The science and practice of ecosystem services: challenges...

Klik op het pictogram als u een afbeelding wilt toevoegen




The science and practice of ecosystem services: challenges and opportunities

(Ru)Dolf de Groot, Env. Systems Analysis Group Wageningen University, The Netherlands

Int. Symposium “X Eugen Warming Lectures in Evolutionary Ecology: Biodiversity and ecosystem

services in the tropics, now and beyond” 2–4 December 2014, Belo Horizonte, Brasil

Click to edit Master subtitle style

30/01/15

http://www.crisisoflife.net/the-destruction.html

http://www.crisisoflife.net/the-destruction.html

This is Where the Subtitle Goes

www.MAweb.org

2001-20051360 scientists 95 countries

Global assessment to investigate effects of ecosystem andbiodiversity loss on human wellbeing -> ecosystem services

The Austrialian, 30 March 2005

+ 33 sub-global assessments

UNEP & Conventions (CBD, Ramsar)

Recreatio

n

Inspiratio

n

Habitat/

Support

Food

Medicins&

models

Timber

Water

Pollination

Air quali

ty

C-seq

Biol.

control

Ecosystem Services

> 60% in decline (fisheries and other natural resources, air-& water quality control, pollination etc.)

Cost of ecosystem loss 2-5% of GDP per year (Science, 2002)(2-3 Trillion$ damage-costs, replacement & restoration costs, etc.)

Cost of ecosystem loss

Erosioncost

Lively-Hoo

dloss

Water

pollutio

ncost

Flooding

cost

Air pollutio

ncost

Crop

loss

+ 1-2 trillion US$ Perverse Subsidies ..

Potsdam 2007-Meeting of the Environmental Ministers of the G8+5

“Potsdam Initiative – Biological Diversity 2010” The economic significance of the global loss of biological diversity - analysing the global economic benefit of biological diversity,

- the costs of the loss of biodiversity and - the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation.

Sponsors: UNEP & EUGermany + several other EU Countries (& Japan)

Stern (2006): “Invest 2% of GDP/year to avoid damage of 20%”

2008 – 2010 www.teebweb.org

Millennium EcosystemAssessment:

Ø 60% of ecosystem services are in decline

9 Oct 2010

2-3 Trillion US$/y [2002]

TEEB: 7.3 Trillion $/y 2012 (13% of global GDP)

Externality costs of (unsust.) agriculture,forestry, fishery, mining, oil & gas explor. and primary processing industry (eg. steel,petrochemicals) incl. erosion, soil, water &air pollution and other damage and mitigation costs (www.teebforbusiness.org “Natural Capital at Risk” April 2013)

www.teebweb.org(2008 – 2010)

http://www.teebforbusiness.org/

Rapid increase in Ecosystem Service science and policy awareness

(Potschin & Haines-Young, 2011)

MA (2005)

TEEB (2010)

Costanza et al, 1997Daily, 1997

(De Groot, 1987)

CBD, Nagoya, Oct 2010

www.ipbes.net

Westman, 1977

No goats Goats

Fence

In Practice ?

Baviaanskloof, S. Africa

Public costs Private benefits

30/01/15 Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP

www.es-partnership.org




1. Frameworks, definitions & typologies2. Role of Biodiversity in ES provision3. Measuring ES -> Indicators4. Mapping ES (spatial analysis and visualisation)5. Modelling ES (in time and space)6. Valuing ES (measuring the importance)7. Trade-off analysis and project evaluation8. Es and Disaster Risk reduction9. Application in planning, management & restoration10. Co-investment and reward mechanisms11. Accounting and greening the economy12. Governance and Institutional Change

ESP Thematic Working groupsMain challenges ..


30/01/15

Many frameworks ...

IPBES, currently under development

MA, 2005 TEEB, 2010

Many others ....

Ecosystems & Biodiversity

Institutions & human Judgments determining

(the use of) services

Service(eg. flood-

protection,products

Human wellbeing(socio-cultural context)

•Health•Safety•Livelihood

Linking Biodiversity and Human Wellbeing

Gifts?

MA conceptual frameworkto link Ecosystems with Human Wellbeing

“link” not really solved

TEEB framework: linking ecosystems and wellbeing


*) subset of biophysical structure or process providing the service (or “Service Providing Unit” (SPU))

Service(eg. flood-

protection,products

Feedback betweenvalue perception and use of eco-system services

Management/Restoration

Institutions & human Judgments determining

(the use of) services

Function*(eg. slow water passage, biomass)

(eg. vegetation cover or Net Primary Productivity

Biophysical Structure or process

(contributionto health,safety, etc)

Benefit(s)

Human wellbeing(socio-cultural context)

(econ) Value

(eg. WTP for protection or products)

De Groot et al., 2010 TEEB D0-Chapter 1(adapted from Haines-Young & Potschin, 2010)

Biophysical structure or

process(e.g. woodland habitat or net

primary productivity )

Service(e.g. flood

protection, or harvestable products)

Service(e.g. flood


Function(e.g. slow

passage of water, or biomass)

Function(e.g. slow


Benefit (Value)(e.g. willingness to pay for woodland protection or for

more woodland, or harvestable products)


more woodland, or harvestable products)Σ Pressures

Limit pressures via policy action?




Service(e.g. flood


Service(e.g. flood


Function(e.g. slow


Function(e.g. slow









Service(e.g. flood


Service(e.g. flood


Function(e.g. slow


Function(e.g. slow





more woodland, or harvestable products)Σ Pressures

Limit pressures via policy action?

Distinguishing functions, services and benefits

Ecosystem Services-are “conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and species …, sustain and fulfill human life” (Daily, 1997) -are ”the benefits people derive from ecosystems” (Mill. Ecosystem Assessment, 2005) (… directly or indirectly, from ecosystem functions” (Costanza et al, 1997)

TEEB: Services are the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystemsto human well-being (De Groot et al, 2010)

Ecosystem Function: „Capacity of ecosystem components and processes to provide goods and dervices that satisfy human needs (directly and indirectly)“ (De Groot, 1992)

Intermediate &final services ?

Haines-Young & Potchin, 2009

Typology of ecosystem services

www.maweb.org

Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA)

www.teebweb.org

The Economics of Ecosystemsand Biodiversity (TEEB)

Provisioning-FoodRegulating-Flood preventionCultural & Amenity-RecreationHabitat-Nursery service-Genepool prot.

No Supporting Services(= Functions)

Provisioning1 - Food 2 - Water 3 - Raw Materials 4 - Genetic resources5 - Medicinal resources 6 - Ornamental resources

Regulating7 - Air quality regulation8 - Climate regulation (incl. C- sequestration)9 - Moderation of extreme events 10 - Regulation of water flows 11 - Waste treatment

12 - Erosion prevention13 - Maintenance of soil fertility14 - Pollination15 - Biological control

Habitat/Supporting16 – Nursery service17 – Genepool protection

Cultural [provide opportunities for:]18 - Aesthetic enjoyment19 - Recreation & tourism20 - Inspiration for culture, art & design21 - Spiritual experience22 - Cognitive development

4 types, 22 Services:


30/01/15

MA, 2005 (21) TEEB, 2010(22) CICES, under dev.

Provisioning services

Food (fodder) FoodTerrestrial plants and animal foodstuffs

Freshwater plants and animal foodstuffsMarine algae and animal foodstuffs

Fresh water WaterPotable waterNon-potable water

Fibre, timber Raw Materials Biotic materialsGenetic resources Genetic resources Biotic Materials (Genetic resources)

Biochemicals Medicinal resources Biotic Materials (Medicinal and cosmetic resources)

Ornamental resources Ornamental resources Biotic Materials (Ornamental resources)

Biomass based energy

Regulating & Supporting

services (MA)

Regulating & Habitat services

(TEEB)

Regulating and maintenance

(CICES)

Air quality regulation Air quality regulation Atmospheric regulation

Water purification & w. treatment Waste treatment (water purification) BioremediationDilution and sequestrationWater quality regulation

Water regulationRegulation of water flows

Water flow regulationModeration of extreme events

Erosion regulation Erosion prevention Mass flow regulation (erosion protection)

Climate regulation Climate regulationAtmospheric regulationAir flow regulation

Soil formation (supp. services) Maintenance of soil fertility Pedogenesis and soil quality regulation

Pollination Pollination Lifecycle maint.,habitat & gene pool prot (pollination)

Pest regulationBiological control Pest and disease control including alien species

Disease regulation

Primary productionNutrient cycling

Maintenance of life cycles of migratory sp. (incl. nursery service)

Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection

Maintenance of genetic diversity (especially in gene pool protection)

Lifecycle maint., habitat & gene pool protection

Cultural services

Spiritual and religious values Spiritual experience SpiritualAesthetic values Aesthetic information Aesthetic, HeritageCultural diversity Inspiration for culture, art & design Spiritual

Aesthetic, HeritageRecreation and ecotourism Recreation and tourism Recreation and community activities

Knowledge syst. & educ.values Information for cognitive developm. Information After Maes et al.,2012

Ecosystem Services Typology still under discussion ....


30/01/15

Will there ever bea fina l ans w er ..? ?



TWG 2: B iodivers ity & E c os ys tem S ervic esPatricia Balvanera, Univ. Nacional Autonoma de Mexico

Isabelle Durance, Cardiff University, United Kingdom+ Edmundo Barrios (CGIAR) + Piran White (BESS)

This working group aims to analyse the relations between biodiversity and other ecosystem properties with ecosystem functioning to better understand, and predict, the capacity of ecosystem s to provide ecosystem services.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Influence of vegetation (forests) on air quality Capacity of an average

broadleaved forest inthe Netherlands to filter aerosols (dust particles)is 30-70 Tons/ha/year

Concentration parts/M3- in forest 500- in open field 5.000 (10x)- in industrial > 10.000 (20x) area

Actual Service ->Performance Indicators

No. of dustparticles captured

orAir quality

How measure (individual) Services (& Functions)Function ->

State Indicators

Leaf Area Index

Multiple relations between Functions & Services


*) subset of biophysical structure or process providing the service (or “Service Providing Unit” (SPU))

Function*(eg. slow water passage, biomass)

(eg. vegetation cover or Net Primary Productivity

Biophysical Structure or process

MA categ TEEB categ CICES class

Provisioning services

Food (fodder) Food

Terrestrial plants and animal foodstuffs

Freshwater plants and animal foodstuffs

Marine algae and animal foodstuffs

Fresh water WaterPotable waterNon-potable water

Fibre, timber Raw Materials Biotic materials

Genetic resources Genetic resources Biotic Materials (Genetic resources)

Biochemicals Medicinal resources Biotic Materials (Medicinal and cosmetic resources)

Ornamental resources Ornamental resources Biotic Materials (Ornamental resources)

Biomass based energy

Regulating & Supporting

services (MA)

Regulating &

Habiat services (TEEB)

Regulating

and maintenance

(CICES)

Air quality regulation Air quality regulation Atmospheric regulation

Water purification and water treatment Waste treatment (water purification)

Bioremediation

Dilution and sequestration

Water quality regulation

Water regulationRegulation of water flows

Water flow regulationModeration of extreme events

Erosion regulation Erosion prevention Mass flow regulation (erosion protection)

Climate regulation Climate regulationAtmospheric regulation

Air flow regulation

Soil formation (supporting services) Maintenance of soil fertility Pedogenesis and soil quality regulation

Pollination Pollination Lifecycle maintenance, habitat and gene pool protection (pollination)

Pest regulationBiological control

Pest and disease control including alien speciesDisease regulation

Primary productionNutrient cycling

Maintenance of life cycles of migratory species (incl. nursery service)


Maintenance of genetic diversity (especially in gene pool protection)


Cultural services

Spiritual and religious values Spiritual experience Spiritual

Aesthetic values Aesthetic information Aesthetic, HeritageCultural diversity Inspiration for culture, art and design Spiritual

Aesthetic, HeritageRecreation and ecotourism Recreation and tourism

Recreation and community activities

Knowledge systems and educational values Information for cognitive development Information

After Maes et al.,2012

?

?

Ecosystem Services

Minimum requirements? S ervic e providing U nit Loss of pollination services

by bees in Nepal

“It takes 20-25 people to performthe work of two bee-colonies”

Local: how many Bleu Jays do we need to maintain the (oak) forest in an urban park (Stockholm) …?

Service Providing Unit (SPU) (Luck et al, 2003) www.rubicode.net (2006-2009)

Sustainable use / thresholds How much wood

can we cut ...?

(or how much can wepollute the air …)

How many bees & birds canwe lose …?

Bleaching

How much coral can we destroy …? How much fish can we catch …?

Tipping points / points of no return?

Negative “return” of 50 billion $/yearsince 1990’s “Sunken billions”



TWG 3: E c os ys tem S ervic e Indic a tors

“Problem: Present frameworks for ESI's are frag mentary and most ecosystem services have few applicable indicators to monitor the potentia l and ac tua l delivery of services”.

•Felix Mueller, University of Kiel, Germany [EiC of “Ecological Indicators]•David Vackar, Czech Globe & IUCN-CEMCollaboration with ao: Matt Walpole, UNEP-WCMC,UK [ES Indic a tor Partners hip ]& Belinda Reyers, CSIR, South Africa [Lead indicator group Geobon-Earth Observation Network]

Aim: the ES Indicators TWG will develop indicators for quantifying the capacity, and actual “delivery” of ecosystem services.

ConditionStateStock

FunctionSupplyFlow

ServiceDemandUse

BenefitNeedValue

ImportanceHWIGDP etc

Proposed typology of ES indicators

PROPERTYIndicator(EPI)

-WHAT is providing the service

CAPACITYIndicator(ECI)

-POT. sust use -> incl. resilience, thresholds

USEIndicator(EUI)

Actual use⇒ Sustainable use is linked to Capacity Ind.

BENEFITIndicator(EBI)

“Why are people inte-rested in a service”

VALUEIndicator(EVI)

“Impact” (social, economic, environm.)

Regulation-climate=> Carbon

C stock & flow (role of veg., soil, water-bo-dies in C-cycle

Sustainable rate of C-seq. (eg. acidifica-tion problem

Net carbon storage (tC/time unit)

effect on climate (T, P)(reduced cli-mate change)

- Avoided damage cost- Avoided repl. cost

Provisioning

Cultural

Habitat

Indicators to measure ecosystem services



TWG 4 M apping E c os ys tem S ervic es•Benjamin Burkhard, University of Kiel, Germany

•Neville Crossman, CSIRO Adelaide, Australia•Joachim Maes, JRC-EC Ispra, Italy [Lead EU Mapping 2014 ]

Aim: to develop tools, guidelines and standards for improving s patia l ana lys is of ec os ys tem s ervic es and their representation in mapping tools (in close collaboration with TWG5 on Modelling Ecosystem S ervices)

EU Biodiversity Strategy2020 (May 2011)“our life insurance, our natural capital”All member states should have National TEEB studydone by 2014

STEPS:

< 2014: map & quantify

TEEB in Europe1. Identify & Asses

a. Indicatorsb. Mappingc. Quantification

2. Estimate Valuesa. In physical unitsb. Monetary

3. Capture Values-subsidies/taxes-Payments for ES-Policy change-Institutional change

< 2020: Valuation ready

< ?? : Instit. change ?



I s s ues and C ha lleng es for E S mapping•What do we need for proper mapping of multiple

ec os ys tem s ervic es and respective practical applications?

•How can we provide better maps for ecosystem service s upply (and demand)

•Are our results appropria te for the s takeholders ? Can they understand them?

•Do the maps and quantifications s a tis fy the us er needs ?

•How can the outcomes be us ed for further ana lys es (not only visualization but additional analysis, synthesis, metrics to under-stand complex spatial and temporal patterns of ecosystem services)?



TWG 5 (M odelling E S )

Aim: to develop tools , g uidelines and s tandards for improving dynamic analysis of ecosystem services and the representation in modelling tools (in close collaboration with TWG4 on Mapping Ecosystem Services) + provide easy access, support collaboration + provide testing platform

Thematic Working Group Leads•Rob Alkemade, PBL, Netherlands•Stoyan Nedkov, NIGGG, Bulgaria•Peter Verburg, IvM-VU, The Netherlands

The ES-Partnership and Earth Inc. have developed a repos itory for ec o-models . This repository is steadily growing to include all of the best models in one convenient location. •Dynamic Global System Models•Spatial Regional Models•Specific Ecological Models

-MIMES, GUMBO (UVM, USA)-InVest (Stanford, USA)-IMAGE (PBL, NL)-Others (see ESP-website)


30/01/15

GUMBO: Global Unified Model of the Biosphere

Roel Bouwmans

MIMES: for Multi-scale Integrated Models of Ecosystem Services.

http://www.afordablefutures.com/



I s s ues & c ha lleng es re E S M odelling ...

How deal with bundles of ec os ys tem s ervic es ?

“to define optimal ecosystem management ...” ....“Modelling ES supply as a function of processes and management interventions requires multi-s c a leapproac hes that are able to incorporate drivers that function across a range of scales” (Levin, 1992, Limbug et al, 2002 ( ecol. compl. Paper section 6.3.1)

“there is a need to incorporate complex ec os ys tem dynamic s in ecosystem management models with the thres holds and state variables of the models also present at a range of scales (see eg. Scheffer et al., 2001, Hein 2006).( ecol. compl. Paper section 6.3.1)

“Ec onomic drivers need to be modelled at the appropriate inst.scales, and theIntegration of ecol. and economic drivers and scales required further effort, alsoIn view of different modelling paradigms applied in ecology and economics (egVan den bergh, 1996, Turner et al., 2003) ( ecol. compl. Paper section 6.3.1)



TWG 6 V a luing E S

Problem: “To make balanced decisions, better information about the ‘fu ll value’ (importance) of ecosystems to human wellbeing is essential. The importance of ecosystems and their services can be m easured in m any ways: ecolog ically , socio-cu ltu rally and econom ically. S ome of the associated values can be expressed in monetary terms. If and how this can best be done is still subject of much discussion”

A im: This WG will provide a pla tform for dis c us s ion on ES valuation and develop g uidelines and 's tandards ' for integ ra ted as s es s ment of the full va lue (importance) of ecosystem services (ecological, socio-cultural and economic) and conduct meta-analysis to support the ES Valuation database work.

Luke Brander, Environmental Economists, Hong KongRudolf de Groot, Wageningen Univ. [TEEB database]

Several Task Forces have been created or are planned:6A. Cultural Services & Values (led by Kai Chan (USA) and Helen King (UK)6B. Ecosystem Services and Public Health (led by Hans Keune and Conor Kretsch)6C. Economic and Monetary Valuation (Sebastian Villasante (Arg),and others)6D. Value integration (Sander Jacobs)

How to measure ‘Total Value’ (importance)

?Cultural value(traditional whaling,Inspiration etc.)

Economic value Effect on welfare and ‘the’ economyusually/conveniently expressed inmonetary units.Whale: meat, tourism (DUV), biol.control (IUV), donations (NUV)

Additional value (information) in decision making process[but very important/trade-offs]

Intrinsic [= “in” nature]/existence [= in/by humans]value

Ecological value /importance(role in ecosystem)

Log-scale of value range (TEV) in US$/ha/yr (2007 PPP corrected)

= Average value() = number of

used estimates (522 out of > 1250

92.775 US$/ha/yr [tourism & storm protectionCoral Reefs

46.239 US$/ha/yr [waste treatment & nursery] Mangroves

49 US$/ha/yr [climate regulation & fishery]Oceans

Only 25-30%market values

10 1 million

De Groot, et al., 2012



V a luation ques tions & c ha lleng es ...

- Appropriate methods ? (for measuring ecological, socio-cultural and economic value)

- How include perceptions of stakeholders (& beneficiaries)- How to make the values consistent and comparable - Inclusion of externalities (positive and negative)- What is the influence of scale, esp. on economic value, both in time discounting) and space (eg. influence of distance between “supply & demand” (or impact and effect) + effect of size of study area, etc. [“determining factors”]- Can benchmark ‘values’ help to determine economic value ??- How can values be aggregated?- How can values be mapped?- use in spatial planning & design



TWG 7: Trade-off ana lys is & projec t eva luationLead: Inge Liekens (VITO, Belgium) and Sophie Schetke (Germany)

+ many WG members

Problem : most land use change dec is ions a re bas ed on in-c omplete information about the consequences for the involved ecosystems, their services and effects on human wellbeing. Better tools are therefore needed to c apture a ll the trade-offs involved in land use change and project evaluation, including the economic effects now only partially captured by conventional cost-benefit analysis.

A im : this working group will focus on the development of tools and g uidelines to include information on ES capacity and values in project evaluation and decision making, including among others (expanded) Benefit-Cost Analysis, MCA, MCDA or more complex Dec is ion S upport -tools such as InVEST, ARIES, VALUES, BBN, etc.

“Pristine”

Degraded

Extensive use

Intensive use

FOREST GRASSLAND

Trade offs ?

Oil Palm Plantations(& other “energy crops”

Multi-funct.

Mono-funct.

NEED MORE COMPLETE (HONEST) COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

Mangrove ecosystem

shrimp

housing

crops

Mangrove Services:• nursery and adult

fishery habitat• fuelwood & timber• carbon sequestration• traps sediment• detoxifies pollutants• protection from

erosion & disaster

Trade-offs among ecosystem services

46.239 US$/ha/yr [waste treatment & nursery] mangroves:

NPV Mangrove Mexico 600.000 US$/hasold for recreational development for 1.000 US$/ha (Nature, 2008)[<0,2% of TEV]

Light-brown = sustainably managedDark-brown = converted

Wetland

MangrovesSust.Forestr

y

3,6x 3,8

x

logging

“The total economic value of managing ecosystems more sustainably is often higher than the value associated with conversion”

Balmford et al (2002, Science Vol 297) „Economic reasons for conserving wild nature“

Conversion <-> sustainable management: “honest” CBANet Present Value/ha

farming

Trad.Forest use

Shrimpfarm

Benefit – Cost Ratio of Ecosystem Restoration

Grasslands: 75 x

Coral reefs: 3 x

Blignaut et al. screened 20.000 publ.; 95 selected for further analysis *

Assumptions: high cost scenario, average benefit scenario, time horizon = 40 years (including 10% annual operation costs; discount rate = 1 %)

Benefits of Ecosystem Restoration

* De Groot et al., 2013



TWG 8 E S and D is as ter R is k R educ tionLead: Fabrice Renaud (UNU), Blanka Louckova (Czech Globe, CZ)

+ IUCN-CEM DRR init. (Angela Andrade & Karen Sudmeier) + W. Veening

“It is better to work with nature than against nature”

A im:This working group aims to integrate the concept of ecosystem services into disaster risk reduction approaches dealing with environmental hazards at diverse spatial scales. One of these approaches might be so called “E c os ys tem-bas ed Adaptation”[or N ature B as ed S olutions ], which builds on sustainably managing, conserving and restoring ecosystems so that they continue to provide the services that allow society to adapt to global changes. This group also provides a platform for developing g uidelines and s tandards for vulnerability and ris k indic a tors , incorporating ecosystem services notions at the outset of analysis

“the annual value of coastal wetlands ranged from $250 to $51,000/ha/yr, with a mean of $8,240/ha/yr “

From: Costanza, R., O. Pérez-Maqueo, M. L. Martinez, P. Sutton, S. J. Anderson, and K. Mulder. 2008. The value of coastal wetlands for hurricane protection. Ambio 37:241-248

“Coastal wetlands in the US were estimated to currently provide $23.2 Billion/yr in storm protection services”

Avoided Damage cost: value of storm protection



TWG 9 P lanning & M anag ement

Task Force: RestorationJames Aronson (SER-RNC) and Sasha Alexander (IUCN-CEM)

Lead: Christian Albert & Christina v Haaren (ZALF), Germany+ James Aronson (CNRC, SER) and Christine Fuerst (Uni. Bonn)

A im : This working group aims at furthering understanding of the potentials and implications of integrating the ecosystem services concept in land planning, management, governance and decision-making. It will synthesize theory and review case studies of ec os ys tem s ervic es integ ration in prac tic e in order to extract lessons learned for wider application.An important aspect is involvement of local communities based on livelihood analysis (link TWG ...) and participatory approaches.It will consider various approaches to land and regional governance (eg. IWM, ICZM, EBM, CBEM, etc.), as well as concepts for ecosystem restoration. Eight primary research areas for the thematic working group have been proposed

Taking steps toward marine and coastal ecosystem based management – An introductory guide by UNEP (Agardy, 2011)

Nurseryhabitat

Genepool protection

Waste treatment

Erosion reduction

Storm protection

Carbon sink

Fish & other food

Energy & raw mat.

Medicins

Whole system analysisRecrea-

tion

Inspiration/Spiritual exp.

Cult. IdentityCognitive Dev.

Natural pest control by “green infrastructure”

Hoeksche Waard (Geertsema et al 2006)

Restoring the landscape



TWG 10 C o-inves tment & R ew ard mec hanis msLead: Beria Leimona (ICRAF/CGIAR) – coordinator RUPES program+ Frederiek van Lienen (ESA-WUR): ES & Biodiv as business opportunity+ Dieter Mortelmans (INBO-Belgium): ISEP /PES Belgium

Collaboration-TEEB for Business Coalition-IUCN Leaders for Nature Initiative-RUPES & CRP6 program (ICRAF/CGIAR)

A im: This working group will contribute to develop ins truments and g uidelines how to use the concept of ecosystem services in financ ing mec hanis ms for biodiversity conservation and sustainable ecosystem management (eg. PES, REDD, etc). This working group will also look at how the bus ines s c ommunity can be involved more, building, for example, on the recommendation from the TEEB D3-report.

http://www.teebweb.org/ForBusiness/tabid/1021/Default.aspx

- Reward/Pay providers of “free services”-“Punish” environmental damage (liability)

1. Government run finance mechan. (public incentives: subsidies/taxes) - Agri-environmental schemes [“farming for nature”] - Conservation payments (e.g. watershed-prot. [NYC]

REDD+ (forests->blue C. & restoration) - Other (eg. tax-incentives for green investments)

2. Government supported market creation - Offsets, eg Carbon credits [145 billion$ 2009/800 US$/ha/y – Ecosystem Market

Place] - Other “eco-assets” (eg. salinity credits, wetland banking, high-rise buildings(!))

3. Private market arrangements [PES – payment for use of ES] - User fees (eg. resources (water), eco-tourism, bioprospecting) - Biorights (compensate local people for not damaging ES, i.e cons.easem/Perrier) -Ecolabelling: Cert.Agr.Products (40 billion $ 2008/2,5% of total market)

FSC: 5 billion, Fair Trade, etc)

Investing in nature (restoration) pays !

„Every dollar invested ....saves any-where between 7,5 and 200 US$ in damage & repair costs“TheEconomist (23 April 2005)



TWG11- ES Accounting and Greening Economy

„Society must urgently replace its defective economic compass“ (Pavan Sukhdev, TEEB study leader, 29.05.2008 CBD COP9)

“Outdated economics” [eg:]- “Free” services (75%) [pollination]- Neglect of externalities [pollution]- Perverse subsidies [fishery, forestry]- Wrong assumptions (paradigms) about people & markets



M eas uring Prog res s Tow ard S us ta inability

UNESCO, UNU, UNEP

For the 2014-reportthe ESP Ecosystem ServiceValuation Database (ESVD)is used to estimate the Value of Natural Capital

30/01/15

Ecosystem Services PartnershipESP


TWG12 Governance and Institutional AspectsLead: Bernd Hansjuergens & Christoph Aicher (UFZ, Germany)

Leon Braat, Alterra, NLAims:1. Address questions of instrument des ign, policy processes; stakeholder analysis, and communication with decision-makers.2. Help rais ing the capacity and profile of policy and governance issues within the ESP community (‘inward perspective’) and influence policy and governance relevant research, thereby strengthening the science-policy interface.3. Help rais ing awareness among public and private decis ion makers for the potential of the ecosystem service concept (including but going far beyond narrowly valuation) and the interrelation of coupled socio-ecological systems for improving nature conservation, social well-being, public health, and sustainable development (‘outward perspective’).4. Facilitate the integration of the ecosystem service concept into mainstream of decis ion making and tangible actions at all levels of society, business and policy.

- How to communicate the social and economic importance of ES to all stakeholders- Need for Tools and Guidelines: -> GIZ, SGA, Environment Canada

Challenges

30/01/15

Editor-in-ChiefL. B R AAT

Associate EditorsJ. FAR LE YE . FU R M ANB . HAN S JU R G E NSD. ODE E

Topic EditorsR . C os tanzaR . De G root

ESP member subscription: 30$/y



ESP-related Journals and Publications

Leon Braat

Rudolf de Groot

Robert Costanza

Felix Mueller

Elsevier

Taylor & Francis

Elsevier

Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management



E S P C onferenc es

Salzau (Kiel Univ) 2008: “Problems ”

Lecce 2009: “M odelling ”(Univ. Salento, Italy)

2010: “Solutions”

2011: Wageningen (NL)Int. Science and Practice

2012, Portland USA 2013, Bali, Indonesia

Making ES Count!

(back to S alzau)

The science and practice of ecosystem services: challenges...

Documents

Transcript of The science and practice of ecosystem services: challenges...