MKettunen_IEEP_ecosystem services Pan European overview

© 2008, Institute for European Environmental Policy. Not for commercial purposes. Please contact the author regarding permissions for re-use. Ecosystem services - the Pan European perspective Marianne Kettunen www.ieep.eu 11 June 2008 Eurosite Seminar Turku, Finland

Questions to be addressed • Ecosystem services – what ES do we have in Europe & what is their value? • What have we already lost and why? • What does the future look like? • Ecosystem services & protected areas

Ecosystem services in Europe

Europe’s ecosystem services • No comprehensive assessment of ecosystem services (ES) in Europe yet available • European level assessment of a selected set of ES by EEA to be finalised by 2012 (European Ecosystem Assessment – EURECA, the European follow-up to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment) • This presentation tries to provide Pan European insights through a collection of relevant recent studies / initiatives, e.g. • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) • Economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) initiative (Germany & European Commission with partners, 2008-2009) • Cost of Policy Inaction (COPI) for Biodiversity (Alterra, IEEP & partners, EC study, 2008) • Assessment of IAS impacts in Europe (IEEP & partners 2008-2009) • Value of biodiversity (IEEP & partners, 2006) [ See end of the presentation for reference & links]

Europe’s ecosystem services – general overview Type of European ecosystem / biome Examples of services provided by ecosystem / biome Provisioning services: Food & fibre, Water, Fuel (biofuel)… Regulating services Forests Air quality maintenance Boreal forest Climate regulation (local, regional, global) Temperate forests Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, runoff …) Mountain forests Erosion control Etc. Natural hazards control (e.g. Fire resistance, storm & avalanche protection) … Cultural & Supporting services – ALL Grasslands & scrublands Provisioning services: Food & fibre, Water, Natural medicines, Fuel (biofuel) … Natural & semi-natural grasslands Regulating services Agricultural land Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, runoff …) Steppe Erosion control Mediterranean scrubland Natural hazards control (e.g fire resistance) … Mountain grasslands Etc. Cultural & Supporting services – ALL Provisioning services: Food & fibre, Water, Fuel … Regulating services Wetlands Climate regulation (local, regional, global) Coastal wetlands Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, runoff …) Floodplains Water purification and waste management Swaps, bogs, moors … Erosion control Etc. Natural hazards control … Cultural & Supporting services – ALL Provisioning services: Food & Water Regulating services Inland waters Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, runoff …) River ecosystems Water purification and waste management Lakes Erosion control Etc. Natural hazards control … Cultural & Supporting services – ALL Provisioning services: Food & Water Regulating services Marine areas Climate regulation (local, regional, global) Water purification and waste management … Cultural & Supporting services – ALL By MK based on MA 2005 classification

Europe’s ES - examples of value 1/2 TOURISM Example Estimated value and/or potential/occurred loss Reference Reintroduction of vultures, Revenue from vulture related tourism 0.7 million Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux. 1995. Socio FR EUR / year economic value of vultures in the Grands Causses Dickie I, Hughes, J., Esteban, A. 2006. Watched like Reintroduction of sea Revenue from sea eagles related tourism 2.13 -2.48 never before – the local economic benefits of eagles, UK million EUR / year spectacular bird species Tourism in Muritz National Revenue from the tourism 12 million EUR / year, Job et al. 2005. Ökonomische Effekte von Park, DE supporting ~ 628 jobs Großschutzgebieten Revenue from whale watching tourism ~ 11.7 million Whale watching, Scotland Warburton et al. 2001. Whale watching in West Scotland EUR / year; ~12% of total tourism income P. Mayol, P. Beaubrun, F. Dhermain, J.-M. Bompar. Whale watching, FR– IT Revenue for 23 whale watching tourism companies ~ Souffleurs d’Ecume. EPHE et Océanides. Groupe Mediterranean coast 1.73 million EUR / year (2005) d’Etude des Cétacés de Méditerranée. RIVER / FLOODPLAIN ECOSYSTEMS Example Estimated value and/or potential/occurred loss Reference Seffer, J. & Stanová, V. eds. 1999. Morava River Morava floodplain Value of the removal of nitrogen 0.7 million EUR / Floodplain Meadows - Importance, Restoration and grassland, SK & CZ year Management. Value of nitrates pollution reduction by restoring floodplains 585 EUR / hectare; Potential total value Meyerhoff, J., Dehnhardt, A. 2004. The restoration of Elbe river, DE of restoration (water quality & species conservation) floodplains along the river Elbe. 162 – 278 million EUR / year River Bassee Value of flood control services 91.47 – 304.9 million Agence de L’eau Seine Normandie, Ministry of Ecology floodplain, FR EUR / year and Sustainable Development. Coclough et al. 2003. The potential for fisheries Input of salt marsh to the shellfish industry a marginal Salt marshes in Scotland enhancement associated with management value of 1087 EUR / hectare / year realignment. http://www.skjernaa.info/upl/samfundsokonomiskanalyse River Skjern, DK Value of river restoration 32.1 million EUR / year .pdf Total value of inland fisheries in England and Wales Murray, M. and Simcox, H. 2003. Use of wild living Inland fisheries, UK 4,854 million EUR resources in the United Kingdom: a review.

Europe’s ES - examples of value 2/2 FOREST ECOSYSTEMS Estimated value and/or Example Reference potential/occurred loss Natural forests in Value of provisioning good quality water Natur ist Mehr-Wert, Ökonomische Argumente zum Bavaria, DE 500 million EUR / year Schutz der Natur. BfN Skripten 154 (2005) Total value of environmental and social Willis et al. 2003. The Social and Environmental Woodlands, UK services 42,924 million EUR Benefits of Forests in Great Britain Matero & Saastamoinen. 2007. In search of marginal Value of forest ecosystem services Forest environmental valuations — ecosystem services in 2,690 million EUR / year (period 1995 – ecosystems, FI Finnish forest accounting. Ecological 2000) Economics.

ES role in European economy? • Modern myth: current European societies are not dependent on biodiversity • Common perception: one or two economic sectors are dependent, but most not. • Often thought: biodiversity inputs are useful input but substitutable and not essential or unique. • But is this the truth?

Potential importance of bd related ES contribution to the economy Biodiversity Biodiversity No Name of industry sector & No Name of industry sector & ES contribution ES contribution 1 Organic Agriculture >50% 27 Non-renewable electricity <5% Other Agriculture 2 >50% 28 Gas Supply <1% (in broad definition) 3 Sustainable Forestry >50% 29 Water Supply >50% 4 Other Forestry >50% 30 Construction <5% 5 Fishing >50% 31 Distribution <1% 6 Coal <1% or >50% 32 Retailing <5% 7 Oil & Gas etc <1% or >50% 33 Hotels & Catering <25% 8 Other Mining <1% 34 Land Transport etc <1% 9 Food, Drink & Tobacco >50% 35 Water Transport <5% 10 Textiles, Clothing & Leather <25% 36 Air Transport <1% 11 Wood & Paper >50% 37 Communications <1% 12 Printing & Publishing <1% 38 Banking & Finance <1% 13 Manufactured Fuels <25% growing 39 Insurance <25% 14 Pharmaceuticals <25% growing 40 Computing Services <1% 15 Chemicals nes <25% growing 41 Professional Services* <5% Other Business Services 16 Rubber & Plastics <5% growing 42 <1% (inc. environment related services) 17 Non-Metallic Mineral Products <5% 43 Public Administration & Defence <5% growing Basic Metals & 18 -25 <1% 44 Education <5% related industries 26 Renewable electricity >50% 45 Health & Social Work <5% By ten Brink & Kettunen in EC report ”Links between the environment, economy and jobs” 2007 Note: % based on expert opinion, no extensive quantification carried out 46 Miscellaneous Services <25%

Potential importance of bd related ES contribution to the economy Biodiversity Biodiversity No Name of industry sector & No Name of industry sector & ES contribution ES contribution FOR EXAMPLE 1 Organic Agriculture >50% 27 Non-renewable electricity <5% Other Agriculture 2 (in broad definition) Provisioning services >50% 28 Gas Supply <1% 3 Sustainable Forestry • Genetic resources and stock availability (fish, seeds, resources for >50% 29 Water Supply >50% horticulture) 4 Other Forestry >50% 30 Construction <5% • Fresh water (eg for irrigation and sustaining livestock) 5 Fishing >50% 31 Distribution <1% 6 Coal <1% or services 32 Retailing <5% Regulating >50% 7 Oil & Gas etc • Climateor >50% <1% regulation: temperature Catering 33 Hotels & and precipitation, carbon storage <25% 8 Other Mining • Water regulation: water retention, aquifer recharge <1% 34 Land Transport etc <1% 9 Food, Drink & Tobacco • Water purification and waste control >50% 35 Water Transport <5% 10 Textiles, Clothing & Leather • Erosion regulation 36 <25% Air Transport <1% 11 Wood & Paper • Natural pest and disease Communications >50% 37 regulation <1% 12 Printing & Publishing • Alien species invasion resistance Finance <1% 38 Banking & <1% 13 Manufactured Fuels • Pollination <25% growing 39 Insurance <25% 14 Pharmaceuticals • Seed dispersal <25% growing 40 Computing Services <1% 15 Chemicals (e.g. biochemicals • Herbivory <25% growing 41 Professional Services* <5% • Natural hazards regulation: flood, avalanche and storm Other Business Services 16 Rubber & Plastics <5% growing 42 <1% protection/mitigation, fire resistance related services) (inc. environment 17 Non-Metallic Mineral Products <5% 43 Public Administration & Defence <5% growing 18 -25 Basic Metals & <1% : Supporting services 44 soilEducation formation, primary production – <5% related industries photosynthesis nutrient cycling, water cycling 26 Renewable electricity >50% 45 Health & Social Work <5% By ten Brink & Kettunen in EC report ”Links between the environment, economy and jobs” 2007 46 Miscellaneous Services <25%

What have we lost and why?

The logic behind current status & trends - ES use, enhancement & trade offs Enhancement / investment Use Trade offs From COPI study by Braat, ten Brink et al. 2008

Example: Consequences of maximising food production

The logic behind current status & trends - ES supply & land use intensity P = provisioning services R = regulating services Cr = Cultural recreation Ci = Cultural information MSA = mean species abundance, indicator of ecosystem quality Land use intensity From COPI study by Braat, ten Brink et al. 2008

Global / indicative European trends in ES use & supply Ecosystem service Human use Status of / trend in service Provisioning service Food - crops & livestock ▲ ▲ Food – capture fisheries ▼ ▼ Food – aquaculture ▲ ▲ Food – wild plant & animal products not assessed ▼ Fibre – timber ▲ ▼ Fibre – cotton, hemp, silk, food fuel +/- +/- Genetic resources ▲ ▼ Biochemicals, natural medicines, pharmaceuticals ▲ ▼ Ornamental resources not assessed not assessed ! Only a few ES improved – several degraded ! Fresh water ▲ ▼ Regulating services Air quality ▲ ▼ Climate regulation – global ▲ ▲ ! Human use of ES increased ! Climate regulation – local and regional ▲ ▼ Water regulation ▲ +/- Water purification & treatment ▲ ▼ Erosion regulation ▲ ▼ Disease regulation ▲ +/- Pest regulation ▲ ▼ Pollination ▲ ▼ Natural hazards regulation ▲ ▼ Cultural services Spiritual & religious values ▲ ▼ Aesthetic values ▲ ▼ Recreation & ecotourism ▲ +/- According to MA 2005 Others not assessed not assessed

What have we already lost in Europe? Examples of ES lost due to / accompanied by the loss of biodiversity in EU Member & Accession States (based on a survey of 37 case examples from 18 European countries) (Kettunen & ten Brink 2006) EC study on the Value of Biodiversity, Kettunen & ten Brink 06

Example: loss of ES in Europe due IAS Examples of IAS with negative effects on IAS in Europe (analysis included in total 125 IAS with known impacts in Europe) Number of species per impact type Type of ecosystem service (ES) affected by IAS Negative Positive Both + & - Provisioning Services Food and fibre 54 6 16 Fuel - (1) - Fresh water 3 1 - Total 57 7 16 Regulating services Air quality maintenance - 2 - Water regulation (eg flood prevention, timing and magnitude of runoff, aquifer recharge) 13 - - Erosion control 8 3 2 Water purification / quality maintenance and waste management 4 2 (1) - Regulation of human / animal / plant diseases (i.e. IAS is a vector for disease) 13 - - Fire resistance (change of vegetation cover leading to increased fire susceptibility) 2 - - Other: human health other than diseases (e.g. allergies and injuries) 16 - - Other: destruction of infrastructure 4 - - Total 60 7 2 Cultural services Cultural / natural heritage values 9 - - Aesthetic / cultural value, recreation and ecotourism 40 9 14 Total 49 9 14 EC study impacts of IAS in Europe, Kettunen & et al (to be published)

What have we already lost – summary Ecosystem services lost • Generally: almost all ecosystem services identified by MA • Most commonly • Food and fresh water • Water purification and waste management • Nutrient cycling • A range of cultural services Services lost due to loss in biodiversity • Loss / degradation of natural ecosystems / habitats - both drastic and gradual • Declined species population levels • Loss / decline of keystone species • Change of dominant species / dominant species characteristics • Loss due to introduction of alien species [ Note: mainly based on existing EU evidence documented in Kettunen & ten Brink 2006, EC value of biodiversity study]

What does the future look like?

What does the future look like? General trend Biodiversity Ecosystem services e.g. in particular provisioning of marine resources, majority of regulating services …

Projected EUR loss due to loss of ES (in land-based ecosystems) Europe • Loss of ES provided by natural areas • Also some loss of ES due to loss of extensive agriculture areas • Result: in particular, loss of regulating services & several cultural services According to the EC Cost of Policy Inaction study by Braatm ten Brink et al. 2008. Calculations based on projected changes in land use patterns / biomes / regions with no changes in current policies.

How to reverse the negative trend? • Need for more & improved policies supporting sustainable use of natural resources (e.g. implementation of existing measures) • Need to understand / base decisions on the trade offs between ES: • What is the net change? • What are the net benefits of changes? • Increasing information base & awareness • e.g. TEEB & EURECA initiatives

Difficulties / challenges • Existing evidence on the value of ES is increasing • But still scattered & a lack of info especially from Eastern Europe • Often very difficult / impossible to form a complete picture of the real losses and benefits • Losses are not often directly apparent • ‘Long run’ effects of tradeoffs • Cost and benefits occur in different ecosystem and / or socio-economic sector • Distribution of costs and benefits is biased between different stakeholders • benefits obtained on a private level VS. the associated costs often of more social nature

Ecosystem services & protected areas

Ecosystem services & PAs Protected areas provide / support ES, e.g. • Preserve habitat types that provide important services, such as water purification/retention (wetlands), carbon storage (peat bogs) and erosion protection (forested mountain areas); • Function as ‘refuges’ and breeding places for local biodiversity, e.g. pollinating insects, game animals and fish => maintain population levels • Provide opportunities for recreation, education and tourism • Form an important part of local cultural heritage and identity

Ecosystem services & PAs • Protected area ES have not yet gained widespread acknowledgement and acceptance • PAs are still often perceived as mainly imposing costs or restrictions on communities and economies • Further efforts needed to increase awareness and knowledge of the full socio-economic importance PAs → e.g. EC study on cost estimate & benefits of Natura 2000 by IEEP, WWF & RSPB

Study on the benefits of N2K Aim • Develop a methodological toolkit for N2K practitioners to assess the full range of ES provided by N2K site • Based on MA classification & other recent studies • Qualitative, quantitative & monetary evaluation methods included • In addition to valuating ES benefits, also overall broader economic impacts of N2K sites addressed (e.g. secondary /induced effects of visitor and employee spending) • Toolkit to be tested in 5 case study sites: • Saltholm, UK • River Eden, UK • Bialowieza forest, Poland • Guadiana Natural Park, Portugal • Oas-Gutai Plateau, Romania [NOTE: preliminary section only] ! PLEASE ASK MORE INFO IF INTERESTED !

Reference studies & links • Economics of ecosystems and biodiversity (TEEB) initiative (Germany & European Commission with partners, 2008-2009, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/ • Cost of Policy Inaction (COPI): The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target (Alterra, IEEP & partners, EC study, 2008), http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/ • Review on the Economics of Biodiversity Loss: Scoping the science (University of Cambridge, IEEP, UNEP-WCMC & Alterra, EC study, 2008, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/economics/ • Links between the environment, economy and jobs (EC study by GHK, IEEP et al. 2007, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/industry_employment/pdf/ghk_study_wider_links_report.pdf) • Value of Biodiversity - Documenting EU examples where biodiversity loss has led to the loss of ecosystem services (IEEP & partners, EC study, 2006, http://ieep.org.uk/publications/pdfs//2006_%20IAS%20analysis_final.pdf • Assessment of IAS impacts in Europe (IEEP & partners, EC Study, 2008) (ongoing) • Promoting the Socio-Economic Benefits of Natura 2000 (IEEP & WWF, 2002, http://www.ieep.org.uk/publications/pdfs/natura2000/naturaproceedings.pdf) • Financing Natura 2000: Cost estimate and benefits of Natura 2000 (IEEP, WWF & RSPB, EC study, 2008-2009) (ongoing)

Thank you! (c) Seppo Heikkinen

MKettunen_IEEP_ecosystem services Pan European overview

by mkettunen

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

MKettunen_IEEP_ecosystem services Pan European overview Presentation Transcript