exploring the concept of ecosystem services in the … exploring the concept of ecosystem services...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Exploring the concept of ecosystem services
in the context of biosphere reserves
Belinda Reyers, Maria Tengö, Olof Olsson & Jeff
Ranara
Your name
Your biosphere reserve /
place of work
Introductions
Plan for the day
To explore the concept of ecosystem
services in biosphere reserves
To review some tools and approaches of
possible interest
To introduce a social-ecological perspective
on ecosystem services in biosphere reserves
Time Session
9.30- 10.30
Group work 1: Exploring ecosystems services in Biosphere reserves:
commonalities and uniqueness
10.30- 11.00 Coffee
11.00-11.30 An exploration of the concept of ecosystem services
11.30-12.00 Group work 2: Ecosystem service benefits, beneficiaries and human
wellbeing
12.00-13.00 LUNCH
13.00-13.30 Ecosystem service tools and approaches
13.30-14.00 A Social-Ecological lens and tool for exploring ecosystem services -
experiences from MAB reserves
14.00- 15.00 Group work 3: Social-ecological inventories
15.00-15.30 Coffee
15.30-17.00 Presentations and Q&A: Biosphere reserves and ecosystem services -
experiments in sustainability.
Plan for the day
Group discussion
List the ecosystem services provided by your
biosphere reserve
Which of these are priority ecosystem services for
your biosphere reserve and why?
Feedback:
What 3-5 ecosystem services were found to be
common across many biosphere reserves?
Which ecosystem services were unique or
surprising?
Group work 1: Exploring ecosystems services in Biosphere reserves
Evolution of ecosystem service concepts
Links between people & ecosystems
Biosphere 2
History of ecosystem services
History of ecosystem service valuation
Examining the evolution of
ecosystem services
1997… a big year for ecosystem services
15-64 trillion US$
“….lack of public appreciation of societal
dependence upon natural ecosystems…”
“because ecosystem services are not fully
captured in commercial markets ….often
given too little weight in policy decisions…”
Reconnecting people to nature…
…… by making the case for nature
What does the declining health of the
planet mean for us?
Largest assessment of the health of the
planet’s ecosystems Experts and Review Process
Prepared by 1360 experts from 95 countries
80-person independent board of review editors
Review comments from 850 experts and governments
Governance
Called for by UN Secretary General in 2000
Authorized by governments through 4 conventions
Partnership of UN agencies, conventions, business, non-
governmental organizations with a multi-stakeholder board of
directors
Aim: Assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human
wellbeing
Ecosystem Services
“The benefits people obtain from ecosystems”
Linkages and scales
Systems and bundles
Conceptual framework
The conceptual framework for the MA places
human well-being as the central focus for
assessment while recognizing that biodiversity
and ecosystems also have intrinsic value and that
people take decisions concerning ecosystems
based on considerations of both well-being and
intrinsic value
Any assessment empowers some stakeholders
at the expense of others by virtue of the selection
of issues and of expert knowledge to be
incorporated.
People seek many services from ecosystems and
thus perceive the condition of an ecosystem in
relation to its ability to provide desired services.
Millennium
Assessment
(Pages end
to end) Eiffel
Tower
Feet
2000
1000
http://www.greenfacts.org/ecosystems/
Explosion of ecosystem service projects
Papers published on ecosystem services
Definitions
Nature
Ecosystem
Process
Good
Benefit
Life
Needs
Well-being
Direct
Indirect
Chapter 1: Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation
11
Figure 4 gives a schematic representation of the way TEEB proposes to disentangle the pathway from
ecosystems and biodiversity to human wellbeing. A central concept in this diagram is the notion of
(ecosystem) service which the MA defined simply as “the benefits humans derive from nature” (MA
2005a).
Figure 4: The pathway from ecosystem structure and processes to human well-being
2.3.1 From biophysical structure and process to ecosystem services and benefits
As Figure 4 shows, a lot goes on before services and benefits are provided, and decision-makers need
to understand what this involves. It is therefore helpful to distinguish „functions‟ from the even deeper
ecological structures and processes in the sense that the functions represent the potential that
ecosystems have to deliver a service which in turn depends on ecological structure and processes. For
example, primary production (= process) is needed to maintain a viable fish population (= function)
which can be used (harvested) to provide food (= service); nutrient cycling (=process) is needed for
water purification (=function) to provide clean water (= provisioning service)iv. The benefits of these
services are manifold, for example, food provides nutrition but also pleasure and sometimes even
social identity (as part of cultural traditions); clean water can be used for drinking but also for
swimming (pleasure) and other activities aimed at satisfying needs and wants. Thus, the role of
woodlands in slowing the passage of water through a catchment is a function which has the potential
Institutions & human Judgments determining
(the use of) services
Ecosystems & Biodiversity
*) subset of biophysical structure or process providing the service
Service
Management/ Restoration
( eg . flood - protection, products
Feedback between
value perception and use of eco - system services
Function*
( eg . slow water passage, biomass)
( eg . vegetation cover or Net Primary Productivity
Biophysical Structure or process
(contribution to health, safety, etc)
Benefit(s )
Human wellbeing
(socio - cultural context)
(econ) Value
( eg . WTP for protection
or products)
1)
Adapted from Haines - Young & Potschin , 2010 and Maltby (ed.), 2009
Explosion of ways of understanding &
valuing ES
Definitions, frameworks and
values
Which is the right one?
Conservation framing
MA 2005; Ash et al. 2010 Balmford et al. 2008
Ecological economics framing
Fisher et al. 2009; UK NEA 2011
Conservation in the ecological economics
framing
Mace et al. 2012 Tallis et al. 2011
Cascade framework
Links to human wellbeing
Interactions and trade-offs
Cultural services
Emerging gaps
Consequences of Ecosystem Change for Human
Well-being
Human wellbeing is complex
Ecosystem services & human wellbeing white board
Daw et al. 2011. Env. Conservation
From your list of ecosystem services for
biosphere reserves discuss:
Who benefits?
How do they benefit?
How might you capture/value this benefit?
Does anyone lose or incur costs?
Group work 2: Exploring human wellbeing &
biosphere reserves
Tools and approaches for
ecosystem services
Choosing tools: What do you want to do?
Research
Assessment
Policy / management
Observation
Practioner needs
A social process designed to bring the findings of
science to bear on the needs of decision-makers
Observation
Research Decision-makers
Governments
Private Sector
Civil Society
Individuals
What is an assessment
Assessment
Science
A scientific assessment applies the judgment of
experts to existing knowledge to provide
scientifically credible answers to relevant
questions
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment:
Questions 1. What is the rate and scale of environmental
change?
2. How do environmental changes affect the delivery of ecosystem services and human-well being?
3. How might ecosystems change over the next 50 years?
4. What options exist for maintaining the delivery of services and improving human well-being?
Define scope of
assessment
Characterising social
system
Characterising bio-
physical system
Define alternate future states and scenarios
Develop strategies and responses
Identify services and
coupled beneficiaries
Economic valuation
Stage 1
Design
Stage 2
Evaluation
Stage 3
Planning
Review
ReviewReporting
Stage 4
Communicating
Communication & dissemination
Figure 1. An approach for assessing ecosystem services at a local level
Inte
nsi
ty o
f sta
keh
old
er e
ng
ag
em
en
t
Inte
nsity o
f ad
visory a
nd
tech
nica
l com
mitte
e e
ng
ag
em
en
t
Integrated Analysis
(Spatial & multivariate analysis, trade-
offs, policy endpoints, equity)
Integrally involved Notif ied
Define scope of
assessment
Characterising social
system
Characterising bio-
physical system
Define alternate future states and scenarios
Develop strategies and responses
Identify services and
coupled beneficiaries
Economic valuation
Stage 1
Design
Stage 2
Evaluation
Stage 3
Planning
Review
ReviewReporting
Stage 4
Communicating
Communication & dissemination
Figure 1. An approach for assessing ecosystem services at a local level
Inte
nsi
ty o
f sta
keh
old
er e
ng
ag
em
en
tIn
ten
sity of a
dviso
ry an
d te
chn
ical co
mm
ittee
en
ga
ge
me
nt
Integrated Analysis
(Spatial & multivariate analysis, trade-
offs, policy endpoints, equity)
Integrally involved Notif ied
Design phase: scoping
By who for whom?
Need?
Aim?
Targeted processes?
Advisory committee
Technical committee
Scope & scale
Time frame
Conceptual framework
Capacity requirements
Water supply
Grazing
Tourism
Harvestable products
Design phase: services and beneficiaries
Beneficiaries Benefits Ecosystem Services
Commercial farmer
Communal farmer
Farm worker
Land owner
Miner
Rural dweller
Tourist
Urban dweller
International community
Water for irrigation
Water for drinking
Water for livestock
Food for eating
Food for sale
Recreation
Medicines
Shelter
Beneficiaries
Evaluation phase
Define scope of
assessment
Characterising social
system
Characterising bio-
physical system
Define alternate future states and scenarios
Develop strategies and responses
Identify services and
coupled beneficiaries
Economic valuation
Stage 1
Design
Stage 2
Evaluation
Stage 3
Planning
Review
ReviewReporting
Stage 4
Communicating
Communication & dissemination
Figure 1. An approach for assessing ecosystem services at a local level
Inte
nsi
ty o
f sta
keh
old
er e
ng
ag
em
en
t
Inte
nsity o
f ad
visory a
nd
tech
nica
l com
mitte
e e
ng
ag
em
en
t
Integrated Analysis
(Spatial & multivariate analysis, trade-
offs, policy endpoints, equity)
Integrally involved Notif ied
In-depth analysis of the owners/suppliers,
beneficiaries, markets and demand for each
of the identified ecosystem services
An evaluation of how decisions are made
within the study area and what the key issues
governing processes are.
An assessment of government policy in
relation to the suite of identified ecosystem
services.
Social assessment
Evaluation phase
Define scope of
assessment
Characterising social
system
Characterising bio-
physical system
Define alternate future states and scenarios
Develop strategies and responses
Identify services and
coupled beneficiaries
Economic valuation
Stage 1
Design
Stage 2
Evaluation
Stage 3
Planning
Review
ReviewReporting
Stage 4
Communicating
Communication & dissemination
Figure 1. An approach for assessing ecosystem services at a local level
Inte
nsi
ty o
f sta
keh
old
er e
ng
ag
em
en
t
Inte
nsity o
f ad
visory a
nd
tech
nica
l com
mitte
e e
ng
ag
em
en
t
Integrated Analysis
(Spatial & multivariate analysis, trade-
offs, policy endpoints, equity)
Integrally involved Notif ied
Assessing ecosystem services: ecology and economics
Emerging lessons
Supply Benefit Value Supply
+ Location and activity of
beneficiaries
Ecological functions Ecosystem elements
Service +
Social preference
1. Be clear about what you are measuring
8,652 tonnes
8,513 tonnes
$30.6 M
$8.7 M
Fish stock
Landings
Multiple measurements
2. Production functions are central
Food production = f (primary productivity + soil fertility + soil water + species + pollination)
Riparian veg / Wetland area
Wate
r purification
Production functions
• Water Supply as an Ecosystem Service
for Hydropower and Irrigation
• Retention of Nutrients and Sediment by
Vegetation
• Carbon Sequestration and Storage
• Provisioning Value of Timber and Non
Timber Forest Production
• Storm peak mitigation
INVEST TOOLBOX
http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/InVEST.html
3. Maps are a great tool & don’t always need lots of data
Vegetation units
Vegetation units: qualitative
Models
Supply Benefit Value Supply
+ Location and activity of
beneficiaries
Ecological functions Ecosystem elements
Service +
Social preference
4. Think before you value
Magisterial District
Total annual value (R)
Cost Recovery GVA
Calitzdorp R 44 897 999 R 220 186 000
Calvinia R 96 612 187 R 573 388 000
Ceres R 668 325 757 R 1 606 100 000
Clanwilliam R 403 043 133 R 1 120 264 000
George R 34 296 598 R 4 967 324 000
Ladismith R 44 526 315 R 318 094 000
Laingsburg R 49 968 711 R 114 171 000
Montagu R 63 719 997 R 635 378 000
Namakwaland R 23 684 401 R 1 879 814 000
Oudtshoorn R 149 596 394 R 2 357 799 000
Prince Albert R 37 932 962 R 113 332 000
Riversdal R 14 367 446 R 777 922 000
Robertson R 58 518 080 R 1 080 567 000
Steytlerville R 17 766 802 R 95 077 000
Sutherland R 30 138 033 R 141 222 000
Swellendam R 8 071 868 R 1 414 709 000
Uniondale R 43 033 525 R 194 698 000
Vanrhynsdorp R 22 433 927 R 414 343 000
Vredendal R 8 293 293 R 1 281 317 000
Willowmore R 19 663 430 R 140 863 000
Worcester R 556 035 185 R 5 520 326 000
Total R 2 394 926 043 R 24 966 894 000
Some things to think about
What is the benefit?
Who benefits?
What is a good “value” to capture this benefit
Valuation
“Values”
81.8%
55.8%
74.7%
71.6%
72.7%
0%
50%
100%
Forage production
Carbon storage
Tourism viewshed Water flow regulation
Erosion control
Potential
Current
5. Change is central
Source: MA 2005; Heinz Center 2008; EEA 2009
track and communicate
trends in the quantity and
quality of ecosystem
services
essential to knowing whether
or not these services are
being sustained or lost,
understand how policies
should be designed to
ensure the sustainable flow
of services to support human
welfare and maintain
biodiversity
Indicators of change
http://www.esindicators.org/
6. Services come in bundles
7. Ecosystem services are not the product of ecosystems only…