VALUING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES COMMENTARY KAISA MUSTAJÄRVI, RAMBOLL FINLAND
The pictures used in this presentation are from Sastamala Where the forests owned by the municipality where surveyed 2011with funding from The Forest Biodiversity Programme METSO (2008 2016)
AIMS OF THIS COMMENTARY To look at value of the ecosystem services based landscape planning approach focusing on the local scale planning Indentifying the services is already a valuing process Valuing the services ->possibilities and threats Case study
Identifying Focus on ecosystem FUNCTION rather than just endangered species and habitats Valuing Tool for decision making Include non monetary values and the intrinsic value of Indentifying is already part of the valuing process Combining and evaluating nature Resources for restoration of functions? More holistic view on the natural resources and landscape ecology Focus on the FUNCTION instead of just saving and preserving
INDENTIFYING ECOSYSTEM SERVICES AT A LOCAL LEVEL Landscape planning often based on several independent environmental surveys (e.g. Noise, Nature, Stormwater, Groundwater) Currently, already identifying and naming ecosystem services and their beneficiaries adds on their value during planning process
POSSIBILITIES Focus on preserving and enchanging ecosystem functions rather than preserving and saving the steady state Less is sometimes more e.g.heavily built stormwater systems are not always necessary if suitable wetlands are available Less is always more than none controlled use should be encouraged when possible, even at some cost
POSSIBILITIES Putting a clear price tag on provided service may help the beneficiaries to invest on the service Currently the technology based solutions on for example water purification can be more appealing as their price and function is better known -> even when known benefits were evident
THREATS Can the value of especially local scale ecosystem services ever compete with monetary values acquired from build areas? Will build and managed ecosystems and compensations actually lead to loss of intact larger areas of unmanaged green from around cities?
CASE OF BUILT ECOSYSTEM SERVICE UNIT Not existent (yet ) Provides several different ecosystem service functions Is funded and managed by several beneficiaries -> funding and payments are determined by valuing the services Not intact or preserved > the service is based on the knowledge that the habitat will be altered with eg. nitrogen load and the water dynamics will change May also include build structures
FUNCTIONS AND VALUES Rock mines (rock quarrys) Industrial area (expanding) Many involved actions on the area have interests on expanding their functions Natura 2000 River Concern on the water quality and dynamics because of the Natura and drinking water source Lake, source of drinking water for municipality 1
FUNCTIONS OF THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICE UNIT Build on dried peatland Includes: build stormwater ponds wetlands restored peatland areas The ecosystem services provided are: Retaining and purifying water Retaining nitrogen To Serve as a biodiversity hotspot To regulate water dynamics
FUNCTIONS AND VALUES Rock mines (rock quarrys) Industrial area (expanding) All the beneficiaries : Companies Municipalities Env. Authorities? Will contribute to: River Valuing Design Natura 2000 Monitoring Managing Lake, source of drinking water for municipality 1
WITH TIME THE ECOSYSTEM WILL CHANGE BUT IT MAY PROVIDE BETTER ECOSYSTEM SERVICES?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! Ecosystem services provide wellbeing for us all!