Can incorporation of the concept

Can incorporation of the concept of ecosystem services

change management priorities in a large wetland?

Patrick Meire^1,2, Tomasz Okruszko^2,1, Luiza Tylec², Mateusz Grygoruk²

1University of Antwerp, Ecosystem Management Research Group

2Warsaw University of Life Science – SGGW, Department of Hydraulic Engineering

Vienna, 14.04.2015

Ecosystem services

Ecosystem services

The concept of ecosystem services received increasing attention the last 20 years and is becoming a “buzzword”.

Number of publications dealing with “ecosystem services”

in web of science between 2005 and 2013

3

Wetlands and rivers: ES hotspots

De Groot et al. , 2014

Management oriented towards structural biodiversity

• Goals:

–

maintaining viable populations of target species

–

Maintaining target habitats

Management oriented towards structural biodiversity

• Requires:

–

Very intensive and costly management

Towards managing for ecosystem services?

• Should the goal of management move from managing for species and habitats towards managing for ecosystem services?

• Is managing for biodiversity compatible with managing for ES or vice versa or are there

clear trade offs?

From concept to application:

Major questions

Where and to what extent are services being provided How much of a particular ecosystem or individual

component is necessary to deliver a particular service or combination of services

 Quantification of ES

Bio-physical system

Limitations and opportunities

Supply of ESS

How much are waves attenuated by mangroves/marshes How much C is sequestered in a forest

………

Who-what is providing the service?

Ecosystem service provider (ESP)  species Pollination  pollinating species

Carbon uptake  plants

biogeochemical reactions  bacteria

Who-what is providing the service?

Service providing unit (SPU)  habitats Flood control: floodplain

How much of an ES is delivered?

• Although basic ecological knowledge still major knowledge gaps exits and variability is enormous

14

0

0 500 1 000 1 500 2 000 2 500 3 000 3 500 4 000 4 500 5 000

a b c d e f g h a b c d f g h a b c d f g h i

Crop Flat Pioneer Marsh Grass

kg(N)/ha/y

Denitrification

24 ton

107-547

1.7 107-547 11-107

Geo-physical system

Demand for ESS

Limitations and opportunities

Socio-economic system

Supply of ESS

How much of an ES do we need?

Quantification of the demand for ES

The need for ES is very often not obvious as the link between problems experienced by people and the

underlying loss of ES delivered by ecosystems causing the problem is very often not understood!

16

Quantification of the demand for ES

The link between floodings and the loss of:

natural floodplains infiltration capacity

…….

Is not immedeately obvious and the main reaction is a plea for more engineering works as straigthening or dredging the river, building higher dikes etc., all measures leading again to a loss of ES

17

Bio-physical system

Demand for ESS

Limitations and opportunities

Socio-economic system

Supply of ESS

Mismatch?

Where to look?

Search zones for the realisation of additional

ESS on the basis of ESS demand mapping

Where are the bio- physical opportunities

and limitations situated?

Bio-physical system

Demand for ESS

Land, soil and water management

Limitations and opportunities

Socio-economic system

Limitations and opportunities

Supply of ESS

Mismatch?

Where to look? How to realise?

Which are the juridical and administrative limitations and opportunities to realise changes in land, soil and

water management?

Search zones for the realisation of additional ESS on the basis of ESS demand mapping Where are the geo-

physical opportunities and limitations

situated?

How can we increase the delivery of ESS-

bundles?

Bio-physical system

Demand for ESS

Land, soil and water management

Limitations and opportunities Limitations and opportunities

Supply of ESS

Mismatch?

Where to look? How to realise?

How can we increase the delivery of ESS-

bundles?

Demand for Biodiversity

Mismatch?

Supply of Biodiversity

We want to tackle that 21

problem by comparing (possible)

management changes in different river

systems in Flanders (Belgium) and Poland

Case 1: macrophyte mowing

• Macrophytes increase Manning coefficient and hence water levels

 Risk of flooding

Macrophytes are removed

WATERLEVEL UPSTREAM

Date

• Cost-benefit analysis mowing in the Nete Catchment

• All possible ESS

• Division over stakeholders

A difficult balance between water management and ecology.

Case mowing

26

Mowing is not beneficial

27

   leeg

Average Manning n for each pattern

+ 14 % empty < pattern 1 pattern 3 < pattern 2

+ 15 %

+ 23 %

0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05

1 2 3 0

pattern number manning n (m-1/3 s)

(Bal et al., 2011)

In comparison: Manning n for a FULL pattern: 0.5 (= +1200%) Can we find an optimal mowing strategy?

Recently

flooded Hist. alluvium

13.3 % 2.67 %

Hist. &

Recent 5,67% flooded

only 23% of historical alluvium Was flooded

3 %

% is percentage of the total catchment

Case 2: flood prevention and wetland

restoration in the Nete

Case 2: flood prevention and wetland restoration in the Nete

• Agricultural intensification lead to enormous loss of biodiversity

It is concluded that nearly 90 % of the wetland has dissapeared in the

valley of the Grote Nete.

 Realisation conservation objectives (for EU habitat directive)

 Increase upstream water retention (for downstream flood protection)

Total budget: 3,2 million €

 50% European Union (LIFE+)

 50% other financing

 Actions:

• Terrain acquisition (from agriculture)

• Fill up drainage channels

• Remeander straighened rivers

• Remove buildings

• Cut trees

• Mowing

• Sod cutting

• Recreational infrastructure (paths, info signs, …)

Restoration of the Grote Nete flood plain:

a Life + project

REWETTING

Agricultural production  Wood production Carbon storage soil 

(climate regulation)

Denitrification 

(water purification)

REDUCED HYDRAULIC GRADIENT Waterretention

(prev. floods and droughts)

Infiltration

(water provision)

Denitrification

Nutrient retention

(water purification)

HABITAT DIVERSITY Biodiversity

Recreation INCREASED SURFACE OXIC/ANOXIC GRADIENT

Denitrification 

(water purification)

VEGETATION

(RIPARIAN + MACROPHYTES) Denitrification 

Nutrient retention

(water puriification)

Carbon storage biomass + soil

NATURAL LAND USE Agricultural production

Wood production

Example : effects of restoration on ecosystem services

Potential effects of restoration measures

32

Action/Ecosy

stem service

Agricultural production

Wood production

Carbon storage biomass

Carbon storage soil Air quality

Water quality

Waterretention (flood + drought protection) Infiltration (water provisioning)

Biodiversity

Recreation

Terrain acquisition - + + + + + + +

Fill up canals - - +- + +- + + + + +-

Remeandering - - + + + + + + +

Remove buildings + + + + + + + + +

Tree cutting - - - - + + + +-

Mowing + - - - + + +

Sod +- - + +- + +

green= positive effect red= negative effect

yellow= effect can be positive or negative Empty = (hardly) no effect

Benefits realisation conservation objectives Grote Nete 2020

• Total benefits and costs period 2010-2020

• 1500 ha habitat worthy nature by 2020

• Measures taken into account in calculations:

• Terrain acquisition

• Remove buidlings

• Rewetting

• Cut trees

Total: 32 milj

Total: 9 milj €

+ 3,1 milj€ costs for restoration measures

Total: 6 milj€ Total: 6 milj €

MAX ADDITIONAL

BENEFIT

= 26 milj€

= 2,6 milj€/j

= 1900 €/ha.j

MIN ADDITIONAL

BENEFIT

= 3 milj€

= 0,3 milj€/j

= 220 €/ha.j

Case 3: Biebrza wetlands

• one of the biggest wetlands in Europe

• covering more than 100.000 ha

• the most productive ecosystems

www.biebrza.org.pl

Photo L.Tylec tratwynabiebrzy.blox.pl

Biodiversity

• Natura 2000 habitats:

- Caricion davallianae, Molinion meadows

• Birds – only species strictly related to wetlands were considered

Aquatic warbler Lesser spotted eagle

Corncrake Goose

Case 3: Biebrza wetlands

• Present management is oriented entirely on optimizing biodiversity

• Is present management of biodiversity optimizing at the expense of ES?

•  We explore the possible impact of restoration projects on ES delivery and biodiversity

MANAGEMENT OPTIONS 1.goal 2.area 3.action

TRANSFER FUNCTION

BBN ACTUAL STATE

FUTURE STATE

N2K RESPONSE

ANALYSIS VALORIZAL TOOL

NATURE STATE ECOSYSTEM

SERVICES

TRADE OFFS

‘BEST’ OPTION

Ecosystem services (after CICES)

Service category Division Group Ecosystem service

Provisioning Materials Biomass Wood for timber

Hay production

Regulation and maintenance

Maintenance of physical, chemical, biological conditions

Soil formation and composition

Nutrient storage in soils and forests CO2 emission from degraded peatlands

(negative)

Water conditions

Water purification

Floodplain water storage

Atmospheric composition

and climate regulation Carbon sequestration

Cultural

Physical and intellectual interactions with biota, ecosystems,

and land- /seascapes [environmental

settings]

Physical and experiential interactions

Fishing

Habitat conditions for birds

Wood for timber

• calculations depend on tree species (Pinus silvestris, Betula pendula, Betula pubescens, Alnus glutinosa), class type, productivity, price and covered area

• total area 47616 [ha]

• example of data

• algorithm: productivity x price / max age in the class

• baseline total value for the area: 1,5 M€/year

Species Pinus silvestris

Class type [years] I (1-20) II (21-40) III (41-60) IV (61-80) V (81-100)

Productivity [m³/ha] 21 165 292 346 390

Cost per m³(EUR) 23,43 23,43 23,43 23,43 23,43

Area [ha] 4394 34528 61104 72404 81611

Hay production

• calculations for hay production for dry year when there were only 2 hay cuts

• area 43082 [ha]

• price 97,8 €/t

• productivity 6 t/ha

• algorithm: (productivity x price x surface) – labor costs

• baseline total value for the area: 9.08 M €/year

Water purification

• calculations for a general cost of nutrient removal from water

• area 7805 [ha]

• load: N 2,45 [mg/l], P 0,45 [mg/l], removal 70%

• cost of removal: N 1,11 [€/kg], P 2,4 [€/kg]

• algorithm: (N reduction x cost of N removal) + (P reduction x cost of P removal)

• baseline value: 1.029 M €/year

Water storage

- 1% flood range

- Average time of inundation - Unit cost of water storage:

0.53 EUR/year (Grygoruk et al., 2013)

- DEM of the valley

- Volume of water within the valley,

- Only inundating water accounted (soil water and groundwater were

neglected)

- The lowest possible

monetary value of the ES

Carbon storage in soils

• calculation for well preserved peat soils (peat forming processes active)

• area 22435 [ha]

• CO

retention in the soil – 1620000[g/ha]

(Komulainen, 1999)

• cost of removal – 13,8 [€/T CO

] (CO2 Price Report, Spring 2014)

• algorithm: cost of CO

removal x CO

retention

baseline value: 0.49 M €/year

CO ₂ storage in forests

• calculation for all types of forests existing in the area

• area 47616 [ha]

• productivity – 193 [m³/ha]

• mass of wood in the unit volume - 460[kg/m3]

• cost of removal – 13,8 [€/T CO₂] (CO2 Price Report, Spring 2014)

• CO₂ retention in the biomass – 3600 [kg CO₂/ha/year]

(CO2 Price Report, Spring 2014)

• algorithm: cost of removal x CO₂ retention

• baseline value: 4.97 M €/year

Carbon release from soils

• calculation for drained peat soils (water level <0,5 m in peatlands)

• area 65282 [ha]

• cost of removal – 13,8 [€/T CO

] (CO

Price Report, Spring 2014)

• CO

evasion form the soil - -1830000 [g/ha]

• algorithm: price of 1 gram of CO

x CO

evasion /1000000

• baseline value : -1,66 M €/year

Nutrient removal by peatlands

• calculations based on the area of well preserved fens,

• area 4141 ha

• N removal by fen – 100 kg/ha/yr

• P removal by fen – 5 kg/ha/yr

• baseline value: 9.38 M €/year

Fishing

• calculations based on numer and cost of licenses

• area 2750 [ha]

• price of one licensce 4 €

• A lump sum 10 €

• mean number of licenses 6635/year

• algorithm: price x mean number of licenses

• baseline value: 0.026 M €/year

Baseline – total value of ES

- Total value: 49.3 M EUR/yr (~ 332 EUR/Ha/yr),

- The lowest possible value of ES (only 10 ES considered),

Management options (strategies)

• Buisness as usual

– Trying to compromise agriculture needs and wetlands biota conservation/restoration

• Bringing agriculture back to the valley

– Mimic of extensive agriculture in the valley (the large extension and low intensity) and allowing for intensive agriculture on

mineral ground

– No training works on main river, regular maintenance of tributaries

• Bringing living wetlands back to the valley

– Large scale restoration works aiming on increasing the water level – If water condition not appropriate for extensive agriculture then

let the forest grow

Features of Management Options

• BAU

• Current land cover,

• Current scale of restoration projects,

• Current agricultural practices,

• Current state of agriculture drainage channels.

• BAB

• Increasing the depth of agriculture drainage channels by 0.3 m,

• Maintain of tributaries in current depth and width,

• Deforestation from trees and bushes on former grasslands and pastures (private grounds)

• Field scale water management focuses on: agro-environmental schemes in the BNP or maximising the hay/pasture yield outside the BNP,

• BWB

• Reduced draining role of land reclamation systems (overgrowth with the vegetation, filling with mud),

• „No maintenance” policy on tributaries,

• Allowing for natural succession (reforestation) on parcels too wet for agriculture.

• Extensive agriculture possible only in areas of natural low water levels.

• BWNB: Bring wild nature back

• Under construction

What can be done by the restoration?

1- weir, 2 – spillways, 3 – important water courses, 4 – secondary water courses

(Grygoruk et al., 2015)

Water level increase by 0.25 m was recorded in restored fens

Before-after restoration

• Modelling results (Grygoruk et al., 2015)

• Water level never drops below -0.4 m below the ground,

• Inundation and flooding kept at the contemporoary level,

• Controlled water levels,

• Average water table rise = 0.15 m for the whole restored areas analysed

4 – before restoration; 5 – after restoration; 6 – ground level

Land use – Land cover change in

scenarios

Balance of ES – gains and loses

Ecosystem service BAB BWB

Water storage

Agriculture - production Wood - timber

Fishing

Water quality

Carbon storage in the soil Carbon release from the soil Carbon storage in the wood Nutrient storage in peatland

gained no change lost

Total value of ES for Biebrza

Total value of ES for Biebrza

Trade-offs – who loses what?

- Restoration = lower production

- Restoration = increased water storage - Restoration = more valuable habitats - Agriculture = higher production

- Agriculture = negative C balance (more emission than storage)

Loss of production comparing to the BAB = 75 EUR/yr/ha!

Restoration of wetlands is not epxected to be appreciated by farmers.

Trade offs with thigher EU subsidies reaches 56 EUR/yr/ha…

Still too low comparing to losses.

Pressure to drain peatlands for agriculture

intensification results in general decline of water level.

Modelling revealed that possible

enhancement of old land reclamation

systems may result in loss of groundwater- related habitats.

Agriculture – a threat for Biodiversity?

(Steady-state MODFLOW-based groundwater model results)

Agriculture – a threat for Biodiversity?

Total area of N2K Habitats Baseline: 8992,9 ha

BAB: 6670,3 ha Total area of fens:

Baseline: 4141 ha BAB: 2420 ha

(~ 1700 ha of fens lost!) Loss of habitats will induce declining rates of EU-based subsidies for biodiversity sustain (agro-environmental schemes)

Lower Biebrza Basin

KEY MESSAGE

• In highly degraded areas with a high demand for ES, restoration is highly beneficial both in terms of biodiversity and ecosystem services

• In natural areas with a low demand for ES (eg

flood protection, water purification,..), the impact of changing management is limited or the gain of managing for ES is limited, BUT further analysis are needed

• The “intensification” of agriculture is clearly more

negative to biodiversity than to ES delivery

Case 4: succesion in a managed retreat area

 Estuaries: tidal marsh restoration projects (managed realignment)

63

Farmland Mudflat Pioneer Marsh

Intertidal habitat

Marsh succession

 ES delivery changes due to succession?

 Impact on the long term benefits of the project?

ES ES ES

But, also negative effects:

• GHG emissions (CO₂, CH₄, N₂O)

• Visual intrusion with new dike Positive effects:

• Food provisioning

• Platform for living

• Open space

• Recreation

But, also negative effects:

• Fine dust

• Soil erosion

• N- and P- surplus

• GHG emissions

= Costs

= Benefits

After

Positive effects:

• Estuarine habitat

• Fauna en flora

• Food provisioning

• Recreation and education

• Flood prevention

• Sediment storage

• Climate regulation

• Water quality regulation

BEFORE

Polder = Benefits

= Costs

Project benefits

64

But, also negative effects:

• GHG emissions (CO₂, CH₄, N₂O)

• Visual intrusion with new dike Positive effects:

• Food provisioning

• Platform for living

• Open space

• Recreation

But, also negative effects:

• Fine dust

• Soil erosion

• N- and P- surplus

• GHG emissions

= Costs

= Benefits

After

Positive effects:

• Estuarine habitat

• Fauna en flora

• Food provisioning

• Recreation and education

• Flood prevention

• Sediment storage

• Climate regulation

• Water quality regulation

BEFORE

Polder = Benefits

= Costs

Project benefits?

65

Mudflat (F)

Interm. marsh (IM) Low marsh

(pioneer) (LM)

ES^F ES^LM ES^MM ES^HM

Intertidal area ^{465 ha}

High marsh (HM)

Marsh succession

ES delivery will change over time

ES delivery with marsh succession

66

ES delivery with succession

F LM

IM HM

Scenario 1

67

Long term assessment

Scenario without succession

Scenario’s with

succession

Initial elevation

0 100 200 300 400 500

0 50 100 150 200

Cumulated net benefit (million €)

Time horizon (years)

s1.3 s1.4 s1.5 s1.2 s1.1

Investment cost

F LM

IM HM

ES delivery

 Taking into account succession makes a (big) difference

 Beneficial for all scenarios, after 4 – 17 years

 Average benefit tidal marsh: 20.000 – 80.000 €/ha/y

 Wetland value (used in previous studies): 150 – 770 €/ha/y

 Tidal marsh value (most recent, Costanza et al. 2014): 150.000 €/ha/y

• Large uncertainty range!

• Cummulation of natural variation and uncertainty ranges in 35 parameters

68

- 200,0 400,0 600,0 800,0

1 51 101 151

Cumulated net benefit (million €)

Time horizon (years) average s1.3

Investment cost

Overall conclusions

• Ecosystem services are a promising concept but:

•  Quantification of ES is a crucial step and given the huge uncertainties, this makes economic analysis very tricky

•  using local data is essential given the great variability however these data are often lacking

•  when comparing scenario’s it is very important to include the succession as different stage might have different amounts of ES

69

•  the importance of managing for ES is much higher in strongly degraded areas where improving ES delivery might also go hand in hand with increase of biodiversity

•  in large nearly natural wetlands the balance between managing for ES or biodiversity might be much more

difficult, improving C sequestration might be at the expense of valuable habitats and species

70

Acknowledgements

• Many people contributed in different stages of the studies presented, among them:

• Jan Staes, Katrien Van der Biest, Annelies Boerema, Lotte Oosterlee, Tom Maris, Luiza Tylec, Dirk Vrebos

71

72

Thanks for your attention