Valuation of Ecosystem Services and application perspectives in Germany and Russia

Transcription

1 Valuation of Ecosystem Services and application perspectives in Germany and Russia Vilm meeting, May 2013 Karsten Grunewald Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (IOER), Dresden (Germany)

2 Ecosystem services concept is not new but of outstanding publicity Increasing threats on nature and environment, e.g. losses in biodiversity (e.g. BMU 2009, CBD Nagoya 2010), energy problems, climate change, life style Search for concepts and instruments to steer and regulate the manifold human demands, and to foster sustainable land use

3 ES book 1/2013 concept terms roots framework - methodological approaches case studies guideline

4 The assessment of ecosystem services in a structured way needs suitable, flexible frameworks including robust procedures or guidelines for each of the working steps, e.g. indicator selection, valuation rules, the consideration of space, scale and time aspects, stakeholder involvement, as well as a consistent, logical terminological system. sustainability ecosystem services biodiversity natural capital, environment, landscape, function, potential, resilience, governance

5 Competition of ideas, concepts e.g. classes of ES TEEB four classes we renounced "supporting services", because of the double counting problem link to the concept of sustainability with its established ecological, economic and social development categories

6 We introduced the EPPS-Framework in 2010

7 essential: we renounce the column ecosystem function and instead we analyze potentials Functions = Functioning? Functioning (of landscapes) = the interactions among the spatial elements, that is, the flows of energy, materials, and species among the component ecosystems (Forman & Godron 1986) Functions = ecological phenomena: the things that are needed to deliver a service (TEEB 2009)

8 Functions = capacity? Ecosystem functions = capacity (= potential) of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly (De Groot et al. 2002) see potentials

9 Functions = societal functions? Every part of the earth s surface fulfills functions for human beings Latin term function (fungi) generally means carrying out, managing, or task or activity Niemann (1977, 1982): degree of functional performance of landscape elements and landscape units Wiggering et al. (2003): multiple ecological, social and economic functions (multifunctionality) = prerequisite for sustainable land use

10 Pillar 1: properties of ecosystems individual objects, parts of objects, and ecosystem complexes and the structures and processes (e.g. soil qualities, nutrient cycles, biological diversity) which form the basis for all ES Ecosystem properties are the set of ecological conditions, structures and processes that determine whether an ecosystem service can be supplied. As a component of nature, this basis for services is materially manifest and can, in principle, be measured. Hence, the analysis of ecosystem properties is predominantly driven by natural scientific methods, using analytical indicators. The results represent facts and data that are initially without any relationship to potential societal benefits, values or demands for services by society.

11 Pillar 2: potentials of ecosystems to distinguish between the possibility of use and an actual use can be regarded and quantified as stocks of ES The assessment of ecosystem potentials also pursues the goal of ascertaining the potential use of particular services, and is more normative than a mere accounting of ecosystem properties. It constitutes an important basis for planning, e.g. for the implementation of sustainable land use systems: the suitability of an ecosystem to carry different forms of land use can be established, the available but still unused potentials can be put to actual use, and risks can be estimated.

12 e.g. potential/capacity of Mountain meadows biomass biodiversity medical plants scenery eco-tourism

13 Pillar 3: ecosystem services in fact currently valued, demanded or used the status of an ES is influenced not only by its provision of a certain service, but also by human needs and the desired level of provision for this service by society, which connects inseparably supply and demand of ecosystem services.

14 The implementation of ES management actions cannot be done without the knowledge of the beneficiaries or the stakeholders involved + the framework especially addresses space and time issues. we extend the EPPS framework by two additional pillars: (4) benefits/values and (5) beneficiaries.

15 Conceptual framework for the analysis of ecosystem services the extended EPPS framework

16 Pillar 4: benefits/values ecosystems yield benefits and values, which contribute to human well-being the benefit is the socio-cultural or economic welfare gain provided through the ecosystem service (e.g. health, employment, income.) the benefits of ES must have a direct relationship to human wellbeing. Value i= contribution of ES to goals, objectives or conditions that are specified by a user. Actors in society can attach a value to these benefits. Monetary value can help to internalize so-called externalities (impacts, side-effects) in economic valuation procedures so that they can be better taken into account in decisionmaking processes at all levels.

17 Pillar 5: user/beneficiaries Without human beneficiaries, there are no ES. Accordingly, there is a disservice only if humans suffer harm. The stakeholders, providers, users or beneficiaries of ecosystems and their services can be single persons, groups, or society as a whole.

18 The use and management of services (often regulated and controlled by decisions and legislation tools) can modify or change the properties and potentials of ecosystems. Appropriate management has to bridge the gap between the present state and future targets for ES. Ecosystem management means treats areas at various scales in such a way that ecological services and biological resources are restored and conserved, while appropriate human uses are sustained Ecosystem properties, potentials Land use management Benefits, beneficiaries of ES

19 Application Table: The pillars of the EPPS framework illustrated on the example of two ES * If farming is too intensive and not environmentally compatible, also losers are emerged who are harmed by declines and losses in biodiversity and regulation and socio-cultural services, e.g. nature lovers but also large parts of the society in general.

20 Quantification of ES Beispiel: Bewertung der ÖSD P1 Nahrungspflanzen und R7 Erosionsschutz (Wasser) im Landkreis Görlitz Ökosystem Potenziale ÖSD Nutzen Nutzer Versorgung: Ernte Merkmal natürliche Bodenfruchtbarkeit pflanzenverfügbares Wasser (mm) ETR/ETP-Quotient Hangneignung in Tage mit Mittel >10 Standortpotenzial Stufe 1 Stufe 2 Stufe 3 Stufe 4 Stufe 5 Ertrag (Roggen) St. 1: 40 dt/ha St. 2: 50 dt/ha St. 3: 65 dt/ha St. 4: 70 dt/ha St. 5: 80 dt/ha Erlös (Roggen) ,6 t/a Landwirte (Einkommen) Bevölkerung (Ernährung) Energiewirtschaft (BGA-Substrate, Bioethanol) Regulation: Erosion USLE/ABAG Niederschlag (R) Bodenabtrag (K) Hanglänge (L) Hangneignung (S) Schutz der pnv Wald/Weide C = 0,004 zu max. Acker C = 0,4 Schutz der aktuellen Nutzung zu max. Acker C = 0,4 Widerherstellung der Böden Transport 10 /t Bewässrg. 35 /t Düngung 14 /t Summe 59 /t Landwirte (Ertragsverluste) Bevölkerung Badegäste Verkehrsteilnehmer

21 Discussion 1. User oriented to TEEB approaches, but trend is a framework with five pillars and potential/capacity instead of function + three dimensions of ES (CICES) updating TEEB-materials! draft: Schweppe-Kraft 2013

22 2. Cascade, stairway? (arranged as one after another falls) 5 pillars - close related Each of the five pillars of the framework can be important for specific applications and statements. For this reason not all five pillars need necessarily to be considered within each ecosystem service assessment.

23 3. EPPS framework and former concepts a) logical further development of the multi-functional landscapes approach b) EPPS and DPSIR - differences in the use and weighting Impacts

24 Drivers Pressures State Impact Responses see also Rounsevell et al. 2010

25 Conclusions I A clear terminology in the area of Ecosystem Services is very important (e.g., function service) The EPPS-framework enables the step-wise assessment of ecological structures and processes (functioning) via the potentials (for uses) to the actual use (services, functions for humans), benefits and beneficiaries (Bastian et al. 2013) Currently a harmonization of approaches takes place (three classes of ES, second pillar)

26 Conclusions II What is ES assessment/valuation? all pillars with changes? pillar 3 (ES) or 4 (benefit)? the flow between pillar 3 and 4? (and which flow? Exchange of values?)

27 ES case studies Germany (our ES-book, ch.6) - Ecosystem/use approach - TEEB-D: some ES... NEA-DE in preparation phase

28 Ecosystems of Russia and Northern Eurasia in whole play key role in biospheric regulation. Project ( ) Ecosystem services evaluation in Russia and other NIS countries of Northern Eurasia: first steps (Initiation and implementation of the TEEB process in the Russian Federation and NIS) Team: BfN/IOER, BCC,SUM...

29 Expected results Status quo - Report: Development of the current knowledge on natural capital / ES (data sources, existing facts / results, best practice - examples), especially regional ES case studies in RF and NIS Framework methodology for the valuation of ecosystem services and monitoring in RF and NIS (tasks, focus, participants, reports, schedule) A national report design "natural capital of Russia" - structure, implementation and initial evaluation recommendation steps Integration / recommendations for the preparation of national reports to the "natural capital" of Independent States (first in the sense of national environmental reports with sustainability indicators) Networking: merging and exchange of scientific, social and political skills (Internet platform, workshops, etc.)

30 Vilm/Germany Moscow/Russia TEEBi-Russ