The Ecosystem Service Cascade Ecosystems, human agency, benefits, valuation and the spatial mismatch

Dr. Joachim H. Spangenberg, Biodiversity and SPAC, Belgrade 9.10. 07

The Ecosystem Service Cascade Ecosystems, human agency, benefits, valuation and the spatial mismatch

Joachim H. Spangenberg

UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environment Research, Dept. Community Ecology, Halle/SaaleJoachim.Spangenberg [at] ufz.de or [at] gmail.com, Vorsterstr. 97-99, 51103 Köln, Germany, Tel. +49-221-2168-94

Presentation at St. Petersburg UniversitySt. Petersburg, Russia, September 2014


They are defined as traitsof ecosystems which exist independent ofhuman action, but can be modified byhuman intervention.

We chose a stepwise order,starting with ecosystem functions.

In the beginning, there was

an ecosystem function? service? benefit?

service potential? or what?

Terminology – chicken or eggs?


The ESS Definition 1

“Ecosystem Services are the goods and services that biodiversity and ecosystems provide to human well-being” (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005)

This is the “objective” definition: neither the valuer nor the beneficiary play a role in it.


Who decides?

If those considered to be beneficiaries value (recognise and welcome) the effect of nature, if they actively mobilise, passively enjoy or reluctantly bear it plays no role.

The decision what is a (dis)service has to be taken by experts and authorities.


Whose values count?• Lobbyists’ and politicians’?• Expert scientists’ and

economists’?• The local people’s who live from

the ESS, and will have to live with the results?


The ESS Definition 2

“Ecosystem Services are the benefits humans recognise as obtained from an ecosystem and that support, directly or indirectly, their survival and quality of life” (Harrison et al. 2009).

Economically speaking, what is not recognised cannot be demanded and has no value. It is no ESS.


Trade-offs between services• Trade-offs: some services are mutuallyexclusive: land use for industry and forest system services. These may bymarginal for large scale operators.

• Synergies: again other services are co-generated, one cannot be producedwithout the other like animal breedingground, aesthetics and climateregulation by forests.


The revised ESS Cascade(Spangenberg, v. Haaren, Settele 2014)

Addingservicepotentials


Use Value Attribution & ESS Potential Identification

• Different groups, agents, stakeholders andcultures have different world views and thusrecognise different services.

• Identifying use potentials is an intellectualact, not (yet) a physical intervention.

• Which potential is realised is a matter ofpower, and of societal/political conflictmoderation processes.

• Environmental conflicts begin HERE.


The further revised ESS Cascade(Spangenberg, v. Haaren, Settele 2014)

A focus on the process: attributingvalues, mobilising, appropriating, commercialising services


Commercialisation

Commercialisation can provide income, reputation, tax, ...

but also the erosion of tradition and cultureSee Spangenberg et al. 2014. Provision of ecosystem

services is determined by human agency, not ecosystem functions. Four case studies. Int. J. Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services & Management 10(1): 40-53.

Free download fromhttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21513732.2014.884166#.U1qsSPk74eg


Some conclusions• Considering ESS free gifts of nature is

biologism, ignoring the social, economic and political processes shaping ESS definition, generation & distribution.

• Current ESS research, by neglecting social and political processes, non-economic values and the influence of power relations risk to generate pseudo-”objective” results serving the legitimation of dominant interests.


Spatial Mismatch of ESS production and consumption:

In need of a methodology


Social & Env. Multiciplism

A simple CBA is not possible

- Ecosystem services ESS are co-produced.- They are enjoyed or consumed individually or

collectively, separate or jointly, with dedicationor in passing, wich changing preferences.

- Spatial heterogeinities and interdependenciesbetween locations, agents and theirpreferences mit be taken into account.


Benefits, beneficiaries and trade-offs


The ESS Cascade again(after Potschin & Haines-Young, modified)

Ecosystemmanagement, ESS supplymanagement, landscape planningUse value attribution

ESP mobilisation

ESS appropriation

ESS commercialisation

(e.g. contribution toFunctions enjoyed without recognitionprovide benefits, but are no ESS

Final services enjoyed withoutmobilisation and appropriationare public goods, such as sunshine

AnthroposphereExchangevalue

Biosphere

Use Value* NPP: Net Primary Production

Value, Exchange Value(e.g. payments for

harvestable products such as construction

material or biofuels, formore woodland, andfor its management)

Benefit, Use Value

aspects of well‐being such as having a house, fire for

cooking, or aesthetic amenities from art)

Service ESS (e.g.collecting or harvesting

firewood, carving or biofuel raw material)

Service Potentials ESP (e.g. wood use for carving, heating, or fuel production)

Biophysical structure or process (e.g.

habitat type, NPP*)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐Function (e.g.

wood production)


Direct Benefits• Providing wood for construction,

and fire wood• Moderating water flows • Hunting & collection ground• Recreation opportunities• The landscape is the basis of the

regional cultural identity• Biodiversity reservoir


Indirect Benefits• Travel cost reduction, increased

value of houses• Monetary income from tourism

business and forest produce use• Climate stabilisation, biodiversity

conservation, cultural heritage• Fresh air, filtering function for

surrounding cities• Securing urban water supply (NY)


Direct Beneficiaries• Local farmers water supply

Forest owners wood, reputation• Local tourism business (incl.

restaurants, accommodation,…)• Local population at large

collecting mushrooms, berries etc.• Hunters hunting ground• City dwellers close by recreation

facilities


Indirect Beneficiaries• + Local, provincial & national

government tax revenues• + National economy (domestic

tourism instead of international)+ Tourists, eateries, photoshops,…

• + Humankind for global services• - Agriculture & agrochemical

industry


Trade-offs between ESS• Local: Intensive logging vs.

maintaining forests for recreation, air quality improvement and biodiversity and (immaterial constraints)

• Hunting vs. biodiversity: losses of mammals and birds (material constraints)


Trade-offs between beneficiaries• Mobilisation: who has the right to accessand mobilise a potential service? Whatconstitutes a right (tradition, labour, contracts, payments to whom)?

• Appropriation and distribution: Who takeswhat, services and disservices? Who provides distributional justice?

• Who makes damagers pay, and is paymentthe right compensation? Is compensationpossible at all?


• Local citizens benefit from maximum exploitation of “their” forest (livelihood, income, jobs).

• Local government get tax revenues.• Regional citizens benefit from filter

function, i.e. from non-use. • Visitors enjoy forests and the infra-

structure for leisure – but different kinds of leisure exclude each other.

For instance…


Valuation challenges


• All ESS are coupled (synergies, co-production, trade-offs), distance, neighbourhood and feedbacks matter for the ESS provision.

• Substitute and complementary sites, their distance and accessibility influence the functional and economic ecosystem service value, but both aspects in different ways.

No isolated goods


• What is substitutable by other forest (sequestration, firewood, recreation, hunting) and what is not (biodiversity, family reputation) varies (time & ESS).

• Different kinds of (non-)monetary value apply to different services.

• Net value must count co-production of benefits and disbenefits, e.g. econo-mic & env. cost of leisure mobility.

Culture counts


• Distance counts, but also accessibility.• Empirically distance decay functions

are non-linear and different for every of the coupled services.

• Revealed preferences are problematic as provisioning services are visible and known, regulating services are often not. Money figures from CV are no prices but offers in a non-market

Established methods fail


Conclusions


1. For effective planning, demandanalysis is as important as supply.

2. Both ecosystems and demands arespatially heterogenous; their analysismust be spatially excplicit.

3. Complex multi-level, multi-scale inter-actions must be taken into account.

4. Standard methods risk misguidingconclusions as they do not cover thiscomplexity.

5. Methodology development is urgent


In ecosytem service analysis, understanding the system and its multiple service potentials must come first

monetisation is often not helpful or necessary


“The best and the most beautifulthings in the world cannot be seen or even touched; they must be felt

with the heart”Helen Keller

Thank you for yourattention.For the presentation and other papers see

http://seri.academia.edu/JoachimHSpangenberg

The Ecosystem Service Cascade Ecosystems, human agency, benefits, valuation and the spatial mismatch

Documents

Transcript of The Ecosystem Service Cascade Ecosystems, human agency, benefits, valuation and the spatial mismatch