1

2) Process of designing and implementing the assessment

Approaches to Ecosystem Service Assessments

1) Framing the assessment

Daily et al. 2009

2

1) Framing the assessment

3

1) Framing the assessment

4

1) Framing the Assessment – asking the right questions

What is the problem? Which practices & policies cause degradation?

What are the most important ES? TEEB six step approach

What ES information can inform better decisions & practices?

Assessment design & methods

Assess management and policy options

Assess distributional impacts: trade-offs, winners / losers

• Stakeholder Analysis

• Multi-criteria analysis

Spatial analysis and modeling tools

• InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs)

• ARIES

• Introductory Guide for Valuation (DEFRA)

5

Specific questions and methods

Examples and lessons learned:

• Lessons from multiple assessments: MA sub-global assessments

• Stakeholder / Institutional aspects: Wetlands ES in Alberta, Canada

• Spatial analysis and ES values: use of InVEST on Hawai‘i

6

2) Process of designing and implementing the assessment

7 Source: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Lessons from the MA sub-global assessments

Lessons from the MA sub-global assessments

Trade-off in frameworks between local usefulness and cross-scale comparability:

• A clearly defined conceptual framework (and methods) is important as a common starting point for analysis and synthesis.

• BUT: locally adapted alternative frameworks can often be more useful for local assessment users and stakeholders

8

Source: MA 2005 Chapter 12

Lessons from the MA sub-global assessments

Issues related to implementation

• Training and capacity-building in tools and methodologies (ideally provided early in the assessment process) is essential

• Focusing on a smaller set of services across assessments would enable better comparative analysis, but recognizing (local) user needs.

• Defining and adopting clear methodologies for cross-scale comparisons

• Ecosystem services, drivers, and response options change with the scale of analysis, impacts on livelihoods are greatest at local level.

9

Source: MA 2005 Chapter 12

Wetland Approval Process Alberta, Canada

→ Stakeholder and institutions

Source: Presenation by Gillian Kerr 2012

Where can information on ES make a difference in the land planning process of decision making on wetland conversion?

Stakeholder involvement → asking the right questions → generating information relevant for decision making

Experts from MA, WRI, TEEB, IUCN

Source: Presenation by Gillian Kerr 2012

Source: Raudsepp-Hearne et al. 2012

Option for recording and reporting ES indicators & values

What is the problem? Why is this ES of relevance for stakeholders?

For whom is the ES information of relevance? Does the ES information impact decisions?

Some lessons:

→ Identify ecosystem services that are of priority for solving the problem

→ Agreeing on common definition and indicators for ecosystem services is

crucial for internal and external communication and collaboration

13

Wetland Approval Process Alberta, Canada

InVEST - Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs

14

O`ahu, Hawai`i

Source: http://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/76000/76244/oahu_ast_2010013.jpg

Source: Presentation Polasky et al. 2012

Scenarios

Source: http://www.hawaiicleanenergyinitiative.org/storage/images/photo_sugarfields.jpg

Source: http://img.geocaching.com/cache/318ec936-0f0f-43ac-8935-be05cbfc6692.jpg

http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/12/2009/11/500x_seth_ladd_hawaii_h3_flickr_01.jpg

Land of Kamehameha Schools

Bio

fuel

s R

esid

enti

al

Sub

div

isio

n

Sust

. Agr

. &

Fore

stry

Carbon Storage (tC/ha)

Water Quality Score

Plantation Income ($/ac)

Spatial changes

Best option in economic terms

Source: Presentation by Polasky et al. 2012

Scen

ario

s

Option chosen by stakeholders because of cultural services

The main ideas of the TEEB stepwise approach and MA guide are: • Gear any ES assessment to the problem – adapt to local needs

• Connect it to potential management and policy responses – assess

potential social impacts (e.g. access and property rights). • Make results transparent: communicate assumptions, uncertainties and

keep ES values disaggregated

• Have the key people/organisations involved

→ Credible, legitimate, relevant to decision makers→ Impact

Further information:

MA Multiscale Assessments: http://www.maweb.org/en/Multiscale.aspx

MA Manual for Practitioners:

http://www.unep-wcmc.org/ecosystems-and-human-wellbeing_553.html

TEEB Reports and Quick Guide: www.teebweb.org

18