Linking the NATURA 2000 and the Ecosystem Services Concepts Olaf Bastian, Karsten Grunewald Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development (IOER), Dresden, Germany Ecosystem services and biodiversity: what is the link between the two? ALTER-NET conference, Vienna, Austria, November 3-4, 2010 Olaf Bastian, Karsten Grunewald Vienna, november 2010
AIM To apply the concept of ecosystem services (ES) to NATURA 2000 sites in the Ore Mountains (Germany / Czech Republic) Introducing a practicable framework (EPPS) basing on 3 pillars: Ecosystem Properties (structure, processes), Potentials (capacity), Services (functions) Olaf Bastian, Karsten Grunewald Vienna, november 2010
OUTLINE Concepts of ecosystem services (ES) and NATURA 2000 Definitions: Functions, potentials, and services Assessment framework with 3 pillars The transboundary Ore Mountains Green Network project Conclusions
NATURA 2000 The EU-wide network NATURA 2000 has been launched to ensure the long term survival of Europe s most important species and habitats Nearly 20% of Europe s territory included = about 25,000 sites in all 27 member countries NATURA 2000 = one of the world s most ambitious approaches for halting the loss of biodiversity NATURA 2000 sites provide a wide range of ES synergies between nature conservation and rural development
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES (ES) ES = the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being (TEEB 2009) Concept of ES was established mainly during the 1990s, e.g. De Groot et al. (1992 goods and services ), Costanza et al. (1997 natural capital ), and Daily (1997 nature s services ). Attractiveness of ES concept: integrative, interand transdisciplinary character, linking to environmental and socio-economic concepts (Müller & Burkhard 2007). Great policy relevance: e.g. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA 2005) and TEEB (2009).
Different definitions of ecosystem services Costanza et al. (1997): the benefits human populations derive, directly of indirectly, from ecosystem functions MEA (2005): the benefits people obtain from ecosystems TEEB (2009): the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems to human well-being Fisher et al. (2009): aspects of ecosystems utilized (actively or passively) to produce human well-being
The system of termini in TEEB (2009) Focus of the presentation
Functions = Functioning? Functioning (of landscapes) = the interactions among the spatial elements, that is, the flows of energy, materials, and species among the component ecosystems (Forman & Godron 1986) Functions = ecological phenomena: the things that are needed to deliver a service (TEEB 2009)
Functions = capacity? Ecosystem functions = capacity (= potential) of natural processes and components to provide goods and services that satisfy human needs, directly or indirectly (De Groot et al. 2002) see potentials
Functions = societal functions? Almost every part of the earth s surface fulfills functions for human beings Latin term function (fungi) generally means carrying out, managing, or task or activity Niemann (1977, 1982): degree of functional performance of landscape elements and landscape units Wiggering et al. (2003): multiple ecological, social and economic functions (multifunctionality) = prerequisite for sustainable land use
Classification of (landscape) functions / services (Bastian (1991) Advantage of the breakdown into Productive (economic / provisioning), Regulation (ecological) and socio-cultural functions / services link to the concept of sustainability with its established ecological, economic and social development categories
EPPS-Framework (Elaborated in the project Landschaft Sachsen 2050 ( Landscape Saxony 2050 ), supported by the Saxon Ministery of Sciences and Arts.) References: Grunewald, K.; Bastian, O. (2010): Ökosystemdienstleistungen analysieren - begrifflicher und konzeptioneller Rahmen aus urban application.- landschaftsökologischer Sicht.- Geoöko (in press) Bastian, O.; Haase, D.; Grunewald, K. (2010): Ecosystem properties, potentials and services - the EPPS conceptual framework and an urban application.- Ecological Indicators (submitted)
Functioning as the first step Left pillar: Analysing structure and processes (the functioning) of ecosystems (landscapes) as a precondition
EPPS-Framework partial potentials of landscapes (relevant for the society)
Potentials as the second step (distinction between the possibility of use and actual use) Potentials = nature s goods by means of a primarily scientific mode of operation (Mannsfeld 1983) Neef (1966): all-embracing economic potential of the landscape Haase (1973, 1978): partial natural landscape potentials van der Maarel (1978) and Lahaye et al. (1979) addressed landscape potencies, which might contribute to the fulfilment of certain societal needs Natural capital = the ecosystem functions available to society (Drepper & Månsson 1993, Barbier 2000, Mäler 2000 in Ansink et al. 2008)
Mountain meadows Potentials: biomass biodiversity medical plants scenery eco-tourism
EPPS-Framework
Aim THE ORE MOUNTAINS GREEN NETWORK PROJECT* to identify and strengthen synergies between nature conservation (NATURA 2000) and rural development Project partners: Leibniz Institute of Ecological and Regional Development (IOER); Lead Partner, Germany Faculty for Environment of the J. E. Purkyně University, Ústí nad Labem, Czech Republic The Western Ore Mountains and Central Ore Mountains Land Care Associations, Germany *funded by the European Union (EFRE Objective 3 / INTERREG IV A) References: Bastian, O.; Neruda, M.; Filipova, L.; Machova, I.;Holec, M.; Leibenath, M. (2010): NATURA 2000 sites as an asset for rural development: The German-Czech Ore Mountains Green Network Project.- J. of Landscape Ecology (submitted)
Ore Mountains (Erzgebirge / Krušné hory): Natura 2000 sites
Upper Ore Mountains: Important sites of many rare and threatened animal and plant species
Methods Assessment of ES in the selected NATURA 2000 sites: Differentiation between actual use (expressed as function) and possible future uses (based on existing potentials or capacities presently not used). Considering conflicts, restrictions and risks
Provisioning (economic) services Supply of animal products Livestock (products: milk, meat, wool) Fish Game Supply of plant products Crops Timber Wild fruits (berries, mushrooms) Biochemical / medicinal resources Spignel (Meum athamanticum), other herbs Provision of genetic resources Seeds of forest trees Seeds of herbs / grasses (e.g. for hay mulching) Drinking water Water protection areas / headwaters Energy from water power
Regulation (ecological) services Air quality regulation / local climate regulation (of forests and grassland) Water balance regulation Flood protection Erosion control Self-purification of waters
Socio-cultural services Aesthetic values (e.g., scenery) Services in the field of recreation and eco-tourism Services in the field of environmental education e.g., cultural-historical aspects
Assessment 2 approaches: a) qualitative, descriptive b) factor income
Example for the descriptive approach Provisioning of biomass from mountain meadows Potential: biomass for livestock (hay-making, pasturing cattle and sheep), or for energy purposes Actual use (function): German side: regular management of mountain meadows prevails, in many cases depending on subsidies for nature conservation Czech side: many meadows became fallow land Conflicts: with nature conservation Risks: abandonment (unused economic potentials) or over-exploitation
Example for the factor income approach: Income from biotope management (calculated in the management plans of 14 SCI sites) Habitat type Costs ( ) 6520 Mountain meadows 7120 Raised bogs to be restored 9110 Beech forests (Luzula luzuloides type) 9410 Mountain spruce forests c. 223,000 c. 284,000 c. 120-180,000 203,000
Conclusions I A clear terminology in the area of Ecosystem Services is very important (e.g., function service) The EPPS-framework enables the step-wise assessment of ecological structures and processes (functioning) via the potentials (for uses) to the actual use (services, functions for humans) This approach is useful for practical purposes (e.g., landscape planning)
Conclusions II NATURA 2000 sites (e.g., of the Ore Mountains) provide a wide range of ES The benefits go far beyond the original purpose of maintaining threatened species and habitats Many potentials, so far unused, could be developed, but considering restrictions (due to nature conservation) ES provide a suitable approach for managing NATURA 2000 but The designation of NATURA 2000 sites follows political decisions and ecological criteria, economic aspects are less decisive
Thank you for your attention!