Berta Martín-López and Paul Opdam. Ecosystem services and the interface between supply and demand ALTER-Net Conference Ghent, 17th April 2013

Transcription

1 Berta Martín-López and Paul Opdam Ecosystem services and the interface between supply and demand ALTER-Net Conference Ghent, 17th April 2013

2 Environmental planning fails to consider the relationships between ecosystems and social systems LANDSCAPES (SOCIAL-ECOLOGICAL SYSTEM) Ecosystem services SOCIAL SYSTEM National-Regional institutions Local institutions People Individual and collective actions

3 What does governing ES mean? BIODIVERSITY Genotypes Species Communities Functional diversity ECOSYSTEM (Supply-side) FUNCTIONS The capacity of ecosystems to supply services ECOSYSTEM SERVICES HUMAN WELLBEING SOCIAL SYSTEM (Demand-side) VALUE BIOPHYSICAL value-domain The importance people attach to ecosystem services SOCIO-CULTURAL value-domain Total Economic Value (use and non-use values) MONETARY value-domain Interventions in the landscape The effect of decision-making on ES usually lacks in the research Martín-López et al. (2013), adapted from Haines-Young & Postchin (2010) Acknowledging that ES is a complex concept ES governance needs as much variety of institutions as complexity exists in the particular ES we want to manage

4 Based on fast variables Based on slow variables Pyramid of institutional priorities for ES governance Modified from Williamson (2000) Markets Legal formal institutions Formal rules Laws Property rights Bureaucracy Non-formal institutions Values Traditions Norms Beliefs ES governance requires work at various different levels at the same time because the different temporal scales at which ES are supplied or used INSTITUTIONAL DIVERSITY Ostrom (1989)

5 Landscape of environmental management strategies Short-term Long-term Indirect strategies MARKET-BASED INSTITUTIONS NON-FORMAL INSTITUTIONS Co-management Integrated Conservation and Development projects Ecotourism Agro-ecological schemes Adaptive comanagement Communitybased landscape planning Certification Environmental taxes and subsidies Environmental education Water and Air quality laws Payments for Ecosystem Services Habitat Banking LEGAL FORMAL INSTITUTIONS National Parks Martín-López (2007) EME (2013) Laws of Endangered Species and Habitats Land acquisition Direct strategies

6 Appropriate specific strategies will vary according to the socialecological system aimed of analysis Strategies are not mutually exclusive Legal framework of PAs sometimes provides a basis for participation of local stakeholders Specific strategies can emerge from the interaction of different institution-levels (i.e., ICDP or environmental education) Multiple strategies might be needed in one social-ecological system for managing ES bundles and trade-offs

7 ECOSYSTEMS Water ecosystems Riparian forests INTERMEDIATE REGULATING SERVICES Hydrological regulation FINAL PROVISIONING SERVICES - DEMAND Drinking water User 1 Water for agriculture User 2 Level of organization Legal formal institutions Market-based institutions Non-formal institutions Global- European Water Directive Framework National Water Environment Laws/Acts Wetland Banking (USA) Environmental taxes Sub-national River Basin Management Plans Payments for Hydrological Services Environmental taxes Local Irrigation communities based on collective choice rules (traditional irrigation channels)

8 ECOSYSTEMS Water ecosystems Riparian forests INTERMEDIATE REGULATING SERVICES Hydrological regulation FINAL PROVISIONING SERVICES - DEMAND Drinking water User 1 Water for agriculture User 2 Level of organization Global- European Legal formal institutions Water Directive Framework River Basin Management Plans Market-based institutions National ES governance Water requires Environment a multi-scale approach. However, local and Laws/Acts de-centralized institutions (usually Sub-national non-formal institutions) are commonly hidden. Wetland Banking (USA) Environmental taxes Payments for Hydrological Services Environmental taxes There is a need of considering the local community Local level because it is where most of the policy implementation is taking place Non-formal institutions Irrigation communities based on collective choice rules (traditional irrigation channels)

9 Multiple strategies might be needed in one socialecological system on the basis of: 1. The level of formal governance 2. The stakeholders engagement

10 FORMAL GOVERNANCE Weak Strong Environmental Laws Stricted Protected Areas (e.g., National Parks) Land acquisition Environmental taxes and subsides Payments for ecosystem services, agroecological schemes or habitat banking Environmental education to engage users Economic incentives for alternative livelihoods (e.g. ecotourism, certification, agroecological schemes etc.) Environmental education to engage governments and users o Integrated Conservation and Development Projects o Payments for ecosystem services and habitat banking o Ecotourism o Certification o Agroecological schemes o Community-based landscape management o Adaptive management and comanagement Disengaged STAKEHOLDERS Engaged Modified from Ban et al. (2013) Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

11 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES DELIVERY High Provisioning Regulating Cultural How landscape management can promote a broad range of ES? Low Strict conservation / National Parks Extensive / Traditional LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT Intensive García-Llorente et al. (2012) Environ. Science & Policy

12 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES DELIVERY High Provisioning Regulating Cultural How landscape management can promote a broad range of ES? Market-based institutions Low Legal formal institutions Diversity of institutions (including nonformal) - local community level Strict conservation / National Parks Extensive / Traditional LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT Intensive García-Llorente et al. (2012) Environ. Science & Policy

13 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES DELIVERY High Provisioning Regulating Cultural How landscape management can promote a broad range of ES? Low Strict conservation / National Parks Extensive / Traditional LANDSCAPE MANAGEMENT Intensive García-Llorente et al. (2012) Environ. Science & Policy

14 Getting the SES working: enhancing and organizing demand and supply of ecosystem services

15 Getting the SES working: enhancing and organizing demand and supply of ecosystem services (Expected) increase of ES benefits Create a supply Change in landscape structure Users expect more profit Create a demand Profit is transferred into action and payment

16 Analysing the actor network Supply Ecosystem services Demand Entrepreneur User 1 Land owner Manager Landscape structure User 2 User 3

17 Natural pest control Focus on Green Infrastructure: Identifying bundles of desired ecosystem services Water retention Synergies and trade offs? Recreation use Energy biomass

18 Bringing together suppliers and demanders in a collaborative planning process supply Ecosystem services demand business farmers Health organizations citizens (nature) managers Green Infra farmers Citizens government

19 The adaptive governance process WHAT? Dreaming the future: how to benefit from nature? Focus on opportunities to create values Learning about other stakeholder's values, negotiating about priorities HOW? Business plan Common targets, rules about responsibilities, investments and payments etc. Monitoring: learning implementation WHERE? to adapt landscape? What to do, who is in charge? Learning about common benefits and the need of coordinated action

20 Case study area the Hoeksche Waard Surface area: ha 60% arable land Identity Dikes: 335 km Creeks: 172 km

21 Case study area the Hoeksche Waard Surface area: ha 60% arable land Identity Dikes: 335 km Creeks: 172 km

22 Green infrastructure Primary demand for biological pest control (secondary for landscape identity, water purification, biodiversity) ((Steingröver et al Landscape Ecology)

23 Meet the stakeholders GI elements Dikes Creeks Road verges Railway banks Main owner Water board Councils Province Railway Main managers Contractors (farmers, volunteers, environmental groups) Contractors (farmers, volunteers, environmental groups) Field margins Farmers Farmers

24 Design rules applied by local stakeholder groups (Uncertainty made explicit and discussed) Fine element Robust element Area of influence Max. width arable field 150 m < 1000 m > 1000 m 150 m 100 m Width of element Fine elements Robust elements 3,5 m 25 m Published field data Simulation modelling Expert judgement (Steingröver et al Landscape Ecology)

25 Design at landscape and farm scale level Design learned farmers that investment only pays if done together (horizontal cooperation) ((Steingröver et al Landscape Ecology) Design learned public and private actors they all benefit from adapting GI (vertical cooperation)

26 Common benefits were detected supply Ecosystem services demand farmer Coordinated action landscape identity Landscape conservation group Dike owner/ manager Green Infra Pest regulation Farmers Tourists from cities Water board Water purification Water board Biodiversity Province SH

27 Implementation by farmers, dike managers and water board is on-going

28 What we learned about governing with ES thus far: Governing ES requires a diversity of institutions as complexity exists in dynamics of ES bundles and trade-offs. ES governance requires a multi-scale approach. However, local and de-centralized institutions (usually non-formal institutions) are commonly hidden. Ecosystem services link private with common benefits: it enhances building non-formal institutions Green Infrastructure linked with ES stimulated cooperation between stakeholders at a landscape scale

29 Berta Martín-López Paul Opdam

30 Institutional diversity for governing ES requires different sources of knowledge: 1. technical-scientific 2. experiential or LEK Within scientific knowledge, different disciplines (biophysical, social and economy knowledge) are needed for governing ES considering institutional diversity

31 Local ecological knowledge (LEK) and cultural-based scientific information Biogeophysical scientific or technical information Economic-based scientific or technical information