Challenges in using indicators to quantify ecosystems services for a CBA in the framework of ECLAIRE

Wilfried Winiwarter

ECLAIRE

• Measurements at different scales• Modelling at different scales• Integrated Risk Assessment

and Policy Tools

• http://www.eclaire-fp7.eu/• Coordinated by CEH Edinburgh

(Mark Sutton)

The GAINS model

Minimized costs

Share unabated

ImpactsEmissions DepositionActivity E.Factors

Share abated

Optimization target

Results of field experiments

– Birch trees (F. Hayes): # of leaves, biomass, cross-sectional area

– Oak AG biomass (G. Gerosa) NOT: hornbeams, root biomass

– Annual pastures: O3 reduces fertilization effects (R. Alonso)

– NDVI, leaf weight, chlorophyll content (C. Amann)NOT: biomass

• Higher ozone concentration damage• Combined with N deposition damage corrected (or:

decreased NUE)

Optimization boundary conditions

• Only one dimension (endpoint) possible: conversions needed

• Practical experience with – largely – synergetic endpoints–Air pollution – climate change– “multi-effect” protocol

• Here: opposing effectsIs ozone or nitrogen more important?

Cost benefit analysis

van

Grin

sven

et a

l. 20

13

Valuation of ecosystems services

• Framework (Mike Holland)–Quantification of benefits–Treat those services qualitatively, for

which quantification can not be given

–Here: additional forest biomass due to N–Quantification of biodiversity value is

difficult

Focus on market values ?

Bateman et al. 2013

Biodiversity indicators

“No net loss of biodiversity”

Endpoints:• Species number / preferential species• Red list species / sensitive species• Indicator species

• E.g. “relative environmental sustainability” or “positive indicator species” concepts

Conclusions

“No net loss of biodiversity”

Endpoints:• Species number• Red list species• Indicator species

• E.g. “relative environmental sustainability” or “positive indicator species” concepts