Ecosystem accounts Limburg. Rixt de Jong and Roy Remme

Transcription

1 Ecosystem accounts Limburg Rixt de Jong and Roy Remme

2 Ecosystem Accounts Limburg Context and aims Maps Modelling ecosystem services Supply and use tables Possible applications Take home messages

3 Context Ecosystems and biodiversity under severe environmental pressure Ecosystem services may be reduced or lost. Ecosystem accounting aims to quantify and monitor Ecosystem services Identify the suppliers and beneficiaries of services Identify causes for change Identify the costs/benefits of change SEEA EEA guidelines (UNSD, 2013): consistent with National Accounts, and internationally consistent Ecosystem Services: those services provided by the natural environment that contribute to economies

4 Context Project aims: Pilot project on the application of the SEEA EEA approach for Limburg province: feasibility, relevance and recommendations for further work

5 Context Ecosystem Services form basis for core accounts ES Supply controlled by Condition & Extent Supply = Use (NA identity) Content of all accounts is geographically explicit, maps needed! Ecosystem Units Map Economic Ownership (SBI) map Maps for all ecosystems services, physical and monetary

6 Ecosystem Units map Based on 6 maps and specific regional and local information Highly detailed polygon map w line elements >6m included Mixture of land use, economic ownership, specific regional features, mixed level-legend 31 units, based on requirements for ES models not the ideal map for ecologists, biologists etc.

7 Ecosystem Units map

8 Concept, Supply en Use x = Supply per EU Ecosystem service map or ES model based directly on EU map = Supply per EU

9 Methods EU as base map Biophysical models ecosystem services Based on Remme et al Ecosystem Services Monetary valuation ecosystem services Based on Remme et al Ecological Economics 9

10 Biophysical ecosystem service models Look-up table models Biophyiscal quantity x area Examples Carbon sequestration Drinking water production Local statistics Scientific literature 10

11 Biophysical ecosystem service models Complex models Example Nature tourism Accommodation locations Surrounding nature areas Statistics Capacity Occupancy Nature tourists per ha 11

12 Monetary valuation Valuation methods aligned with national accounts Focus on producer surplus Exclude consumer surplus (What is it worth to you) Described in SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting Resource rent Avoided damage costs Replacement costs 12

13 Resource rent Resource rent = R I L - U R = revenue I = intermediate costs L = labour costs U = user costs of fixed capital Applicable for ecosystem services with data on market values 13

14 Resource rent Crop production Fodder production Nature tourism 14

15 Avoided damage costs Carbon sequestration Avoided CO 2 in atmosphere Avoided climate change PM10 filtration Avoided increased concentration Avoided medical costs 15

16 Replacement costs Costs for replacing ecosystem service with most viable alternative Drinking water production from ground water Alternative: surface water higher purification costs comparison between drinking water production companies 16

17 Biophysical vs. monetary maps PM10 filtration Hunting 17

18 Ecosystem contribution to economy Ecosystem service Total revenue (million ) ES contribution (million ) Crop production Fodder production Drinking water production PM10 filtration Carbon sequestration Nature tourism Hunting Some ecosystem services connected to national accounts Some are additional, do not appear in national accounts 18

19 Non-perennial plants Perennial plants Meadows (for grazing) Hedgerows Deciduous forest Coniferous forest Mixed forest Heath land Fresh water wetlands Natural grassland Public green space River flood basin Non-perennial plants Perennial plants Meadows (for grazing) Hedgerows Deciduous forest Coniferous forest Mixed forest Heath land Fresh water wetlands Natural grassland Public green space River flood basin Physical Supply (summ.) Physical supply, totals Ecosystem Units Ecosystem services Totals extent (ha) Crops tonnes/yr Fodder tonnes/yr Meat (from game) kg/yr Ground water (drinking water only) in 1000 m3/yr capture of PM10 tonnes/yr Carbon sequestration tonnes C/yr Recreation (cycling) 1000s of bike trips/yr Nature tourism # tourists/yr Physical Supply per Hectare Ecosystem services Ecosystem Units Crops tonnes/ha/yr 26,63 8, Fodder tonnes/ha/yr 2,63 0,58 12, ,74 Meat (from game) kg/ha/yr 0,21 0,19 0,22 0,28 0,22 0,24 0,28 0,29 0,22 0,26 0,19 0,17 Ground water (drinking water only) 1000m3/ha/yr 0,17 0,17 0,15 0,17 0,17 0,01 0,05 0,05-0,23 0,08 0,09 capture of PM10 tonnes/ha/yr 0,01 0,01 0,01-0,03 0,06 0, ,02 0,01 Carbon sequestration tonnesc/ha/yr - 0,30 0,18 0,17 1,45 1,45 1,45 0,19 0,22 0,19 0,25 0,20 Recreation (cycling) 1000s of bike trips/ha/yr 0,03 0,04 0,04 0,03 0,05 0,03 0, ,03 0,04 0,04 Nature tourism #tourists/ha/yr 1,75 2,72 5,05 19,66 14,06 13,21 14,17 10,81 12,89 17,87 2,46 6,70

20 Non-perennial plants Meadows (for grazing) Hedgerows Deciduous forest Coniferous forest Mixed forest Heath land Fresh water wetlands Natural grassland Public green space Other unpaved terrain River flood basin Monetary Supply (summ.) extent ha Totals Crops Fodder Meat (from game) Ground water Capture of PM Carbon sequestration Nature tourism Recreation (cycling) NA NA value per ha (excl. Amenity) /ha value per ha (incl. Amenity)* /ha

21 A B-D E F-H I,R Rest Export Household cons Government cons. Investments Inventories Env (global goods) Monetary use Economic Users (ISIC Sections) Ecosystem services Ecosystem Units Crops tonnes/yr Fodder tonnes/yr Meat (from game) kg/yr Ground water (drinking water only) in 1000 m3/yr Capture of PM10 tonnes/yr Carbon sequestration tonnes C/yr Recreation (cycling) 1000s of bike trips/yr na Nature tourism # tourists/yr

22 Possible applications Highlight importance of non commercial ecosystem types MAP ES supply, identify users Compare to e.g. related employment, value added etc Timeseries: ES related costs and benefits of environmental protection measures (EHS, Ruimte vd Rivier, zandmotor), analysis of changes in condition and extent of ecosystems Comparison to National Accounts; GDP

23 Take home messages Ecosystem accounting is feasible in the Netherlands Ecosystem accounting is in demand (policy makers, national and international: UN, World Bank, EU, National governments) Challenges: monetary valuation; much more experimentation needed, more (international) collaboration For a number of ES no/insufficient models or data available (e.g. water recreation, recreational fishing, mushroom picking)

24 Take home messages The main of of Ecosystem accounting is NOT to calculate the total value of ecosystems as precisely as possible. Its main strength is in providing (inter)nationally consistent numbers and timeseries

25 Thank you! Funding: Min. of Economic Affairs Min. of Infrastructure and the Environment ERC grant (Ecospace) Project participants: Lars Hein and Roy Remme (Wageningen University) Bram Edens, Rixt de Jong, Niek van Leeuwen, Sjoerd Schenau, Marijn Zuurmond (Statistics Netherlands) With contributions from RIVM and PBL