Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Indicators of Ecosystem Services
Compiled by Michael Bredemeier,
Forest Ecosystems Research Centre (FERC), University of Göttingen, DE
Indicators of Ecosystem Services - outline
• Fundamental role of ecosystem functions (EF) and services (ES) for humans
• Terminology around „indicator“ (what is it?)• Indication of ecosystem services: how and why?
– Examples from forest ecosystems and soils• The historical dimension – looking back on the „Wooden Age“
– Connection to indication systems relevant for biodiversity and ALTER-Net (CBD and EU headline indicators, SEBI2010, Millenium Assessment)
– Towards a common indicator framework?• Attempts and limitations of (monetary) valuation• Condensed indication of ecosystem functioning and
services by aggregated indices (ALTER-Net project)
A striking example how delicate and vulnerable ecosytem services are: the failed
"Biosphere 2" endeavour
• Eight humans enclosed in 3.15 acre closed ecosystem
• With replicas of several key ecosystems
• Investment of over 200 M$• Proved impossible to supply
the essential services to support the eight humans– Integrated ES „life support“
failed• Unexpected and unpleasant
problems arose instead.
Terminology: EF and ES• „Ecosystem functions“ (EF) longer established and in
use compared to „Ecosytem services“ (ES)• The former refer more to the natural processes and
their resilience and integrity, the latter more to the benefits to humans from that.
• No definite and clear distinction since many ecosystem functions directly constitute ecosystem services, e.g., water retention in soils: – Water supply to the vegetation as well as water resource
provision to humans– Prevention of erosion and mitigation of flood peaks
Terminology: Indicators• „Classical“ use in science from chemistry
– Any of various substances, such as litmus or phenolphthalein, that indicate the presence, absence, or concentration of another substance ...
– Ecology A plant or animal whose existence in an area is strongly indicative of specific environmental conditions (thefreedictionary.com)
• Should be a measurable parameter (metric or ordinal scaled)
• An „index“ can be something more abstract or more aggregated.
A model of ecosystem function – service relationship
From: NRC (2005)
valuation
Fundamental category system for forest ecosytem functions
• Natural functions– Habitat
• Support of biological diversity
– Regulation of energy and matter cycles
• Soil protection• Water storage and peak
flow control
• Cultural functions– Wood production– Non-timber products
(game, resins, herbs, mushrooms ...)
– Water resource provision
– Recreation– Education
Beese 1996, and many others
The category system of the Millenium Assessment for ecosystem services (ES)
• „supporting“ ecosystem services– i.e., ecosystem
functions• Provisioning ES• Regulating ES• Cultural ES• + Preserving ES
Dimensions of the services obtained through plant use
Species richness: vascular plants
ca. 270,000
Utilized by humans> 70,000
Not utilized< 200,000
Species protection (CITES)25,000
In bio-prospecting> 30,000
Medicinal plants>20,000
Food and fibre plants>10,000
Food plantsCa. 3,000
MedicinalCa. 25,000
Wood and fibre>15,000
Ornamental> 15,000
Model plants in scienceCa. 2,000
Source: WBGU (2004)
Valuation of ecosystem services ....
„Many of Nature's services are literally priceless - we cannot live without them and they have no known substitutes.
"Pricing" these services can focus attention on the importance of healthy ecosystems.“
Arguments for valuation, starting points for communication
• The world's ecosystems provide a flow of vital services, like the generation of fertile soils, purification of air and water, the mitigation of floods and drought, pollination and pest control. The world economy would crash without this "natural capital." – In this sense, the value of nature's services is infinite - we
simply cannot live without them. • the value of forest services, like flood control, recycling
of rainfall and carbon dioxide uptake, can be several times more valuable than timber yield. – However, the former ones are not priced ...
• BD is thought to support ecosystem services– Inter alia the ability of species diversity to provide an
insurance against environmental fluctuations• Economists assign values to non-marketed ecosystem
services using several valuation methods.
Valuation methods Productivity Method: (sometimes called the net factor income or derived value method): estimates the value of ecosystem goods or services used, along with other inputs, to produce a marketed good. For example, the economic benefits of improved water quality can be measured by valuing improved crop quality and agricultural productivity. Hedonic Pricing Method: estimates values for ecosystem or environmental services that directly affect market prices, e.g. variations in housing prices reflecting local air andwater quality or noise. Travel Cost Method: estimates the value of ecosystems that are used for recreation, based on how much people are willing to pay to visit the site. Damage Cost Avoided: estimates the value of ecosystem services based on the costs of avoiding damages due to lost services. Replacement and Substitute Cost Method: estimates values of ecosystem services based on the cost of replacing them, or the cost of providing substitute services, e.g. valuing the water purification services of a wetland by comparing it to the cost of filteringand chemically treating water. Contingent Valuation Method: estimates values by asking people to directly state theirwillingness to pay for specific ecosystem services, based on a hypothetical scenario.
Source: http://www.albaeco.com/sdu/06/htm/main.htm
An example of damage cost avoided
• In China's Yangtze River basin, 85 percent of the original forest cover had been lost by 1998.
• flooding of the river basin displaced 120 million people, causing US$30 billion worth of damage.
• Chinese officials argued that standing trees were worth many times more than felled trees and banned logging in the upper reaches of the basin.
• About 15 percent of the world's energy consumption is supplied by fuelwood and other plant material– in developing countries, such "biomass" supplies
nearly 40 percent of energy consumption (Hall et al. 1993)
• Annual world fish catch– About 100 million metric tons– Valued between $50 and $100 billion
• Medical drugs– a recent survey showed that of the top 150
prescription drugs used in the United States, 118 are based on natural sources
• 74% on plants, 18% on fungi, 5% on bacteria, and 3% on one vertebrate (snake) species
– commercial value of pharmaceuticals in the developed nations exceeds $40 billion per year (Principe 1989)
Further examples
Ecosystem services valuation as a matter of debate
• In 1997, Robert Costanza of the University of Maryland and twelve co-authors estimated the annual value of the world's ecosystem services at US$33 trillion. (Nature 387)– This was more than the value of the global gross national product
(GNP) that year!• According to Costanza, most economists would have
guessed that the value of ecosystem services would only be 1 percent of global GNP or less.
• Criticism: ecosystem services could never be traded in open commerce, which is how prices of conventional goods and services are determined.
• Criticism: some also claim that it is not the role of science to determine what is right or wrong or to assign values based on human preferences at all.
• Criticism: assigning money value only deepens the inadequate anthropocentric approach of ES („Deep Ecology“)
Conclusions / Theses
• Ecosystems offer many functions and services which are indispensable for humans. – Although essential these are usually not marketed
and hence not priced. • Integrity of ecosytems and their biological
diversity are values per se and do not need money value as proof.
• However, assigning money value can support valuation of BD and can help communicate valuation to users and the general public.
• Few studies with concrete numbers available so far; easy to arrive at controversial results!
Historical excursus ....Ecosystem functions and services have been used and consumed for a long time ...
However, manifest effects emerged only with the „invention“ of agriculture and large-scale
forest clearing
„Dutchmen Cuttings“
Wood demand of early Industries leads to regional deforestation
From: Klose (1985)
Litter raking and humus layer removal (straw substitute)
Permanent transfer of nutrient capital (forest arable land)
N, P, Ca2+, Mg2+, K+ ...
To quantitatively reconstruct biogeochemical transfers at landscape
level, we have to investigate ...
•Regional and local forest history
Different nutrientcontents!
•Land use history of the arable land•Precise course of element fluxes in the landscape over long time periods
A deep acidification front in a Central European forest soil (spruce, Solling)
• It is caused by:– humid climate and
vegetation cover– natural ecosystem
disturbances– Human land use history– anthropogenic acid
deposition• Particularly relevant for
deep acidification and water acidification!
Back to indicators ...• What is an indicator?
– Until present there is, unfortunately, no rigorous unification of terminology. In the ecological and monitoring communities, however, there is largely agreement that
– An indicator should be a quantitative variable (metric or ordinal scaled) which gives information on the system's actual status.
– An index should be a combined or aggregated measure which may integrate over very many such indicator observations.
– It is important to be aware of this differentiation, because an indicator is unequivocal once its indication function of system status is accepted. For an aggregated index much more scrutiny is required if the mode of aggregation and application seem sensible.
A typical example
... and another one (abiotic)Slapy Reservoir (CZ), Nitrate-N 1959-2007
Time
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
02
46
8
Bredemeier, Straskrabova, Prenzel 2008 in prep.
Advanced statistical techniques such as TSA offer much deeper ways of exploration …
02
46
8
obse
rved
12
34
5
trend
-0.6
0.0
0.6
seas
onal
-20
24
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
rand
om
Time
Decomposition of additive time series
Bredemeier, Straskrabova, Prenzel 2008 in prep.
Long catalogues of ESs and their pertinent indicators
EF ES Indicator(s)Net primary production (forest ES)
Wood supply Wood produced; ratio harvest/actual increment (sustainability indicator!)
Water retention of soils
Flood mitigation Peak flow attenuation [mm/h]
Water purification Drinking water resource provision
Water extracted; stability of stores
Habitat and niche provision
Support of biodiversity Species diversity and abundance; species population trends
Emergence of natural structures
Aesthetic appeal Number of tourists in region
.... and so forth and forth ...
The challenge is to develop agreed and common indicator frameworks
• Identify a key set of indicators to address (an) issue(s) adequately
• Harmonized approach across different regions and countries– Considering, of course, the differentiation of
ecosytems, and– Eco-regional differentiation (e.g., forest in
sub-continental vs. atlantic climate)• Including identification of suitable proxies
and surrogates
What are proxies and surrogates?
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/0 500 1000 Meters
Indication systems: The EU headline biodiversity indicators
• Level 1. Structural Indicator for Biodiversity.– The function of this indicator is to inform politics and the public at a very
generic way on the condition of biodiversity in Europe. This indicator should place biodiversity alongside economic growth and social development.
• Level 2. Headline Indicators for Biodiversity.– A small set of indicators that give high-level messages on trends of
various aspects of biodiversity. Politicians and the public are the target group again but the information has a broader coverage. This level should complement other environment, economic and social indicators and together they present a picture of sustainable development in Europe.
• Level 3. Indicators linked to policy sectors.– Indicators designed for communication with key stakeholders in each
sector, so that stakeholders get an impression of how their actions impact on biodiversity. Organisation of indicators around recognised key stakeholder/policy themes is the main issues at this level.
Levels of communicationLevels of communication
Level 1
Structural Indicator for Biodiversity
Level 2
Headline Indicators for Biodiversity
Level 3
Indicators linked to policy sectors
Heads of State and Government
Policy-makers and public
Stakeholders in each sector
From: Gordon McInnes, EEA
EU headline BD indicators by focal areas: 1 – components of BD
• 1: Status and trends of the components of biological diversity– Trends in extent of selected biomes, ecosystems
and habitats– Trends in abundance and distribution of selected
species– Change in status of threatened and/or protected
species– Trends in genetic diversity of domesticated
animals, cultivated plants, and fish species of major socioeconomic importance
– Coverage of protected areas
EU headline BD indicators by focal areas: 2 – use and threats
• 2: Sustainable use of BD and threats– Area of forest, agricultural land, fishery
and aquaculture ecosystems under sustainable management
– Nitrogen deposition (CL exceedance)– Numbers and costs of invasive alien
species– Impact of climate change on biodiversity
EU headline BD indicators by focal areas: 3 – integrity and services
• 3: ES Integrity, goods and services, resources allocated– Marine Trophic Index– Connectivity/fragmentation of ecosystems– Water quality in aquatic ecosytems– Patents (to be developed)– Funding to biodiversity– (Public awareness and participation;
added in SEBI 2010)
A common framework for BD and ES indication?!
Frameworks like EU Headline and SEBI have
• Merits– Reduction of number
of indicators to an operational amount
– Harmonized selection for reporting over large spatial scales (e.g., EU or Pan-Europe)
– Reflect state-of-the-art assessment of many experts
• ...and pitfalls– Some relevant
indicators may drop from the set
– Fixed selection may not appropriately reflect the needs of particular regions or countries
– May become out- dated but not adapted
Examples of aggregated indicators
STI NCI
ALTER-Net project „aggregating indicators for policy purposes – sense or nonsense?“
The aggregated species trend indicator (STI) of EEA/RIVM
Terms of Reference
purpose: to show the long-term trends in species populations
function: evaluation of progress towards 2010 target
target audience:high-level policy makers and the general public
focus: Pan-Europe, major habitat types
principles: following CBD
Pan-
Euro
pean
aggr
egat
edST
I
Mireille de Heer, ALTER-Net RA2 Hamburg Workshop, 2005
Coastal habitats
Fresh- water
Forest and woodland
Mires, bogs and fens
Heath- land, scrub & tundra
Un- vegetated habitats Farmland
All natural habitats
Albania AndorraArmeniaAustriaAzerbaijanBelarus….
Europe
Methodology
each cell: index = geometric mean of the population trends
of the set of species
habitat total: index = area-weighted mean
of the country indices
overall: index = non-weighted mean
of the habitat indices
each cell: set of representative species, with their population trend
Pan-
Euro
pean
aggr
egat
edST
I
Data Providing Organisationsbreeding birds
butterflieslarge mammals
vascular plants
• BirdLife International• European Bird Census Council• Wetlands International• Butterfly Conservation• Large Carnivore Initiative Europe• Large Herbivore Foundation• Planta Europa
Pan-
Euro
pean
aggr
egat
edST
I
Characteristics of the Data
• wide variety of collection methods: total population estimates, monitoring schemes, atlasses, expert judgement
• data available at country-level• 1970 starting year• trends often expressed in broad classes• birds and butterflies: ALL species in
ALL countries
Pan-
Euro
pean
aggr
egat
edST
I
The Data
43 countries
species group
no. of species
no. of time series
butterflies 119 1359birds 142 1389mammals 5 35total 266 2783Pa
n-Eu
rope
anag
greg
ated
STI
Species Trends per Habitat (all groups)
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
unvegetated areas (51)
heathland, scrub and tundra (94)
woodland and forest (743)
mires, bogs and fens (8)
freshwater (251)
coastal areas (135)
farmland (855)
average % change in population size since 1970
Pan-
Euro
pean
aggr
egat
edST
I
Species Trends in Europe
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
farmland(855)
naturalhabitats(1282)
average % change in population size since 1970
Pan-
Euro
pean
aggr
egat
edST
I
Direction of Change in Time Series(locally) extinct
1%
decrease40%
increase19%
stable40%
Pan-
Euro
pean
aggr
egat
edST
I
Species Trends in Farmland
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
non EU (278)
Acceded (149)
EU15 (428)
% change in population size since 1970
Pan-
Euro
pean
aggr
egat
edST
I
Conclusions
• The indicator is potentially feasible and meaningful for monitoring progress towards the 2010 target in Europe
• Potentially applicable in other regions
• (Harmonised) monitoring is essential for timely and reliable update
• Tools and organisation for assembling and processing data are also needed
Pan-
Euro
pean
aggr
egat
edST
I
Natural Capital Index (NCI)
• focuses on both the species- and the ecosystems and habitat level– the terms "ecosystem" and "habitat" are used more or less
synonymously
• combines qualitative and quantitative information– computing a 2-dimensional product (habitat quality *
quantity)
• has been developed to evaluate whether or not progress is being made towards conservation of biodiversity
• results of different countries or eco- regions are mutually comparable
Nat
ural
Cap
ital I
ndex
(NC
I)
Mode of computationNCI = ecosystem quantity * ecosystem quality
quantity
quality
100%
100%0%
50%
50%
25%
NCI100%
Nat
ural
Cap
ital I
ndex
(NC
I)
De Heer et al. (2005)
Example of applicationN
atur
alC
apita
l Ind
ex (N
CI)
De Heer et al. (2005)
Advantages and benefits
• computation of NCI is simple and straightforward• the two-dimensional concept (habitat quantity x
quality) is appealing • index can be clearly communicated, even to
non-scientific audiences• Graphical representations can be done in an
instructive way– both in the form of spatially explicit maps at different
grain resolution (depending on the resolution of input data) and of summary graphics
Nat
ural
Cap
ital I
ndex
(NC
I)
Deficits and limitations
• NCI shares with many indicators and indices the problem of the appropriate baseline. – baseline reference values usually remain a guess,
even if that is a "best educated guess"• very small values for NCI may result from
computation of the index for single habitats, which may lead to an erroneous impression when viewed in isolation.
• It is „data-hungry“!Nat
ural
Cap
ital I
ndex
(NC
I)
Briefly on some (aggregated?) global ecological indicators
• HANPP– Acronym resolved: „Human appropriation of net
primary productivity“– Started out with an analysis of the global pattern in
human consumption of net primary productivity (NPP); Whittacker and Lieth 1974, Vitousek et al. 1986, Imhoff et al. 2004 Nature, and many further ...
• Ecological Footprint– Simply based on the idea to compare productive area
needed to support human demand (ES!) with the area available
• Regional applications are feasible for both!
National Footprints
• In U.S. each person uses about 4.5 hectares/person
• Worldwide average = 1.5 hectares/person• Therefore if everybody were to adopt the U.S.
consumptive style, we would need 3 planets
(Wackernagel and Rees, 1996)
Definition and calculation of HANPP
From: Haberl et al. 2007; http://www.ecoeco.org/publica/encyc.htm
Derivation of a global HANPP map - 1Figure 1. Spatial Distribution of Net Primary Productivity (NPP) (in grams of carbon)
Imhoff, Marc L., Lahouari Bounoua, Taylor Ricketts, Colby Loucks, Robert Harriss, and William T. Lawrence. 2004. Data distributed by the Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC): http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/hanpp.html. [downloaded 2008-08-07]
Derivation of a global HANPP map - 2Figure 2. Human Appropriation of Net Primary Productivity (HANPP) (in grams of carbon)
Imhoff, Marc L., Lahouari Bounoua, Taylor Ricketts, Colby Loucks, Robert Harriss, and William T. Lawrence. 2004. Data distributed by the Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC): http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/hanpp.html. [downloaded 2008-08-07]
Derivation of a global HANPP map - 3Figure 3. HANPP as a Percentage of Local NPP
Imhoff, Marc L., Lahouari Bounoua, Taylor Ricketts, Colby Loucks, Robert Harriss, and William T. Lawrence. 2004. Data distributed by the Socioeconomic Data and Applications Center (SEDAC): http://sedac.ciesin.columbia.edu/es/hanpp.html. [downloaded 2008-08-07]
Criticism of Ecological Footprint and HANPP indicators
• Ecological Footprint: underlying data can be strongly questioned (?)– Enhancements in productivity per unit area are
ignored– Data used are open to all kinds of intentional
manipulation („a purposeful indicator...“)• HANPP: results are very sensitive to particular
method of HANPP estimation employed– Data base fairly secure, but different details in
application of method lead to greatly differing results (Haber et al. 2007)
• To both (and provocative): Isn‘t it just merely a re-invention of the good old „Malthusian catastrophe“ ?!
Some brief conclusions …after a long morning talk
• Ecosystem services are vital and have been so throughout the development of our species ( they are still generallyundervalued!).
• A multitude of indicators and indication systems are available for ESs.– reduce number in appropriate and sensitive
indication systems, integrated under a logical framework
• Conclusive indices (aggregated indicators) should be developed further.
Thank you so much for your attention!
… and for inviting me to come here!!
