Downloaded 78 times
Uploaded byMarianne Kettunen
Water wetlands ecosystem services
This document summarizes a presentation on wetlands and their ecosystem services. It discusses how wetlands provide important services like water regulation, purification, and storage. It provides examples of how assessing the economic value of these services, such as avoided water treatment costs and flood prevention savings, has supported decisions to conserve and restore wetlands. The presentation emphasizes that recognizing both qualitative and quantitative benefits, in addition to economic values, is important for decision-making. It concludes by noting that tools like natural capital accounting and payments for ecosystem services can help integrate wetland values into broader systems.
More Related Content
Similar to Water wetlands ecosystem services
More from Marianne Kettunen
Water wetlands ecosystem services
- 1. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Water, wetlands andecosystem services Marianne Kettunen & Patrick ten Brink Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) 22 January 2015 ESWG Webinar Picture © Stefan Simis
- 2. Wetlands and theirecosystem services Picture © IEEP M. Kettunen
- 3. xxx Picture ©IEEP Web Wetlands & water related ecosystem service © M. Kettunen © SYKE Kuvapankki © www.clevergreen.co.za©www.cleanwatertea m.com Wetlands need water … Water (quantity & quality) needs wetlands … Wetland ecosystem services: water retention, aquifer recharge water regulation water purification
- 4. xxx Picture ©IEEP Web Wetlands & other ecosystem services © photos: www.ramsar.org Agriculture Subsistence Aesthetics Recreation / Bird watching Carbon storage Fisheries
- 5. Source: TEEB caseby L. Brander & K. Schyut (2010) The economic value of world’s wetlands (benefit transfer) www.teebweb.org © Photos EEA report
- 6. • 1/3 ofthe world’s 100 largest cities draw a large part of their drinking water from PAs. • PAs & forests purify water for NY city = US$ 6 billion (total) savings in water treatment costs • 80% of Quito’s drinking water originate from two PAs • Venezuela’s national PA system prevents sedimentation that would reduce farm earnings by around US$ 3.5 million/year. • Costs of green infra < Costs of manmade infra - See TEEB for national & international / local & regional policy makers 2010 for references - Protected wetlands: benefits for biodiversity & water management
- 7. Restoration and rehabilitationof degraded wetlands can bring considerable benefits to people, also economic. Examples: o Climate change mitigation and adaptation o Flood risk prevention o Reduction of damage of storms o Livelihood for local communities – Sometimes natural systems present cheaper options than man- made systems – If thresholds of irreversibility have been passed, the level of biodiversity won’t be restored completely, but it is still possible to restore/rehabilitate some ecosystem functions and ES slide by Patrick ten Brink and Daniela Russi Wetland restoration
- 8. • Advocacy &awareness raising: examples of benefits lost / costs related to the loss of wetlands • Concrete support to decision-making: enabling all values of wetlands are accounted for (eg public, non-market values) → identifying trade-offs, making more sustainable decisions • Wetlands as an investment (eg. restoration): seeing wetlands as green infrastructure that support both biodiversity and ecosystem services How can ES assessment and valuation support wetland conservation / sustainable use ?
- 9. Valuation of water& wetland related ecosystem services Picture © IEEP M. Kettunen
- 10. TEEB approach forvaluation (of wetlands) 1. Recognising value: in addition to its intrinsic value, nature supports all human wellbeing 2. Demonstrating value: in economic terms (qualitative/ quantitative / monetary) to support decision making 3. Capturing value: introduce mechanisms that incorporate the values of ecosystems into decision making Source: TEEB final synthesis report 2010
- 11. Pictures © M.KettunenPictures © M. Kettunen Local benefits of wetlands: – Food supply and security (fish) – Protection against natural hazards (eg mangroves) – Local community livelihood (fisheries, tourism …) – Purification of coastal water – Etc. Regional and national benefits of wetlands: – National food supply and security – Recreation and tourism – National natural & cultural heritage – Etc. Global benefits of wetlands: – Carbon storage / sequestration – Global food supply and security (fish) – Recreation and tourism at global level – Etc. Picture © SYKE kuvapankki SYKEkuva The geography of benefits & stakeholders M. Kettunen – own presentation
- 12. Quantitative Qualitative Monetary Full range ofbenefits underpinned by biodiversity (e.g. yet unknown benefits) Monetary: market price of products from wetlands value of carbon storage, avoided costs of water purification etc. Quantitative: amount of people enjoying products from wetla volume of stored carbon, volume of purified water etc. Qualitative: range of various benefits provided by wetlands, dependency of people on these benefits etc. Tip of the iceberg only! Picture © Nigel Dudl Source: modified from Kettunen & ten Brink
- 13. Picture © NigelDudley • Situation: business initiative for a private hydro plant in a small water catchment (San José, Costa Rica) • Recognition: water quality and availability depends on the land use within the catchment • Outcome: integrity of the catchment’s water circulation sustained by payments to landowners as compensation for sust. management practices. Picture © Nigel Dudley Sometimes recognising value is enough Pers. com. Nigel Dudley (IUCN WCPA) (2014)
- 14. • Situation: Plansto drain the Nakivubo Swamp (Kampala, Uganda) (>40 km2) for agriculture. • Assessment: Waste water treatment & nutrient retention capacity of the swamp was assessed. Maintaining wetland (vs. manmade solutions) resulted in benefits worth ~1 – 1.75 million $ / year. Also ~2 million $ / year avoided costs of running a sewage treatment facility. • Outcome: Plans for draining the wetland were abandoned and Nakivubo Swamps gazetted as protected area. Sometimes demonstrating (economic) is needed See TEEB for regional policy-makers (2011)
- 15. • Situation: Vittelnatural mineral water (FR) depends on high quality water from Vosges Mountains (no pre-treatment allowed by law). • Assessment: Costs of managing upstream ecosystems in a manner that guarantees continued supply of clean water are lower than the costs of moving the sourcing of water elsewhere. • Outcome: Farmers upstream are paid to adopt best low-impact farming practises. Protection of 92% of the water catchment area! Sometimes there is an opportunity to capture (economic) value via instruments Perrot-Maître D. (2006)
- 16. Wetland ecosystem servicesin practice - from big ideas to concrete solutions - Picture © IEEP M. Kettunen
- 17. Ecosystem service stock (status &trends) Ecosystem service flow (status & trends) Ecosystem service value (current & potential) • Qualitative • Quantitative • Monetary Biodiversity (status & trends) Indication of resilience ! Trade-offs Trade-offs Trade-offs Big ideas: assessing wetland ES … M. Kettunen – own presentation
- 18. ES Stock –Flow – Value Biodiversity Etc.A bundle of greener macroeconomic & societal indicators Natural Capital Accounting (NCA): Ecosystem accounts (EA) & System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA) … and bringing that information into macro-systems M. Kettunen – own presentation
- 19. Nature-based solutions and(marine) spatial planning Sustainable business ideas, inc. algae or reed based biofuels, nature-based tourism … Climate change mitigation via blue carbon MPAs supporting sustainable fisheries & biodiversity Sustainable forestry (eg PES) Sustainable agriculture Nature-based innovations for water purification (eg bioremediation) Green infrastructure for nutrient capture (wetlands) Challenge: water quality / eutrophication Challenge: sustainable fisheries Challenge: climate change Challenge: sust. development of coastal communities Regional solutions: wetlands as active part of water management strategies M. Kettunen – own presentation, based on D’Amato & Kettunen in TEEB Finland (2014)
- 20. Regulation of waterquality (N retention): – Annual N removal at least 1000 kg N / ha / individual wetland (minimum) → Individual wetlands cost- effective solutions for managing water quality – N removal levels and cost-effectiveness depend on the design and location of constructed wetland → achieving benefits on a large scale requires careful planning ! Biodiversity conservation: – Species numbers and population sizes of birds and amphibians ↑ → positive impact on species in the national Red List – Species numbers high also on nutrient removal wetlands → ‘win-win’ management for biodiversity and ecosystem services → Wetland restoration can support 1) biodiversity and 2) ecosystem services can support biodiversity conservation and water management Source: Strand and Weisner (2013) Ecological Engineering 56: 14-25 Wetland construction / restoration cost-effective solution for water and biodiversity (south coast of SE)
- 21. • Situation: TheNapa River Basin (California) suffers from frequent flooding. • Assessment: Levees & channel modification to prevent flooding were deemed unsustainable by the citizens (eg with several negative impacts to water quality) • Outcome: A comprehensive flood control plan to restore river’s original capacity to handle flood waters was adopted. Significant mitigation of damages and over US$ 1.6 billion savings in flood protection. • Costs of managing green infra < Costs of damage & manmade infra - See TEEB for local & regional policy makers 2010 for references - © Andre Kunzelmann / UFZ Cost savings: flood management (regional)
- 22. • Situation: Surfacerunoff from the city of Nummela (Fin) has been increasing since the expansion of the city, affecting the quality of surrounding water bodies. • Assessment: Management of surface runoff via ‘natural’ means (eg through wetland restoration) more sustainable and cost effective than manmade solutions. Such approach also brings co-benefits for recreation. • Outcome: Restoration costs for 1 ha of wetland were 62 000 EUR total (inc. infra for recreation) vs. costs of manmade infra 50 000 EUR / every 100 meters. • Costs of restoring green infra < Costs of manmade infra - Hannele Ahponen & Outi Salminen for TEEB Nordic - © Ympäristölehti 3/2010 Cost savings: flood management (local)
- 23. • Situation: Inthe Andean region, upstream ecosystems regulate water supply and purify water for downstream users. • Assessment: Maintaining ecosystems’ natural capacity to maintain and purify water provides a low-cost option for maintaining access to clean, regular water supply. • Outcome: ‘Water Funds’ was established to compensate upstream land users for managing forest and grasslands in sustainable manner. • Costs of green infra < Costs of manmade infra - See TEEB for local & regional policy makers 2010 for references - ©http://conservationvalue.blogspot .com/2006_05_01_archive.htm Cost savings: drinking water management
- 24. • Situation: drainageof 930,000 ha peatlands in Germany for agriculture cause emissions of 20 million tonnes of CO2-eq. per year. Total damage of these emissions amounts to 1.4 billion EUR • Assessment: peatland restoration considered as low cost and biodiversity friendly mitigation option • Outcome: Restoration of 30,000 ha peatlands (10%) → emission savings of ~ 300,000 t CO2-eq., avoidance cost of 8 to 12 EUR / t CO2. In combination with alternative land use options (extensive grazing, reed production or alder forest) costs decrease to 0 to 4 EUR / t CO2. • Costs of restoring green infra < Costs of manmade infra - Federal Environmental Agency 2007; MLUV MV 2009; Schäfer 2009. See TEEB for local & regional policy makers 2010 - ©http://conservationvalue.blogspot .com/2006_05_01_archive.htm Restored peatland in Trebeltal 2007 Foto: D. Zak, http://www.fv-berlin.de Cost savings: climate change mitigation
- 25. • Situation: BetBet, Australia, salinization threatens agriculture in the area, damages infrastructure and has a negative impact on the river ecosystems. • Assessment: Situation is caused by land use practices that lead to the reduction in permanent vegetation with deep roots, leading to reduction in aquifer recharge produced • Outcome: The Bet Bet tradable salinity credits auction: farmers could offer their commitment to undertake actions to reduce salinity in exchange for a certain payment. The farmers who won the auction could fulfil the obligations by reducing salinity in their fields or by buying salinity credits from other farmers who had achieved higher reductions than those established in their contracts © www.surfline.com Source: Connor et al. (2008) Slide by Daniela Russi Cost savings: water availability / aquifer recharge
- 26. Further information Picture ©IEEP Web • The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) (2008 - ) • Kettunen et al. (2012) TEEB Nordic • Guidance Manual for TEEB Country Studies (2013) • TEEB Water and Wetlands (2013) • TEEB Green Economy (2012) • TEEB Finland (2012 – 2014) • Kettunen & ten Brink (2013) Social and Economic Benefits of Protected Areas - An Assessment Guide
- 27. www.ieep.eu @IEEP_eu Picture © StefanSimis Marianne Kettunen Principal Policy Analyst IEEP [email protected] Patrick ten Brink Senior Fellow / Head of Environmental Economics IEEP [email protected] IEEP is an independent, not-for-profit institute dedicated to the analysis, understanding and promotion of policies for a sustainable environment in Europe. Thanks ! Picture © IEEP Web
Editor's Notes
- #8 Restoration can be costly, but in many cases it can offer good returns, like climate change mitigation (in peatlands), climate change adaptation (e.g. mangroves, flood plains), livelihood for local communities
- #16 18 and 30 year-contracts to ensure continuity abolition of the debt associated with the purchase of land by farmers an average of €1000/ha to cover the costs related to the transition a lump sum of up to €150,000 per farm to meet the initial costs Technical assistance
- #21 Data from 7 constructed wetlands in agricultural catchments (1.5 – 10 years) Several small wetlands targeting several catchments more cost-effective than one large wetland targeting one catchment. However, latter removes the highest % of N.
- #26 Connor J.D., Ward J., Clifton C., Proctor W., MacDonald D.H. (2008). Designing, testing and implementing a trial dryland salinity credit trade scheme. Ecological Economics, 67 (4): 574-588