Ecosystem services: a landscape planning framework with...

Ecosystem services: a landscape planning framework with the potential to inspire land policy

BRS: Approaches to quantifying and evaluating ecosystem services

A. Phillips, Landcare and Sustainable Landscapes Branch, Department of Sustainability & Environment, Victoria, AUSTRALIAEmail: [email protected]

An emerging shift: ecosystem service production in the rural landscape

Global shiftGlobal shift

Language: Ecosystem function/ health/ Language: Ecosystem function/ health/ servicesservices

Engaging communitiesEngaging communities

Is it a concept offering broad application Is it a concept offering broad application (not tool(not tool--dependant)?dependant)?

A A stewardship stewardship or MOP framework in Victoriaor MOP framework in Victoria


Global shift

Ecosystem Services include:

Water quality and quantity

Food and fibre –crops, timber

Biodiversity, habitat - including

pollination and natural pest

control

Waste breakdownAtmosphereand Climate -

including carbon sinks


Global shift

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment concluded that 24 ‘ecosystem services’reviewed, including a stable climate, fresh water, fresh air, soil fertility, pollination of crops, waste adsorption and nutrient recycling some 15 are being degraded or used unsustainably.

The regulating and provisioning ‘ecosystem services’ of healthy landscapes - once considered free - are increasingly being understood as valuable, finite and that we face enormous risks as we degrade them.


Language:

Challenge: the heterogeneity of the problem -landscapes needing to fulfil multiple functions.

(regulatory, production, nature, cultural…)

Leads without exception to land use conflicts.

Decision support systems needed that can consider a number of different functions simultaneously


Language:

The contested landscape - the political tension


Language:

Victoria

Spatial units

Data collection, development of GIS

Landscape functions / Natural potentials Spatial units of singularvalue for the nature

(mono-sectoral)Goals / targets for single function / potential

target congruence/target conflicts

Definition of scenariosLandscape optimization (LNOPT)

Decision tree

Integrated concept of an conservation and development scheme for individual spatial units

Spatial units of similar or even landscape ecological targets / difficulties

actual / potential hazard / risk

Identification

Assortment

Assessment

Formulation

Determination

Classification

Definition

Interferences

Solving conflicts

Data exploration

Analysis and Assessment of Indicators

Analysis and Assessment of Landscape

Conflict Management

Integrated frameworkto elaborate ecologicaltargets (Leitbilder)for spatial units


Language:

Victoria

Production function

RetentionWater erosion

274

290

292

294

296

132

134

146

148

Current use

Optimum solution ofall functions –‘UTOPIA POINT’

Compromise 1

Maximization ofproductionMaximizing preven-tion of water erosion

144

142

276

278

280

282

284

286

288

124

128

130

Formulation of ecological targets for large areas for heterogeneous spatial units to the meso-scale:

the assessment of environmental functions

scenario technologies

integrative procedures for decision support

derivation of ecological targets

(Umweltforschungszentrum)


Engaging communities

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1Terrestrial Habitat

Surface Water

GroundwaterCarbon Sequestration

Food and Fibre

Current scenario

Target scenario

Reference scenario

Opening understanding of the interdependent nature of landscape functions as multiple ecosystem services.

Engaging all in spatial optimisation -sharing responsibility.

Schematic only


Broadly applicable?

Ecosystem services delivered through:• Competitive allocations• Regulation• Information/training• Combinations

Stepping out of the natural ‘comfort-zones’ of disciplines and specialisations


A stewardship or MOP framework in Victoria



Currently six RLS - Multiple Outcome Projects in 6/10 Catchment Management Regions

Tyrrell Basin, Southern Mallee



Project area: 394,000 haIncrease in Area Under Threat (0-5m)2004:23,856 ha / 6%

2004 - 2050:68,895 ha / 18%



InterventionsBase need to protect ecosystem: reduce total average recharge from 5.9 to 4.5mm/yr (25% reduction).

Revegetate? Would require 23% of every farm to be revegetated to reduce average overall recharge from 5.9 to 4.5mm/yr.

Option 1 Reduce Fallow = 25% reduction

Option 2 Reduce Recharge under Crops & Pastures = 40% reduction


Related work already underway

Victoria– BushTender– EcoTender– Rural Land Stewardship / Multiple Outcome Projects

South Australia– Premier’s Roundtable on Sustainability interested in ES

Queensland– EPA & Office of Urban Management have commissioned CSIRO

to prepare a scoping paper (water quality)

NSW– Property Vegetation Planner


Don’t forget a policy framework to support the direction


Background papers

VCMC Report to

Government ? Policy


Complimentary directions

Landscape Integration, optimisation Modelling Future LandscapesThe methodology to integrate partly contradicting goals and targets into rural and landscape development is not well developed. There are different approaches for the development of integrative goals (leitbilder) depending on the specific sciences from which they originate, e.g.

agricultural or land economy,

biodiversity planning

hydrology

geography.

The aim of the session is to discuss different approaches to the integration of multiple goals or targets into consistent models (e.g. spatial decision support systems, linear-programming based models, multicriteria analysis, scenario techniques, landscape prognosis) and related problems and needs.


systems

Box 4 HOW:Project tools:EducationInformationAllocation devicesRegulationPlanning scheme etc…

SOCIAL BIOPHYSICAL

Figure 1Project design model for landscape-scaled ecosystem service projects

INSTITUTIONAL

Box 1:Policy aimsRegional strategiesBudget

Box 2:Profile of land holderinterest, enablers andconstraints, and localcultural perspective’s

Box 3 WHERE:Landscape conditiontypology and extent ofchange sought (macroanalysis - broaderecosystem needs)

Box 5 WHAT:Site biophysicalanalysis and modellingof outcomes (microanalysis – sitecontribution toecosystem needs)

Project:Project actions and timelinesProject implementation toolsProject deliverablesProject teams

Cultural contexts

Ecosystem services


systems

Box 3, Figure 1 (example)

Figure 2Landscape condition typology and program tool continuum – after McIntyre and Hobbs (1999)

INTACTLANDSCAPE(national park)

VARIEGATEDLANDSCAPE

FRAGMENTEDLANDSCAPE

RELICTUALLANDSCAPE

(intensive agriculture)

Local scale action - competitive resource allocation Broad scale action - collaborative project participation

Less modified Highly modified

Ecosystem services: a landscape planning framework with...

Documents

Transcript of Ecosystem services: a landscape planning framework with...