Janne S. Kotiaho Chair of the Finnish Restoration Prioritization Working Group,

Ministry of Environment, Finland

Professor of Ecology, University of Jyväskylä, Finland

@JanneKotiaho

Mötesplats skyddad natur, Stockholm

29.11.2016

Framework for assessing and

reversing ecosystem degradation

Background 10.2.2014 Finnish Ministry of Environment established a working

group with two tasks by 31.5.2015:

- Make national restoration prioritization plan to meet the 15% target

- Estimate the costs of the plan

Multistakeholder working group composed of c. 100 experts, officials

and lobbyists for forest industry, conservation and land owners

Where to start?

Q1: From where the 15% needs to be calculated?

A1: From the degree of degradation in every given degraded ecosystem

Q2: How to assess the degree of degradation?

Q3: How to determine cost effective restoration measures to reverse degradation

A2&3: Framework for assessing and reversing ecosystem degradation

Roadmap to the framework and results from Finland

Conceptually sound and operable definition of

degradation and the 15% restoration target - Broad definition of restoration

Overall picture of the prioritization

Quantification of the state of

ecosystems - Current state and state after restoration or any development / land use

- Quantify compensation need for no net loss and land degradation neutrality

Forming restoration measure portfolio within each ecosystem

Ecosystem specific costs of the 15% restoration target

Prioritization among ecosystem types

Cost of the prioritized 15% target with and without accounting for

cost efficiency

From an ecological perspective degradation has

at least two components

Extent of degraded area

Degree of degradation within each location

Ec

os

ys

tem

co

nd

itio

n

Part not degraded

0

1

0 100

Components of degradation

Landscape area in increasing order of

degradation %

Ec

os

ys

tem

co

nd

itio

n

Part not degraded

0

1 Degraded part of the landscape

Target: reduce the degraded part by 15%

0 100

Components of degradation

Landscape area in increasing order of

degradation %

Ec

os

ys

tem

co

nd

itio

n

Current condition

0

1

Condition before degradation Natural state baseline

Current degree of degradation

0

How can we quantify degree of degradation?

100 Landscape area in increasing order of

degradation %

From an ecological perspective also restoration

has at least two components

Extent of restored area

Magnitude of reduction of degradation within each location

Ec

os

ys

tem

co

nd

itio

n

Current condition

0

1

15% reduction in degree of degradation due to restoration

Current degree of degradation

0 100

How can we determine reduction of degradation?

Degree of degradation after restoration

Landscape area in increasing order of

degradation %

Condition before degradation Natural state baseline

NNL = loss due development – gain due compensation = 0

Ec

os

ys

tem

co

nd

itio

n

0

1 Current degree of degradation

DISSENTING OPINION! and a common problem globally

Some parties insisted on taking e.g. 50 yrs ago as a reference i.e. lowering the bar

Current condition

0 100 Landscape area in increasing order of

degradation %

Need of restoration to achieve 15%

Condition before degradation Natural state baseline

So

me

bio

div

ers

ity fe

atu

re

10

14

16

Natural state

baseline

Current state

12

Reference state

50 yrs ago

Target state

Why does it matter?

Natural state baseline vs. an arbitrary reference

18 Degree of degradation?

Kotiaho, ten Brink & Harris 2016. A global baseline for

ecosystem recovery. Nature 532:37

Degree of degradation?

Amount of improvement!

Target state ≠ Natural state baseline

Landscape area in increasing order of

degradation %

Ec

os

ys

tem

co

nd

itio

n

0

1

A

C

B

Options for restoration

0 100

Kotiaho, Kareksela et al. 2015: Target for ecosystem

repair is impractical. Nature 519: 33.

15% reduction of degradation

over entire area of the

degraded landscape

0

1 33% reduction of degradation

over random 45% of the

degraded landscape

Landscape area in increasing order of

degradation %

Ec

os

ys

tem

co

nd

itio

n

0 100

Options for restoration

Kotiaho, Kareksela et al. 2015: Target for ecosystem

repair is impractical. Nature 519: 33.

Implementation in practice?

Heuristic conceptual illustration

Concepts derived in formal mathematical form

Formal form produced to an operational excel template

𝑅𝐻 = 1−𝐿𝑛𝐻(1− 𝑛𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑟𝑒𝑓)

𝑁𝐻

𝑛=1

Define foci

STEP 1. Decide focal ecosystem types and the area of each

STEP 2. Determine degraded components in each ecosystem type

Determine current condition of ecosystems

STEP 3. Determine current and natural state condition of each degraded component

STEP 4. Determine the loss of ecosystem condition from each degraded component

STEP 5. Calculate overall ecosystem condition remaining

Determine cost-effectiveness of

restoration measures

STEP 6. Determine potential restoration measures and their per unit costs

STEP 7. Determine ecosystem condition and services gain from each restoration measure

STEP 8. Cost-effectiveness of restoration measures follows from steps 6 and 7

Systematic prioritization

STEP 9. Prioritize restoration measures within each ecosystem type

STEP 10. Prioritize across ecosystem types

Ten steps for more effective ecosystem restoration

Ecosystem Degraded

component

Natural state

baseline

Current

condition

Loss

multiplier

Ecosystem

condition

lost (%)

Herb-rich forests

Total area 3673 km2

Degraded area 3545 km2

Large trees (>40

DBH no. per ha) 30 10.1 0.4

56.1 Decaying wood

(m3/ha) 100 7.0 0.4

Broad-leaved

trees (m3/ha) 100 92.0 0.6

Degraded components in Herb Rich Forests

𝑅𝐻 = 1−𝐿𝑛𝐻(1− 𝑛𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑟𝑒𝑓)

𝑁𝐻

𝑛=1

𝑛𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑛𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟 𝐿𝑛𝐻 𝑅𝐻 𝑁𝐻

Current condition of all ecosystems in Finland

Ecosystem type area km2 Degraded area

km2 (proportion)

Ecosystem

condition

remaining

(proportion)

Ecosystem

condition lost (proportion)

Forests 153 535 135 933 0.32 0.68

Mires 88 500 61 130 0.57 0.43

Seminatural grasslands 1 000 998 0.08 0.92

Agricultural area 23 602 23 602 0.04 0.96

Urban area 8 100 8 100 0.27 0.73

Tundra 13 000 11 440 0.56 0.44

Coastal area 1 708 1 708 0.32 0.68

Rocky outcrops 1 569 113 0.99 0.01

TOTAL 291 014

243 025 (0.84)

0.39 0.61

Altogether Finnish terrestrial ecosystem were divided into

45 ecosystem types

Define foci

STEP 1. Decide focal ecosystem types

STEP 2. Determine degraded components in each ecosystem type

Determine current state of ecosystems

STEP 3. Determine current state and before degradation reference state of each degraded component

STEP 4. Determine the loss of ecosystem condition from each degraded component

STEP 5. Calculate overall ecosystem condition remaining from steps 3 and 4

Determine cost-effectiveness of

restoration measures

STEP 6. Determine potential restoration measures and their per unit costs

STEP 7. Determine ecosystem condition and services gain from each restoration measure (= benefit)

STEP 8. Cost-effectiveness of restoration measures follows from steps 6 and 7

Prioritization

STEP 9. Prioritize restoration measures within each ecosystem type

STEP 10. Prioritize across ecosystem types

Ten steps for more effective ecosystem restoration

Restoration measures, costs, effects and portfolio

Herb-rich forests

Total area 3 673 km2

Degraded area 3 545 km2

Cost 2016-2050, eur/ha

Benefit %,

Effect %/€

Carbon storage

Hydro-logy

Nutri-ent

load

Other ESS

Gentle biodiversity oriented forest management

1800 16,0 0,009

100 0 1 4

Permanent green tree retention 10m3/ha 200 6,4 0,032

10 0 0 1

Saving dead wood during harvests 60 4,5 0,075

10 0 0 1

Temporary conservation agreements 9000 28,6 0,003

100 1 1 3

Biodiversity oriented management at the estate scale (FSC)

200 10,2 0,051

100 2 2 5

Buffering water courses (PEFC)

30 0,5 0,017

0 1 1 2

Establishing permanent conservation areas

6600 100,2 0,015

500 3 3 5

Restoration measure portfolio

15%

0,040

0,130

0,270

0,040

0,250

0,005

0,070

Total cost 15 % target (Euro) 484 285 995,-

Altogether across all ecosystem types we have 45 similar

restoration measure tables

Cost for targeting 15% restoration evenly in all ecosystems

Ecosystem type Even scenario cost 2016-2050, eur

15% target

Herb-rich forest 484 285 995,-

Moist taiga forest 18 510 706 006,-

Dry taiga forest 684 733 500,-

Spruce mires 1 052 019 540,-

Pine mires 1 852 845 360,-

Fens 457 537 480,-

Tundra 28 608 340,-

Rocky outcorps 21 120 114,-

Agricultural areas 14 273 698 980,-**

Coastal areas 185 611 848,-

Seminatural grasslands 935 024 160,-

All together 38 486 191 323,-

All together / annum 1 099 605 466,-

** based on reduction of degradation by 1.8% as the 15% can not be reached

Define foci

STEP 1. Decide focal ecosystem types

STEP 2. Determine degraded components in each ecosystem type

Determine current state of ecosystems

STEP 3. Determine current state and before degradation reference state of each degraded component

STEP 4. Determine the loss of ecosystem condition from each degraded component

STEP 5. Calculate overall ecosystem condition remaining from steps 3 and 4

Determine cost-effectiveness of

restoration measures

STEP 6. Determine potential restoration measures and their per unit costs

STEP 7. Determine ecosystem condition and services gain from each restoration measure

STEP 8. Cost-effectiveness of restoration measures follows from steps 6 and 7

Prioritization

STEP 9. Prioritize restoration measures within each ecosystem type

STEP 10. Prioritize across ecosystem types

Ten steps for more effective ecosystem restoration

Components for across ecosystem prioritization

Threatened and nearly threatened species, national

Species in bad or unfavourable status, EU directives

Threatened and nearly threatened habitats, national

Habitats in bad and unfavourable status, EU directives - Species and habitats have different weights

- Threatened habitats > directives habitats > threatened species > directive species

Habitat area

Degree of degradation in the habitat - More degraded habitas have higher weight (greater extinction debt)

Cost efficiency in ecosystem condition improvement

i

ihiAiiiiiii

c

UfAfHDkHkSPDkSPkB

)()()( '

4321

Costs of different scenarios 2016-2050 in euro

Ecosystem type Even scenario cost 15% target

Herb-rich forest 484 285 995,-

Moist taiga forest 18 510 706 006,-

Dry taiga forest 684 733 500,-

Spruce mires 1 052 019 540,-

Pine mires 1 852 845 360,-

Fens 457 537 480,-

Tundra 28 608 340,-

Rocky outcorps 21 120 114,-

Agricultural areas 14 273 698 980,-

Coastal areas 185 611 848,-

Seminatural grasslands 935 024 160,-

All together 38 486 191 323,-

All together / annum 1 099 605 466,-

Prioritized scenario with cost-efficiency

15% target

1 575 105 125,-

7 761 550 306,-

968 366 429,-

2 018 032 650,-

1 868 958 287,-

1 993 188 416,-

25 086 293,-

81 911 765,-

172 162 774,-

945 473 207,-

562 664 750,-

17 972 500 000,-

513 500 000,-

Prioritized scenario no cost-efficiency

15% target

1 571 263 379,-

4 855 570 562,-

970 756 690,-

4 738 298 949,-

2 298 020 321,-

1 986 538 433,-

24 851 683,-

82 516 898,-

406 596 681,-

1 951 984 495,-

3 933 601 909,-

22 820 000 000,-

652 000 000,-

Prioritized scenario no cost-efficiency

15% target

Prioritized scenario with cost-efficiency

15% target

Finally

Systematic analyses help prioritization and increase cost effectiveness of conservation and restoration

Prioritization brings significant cost savings when we have a set target (e.g. 15% restoration)

Too applied for science – too scientific to apply?

Can we implement systematic analysis in practise?

thank you

janne.kotiaho@jyu.fi

@JanneKotiaho

Hagen, Kotiaho, Kareksela, Lindhagen, et al.

2016. Restoration priorities and strategies

Kotiaho, Moilanen et al. 2016. Framework for

assessing and reversing ecosystem degradation

Kotiaho, Kareksela et al. 2015: Target for

ecosystem repair is impractical. Nature 519: 33

Kotiaho et al. 2016: A global baseline for

ecosystem recovery. Nature 532:37