Including Ecosystem Services in Conservation Planning and Infrastructure Permitting. Heather Tallis

Transcription

1 Including Ecosystem Services in Conservation Planning and Infrastructure Permitting Heather Tallis

2 The Natural Capital Project

3 Aligning Economic Forces with Conservation The Natural Capital Project Aligning economic forces with conservation 1. Developing new science, methods and tools 2. Applying new approaches in demonstration sites globally 3. Magnifying our impact

4 How would a new cattle management approach affect agricultural revenues?

5 How would a new cattle management approach affect agricultural revenues drinking water quality erosion control carbon sequestration and biodiversity?

6 InVEST InVEST: Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs Steve Polasky, Erik Nelson, Guillermo Mendoza, Driss Ennaanay, Stacie Wolny, Heather Tallis, Marc Conte, Jim Regetz, Peter Kareiva, Taylor Ricketts, Gretchen Daily, Robin Naidoo, Eric Lonsdorf, Kai Chan, Rebecca Shaw, Dick Cameron, Neil Burgess, Andrew Balmford

7 InVEST Stakeholder Engagement Choices Change in Management, Climate, Population Biophysical Models Economic Models Maps Tradeoffs Summary tables Daily et al. 2008

8 Multi-Service Approach InVEST Beta can map Biodiversity Hydropower production Avoided reservoir sedimentation Water purification: nutrient retention Carbon seq & storage Managed timber production Crop pollination

9 Marine InVEST Wild Fisheries and Aquaculture Coastal Protection Recreation & Tourism

10 A Tiered Approach Modeling reality Simple Complex Data reality Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

11 Applying InVEST US West Coast Hawai i Ecuador Colombia Amazon Basin Eastern Arc Mtns China

12 Applying InVEST US West Coast Hawai i Ecuador Colombia Amazon Basin Eastern Arc Mtns China

13 Willamette Basin, USA US West Coast Pacific Northwest Ecosystem Research Consortium scenarios What are the consequences for commodities, biodiversity and ecosystem services? Early models, supply, relative

14 Scenarios All include 1.9 million more people Nelson et al. 2009

15 Models Commodity production (Tier 1) agriculture, forestry, rural-residential real estate Biodiversity (Tier 2) 24 vertebrates, sensitive to LULC Carbon storage (Tier 1) Water purification: nutrient retention (Tier 1) Soil conservation (Tier 1) Storm peak mitigation (Tier 1)

16 Basin-Scale Tradeoffs Change Relative to 1990 Biodiversity (Relative SAR) 1.3 Commodity Production (NPV in yr $USD) Carbon Storage (metric tons/unit) Storm Peak Mitigation (relative score) Water Purification (relative score) Soil Conservation (relative score) Plan Development Conservation Nelson et al. 2009

17 Basin-Scale Tradeoffs Change Relative to 1990 Biodiversity (Relative SAR) 1.3 Commodity Production (NPV in yr $USD) Carbon Storage (metric tons/unit) Storm Peak Mitigation (relative score) Water Purification (relative score) Soil Conservation (relative score) Plan Development Conservation Nelson et al. 2009

18 Additional Research Climate change modeling: important areas for biodiversity and agricultural production that are robust to climate change Conservation payment policy design: carbon and biodiversity Model testing and verification

19 Lessons Science-policy links relatively weak Shared results with TNC and other stakeholders US DOT hoping to fast-track permits Ecosystem Marketplace Science gaps Data not limiting-need simple models of more services Framework for bundling services Capacity Extensive research community

20 Cauca Valley, Colombia Water fund investments Colombia TNC-ecosystem service payments to fund conservation Prioritize investments

21 Water For Life Water Fund

22 Water For Life Water Fund Maintain consistent water flows necessary for drinking water, biodiversity and agriculture through a coordinated strategy. Committee: Watershed Associations Sugar Cane Associations The Nature Conservancy Vallenpaz (local NGO)

23 Boundary Scenarios - CIAT Linea Base No Water Fund Current Landscape Degraded Forest Water Paramo Deciduous Forest Pasture Wooded pasture Mixed agriculture Sugar cane Rangeland Suburban Mines Urban With Water Fund

24 Ecosystem Service Changes No Water Fund 1005 H Annual Water Yield (mm/yr) L164 With Water Fund Hig Low : Change

25 Demonstration Scenarios - CIAT No Water Fund 1005 High : Low : Annual Water Yield (mm/yr) Value 76 0 Annual Erosion (tons/ha/yr) With Water Fund 1005 High : Low : Value 9 0 Change

26 Priority Areas for Investment

27 Priority Areas for Investment Stable Erosion Decreased Yield

28 Priority Areas for Investment Stable Erosion Decreased Yield Improved Erosion Greatest Improved Yield

29 Next Steps Identify priority investments: realistic scenarios for each basin biodiversity portfolio climate change Make investments! Monitor and iterate

30 Lessons Science-policy links strong Science gaps Impacts of alternative management actions on services and biodiversity Simple sub-annual water yield model that differentiates surface and groundwater Capacity Committee relying on outside expertise and technical capacity

31 Cesar Department, Colombia Permitting and Licensing Colombia Ministry expanding requirements to include biodiversity and ecosystem services Demonstrate approach with coal mining sector

32 Cesar Department, Colombia Services of interest: Water quality (Tier 1 nutrients and sediment) Water yield (groundwater and surface)

33 Demonstration Case Scenarios 12,000 km 2 Current Landscape Permits Granted Permits Requested All Permit Blocks

34 Beneficiaries 12,000 km 2 Permits Granted Permits Requested All Permit Blocks

35 Service Sheds Areas that provide the same service to the same people

36 Erosion Impact Permits Granted Permits Requested All Permit Blocks Change in sediment export (t/ha/yr) 390 0

37 Rank By Total Impact Permit blocks ranked by erosion and nutrient pollution per unit area Rank Per Area Total Impact

38 Permits with Potential for Mitigation 6 mines can be offset to same beneficiaries with no ratio

39 More Aggressive Restoration Conservation priority areas for restoration

40 Next Steps Define mitigation ratio Summarize impacts and options Present framework to Ministry and train technical team

41 Lessons Science-policy links strong Science gaps Simple water yield model that differentiates surface and groundwater Data availability (aquifers, retention rates) Capacity Will train Ministry staff (sustainable?)

42 Take Homes Political will is growing in diverse places We can take amazing steps forward now Data, models and technical capacity are still limiting

43 Take Homes Google s Earth Engine Data compilation and technical capacity? InVEST is next

44 Blatant Propaganda Download InVEST for free: Kareiva, Ricketts, Daily, Tallis, & Polasky, Eds The Theory & Practice of Ecosystem Service Valuation in Conservation. OUP.

45

46 Spatial Change

47 Future Scenarios Conservation Development Plan Biodiversity Biodiversity Biodiversity Biodiversity $$ C $$ C $$ C Storm WP Storm WP Storm WP Soil Soil Soil Nelson et al. 2009

48 Future Scenarios Conservation Development Plan Biodiversity Biodiversity Biodiversity Biodiversity $$ C $$ C $$ C Storm WP Storm WP Storm WP Soil Soil Soil Nelson et al. 2009

49 InVEST for Climate Change Models Biodiversity Carbon Flood mitigation Water purification Hydropower production Irrigation Agricultural production Avoided reservoir sedimentation Open access harvest Timber production Recreation and tourism Capture fisheries Aquaculture Shoreline protection Wave energy generation Annual Weather Climate Change Impacts Seasonal Weather Extreme Events Vegetation Changes Animal Ranges Sea Level Rise

50 Model Comparison Comparison of SWAT and InVEST Annual average water yield (mm/yr) TULUA SWAT InVEST % difference Baseline % No Water Fund % With Water Fund % FRAILE SWAT InVEST % difference Baseline % No Water Fund % With Water Fund %

51 Model Verification InVEST (mm/yr) SWAT (mm/yr)

52 Permits with Potential for Mitigation 6 mines can be offset to same beneficiaries with no ratio 9 mines can be offset to any beneficiaries with no ratio

53 Stakeholder Feedback Presented results from boundary scenarios Created more realistic scenario Ran InVEST over lunch

54 Stakeholder Feedback Linea Base Current Landscape Water Fund Restoration Water Mixed agriculture Mixed forest Sugar cane Deciduous forest Rangeland Mine Paramo Pasture Urban area

55 Stakeholder Scenario Current Landscape Annual Water Yield (mm/yr) Annual Erosion (tons/ha/yr) H2 L0 With Water Fund H0.5 L0 Change

56 Stakeholder Scenario Change in Annual Avg. Water Yield (mm/yr) YES Change in Annual Average Erosion (tons/ha/yr) Base 20,200,000 mm Rest 19,500,000 mm % cambio: -3.5% NO Base 480 tons/yr Rest 240 tons/yr % cambio: -50%