Survey on grassland ecosystem services in the CR. Exchange on TEEB Processes in European Countries 12 October 2011, Isle of Vilm

Transcription

1 Survey on grassland ecosystem services in the CR Exchange on TEEB Processes in European Countries 12 October 2011, Isle of Vilm

2 Ecosystem services of grasslands in the CR survey conducted consortium: Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic (ANCLP): Charles University Environment Center: Umweltbundesamt GmBH (UBA): 2011 incentive and financial support from European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity seminar in May 2011 UBA (Austria), BfN (Germany), FOEN (Switzerland), ILE SAS (Slovakia), ETC-BD

3 Objectives of the survey to explore relationships among ecosystem services and biodiversity literature review to assess of ecosystem services provided by grasslands quantitative calculations qualitative assessment to explore methods and options to assess trade-offs among ecosystem services provided by grasslands under various use literature review of trade-offs as a result of land use change, differentiation of ES provision levels among natural and degraded grassland ecosystems (literature review), comparison of costs and benefits of grassland ecosystem services (costs based on conservation spending) mapping of grassland ecosystem services (application of quantitative calculations),

4 Focus of the survey ecosystem services provided by grasslands habitat approach: services distinguished (when possible) for 8 categories of (semi-)natural habitats + pastures & managed grasslands dry grasslands, alluvial meadows, mesic grasslands, seasonally wet and wet grasslands, alpine and subalpine grasslands, forest fringe vegetation, salt marshes, heathlands spatial focus originally on the CR, however, results could be generalized to the Central European countries with respective habitats ecosystem services in terms of Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, services classification adopted to TEEB in 2011

5 Quantitative assessment ecosystem services accounting framework: ecosystem asset = habitat type (h), biophysical quantities of services described by biophysical indicators (B), benefits to human society from flows of ES expressed by an economic value Ecosystem (p) asset Economic value Biophysical service quantity Grassland habitat area (ha) Biophysical indicator kg/ha, Mg/ha, Monetary value/price CZK/ha, EUR/ha, t t ES h = B i quantification based on estimates derived from literature review and available valuation surveys by benefit and value transfer p i

6 Services being quantified Service category Ecosystem service Indicator Economic valuation method Provisioning Food provision Livestock numbers Market price Regulating Climate regulation Carbon sequestered Marginal abatement cost (MAC) Invasion regulation Level of Invasion/Invasibility Maintenance cost Erosion regulation Soil loss prevented Damage cost (D) Water flow regulation Water infiltration Replacement cost (RPC) Waste treatment Nitrogen removal Substitute market approach Cultural Recreation and tourism Value per hectare Willingness to pay (WTP)

7 Economic value of ecosystem services per area EUR/ha per year Invasion regulation Recreation Nitrogen removal Carbon sequestration Erosion regulation Max livestock number Water regulation Seasonally wet and wet grasslands Alluvial meadows Mesic grasslands Forest fringe vegetation Alpine and subalpine grasslands Dry grasslands Pastures and managed grasslands Salt marshes Heathlands

8 Benefits and costs calculated by Net Present Value Net Present Value (EUR/ha) DG Dry grasslands AM Alluvial meadows MG Mesic grasslands WG Seasonally wet and wet grasslands AG Alpine and subalpine grasslands FF Forest fringe vegetation SM Salt marshes HT Heathlands

9 Ecosystem services mapping

10 Future perspectives Goal: ecosystem services taken into account in decision making Strengths: Long tradition in nature oriented research Academic community interested in further research Weaknesses: High barrier for new approaches on the side of government Stress on executive rather than on strategic planning (government) Science policy interface not flexible, limited flow of innovation Low awareness among public, limited public debate Opportunities: Threats: Possible encouragement from EU initiatives Methods of ES quantification/valuation underdeveloped, reliable outcomes not available High temptation to prefer strightforward solutions understandable to public rather than complicated innovations

11 Czech Habitat Mapping first run, update Mapping districts defined by fixed lines (roads, railways, streams etc.) The area of one mapping district is ha 3500 mapping districts in the CR (the mapping base 1: map, orthophotograph) Mapping approx. 10 % of the whole area each year (12 yr period planned) Data collected through on-line form with implemented GIS tool

12 Thank you for your attention Iva Hönigová Agency for Nature Conservation of the CR Prague, Czech Republic