Framework for assessing and reversing ecosystem degradation · ecosystems - Current state and state...
Transcript of Framework for assessing and reversing ecosystem degradation · ecosystems - Current state and state...
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
@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