Download Ecosystem Services and Climate Change

Ecosystem Services and
Climate Change
Leila Suvantola
LLM, Doctor of Admin. Sci
(environmental law)
Why to talk about ecosystem services
in relation to the climate change?
• Broader framing of the climate change phenomenon
– introduction to some of the outcomes of Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment
– Climate regulation is one of the ecosystem services adversely
affected by human activities and this results in climate change
– Climate change is contributing to the degradation of other
ecosystem services (interrelated services)
• The benefits of a new concept in environmental law and to
environmental governance
• How to regulate human activities to protect ecosystem
services
• Are ecosystem services an international issue or just
national problem?
Introduction of the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment – new perspective
UN initiative 2001-2005
1. to assess the consequences of ecosystem change for human wellbeing and
2. to establish the scientific basis for actions needed to enhance the
conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems and their
contributions to human well-being
• 1360 authors and 850 reviewers
• Ecosystem: a dynamic complex of plant, animal, and microorganism
communities and the nonliving environment interacting as a
functional unit
• full range of ecosystems: relatively undisturbed (natural forests) landscapes with mixed patterns of human use - ecosystems
intensively managed and modified by humans (agricultural land and
urban areas)
Benefits to human well-being
Invisible
basis of
all
provisioning
services
and most
regulating
services
Raw material or
products already on
the market
Invisible, of utmost
economic importance
but not marketed
Marketed only as
tourism ect.
Protected partly by
land use planning,
world heritage
Source: Millenium Ecosystem Assessment
Outcome of assessment
(MA conclusion)
– Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly
and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history
– Result: a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on
Earth
– The changes to ecosystems have contributed to substantial net gains in
human well-being and economic development, but these gains have been
achieved at growing costs
– These problems, unless addressed, will substantially diminish the benefits
that future generations obtain from ecosystems
Approximately 60% (15 out of 24) of the ecosystem services evaluated in the assessment
are being degraded or used unsustainably
The degradation of ecosystem services often causes significant harm to human well-being
and represents a loss of a natural asset or wealth of a country
Service
Food
Status
crops
livestock
capture
fisheries
aquaculture
wild foods
Fiber
timber
+/–
cotton, silk
+/–
wood fuel
Genetic resources
Biochemicals, medicines
Fresh water
An example: Fisheries collapse of the Atlantic cod
(similar happened in New Zealand fisheries in 1980s)
Status
Regulating Services
Air quality regulation
Climate regulation – global
Climate regulation – regional and local
Water regulation
+/–
Erosion regulation
Water purification and waste treatment
Disease regulation
+/–
Pest regulation
Pollination
Natural hazard regulation
Cultural Services
Spiritual and religious values
Aesthetic values
Recreation and ecotourism
+/–
Status of all regulating
services is
deteriorating, only
positive trend is in
global climate control
due to action since
1992.
Outcome: natural hazard regulation is
reduced
The capacity of ecosystems to buffer from extreme events has been
reduced through loss of wetlands, forests, mangroves
People increasingly occupying regions exposed to extreme events
Climate change will lead to degradation
of other ecosystem services
•
Observed recent impacts of climate changes on ecosystems
Changes in species distributions
Changes in population sizes
Changes in the timing of reproduction or migration events
Increase in the frequency of pest and disease outbreaks
Many coral reefs have undergone major, although often partially reversible,
bleaching episodes when local sea surface temperatures have increased
Potential future impacts
– By the end of the century, climate change and its impacts may be the dominant
direct driver of biodiversity loss and changes in ecosystem services globally
– Harm to biodiversity will grow worldwide with increasing rates of change in climate
and increasing absolute amounts of change
– Some ecosystem services in some regions may initially be enhanced by projected
changes in climate. As climate change becomes more severe the harmful impacts
outweigh the benefits in most regions of the world
Net harmful impact on ecosystem services
– The balance of scientific evidence suggests that there will be a significant net
harmful impact on ecosystem services worldwide if global mean surface
temperature increases more than 2o C above preindustrial levels (medium
certainty). This would require CO2 stabilization at less than 450 ppm.
–
–
–
–
–
•
•
Most direct drivers
of degradation in
ecosystem services
remain constant or
are growing in
intensity in most
ecosystems.
Climate change is a
very rapidly
increasing driver for
degradation of
biodiversity in all
ecosystems and
thus also on most
ecosystem services,
but its impact is
high only in polar
region. Change of
habitats has biggest
impact as a single
driver.
The domino effect
Human activity
Use of fossil fuels
Over-exploitation of
tropical forests
Conversion of habitats
Over-exploitation of
fisheries
Pesticides, nutrients
Adaptation to climate change
means endless attempted
adaptation to continuing
ecosystem services degradation
one after another
Smaller yeald of crops /
fisheries / lack of fresh
water
Increase of CO2
Degradation of climate
regulation mechanism
Smaller catch
Disappearance of
pollinators...
Degradation of
pollination service,
provisioning services
Increased degradation
of ecosystem services
(fish stock, pollination,
fresh water…)
Warming of the global
climate
Impacts on
ecosystems
Warming seawater
Habitat change
Consequences of ecosystem change
Most affected: the poor
•Half the urban population in Africa, Asia, Latin America,
and the Caribbean suffers from one or more diseases
associated with inadequate water and sanitation
•The declining state of capture fisheries is reducing an
inexpensive source of protein in developing countries.
Per capita fish consumption in developing countries,
excluding China, declined between 1985 and 1997
•Desertification affects the livelihoods of millions of
people, including a large portion of the poor in drylands
Previous responses to ecosystem
degradation (MA conclusion)
• Past actions have yielded significant benefits, but these
improvements have generally not kept pace with growing
pressures and demands.
– For example, more than 100,000 protected areas covering about
11.7% of the terrestrial surface have been established, and these play
an important role in the conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem
services
– Technological advances have also helped lessen the pressure on
ecosystems per unit increase in demand for ecosystem services.
• Substitutes
– Substitutes can be developed for some but not all ecosystem services.
The cost of substitutes is generally high, and they may also have other
negative environmental consequences
Outcome of assessment
(MA conclusion)
– The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting
increasing demands for their services can be partially met under some
scenarios that the MA considered (Global Orchestration, Order from
Strength, Adapting Mosaic, TechnoGarden) but these involve significant
changes in policies, institutions and practices, that are not currently
under way
– Many options exist to conserve or enhance specific ecosystem services in
ways that reduce negative trade-offs or that provide positive synergies
Barriers to successful responses
(MA conclusions)
• The MA assessed 74 response options for ecosystem services,
integrated ecosystem management, conservation and sustainable use
of biodiversity, and climate change
• Recognised barriers to success:
– Inappropriate institutional and governance arrangements, including the
presence of corruption and weak systems of regulation and accountability.
– Market failures and the misalignment of economic incentives.
– Social and behavioral factors, including the lack of political and economic
power of some groups that are particularly dependent on ecosystem services
or harmed by their degradation.
– Underinvestment in the development and diffusion of technologies
– Insufficient knowledge (as well as the poor use of existing knowledge)
concerning ecosystem services and responses that could enhance benefits
from these services while conserving resources.
– Weak human and institutional capacity related to the assessment and
management of ecosystem services.
Inability to
recognize the
value of
ecosystem
services is an
economic driver
Degradation tends to lead to
the loss of non-marketed
benefits from ecosystems
The economic value of these
benefits is often high and
sometimes higher than the
marketed benefits
Private good v.
ecosystem
services as a
public or
common good
The total economic value
associated with managing
ecosystems more
sustainably is often higher
than the value associated
with conversion of
ecosystems
Conversion of ecosystems may
still occur because private
economic benefits are
often greater for the
converted system
The Economic Value of Ecosystem services is
Revealed by Scarcity
•
•
•
•
•
Scarcity due to over-exploitation or trade offs reveals the value of ecosystem
services
Price: costs of substitutes or lost income
The annual value of lost biodiversity and related ecosystem services in 20002010 was 50 billion EUR (TEEB 2008)
At current rate 7 % of world GNP is lost by 2050 (TEEB 2008)
Examples:
– New York / Catskill watershed water purification production: protection of the ecosystem
service cost 1,5 billion US$ compared to the 6-8 billion US$ construction costs and 300
million US$ annual running costs
– Costa Rica degradation of pollination = - 15 % production on coffee plantations
– USA degradation of pollination = substitution costs several billion US$ annually
– New Orleans: loss of mangroves + Hurricane Katrina = x2 US$
Proposed responses (MA conclusions)
INSTITUTIONS
Integration of ecosystem management goals in
eg. (development planning
Increased coordination (multilateral
environmental agreements, international
economic and social institutions)
Increased transparency and accountability of
government / private-sector activities / decisions
with impact on ecosystems (incl. greater
involvement of concerned)
ECONOMICS
Elimination of subsidies promote for use of
ecosystem services (transformation of subsidies
to payments for non-marketed ecosystem
services)
Greater use of economic instruments (taxes,
fees) and market-based approaches in the
management of ecosystem services (PES,
certification)
SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL
Communication and education
Empowerment of groups particularly dependent
on ecosystem services or affected by their
degradation (women, indigenous peoples, young)
TECHNOLOGICAL
Promotion of technologies with increased crop
yields without harmful impacts on water, nutrient
and pesticide use
Restoration of ecosystem services
Promotion of technologies to increase energy
efficiency and reduce greenhouse gas emissions
KNOWLEDGE
Incorporation of nonmarket values of ecosystems in resource management decisions
Use of all relevant forms of knowledge and information in assessments and decision-making, including
traditional and practitioners' knowledge
Enhancement of human and institutional capacity for assessing the consequences of ecosystem change
for human well-being and acting on such assessments
The Benefits of a New Concept
in Environmental Law / Governance
– Better understanding of the significance of the environment and
natural processes to individual good life (security, pure water,
food, air quality, climate)
– Concept simplifies climate change / loss of biodiversity into
more comprehensible cost of life (Climate change is not bad
news (”Warm summer is nice”), unless it increases costs (homo
economicus)
– Better understanding of the costs of environmental degradation
to decision makers
– Transparency of the costs which have been ignored
– Attention from symptoms (pollution, loss of biodiversity, climate
change) to the real reasons (impacts of activities on ecosystem
services functions, conflicting interests and trade offs) and thus
a move toward solutions
– Understanding of the need to expand the policy instrument
choices
Ecosystem services:
A connecting concept
Conservation
of Biodiversity
Ecosystem
Services
Previously separately examined
environmental protection, use of
natural resources and
conservation of biodiversity can
be seen as interrelated issues.
Thus more comprehensive
solutions can be sought.
Eg. In Australia land clearance for
agriculture was regarded as a
natural resource use issue, now it
is seen as a biodiversity issue due
to bd loss, while in effect land
clearance has led to degradation
of the lands capacity for food
production due to salination and
thus it is also ecosystem service
issue.
Need for New Regulation /
Instruments
• Identification of the degrading ecosystem services and key
services which support others
• Creation of regimes that protect the services
• Some are global, most regional, all impact locally
• Prohibitions are insufficient, supporting of the services should
be economically more beneficial than transformation of the
ecosystem
• One potential instrument: market creation which provides
income to ecosystem service producer and charges users:
price gives an incentive to protect the service
• Challenge: how to address the injustice of the pricing
mechanisms: the poor are most affected and least capable to
pay more
How to Regulate Ecosystem Services?
• Comparative research of policy instruments
– Ecological compensation duties (Offsetting)
– Market-based instruments
– Incentives
• The different targets need different solutions
(no “one fits all” answers available)
– Control of overexploitation of one service
– Regulation of damage to interdependent service
– Promotion of provision of an ecosystem service
Exclusive
Competitive Private good
Fishing quota
Non-exclusive
Fishing
Open access
Biodiversity credits
Emissions trading
Noncompetitive
Nitrate emissions in
Biodiversity
waterways
Club good
Local
Carbon sequestration
Public good
Global
Fishing Quota: a National Solution
Attempt to Over-Exploitation
• New Zealand since 1986 has aimed at getting all commercial
fish species under the quota system (in 2005 there were 93
species, 550 stocks)
• Researchers and fish industry assess the fish populations
annually
• A total sustainable catch is set
• Individuals and businesses receive annual quota (to fish a
specified kg of a specific fish)
• Quota is a property right: can be used, sold, traded,
• No ban to fish over individual quota or another species but
included in the total catch and has to buy the quota from
someone else (= pay those whose quota catches)
Fishing Quota: an International Solution
Attempt to Over-Exploitation
•
•
•
•
Collapse of the salmon fishery in the Baltic Sea on 1980s
Agreement between the Baltic countries on 1990
Each country has an annual quota
Size of caught fish is restricted
Tradeoffs between ESS =
Conflicts between Users =
Need to Address Trade-offs
Trade offs:
Emission sinks v.
irrigation / extraction of
drinking water
/recreation;
Pesticides in farming v.
pollinators;
Logging v. water
purification / pollinators
Forest upsteam
Production:
Provisioning (timber, crop,
fruit , fish), regulating
(water purification, sinks,
flood control), cultural
(recreation)
mine
Use:
Regulating (pollination,
flood control, purification
nitrogen sinks)
Provisioning (irrigation,
drinking water)
Fruit farm
farming
city
wetland
Market Mechanisms
• International example: carbon trading (examined
by other presenters)
• National examples:
– Conservation credits trading (NSW, Australia:
Biobanking; USA: Wetland Mitigation Banking)
– Discharge rights trading (Hunter river salinity trading
scheme (NSW, Australia)
– Fresh water trading (Costa Rica, Heredia water tariff,
Kolumbia Cauca Valley water payments; Mexico: Pago
por Servicios Ambientales Hidrológicos)
Support to Existing Land Use
• Offsetting requirement of adverse impacts
with beneficial actitivities (Germany:
eingriffsregelung)
• Tax relief (USA: conservation easements)
Conclusions
• There is strong need for international cooperation in the protection of ecosystem services
due to
1. Shared ecosystem services
a)
b)
c)
Global services
Open access or joint access provisioning services
(fisheries)
joint watersheds (water purification, irrigation) (e.g.
Australia as a federal state has to address cross border
issues in the Murray-Darling river basin)
2. Global markets where the financial benefits and
costs due the degradation of ecosystem services do
not meet
Thank you for your attention.