MKettunen_IEEP_ecosystem services Pan European overview

Ecosystem services

-

the Pan European perspective

Marianne Kettunen

www.ieep.eu

11 June 2008

Eurosite Seminar

Turku, Finland

© 2008, Institute for European Environmental Policy.

Not for commercial purposes.

Please contact the author regarding permissions for re-use.

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

Forests

Boreal forest

Temperate forests

Mountain forests

Etc.

Provisioning services: Food & fibre, Water, Fuel (biofuel)…

Regulating services

Air quality maintenance

Climate regulation (local, regional, global)

Water regulation (e.g. flood prevention, runoff …)

Erosion control

Natural hazards control (e.g. Fire resistance, storm & avalanche protection) …

Cultural & Supporting services – ALL

Grasslands & scrublands

Natural & semi-natural grasslands

Agricultural land

Steppe

Mediterranean scrubland

Mountain grasslands

Etc.

Provisioning services: Food & fibre, Water, Natural medicines, Fuel (biofuel) …

Regulating services


Erosion control

Natural hazards control (e.g fire resistance) …


Wetlands

Coastal wetlands

Floodplains

Swaps, bogs, moors …

Etc.

Provisioning services: Food & fibre, Water, Fuel …

Regulating services



Water purification and waste management

Erosion control

Natural hazards control …


Inland waters

River ecosystems

Lakes

Etc.

Provisioning services: Food & Water

Regulating services


Water purification and waste management

Erosion control

Natural hazards control …


Marine areas

Provisioning services: Food & Water

Regulating services


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,

FR

Revenue from vulture related tourism 0.7 million

EUR / year

Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux. 1995. Socio

economic value of vultures in the Grands Causses

Reintroduction of sea

eagles, UK

Revenue from sea eagles related tourism 2.13 -2.48

million EUR / year

Dickie I, Hughes, J., Esteban, A. 2006. Watched like

never before – the local economic benefits of

spectacular bird species

Tourism in Muritz National

Park, DE

Revenue from the tourism 12 million EUR / year,

supporting ~ 628 jobs

Job et al. 2005. Ökonomische Effekte von

Großschutzgebieten

Whale watching, ScotlandRevenue from whale watching tourism ~ 11.7 million

EUR / year; ~12% of total tourism incomeWarburton et al. 2001. Whale watching in West Scotland

Whale watching, FR– IT

Mediterranean coast

Revenue for 23 whale watching tourism companies ~

1.73 million EUR / year (2005)

P. Mayol, P. Beaubrun, F. Dhermain, J.-M. Bompar.

Souffleurs d’Ecume. EPHE et Océanides. Groupe

d’Etude des Cétacés de Méditerranée.

RIVER / FLOODPLAIN ECOSYSTEMS

Example Estimated value and/or potential/occurred loss Reference

Morava floodplain

grassland, SK & CZ

Value of the removal of nitrogen 0.7 million EUR /

year

Seffer, J. & Stanová, V. eds. 1999. Morava River

Floodplain Meadows - Importance, Restoration and

Management.

Elbe river, DE

Value of nitrates pollution reduction by restoring

floodplains 585 EUR / hectare; Potential total value

of restoration (water quality & species conservation)

162 – 278 million EUR / year

Meyerhoff, J., Dehnhardt, A. 2004. The restoration of

floodplains along the river Elbe.

River Bassee

floodplain, FR

Value of flood control services 91.47 – 304.9 million

EUR / year

Agence de L’eau Seine Normandie, Ministry of Ecology

and Sustainable Development.

Salt marshes in ScotlandInput of salt marsh to the shellfish industry a marginal

value of 1087 EUR / hectare / year

Coclough et al. 2003. The potential for fisheries

enhancement associated with management

realignment.

River Skjern, DK Value of river restoration 32.1 million EUR / yearhttp://www.skjernaa.info/upl/samfundsokonomiskanalyse

.pdf

Inland fisheries, UKTotal value of inland fisheries in England and Wales

4,854 million EUR

Murray, M. and Simcox, H. 2003. Use of wild living

resources in the United Kingdom: a review.

Europe’s ES - examples of value 2/2

FOREST ECOSYSTEMS

ExampleEstimated value and/or

potential/occurred lossReference

Natural forests in

Bavaria, DE

Value of provisioning good quality water

500 million EUR / year

Natur ist Mehr-Wert, Ökonomische Argumente zum

Schutz der Natur. BfN Skripten 154 (2005)

Woodlands, UKTotal value of environmental and social

services 42,924 million EUR

Willis et al. 2003. The Social and Environmental

Benefits of Forests in Great Britain

Forest

ecosystems, FI

Value of forest ecosystem services

2,690 million EUR / year (period 1995 –

2000)

Matero & Saastamoinen. 2007. In search of marginal

environmental valuations — ecosystem services in

Finnish forest accounting. Ecological

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?

No Name of industry sector

Biodiversity

&

ES contribution


Biodiversity

&

ES contribution

1 Organic Agriculture >50% 27 Non-renewable electricity <5%

2Other Agriculture

(in broad definition)>50% 28 Gas Supply <1%

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%

16 Rubber & Plastics <5% growing 42Other Business Services

(inc. environment related services)<1%

17 Non-Metallic Mineral Products <5% 43 Public Administration & Defence <5% growing

18 -25Basic Metals &

related industries<1% 44 Education <5%

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

Potential importance of bd related ES contribution to the economy


Biodiversity

&

ES contribution


Biodiversity

&

ES contribution

1 Organic Agriculture >50% 27 Non-renewable electricity <5%

2Other Agriculture

(in broad definition)>50% 28 Gas Supply <1%

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 (e.g. biochemicals <25% growing 41 Professional Services* <5%

16 Rubber & Plastics <5% growing 42Other Business Services

(inc. environment related services)<1%

17 Non-Metallic Mineral Products <5% 43 Public Administration & Defence <5% growing

18 -25Basic Metals &

related industries<1% 44 Education <5%

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%

FOR EXAMPLE

Provisioning services

• Genetic resources and stock availability (fish, seeds, resources for

horticulture)

• Fresh water (eg for irrigation and sustaining livestock)

Regulating services

• Climate regulation: temperature and precipitation, carbon storage

• Water regulation: water retention, aquifer recharge

• Water purification and waste control

• Erosion regulation

• Natural pest and disease regulation

• Alien species invasion resistance

• Pollination

• Seed dispersal

• Herbivory

• Natural hazards regulation: flood, avalanche and storm

protection/mitigation, fire resistance

Supporting services : soil formation, primary production –

photosynthesis nutrient cycling, water cycling

What have we lost and why?

The logic behind current status & trends-

ES use, enhancement & trade offs

Enhancement / investment

Use

Trade offsFrom 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

From COPI study by Braat, ten Brink et al. 2008

P = provisioning services

R = regulating services

Cr = Cultural recreation

Ci = Cultural information

MSA = mean species

abundance, indicator of

ecosystem quality

Land use intensity

Global / indicative European trends in ES use & supply

According to MA 2005

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

Fresh water ▲ ▼

Regulating services

Air quality ▲ ▼

Climate regulation – global ▲ ▲

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 ▲ + / -

Others not assessed not assessed

! Only a few ES improved – several degraded !

! Human use of ES increased !

What have we already lost in Europe?

EC study on the Value of Biodiversity, Kettunen & ten Brink 06

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)

Example: loss of ES in Europe due IAS

Type of ecosystem service (ES) affected by IASNumber of species per impact type

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

Examples of IAS with negative effects on IAS in Europe (analysis included in total 125 IAS with known impacts in Europe)

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 …

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/gallery/2007/aug/27/?picture=330636375

Projected EUR loss due to loss of ES (in land-based ecosystems)

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.

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

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

Technology

Transcript of MKettunen_IEEP_ecosystem services Pan European overview