-ChiefL. B R AAT
Associate EditorsJ. FAR LE YE . FU R M ANB . HAN S JU R G E NSD. ODE E
Topic EditorsR . C os tanzaR . De G root
ESP member subscription: 30$/y
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
ESP-related Journals and Publications
Leon Braat
Rudolf de Groot
Robert Costanza
Felix Mueller
Elsevier
Taylor & Francis
Elsevier
Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management
30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP
www.es-partnership.org
E S P C onferenc es
Salzau (Kiel Univ) 2008: “Problems ”
Lecce 2009: “M odelling ”(Univ. Salento, Italy)
2010: “Solutions”
2011: Wageningen (NL)Int. Science and Practice
2012, Portland USA 2013, Bali, Indonesia
Making ES Count!
(back to S alzau)