Ecosystem services in practice: potentials ... - uni-kiel.de · Ecosystem services in practice:...
Transcript of Ecosystem services in practice: potentials ... - uni-kiel.de · Ecosystem services in practice:...
Ecosystem services in practice: potentials and Ecosystem services in practice: potentials and
limitations in environmental managementlimitations in environmental management
Christina von HaarenDept. of Environmental Planning
Leibniz University Hanover, Germany Leibniz University Hanover, Germany
International ConferenceSolutions for Sustaining Natural Capital and Ecosy stem
Services:Designing Socio-Ecological Institutions
Kiel, Salzau June 7th 2010
StructureStructure
1. Purposes, applications, and methodology of environmental planning – the example of landscape planning in Germany
2. Environmental planning approaches in the 2. Environmental planning approaches in the framework of other ecosystem service concepts. Potentials and limitations.
3. Conclusions
Political decision levels = Political decision levels = Planning levels of landscape planning in DPlanning levels of landscape planning in D
farm
Landscape planning
Global federal state regionEUfarm
local
4%
Stand der LRP (30.03.2004)Stand der LRP (30.03.2004)
22%
LP in preparation5%
LP in preparationNo LP 29%
Area covered by local landscape plans (30.03.2004)
Regional Landscape Plans
in Germany
92%
3%
1%
LRP abgeschlossen
LRP für Teilbereiche im Planungsgebiet in Bearb.
LRP in Bearbeitung
keine LRP
LP completed44%
Inventory, assessment of the state of the Inventory, assessment of the state of the landscape: Value, resilience, potentials, impactslandscape: Value, resilience, potentials, impacts
Landscape functions*:
• Natural yields function (esp. natural soil fertility potential)
• Water provision function
• Water retention function (the importance of the landscape for flood protection)
StateValue
Resilience/sensitivity
Impact
Which ecosystem services are covered?
for flood protection)
• (Climate protection function)
• Bioclimatic function
• Geodiversity function
• Biodiversity function
• Landscape aesthetic function
• (Renewable energy provision function)
* In planning normative connotation, different from ecology (Jax 2002, de Groot)
Impact assessment
Conception of measures
Abb. : Stellung der Landschaftsplanung im Naturschutz- gesetz und die spezifische Situation
Ziele und
Grundsätze des BNatSchG
Arte
nsc
hutz
gute
fach
lich
e P
raxi
sde
r La
ndnu
tzu
ng
en
Fläc
hen-
und
Obje
ktsc
hutz
B
ioto
pve
rbu
nd
Ver
band
skl
age
Ein
griff
sre
gelu
ng
Umweltbeobachtung
Landscape Planning
Nat
ure
res
erve
s
Co
mp
ensa
tion
regu
latio
n
Goo
d pr
acti
ce o
f ag
ricu
ltur
e fo
rest
ry, f
ishe
ry
Rig
ht t
o s
ue
of N
GO
s
General goals of law
What is Landscape? What is Landscape? �������� territorial, includes human influenceterritorial, includes human influence
Alexander von Humboldt ~ 1799:
„Landscape is the total character of a region of the earth“
ELC, Chapter I Article 1: “an area,
A region of the earth and aesthetic, cultural, ecological and economic system which reflects the human perception and realisation (ILN 1998)
Article 1: “an area, as perceived by people, whose character is the result of the action and interaction of natural and/or human factors”
Reduction of the complexity of reality: Reduction of the complexity of reality: What are landscape functions?What are landscape functions?
Actual
land use,
individual utility welfare:
historic land use
Human
demands,
legitimised
societal
goals
Actually used goods: Drinking water, vine,
Capacities
for
perception
measuring
explanation
Value, potential, sensitivity, impairment
Ecosystem processes, structures
water, vine, wood, foodstuff, subjective pleasure…
Natural territorial potentials (Bobeck, Schmidthüsen 1949, Troll 1950, Neef 1966, Haase 1978.:116, Bastian) have to be mobilised (released) by land use
�Term too abstract for practical planning � landscape functions(Bastian, Gruehn, Haaren..)
landscape Ecosystem servicesEcosystem services
Water provision function, Water provision function, retention function (flood protection)retention function (flood protection)
Ground water resources: importance and vulnerability
High sensitivity against nitrate pollution of ground
waterHigh retention, flood protection function Land cover,
43
2
10
Pressure, impairment high : Flood plains without permanent vegetation cover
Land cover, regulating run off, river discharge
0
High ground water replenishment rate
Natural yields function: Natural fertility (value), erosion, compression, contamination sensitivity, ac tual impairment
Soil erosion vulnerablity
Off site damage
4
3
2
1
t/Ha
Source: Mitasowa
1
0
Landscape aesthetics, landscape Landscape aesthetics, landscape experience functionsexperience functions
Inventory and valuation of natural scenery and cultural heritage assets
Attractive landscape elements
Features with
Damaging elements
Scenic views
Features with cultural and historic value
Climate protection
(Quelle: v.Haaren & Saathoff, in Vorbereitung, nach Saathoff 2008; Datengrundlage: Neufeldt 2005; entera 2004)
v. Haaren, Saathoff: submitted
Basis of calculation: LBEG, Neufeldt 2005, Landuse Management plan Entera 2004
Climate protection function as sink or storage
On 3900 ha synergy with protection of birds, on 700 ha
with insects, on 8 ha with protection of flora, on 24 ha
conflicts with flora
Dealing with multifunctionality: Spatial identifica tion of Dealing with multifunctionality: Spatial identifica tion of synergies and conflicts (climate protection, biodiv ersity)synergies and conflicts (climate protection, biodiv ersity)
v.Haaren & Saathoff, sumitted
Example for map of objectives whichintegrates different landscape functions, alternati ves
• Spatial target zones, e.g. conservation, development, redevelopment
• objectives and requirements for sustainable use patterns Most important targets:
Ergebnisse FH Erfurt „Beispiel Nordthüringen“ (im Auftrag des BMBF)
• Implementation priorities • Development of field margins, hedgerows, buffer stripes along creeks
• conservation of grassland,
• reduce nitrogen leaking on arable land,
• enhance portion of deciduous trees in forests
How does landscape planning cope with misfits How does landscape planning cope with misfits of spatial interconnections and decision scale, NiM BYof spatial interconnections and decision scale, NiM BY
„The tyranny of the small decisions (Eugene Odum)“
Adoption of higher level objectivesAdoption of higher level objectives
Global Landscape planning
impl
emen
tatio
n pr
oble
ms
federal state regionEU farmlocal
Areas ofinternational nationalstateregionallocal value/importance
Ecological connections beyond political boundaries: Impact on higher tier than pressure; or functional areas cross border (habitat, ground water replenishment); or value high because on higher scale endangered/ scarce
Decision (legal) competence/implementation competence?
impl
emen
tatio
n pr
oble
ms
Considering spatial connections on Considering spatial connections on different scalesdifferent scales
Local landscape plan
Regional landscape plan
Farm
Impairment:
dissection Adoption and
implementation (?) +
regional network adoption + local network + network for
plant
protection
Fields of practical application
Participation and education
� Comments of NGOs citizens, land users on
Information basis for valorisation of Nature
�Targeting the spending of public funds for
Landscape planning supports:
Regulation
� Protected areas
� Impact regulation citizens, land users on planned projects
�Environmental awareness, regional identity
of public funds for environmental services
�Sale of eco friendly products, eco-tourism
� Impact regulation and compensation
Rehabilitation and improvement of landscape functions
Ziele und
Grundsätze des BNatSchG
z
Landscape Planning as interface between Landscape Planning as interface between general goals of the law and implementationgeneral goals of the law and implementation
Landscape Planning: area specific objectives and measures
General Goals andPrinciples of Nature Conservation
Art
ens
chu
tz
gu
te fa
chlic
he
Pra
xis
der
Lan
dn
utz
un
gen
Flä
chen
-un
d O
bje
ktsc
hu
tz
Bio
top
verb
un
d
Ver
ban
dsk
lag
e
Ein
gri
ffsr
ege
lun
g
UmweltbeobachtungS
peci
es p
rote
ctio
n
Nat
ure
rese
rves
Compensation regulation
Goo
d pr
actic
e of
agr
icul
ture
, fo
rest
ry, f
ishe
ry
Rig
ht to
sue
of N
GO
s
Monitoring of the environment
Spa
tial p
lann
ing
Integration of environmental aspects Integration of environmental aspects into spatial planninginto spatial planning
Regional landscape plan 1:50 000
environmental goals and information in LP suitable for
integration into Regional spatial plan
Taken from county Hameln-Pyrmont
„Translation map“
The competent authorities have to include all available and necessary information in the decision making process
Procedure of the Intervention Regulation Procedure of the Intervention Regulation According to the Federal Nature Conservation ActAccording to the Federal Nature Conservation Act
Intervention
Avoidance of impairments
Functional compensation
Basic principle of compensation:
Restore function Functional compensation
Material substitution
Legal, political weighing
Monetary substitution
Obligation of developer to pay for reestablishment of functions (compensation)Obligation of developer to pay for reestablishment of functions (compensation)
Restore function (area 1:1)
Approaches to accounting the Approaches to accounting the substitution areasubstitution area
• Reestablishment cost approach for calculating substitution amount
• Standard approach in case of loosing widespread functions which are not in short supply (lower value): product of area and value of lost function (substitute)
+ arguing for best solution (developmentpotential, landscape planning)
� money can be spent on small site establishinghigh value function or vice versa
�developers as well as municipalities look for the least vulnerable areas for development (in landscape plan) as ecosystems with long development times and high management requirements for rehabilitation are more expensive to compensate
Compensation pool for Container Terminal 4 in Bremerhaven
Monetary substitution and difficulties in Monetary substitution and difficulties in practicepractice
• Prices are mostly politically defined
• No material compensation �
• Rehabilitation cost approach suitable for functions with short re-establishment times (< 30 years = 1 generation?), what about functions which cannot be re-established in
Loss of
functions
Material
compensation
Compensation
payment
shortcut
generation?), what about functions which cannot be re-established in political planning timeframes? Calculate compount interests?
In monetary value it is an equal compensation for the tarn.
Information basis for valorisation of Nature
�Targeting the spending of public
Landscape planning supports:
Regulation
� Protected areas
� Impact regulation
Participation
Comments of NGOs citizens, land users on
spending of public funds on environmental services
�Sale of eco friendly products, eco-tourism
� Impact regulation and compensation
Rehabilitation and improvement of landscape functions
citizens, land users on planned projects
�Environmental awareness, regional identity
Modules of the interactive Modules of the interactive landscape planlandscape plan
VisualisationWeb GIS: Interactive maps
Experiences in political decision making and Experiences in political decision making and participationparticipation
• Clearly defined scope for decisions necessary (tier-specific competencies)
• Spatial specification fosters dicussion and implementation
• Decision makers sometimes shy away
Learning and fun, virtual walks
Full digital support of landscape planning,
participation and environmental
education
Participation via web and face to face
sometimes shy away from transparency (new media, monetization?)
• Monetizing losses of land owners reduces emotions in debate
• Communication requires adequate wording, practical actions, examples, visualization
• Farmers often do not like to supply „services“
Landscape planning is useful for three main tasks i n the Landscape planning is useful for three main tasks i n the context of sustainable landscape development:context of sustainable landscape development:
Participation and education
� Comments of NGOs citizens, land users on
Landscape planning supports:
Regulation
� Protected areas
� Impact regulation
Information basis for valorisation of
Nature
�Targeting the citizens, land users on planned projects
�Environmental awareness, regional identity
� Impact regulation and compensation
Rehabilitation and improvement of landscape functions
�Targeting the spending of public funds for environmental services
�Sale of eco friendly products, eco-tourism
Accounting on farms for better marketing opportunit ies: Accounting on farms for better marketing opportunit ies: Quality, quantity, connectivity of biotopesQuality, quantity, connectivity of biotopes
Assessment by open source GIS software
Wert-stufen
1
1
0
Dichte(m/ ha)
90
110
45
70
30
130
155
3
2
45appraisal function hedgerow density
Percentage (farm area) of hedgerows of different value
source GIS software MANUELA (Haaren et al. 2008)
Area to produce nature conservation products
possible adjustments to market demands (on basis of Landscape plan)
„Theoretical Production Potential“„Theoretical Production Potential“
land usearable land
Heide, Moor, ehem. Wald: 12%Forests: 12 %heath, moor, formerly soil
areas with borders: areas of the highest priority (indisposable)without borders: areas with flexible targets and measures
heath, moor
Heide, Moor, ehem. Bodenabbau: 10%
Gewässer: 3%
Acker: 34%
Grünland: 41%
10 000 cattle
arable land: 34%
Grassland: 41%
water bodies: 3%
Forests: 12 %formerly soil extraction: 10%
5000 lambs
Albert et al. 2009
Umfrage 1)
Arten- und Naturschutz in Deutschland (HAMPICKE et al. 1991)Verhinderung des Artensterbens in Deutschland (HOM-MÜLLER 1991)Arten- und Biotopschutzprogramm für Berlin/West(SCHWPPE-KRAFT et al. 1994)
15% der Landesfläche SH für Naturschutz (ALVENSLEBEN & SCHLEYERBACH 1994)
Erhaltung der Artenvielfalt im Lahn-Dill-Bergland (MÜLLER et al. 2001)
Erhaltung des Biospährenreservats Schorfheide Chorin (ROMMEL 1998)
Landschaftspflege in der Lüneburger Heide (CORDES 1994)
Artenschutz im Allgäu und Kraichgau (JUNG 1996)
regi
onal
Ger
man
y
Programmebene
10,238,24
7,208.18
5,682,16
13,194,26
Willingness to pay for nature conservation in D
Quelle: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN), 2002v.Haaren /2003; Vorl II und III; Folie 21; bei JonczykZahlungsbereitschaft für den NaturschutzZahlungsbereitschaft für den Naturschutz
Artenschutz im Allgäu und Kraichgau (JUNG 1996)
Landschaftspflege im Emsland und Werra-Meißner-Kreis (ZIMMER 1994)Landschaftspflege im Lahn-Dill-Bergland (CORELL 1994)Grünlandextensivierung und Gewässerrandstreifen (umfangreiches Programm) (DEGENHARDT et al. 1998)
Grünlandextensivierung und Gewässerrandstreifen (kleines Programm) (s.o.)
Grünlandextensivierung und Landespflegemaßnahmen (s.o.)
1) Die Befragten wenden sich an die Wohnbevölkerung des jeweiligen Gebietes2) Eigene Umrechnung auf Zahlungsbereitschaft für Haushalt3) Die Befragung bezog sich auf die Zahlungsbereitschaft der befragten Person.
Ob dies auch die Zahlungsbereitschaft des Haushalts ist wurde nicht thematisiert.
loka
lre
gion
al
4,267,16
8,76
2,721,60
1,140 3 6 9 12
€/ household and month
StructureStructure
1. Purposes, applications, and methodology of environmental planning – the example of landscape planning in Germany
2. Environmental planning approaches in the 2. Environmental planning approaches in the framework of other ecosystem service concepts. Potentials and limitations.
3. Conclusions
Placing the landscape planning approachPlacing the landscape planning approach
1. Goal: Maintenance, rehabilitation, development. Accounting with regard to certain instruments (compensation)
2. Definition, classification, characteristicspublic goods emphasis
3. Concentration in spatial implementation on regional,
Valuation, acounting
Higher decision
Plandscape planning Ecosystem Service concepts
3. Concentration in spatial implementation on regional, local planning tier, Germany national tier not implemented
4. always spatially explicit � concrete implementation
5. consequences of political interface/participation for preparation of planning contents: Terms, priorities, consider danger of abuse in case of monetization
Higher decision levels
?
Participation?
Monetization
DefinitionsDefinitions
Landscape functions are “ the capacity of landscapes and their subspaces to sustainably fulfil basic and or democratically legitimisedmaterial or immaterial human demands”.Landscape functions are characterised by their value (for satisfying the demands), their specific sensitivity against different pressures, the state of impairment and –optionally – by development potentials.”
• Explicitly include results of human influence on territory
• Focussing on non-commercial market goods, selection optionally – by development potentials.”
(modified on the basis of Haaren, Holitz 1991, Haase 1978, Bastian)
“Final” ecosystem services: “components of nature , directly enjoyed , consumed, or used to yield human well-being” (Boyed, Banzhaf 2007 p:619).
Ecosystem services are the aspects of ecosystems utilized (actively or passively) to produce human well-being.1) services must be ecological phenomena and 2) they do not have to be directly utilized. Fisher et al. 2009:645
goods, selection criteria: basic, long time, legitimised human needs
Fisher et al. 2009 non excludable
Non rival
•Inclusion of potential, resilience, impairment
Pros and cons of including actual goods,Pros and cons of including actual goods,commercial benefits in landscape planning valuation ?commercial benefits in landscape planning valuation ?
� Task of government is to preserve preconditions for different use options (societal, long term perspective)
� Actual use is short term, volatile, changeable � considered as a variable for management
� Actual benefit is perceived individually and differently and can be valuated only on local/ sub-local levelvaluated only on local/ sub-local level
� Commercial benefits are brought forward in the spatial planning process anyway by stakeholders, other administrations
+ Acceptability by stakeholders and political support would rise. Synergies between land use + conservation
+ monetization facilitates communication with political decision makers
Options for accounting, Options for accounting, monetization on the basis of monetization on the basis of landscape planninglandscape planning historic
land use
Actual land use
Actually used goods: Drinking water, wood, foodstuff,subjective pleasure…
Potential market, Actual and Actual contribution
Applications:
Communication
with political
decision makers
Support precaution, preservation; cost benefit analysis in decision
procedures, compensation costs.
Value, potential, sensitivity, impairment
Green GDP, calculate taxes, levies in case of external costs
Potential market, rehabilitation value of
functions & development potential
Actual and potential
rehabilitation costs
Actual contribution to GDP, non market goods, contingent
valuation
Options for
monetization:
StructureStructure
1. Purposes, applications, and methodology of environmental planning – the example of landscape planning in Germany
2. Environmental planning approaches in the 2. Environmental planning approaches in the framework of other ecosystem service concepts. Potentials and limitations.
3. Conclusions
3. Conclusion: 3. Conclusion: Potentials of a better integration of the approache sPotentials of a better integration of the approache s
1. Supplement environmental management with an additional (separate) ecosystem service accounting and monetization (national, state level)
• parallel “bookkeeping” especially in SEA, EIA
• Inclusion of time effects: compound interests, discounting?
2. Better framework for accounting needed: Homogeneous standards for assessment, valuation, geodata for all planning tiers (integrated environmental information systems � INSPIRE)
historic land use
Actual land use
Value, potential, sensitivity, impairment
environmental information systems � INSPIRE)
3. Use of methodologies and data from environmental management in accounting (inventory, assessment)
4. Open questions:
• How to tackle risks of setting off nature values against each other and against commercial market values (weak sustainability)?
• Communication with citizens: In connection to biodiversity and landscape beauty � danger of disenchantment of nature
Thank you very much for your attentionThank you very much for your attention