Boreal habitats suitability for ecological compensation

Transcription

1 Boreal habitats suitability for ecological compensation Case Finland Olli Ojala Finnish Environment Institute EUROSITE Annual Meeting And Natura 2000 Biogeographical Process Boreal Region Meeting Joint seminar In Nuuksio, FINLAND, 25-27th September 2017

2 Framework for assessing and reversing ecosystem degradation ELITE - Framework for assessing and reversing ecosystem degradation Report of the Finnish restoration prioritization working group on the options and costs of meeting the Aichi biodiversity target of restoring at least 15 percent of degraded ecosystems in Finland Janne S. Kotiaho, Saija Kuusela, Eini Nieminen, Jussi Päivinen and Atte Moilanen Parks & Wildlife Finland 2

3 Framework for assessing and reversing ecosystem degradation method and results Ecosystem restoration All measures that enhance biodiversity in the area Pre-degradation state the state of the ecosystems that would be existent in the absence of human intervention Result Degradation caused to such an extent that we have lost on average 61% of the ecosystem condition in Finland 3

4 Framework for assessing and reversing ecosystem degradation biodiversity offsetting Method can be used to assess the damage with the same logic as the restoring effects of the measures Step 1. Decide focal ecosystem types and determine the area of each Step 2. Determine degraded components in each ecosystem type Step 3. Determine current and pre-degradation condition of each degraded component Step 4. Determine the loss of ecosystem condition from each degraded component Step 5. Calculate overall ecosystem condition remaining [ ] Step 7. Determine ecosystem condition and services gain from each restoration measure 4

5 Need for ecological compensations COMPENSATION MARKET BIODIVERSITY TIME SYKE/Ojala TIME

6 Scope of ecological compensations in Finland Study on ecological tresholds of ecosystems/habitat types Study on environmental permits Ecosystems/habitat types benefitting most from ecological compensations and situations where ecological compensations are most needed 6

7 Study on suitability of habitat types for ecological compensation (in progress) Builds on advanced work done on redlisting of Habitat types Financed by MoE and SYKE Based on the Assessment of threatened habitat types in Finland (2008) Not limited to endangered or protected Habitat types => includes common and least concern habitat types Suitability is assessed at the 2nd hierarchical level of Endangered status of Habitat types in Finland (2008) => around 100 Habitat types included 7

8 Examples of 2 nd hierarchical level of Habitat classification 4 Mires Suot 2nd hierarchical level [ ] 4.3 Pine mires and bogs Rämeet [ ] 4.4 Pine fens and rich pine fens Nevaja lettorämeet 4.5 Fens Nevat [ ] Herb rich sedge fens Lettonevat Swamp fens Luhtanevat Tall-sedge fens Saranevat Sphagnum papillosum fens Kalvakkanevat Flark fens Rimpinevat Minerotrophic low-sedge fens Minerotrofiset lyhytkorsinevat Hollow bogs Kuljunevat [ ] 4.6 Rich fens Letot [ ] [ ] 8

9 Examples of 2 nd hierarchical level of Habitat classification 7 Traditional rural biotopes Perinnebiotoopit 2nd hierarchical level [ ] 7.3 Dry meadows Kedot 7.4 Mesic meadows Tuoreet niityt 7.5 Moist meadows Kosteat niityt Calcareous dry meadows Kalkkivaikutteiset pienruohokedot Acid low herb dry meadows Karut pienruohokedot Dwarf shrub dry meadows Kangaskedot Avenula pubescens dry meadows Mäkikaurakedot [ ] Low herb mesic meadows Tuoreet pienruohoniityt Tall herb mesic meadows Tuoreet suurruohoniityt Graminoid mesic meadows Tuoreet heinäniityt Calcareous moist meadows Kalkkivaikutteiset kosteat niityt [ ] 9

10 Approach to assessing suitability of Habitat types for ecological compensation General conditions - Specific traits of an occurrence that can make the Ecological compensation unsuitable Quality Occurrences in natural state or close to that Species composition/structure/function extraordinarily representative Occurrences hosting high geomorphological values Large occurrences/sites Species Occurrences important to endangered species (Many) endangered or rare species Species composition otherwise special Location Occurrences important to connectivity (migration, protected area network, climate change) Extreme occurrences in the range 10

11 Approach to assessing suitability of Habitat types for ecological compensation Even if a Habitat type is assessed as suitable for Ecological compensation on general level, there are traits related to specific occurrences that can make the Ecological compensation inoperable/unsuitable. This is the case where the loss or degradation of one specific occurrence would cause such a loss of biodiversity that cannot be compensated/offset, or risk of failure in implementation of compensation measures is too high. 11

12 Data for suitability assessment of a Habitat type (1/3) Endangered classification of Habitat types in Finland 2008 Reasons for endangered class and threats: e.g. construction projects, eutrophication, mining, invasive species, climate change Correlation to protected habitat types: Directives and national legislation Structure: e.g. soil, topography, characteristics of vegetation, typical species Function: Abiotic characteristics (e.g. waves, ice, salt, wind, land upheaval). Natural succession. Preferred maintenance measures if any Rarity: Rare, common. Spatial distribution. 12

13 Data for suitability assessment of a Habitat type (2/3) Need for enhancement measures: High, Intermediate, Low Reliability of measures to enhance habitat condition: Good, Intermediate, Unclear, Poor, Not known. Suitability for ecological compensation: Suitable - general conditions Suitable, if specific conditions are met Unsuitable; rare and endangered, no reliable means to restore/enhance occurences Reasoning for the result of the suitability assessment: Rationale explained Special conditions for ecological compensation: Conditions additional to general conditions elaborated 13

14 Data for suitability assessment of a Habitat type (3/3) Suitable compensation type Compensation with more rare Habitat types Compensation with similar Habitat type (Like-for-Like) Avoiding degradation is especially important, enhancement can be used to compensate degradation of more common habitat types Avoiding degradation is especially important, benefits markedly from restoration enhancement measures Known measures for enhancement of Habitat condition - One-off or seldomly reoccuring measures - Reoccurring measures - Continuous measures/maintenance - Establishment of protected areas - Maintenance of human made habitats - Partial compensation possible Most important types of projects threatening the Habitat type: E.g. construction projects, forestry 14

15 Classification suitability for Ecological compensation (DRAFT) 1. Suitable - general conditions apply Often common, sometimes endangered No need for enhancement measures, if measures are needed they are reliable/operable Low value occurrences can be lost Compensation often with similar or even with more rare habitat types 2. Suitable, if specific conditions are met Common and/or rare habitat types Not endangered and endangered habitat types Variation in reliability of enhancement measures, can sometimes be enhanced to compensate degradation of more common habitat types Sometimes variation spatially or within the assessed hierarchical level Avoidance of degradation or compensation with similar habitat type 3. Unsuitable; rare and endangered, no reliable means to restore/enhance occurences Very rare and endangered with values related to species Moderately rare and endangered with no reliable means to enhance their condition Habitat types with almost exclusively unique occurrences, impossible to replace. Habitat types with poorly known occurrences or ecological characteristics, probably relatively rare Avoidance of degradation important. 15

16 Ecological compensations - Work in progress in Finland [ ] Development of calculation method (SYKE) Study on suitability of habitat types for ecological compensation (SYKE) Study on legal conditions and operational model of a mediating actor (SYKE/University of Lapland; Primmer & al. 2017) Study on economical feasibility of compensation measures (University of Helsinki; Prof. Markku Ollikainen, MFS Johanna Kangas) Pilot case (Parks & Wildlife Finland, private sector and SYKE) Preliminary report on application of compensations in Finland (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2017) Olli Ojala 16

17 KIITOS, THANK YOU! Olli Ojala Head of Ecosystem services team Natural Environment Centre Finnish Environment Institute 17Ojala Olli