Workshop biomass carbon and biodiversity sub- accounts of EEA simplified ecosystem

capital accounts

Review of approach 24 March 2015

Policy references on natural capital accounting

At global level:

• Rio +20 communiqué on natural capital accounting

• World Bank WAVES initiative

• 2012 Aichi targets under Convention on Biological Diversity

At EU level:

• 7EAP – Objective 1 focuses on natural capital

• EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 -> ‘MAES’ process

• EU Resource efficiency strategy

Abiotic assets:

Solar radiation

non-depletable

Minerals, fossil fuels,ozone layer,

gravel,etc.

depletable

Abiotic flows:

Renewable energy (solar, wind, hydro..)

non-depletable

Phosphate fertiliser, radiation

protection,etc.

depletable

Ecosystems as asset:

Extent, structure & condition of :

Forests, woodlands, rivers, lakes, oceans,

coasts, wetlands, grasslands, croplands,

heathlands, urban parks, etc.

depletable

Ecosystem service flows:

• Provisioning services (food, fibre, energy etc.)

• Regulation & maintenance (of climate, river flow, pollination etc.)

• Cultural services (recreation in nature, spiritual use of nature etc.)

depletable

Ecosystem capital:

GENERATING

MAES working definition

3

What is ‘natural capital‘ ?

Related initiative – knowledge innovation project (KIP) to establish the EU layer

Key issue:Ecosystem accounting needs spatially explicit data layers. Such data (e.g. from LUCAS, Copernicus, FSS, Natura 2000…) could be better integrated and a regularly maintained EU layer of accounts developed, which countries can link into.

Approach:Design integrated system for an EU data foundation with key partners (EEA, ENV, Eurostat, CLIMA, JRC, RTD and MS) to develop and maintain a core set of EU level accounts. Timeline fits to MAES roadmap and step-wise approach.

Proposed EU roadmap on NCA

Successful step-wise implementation of :

2015-16: Bio-physical ecosystem asset accounts (at EU level and in MS)

2016-18: Accounting for ecosystem services (at EU level and in MS)

2018-20: Valuation of ecosystems and their services (at EU level and in MS)

Main objectives of the workshop

1) Review methodological options for developing the component accounts on biomass carbon and biodiversity in EEA’s simplified ecosystem capital accounts (SECA)

2) Discuss critical methodological choices with regard to modelling frameworks, the geo-referencing of input data layers & environmental interpretation of accounting results

3) If possible: provide advice on developing the long-term data foundation for these sub-accounts via an efficient combination of statistical data, in-situ ecosystem survey data and satellite observation programmes

General considerations in developing SECA

(Simplified) ecosystem capital accounts should ideally be:

• Representative of key ecosystem functions / types of ecosystem capital stock

• Targeted on functional ecological units (water basins, ecosystem types etc.)

• Look at trends that are likely to show a clear signal

• Follow an analytical approach aligned with characteristics of data (i.e. avoiding analytical over-reach)

• Be as transparent and communicable as possible

• Aligned with key EU policy targets & planetary boundaries

• Be nested in existing ecosystem accounting guidance

Evolution in development of EEA SECA• Work on updating or building SECA component accounts

under the current methodology (~ ENCA) and an in-house review have shown that its full implementation and the calculation of a final ‘ECU value’ are currently not possible.

• Hence the EEA has opted for a dashboard approach which is still to be fully shaped up. The two options below show the possible development of SECA for use at EU level:

1) A dashboard focused on the previous EEA approach (aka technical report 2011 & ENCA, looking at ‘sustainability of use’ etc.) combined with some additional elements, such as ‘fish accounts’ & nutrient balance (if possible)

2) A dashboard that focuses on key aspects of ecosystem status and use, building on simple accounts and indicator information across a wide range of ecosystem capital elements (this could also be developed as a set of ‘mini-dashboards’).

Key workshop questions on carbon account

Biomass carbon is a very prominent account in current methodological guidance documents. However, there is a need to review its approach and environmental meaning in Europe. Hence we propose the following questions:

• What ecosystem functions or what use of ecosystem capital could we measure via a biomass carbon sub-account?

• What parameters or indicators do we have that would allow us to measure trends in the critical functions or ecosystem capital that we want to monitor?

• Which data do we that would allow us to measure the chosen trends?

• How do we account for the EU’s global impact on biomass carbon stocks?

Key workshop questions on biodiversity

The hypothesis underlying this sub-account is that a decline in biodiversity/landscape structure implies a loss of ecosystem capital and also of related ecosystem services. So the questions are:

• What are the best indicators or parameters to monitor trends in biodiversity and in landscape structure (bearing in mind the criteria set out above)?

• Which data do we have on species and landscape characteristics that help us to measure the chosen trends?

• How do we best combine them for constructing a ‘biodiversity account’ ?

Dashboard 2: combining simple accounts & indicators

Sum up: median, average..

Sum up: red & green dots, % of trends, balance between red and green, ..

Year/

account

Farm-land

(loss & HNV)

Forests (biomass

use & ‘HNV’)

Inland waters

(assets & quality)

Marine (Fish stocks & nutrient

loading +?)

Biodiversity (NLEP rev & bird trends +

Art. 17 ?)

Urban (Green areas & living

space)

Global (CO2 levels &

critical loads for N)

Year X 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

Year X + 1 98 97 103 102 97 101 101

Year X + 2 97 96 104 103 93 100 102

Accounting result/index 97 % 96% 104% 103 93% 100% Inverse of

102%

Potential simplification * ** ** * *** 0 *