Ecosystem and landscape services: development and challenges … · 2015. 10. 19. · landscape services (LS): 1. No or low –no considerable role of landscape issues 2. Medium –landscape

Ecosystem and landscape services: development and challenges of

disputed concepts

Olaf Bastian

German-Ukrainian Meeting on Ecosystem Services

28th-30th Sept. 2015 Dresden, IÖR

O. Bastian 28th Sept. 2015, Dresden

Background

Concept of ecosystemservices (ES)

= Contributions of nature(ecosystems) to human well-being

Increasing threats on nature(biodiversity)

Manifold and growing demandson limited resources

Fostering sustainable land use


Structure

ES: history and milestones

ES conceptual frameworks

ES assessment

Landscape services

Transboundary case study Ore Mountains (D/CZ)

Chances of the ES concept

Limits / risks

O. Bastian 28th Sept. 2015, Dresden Peterson 2010


Exponential growth of publications


Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005)

• Initiated by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan in 2000/2001

• Coordinated by the United NationsEnvironmental Programme (UNEP)

Objectives:

• assess the consequences of ecosystemchanges for human well-being

• establish the scientific basis for actionsneeded to enhance the conservation andsustainable use of ecosystems



THE ECONOMICS OF ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY – “TEEB”

In March 2007, the G8+5 environment ministers (met in Potsdam) expressed the need to explore a similar project like the Stern Review of the Economics of Climate Change.



CBD CoP10 Nagoya, Japan (18.-29.10.2010): Strategic Plan 2011-2020

Aichi targets:VISION By 2050, biodiversity is valued, conserved, restored and wisely used, maintaining ecosystem services, sustaining a healthy planet and delivering benefits essential for all people.

MISSION Take effective and urgent action to halt the loss of biodiversity in order to ensure that by 2020 ecosystems are resilient and continue to provide essential services.




EU Biodiversity Strategy 2011

First European assessment of the provision of ecosystem services (Maes et al. 2011)

Working Group on Mapping and Assessment on Ecosystems and their Services (MAES)

Coherent analytical framework

Typology of ecosystems in Europe based on CICES-classification (Common International Classification ofEcosystem Services) (Haines-Young & Potschin 2012; Maes et al. 2013, 2014)


The Ecosystem Services Partnership

launched in 2008 by the Gund Institute for Ecological Economics

(University of Vermont, USA); now being coordinated by the Environmental Systems Analysis Group (Wageningen University, the Netherlands)

consists of institutional and individual members

Aims

enhance communication, coordination and cooperation, and to build a strong network of individuals and organizations


Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services – IPBES, 2012 in Bonn/Germany


The UK National Ecosystem Assessment (UK NEA) (2009-2011)


first analysis of the UK’s natural environment in terms of the benefits it provides to society and continuing economic prosperity

involving many government, academic, NGO and private sector institutions.


Naturkapital Deutschland –

TEEB DE

Several reports andbrochures, participation ofmany scientists, experts, stakeholders



Feasibility study for ES mapping in Germany 2014- coordinated by the Helmholtz-

Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ)


Research project„Elaboration and application of a methodology for a national assessment of ecosystem servicesin the framework of target 2 andmeasure 5 in the EU BiodiversityStrategy until 2020“IÖR Dresden/ifuplan München), 2014-2016






ES cascade TEEB (2009)



EPPS framework (Ecosystem properties, potentials and services)


Bastian / Grunewald 2012


Spangenberg, von Haaren, Settele2013



Diversity of ecosystem services


Classification of ES

Advantage of the breakdown into

Provisioning ES,

Regulation ES, and

Socio-cultural ES

link to the concept of sustainability with its established

ecological, economic and social development categories

ES assessment


Total Economic Value (TEV)

Use values Non-use values

Indirect use values

(e.g. regulation of climate or

waters

Direct use values

(e.g. materials, recreation

Option values

(possible futurebenefit)

Bequest values

Existence values

ES assessment


Ranking of ES

Own survey in the Görlitz district with about 250 interviewees

ES assessment


• Arrangement/pattern ofecosystems/landscapeelements

• Spatial interferences

• Interrelationships causedby structure and processes

• Ecological spatial referenceunits

• Different scales anddimensions

• Spatial differentiation ofsupply and demand:

Service Providing Areas (SPA) and Service Benefiting Areas (SBA): Who sells? Who pays?

Spatial aspectsES assessment

Landscape concept = More integrative, total character, peculiarity

Landscape services = LS as the contributions of landscapes and landscape elements to human well-being

(© O. Bastian)

Landscape services

linking social concept of space (perception, action) with the physical concept of space (ecosystemcomplex)

broader perspective beyond ecosystems (on landscape elements and the landscape character)

prominent role of spatial aspects

stronger focus on the interplay between humans and environment

the more integrative view and interdisciplinary character of landscape (than of ecosystem)

relevance for landscape planning

(© O. Bastian)

Landscape services

Bastian et al. 2015 in Landscape Ecology

Three levels of relevance for using the term landscape services (LS):

1. No or low – no considerable role of landscape issues

2. Medium – landscape character (strong landscape context of aesthetics, focus on landscape character and planning) or landscape units are crucial: both terms ES and LS may be used

3. High – The service ist not supplied by an ecosystem but by other landscape elements (not all types are ecosystems): the term LS should be used instead of ES.

(© O. Bastian)

Landscape services



• Increased awareness of the multifacet value ofnature + our dependence on nature

• Enforcing integrative view for decision-making

• Foster accounting and monetary valuation in environmental planning

• More clearly differentiate between public and private goods for better targeting implementation strategies

• Frame communication and participation processes

e.g. von Haaren & Albert (2011)


Application in planning

• ES = Amending argument in environmental planning

• Some planning frameworks capture the idea of ES already (not necessarily the same terminology)

But:• Need for examples and evaluation of added value of

ES

• Missing of established ways / algorithms ofintegration into politics, planning and decision-making



Limits / Risks

• Ambiguity of definitions and classifications

• Ecological / biophysical aspects need to beunderstood

• Scientific accuracy and complexity versus simplification and clarity

• Compatibility of indicators with existing indicatorsystems

• Data availability


• Economic value = reduced form of value forms

• Reduction of the highly diverse human-nature-relationshipon an economic category

• Strengthening the dominating anthropocentric focus(nature as commodity, role of markets, exploitative human-nature-relationship)

• Imposition of economic instruments on non-marketgovernance structures

• Erosion of ethically and culturally based approaches

@ O. Bastian, S. Stutzriemer

Limits / risks


• Conflicts with some biodiversity targets: „useless“ species and ecosystems

• Shifting of focus from the conservation of(near-)natural ecosystems toanthropogenic areas

@ O. Bastian

Limits / risks


Thank you for your attention!

Спасибі за Вашу увагу!

Olaf.Bastianweb.dewww.bastian-landschaft.de

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Ecosystem and landscape services: development and challenges … · 2015. 10. 19. · landscape services (LS): 1. No or low –no considerable role of landscape issues 2. Medium –landscape