Natuurlijk Kapitaalrekeningen Limburg

Ecosystem accounts Limburg
Rixt de Jong and Roy Remme
Ecosystem Accounts Limburg
•
•
•
•
•
•
Context and aims
Maps
Modelling ecosystem services
Supply and use tables
Possible applications
Take home messages
Context
Ecosystems and biodiversity under severe environmental pressure  Ecosystem services may be reduced or
lost.
Ecosystem accounting aims to quantify and monitor Ecosystem services
•
Identify the suppliers and beneficiaries of services
•
Identify causes for change
•
Identify the costs/benefits of change
SEEA EEA guidelines (UNSD, 2013): consistent with National Accounts, and internationally consistent
•
Ecosystem Services: those services provided by the natural environment that contribute to economies
Context
Project aims:
Pilot project on the application of the SEEA EEA approach for
Limburg province: feasibility, relevance and recommendations
for further work
Context
• Ecosystem Services form basis for core accounts
• ES Supply controlled by Condition & Extent
• Supply = Use (NA identity)
• Content of all accounts is geographically explicit, maps needed!
– Ecosystem Units Map
– Economic Ownership (SBI) map
– Maps for all ecosystems services, physical and monetary
Ecosystem Units map
• Based on 6 maps and specific regional and local
information
• Highly detailed polygon map w line elements >6m included
• Mixture of land use, economic ownership, specific regional
features, mixed level-legend
• 31 units, based on requirements for ES models  not the
ideal map for ecologists, biologists etc.
Ecosystem Units map
Concept, Supply en Use
x
= Supply per EU
Ecosystem service map
or
ES model based directly on EU map
= Supply per EU
Methods
 EU as base map
 Biophysical models ecosystem services
● Based on Remme et al. 2014 –
Ecosystem Services
 Monetary valuation ecosystem services
● Based on Remme et al. 2015 –
Ecological Economics
9
Biophysical ecosystem service models
Look-up table models
 Biophyiscal quantity x area
 Examples
● Carbon sequestration
● Drinking water production
 Local statistics
 Scientific literature
10
Biophysical ecosystem service models
Complex models
 Example
● Nature tourism
 Accommodation locations
 Surrounding nature areas
 Statistics
● Capacity
● Occupancy
Nature tourists per ha
11
Monetary valuation
 Valuation methods aligned with national accounts
● Focus on producer surplus
● Exclude consumer surplus (What is it worth to you)
 Described in SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting
● Resource rent
● Avoided damage costs
● Replacement costs
12
Resource rent
 Resource rent = R – I – L - U
● R = revenue
● I = intermediate costs
● L = labour costs
● U = user costs of fixed capital
 Applicable for ecosystem services with data on market
values
13
Resource rent
Crop production
Fodder production
Nature tourism
14
Avoided damage costs
 Carbon sequestration
● Avoided CO2 in atmosphere
● Avoided climate change
 PM10 filtration
● Avoided increased
concentration
● Avoided medical costs
15
Replacement costs
 Costs for replacing ecosystem
service with most viable alternative
 Drinking water production from
ground water
 Alternative: surface water
● higher purification costs
● comparison between drinking
water production companies
16
Biophysical vs. monetary maps
PM10 filtration
Hunting
17
Ecosystem contribution to economy
Ecosystem service
Crop production
Total revenue
(million €)
ES contribution
(million €)
386
37.9
86
7.6
104
11.6
PM10 filtration
-
2.3
Carbon sequestration
-
2.0
248
41.8
-
2.2
Fodder production
Drinking water production
Nature tourism
Hunting
 Some ecosystem services connected to national accounts
 Some are additional, do not appear in national accounts
18
Physical Supply (summ.)
7.100
1.700
10.400
2.900
2.100
600
900
200
3.100
800
4.800
900
100
500
400
500
10.300 15.100
200
400
93.800 147.400
100
400
22.700
200
11.600
700
600
100
55.400
400
100
1.200
200
11.800
31
River flood basin
28
Public green space
27
Natural grassland
500
1.900
300
500 16.500
100
600
57.000 160.300
26
Fresh water wetlands
1.400
4.200
100
200
2.400
4.900
300
1.000
22.000 136.800
24
Heath land
9.000
400
1.800
94.000
in 1000 m3/yr
tonnes/yr
tonnes C/yr
1000s of bike trips/yr
# tourists/yr
23
Mixed forest
11.400
2.500
22
Coniferous forest
2.900
800
Non-perennial plants
Deciduous forest
21
Hedgerows
5
8.100 27.100
65.000
4.700 328.700
1.500
5.900
Ecosystem services
Crops
Fodder
Meat (from game)
Ground water (drinking water
only)
capture of PM10
Carbon sequestration
Recreation (cycling)
Nature tourism
4
53.600
1.427.300
140.800
11.500
Ecosystem Units
extent (ha)
tonnes/yr
tonnes/yr
kg/yr
2
Meadows (for grazing)
1
Perennial plants
Physical supply, totals
Totals
14.100 220.900
- 1.492.400
66.900 541.100
2.400
36.800
1.300
100
2.800
600
94.500
27.000
2.300
59.000
9.100
974.300
Mixed forest
Heath land
Fresh water wetlands
Natural grassland
0,28
0,17
0,17
0,03
19,66
0,22
0,17
0,03
1,45
0,05
14,06
0,24
0,01
0,06
1,45
0,03
13,21
0,28
0,05
0,05
1,45
0,04
14,17
0,29
0,05
0,19
10,81
0,22
0,22
12,89
0,26
0,23
0,19
0,03
17,87
0,19
0,08
0,02
0,25
0,04
2,46
River flood basin
Coniferous forest
12,13
0,22
0,15
0,01
0,18
0,04
5,05
Public green space
Deciduous forest
8,02
0,58
0,19
0,17
0,01
0,30
0,04
2,72
Hedgerows
26,63
2,63
0,21
0,17
0,01
0,03
1,75
Meadows (for grazing)
Ecosystem Units
tonnes/ha/yr
tonnes/ha/yr
kg/ha/yr
1000m3/ha/yr
tonnes/ha/yr
tonnesC/ha/yr
1000s of bike trips/ha/yr
#tourists/ha/yr
Perennial plants
Ecosystem services
Crops
Fodder
Meat (from game)
Ground water (drinking water only)
capture of PM10
Carbon sequestration
Recreation (cycling)
Nature tourism
Non-perennial plants
Physical Supply per Hectare
4,74
0,17
0,09
0,01
0,20
0,04
6,70
53.629
27.066
2.940
11.414
7.091
10.437
2.149
936
extent
ha
3.121
Crops
€
35.303.100
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Fodder
€
1.960.900
4.587.100
-
-
-
-
-
-
Meat (from game)
€
817.700
223.400
-
186.800
192.700
261.100
35.600
Ground water
€
3.861.200
1.802.300
193.900
824.200
63.500
218.700
Capture of PM10
€
301.200
173.700
30.400
200.200
185.700
Carbon sequestration
€
300
165.700
18.000
562.500
Nature tourism
€
4.410.000
6.349.100
2.357.700
6.930.100
Recreation (cycling)
€
value per ha (excl. Amenity)
€
46.654.400
€/ha
870
value per ha (incl. Amenity)*
€/ha
4.761
River flood basin
Other unpaved terrain
Public green space
Natural grassland
Fresh water wetlands
Heath land
Mixed forest
Coniferous forest
Deciduous forest
Hedgerows
Non-perennial plants
Meadows (for grazing)
Monetary Supply (summ.)
Totals
220.922
22.591
14.126
-
-
-
37.908.400
-
-
-
942.300
7.556.200
12.700
32.900
14.700
211.200
136.000
2.249.400
57.300
11.200
295.700
192.600
1.041.100
545.700
11.602.800
200.700
27.200
2.400
46.700
78.100
258.200
85.900
2.275.900
350.300
515.000
13.200
6.400
19.300
40.500
139.000
95.600
2.006.100
3.162.500
5.443.100
917.000
392.800
2.488.900
625.900
2.870.600
3.162.100
NA
41.816.200
NA
870
13.301.400
491
491
2.600.000
884
884
8.703.800
763
1.193
3.954.700
558
988
6.638.800
636
1.066
1.050.400
489
489
425.400
454
454
2.883.500
924
924
951.700
200
688
4.520.200
200
220
4.967.500
352
352
105.415.000
477
553
Ecosystem services
Crops
Fodder
Meat (from game)
Ground water (drinking water only)
Capture of PM10
Carbon sequestration
Recreation (cycling)
Ecosystem Units
Nature tourism
# tourists/yr
tonnes/yr
tonnes/yr
kg/yr
in 1000 m3/yr
tonnes/yr
tonnes C/yr
1000s of bike trips/yr
Env (global goods)
Inventories
Investments
Export
Rest
I,R
F-H
E
B-D
A
Economic Users (ISIC Sections)
Government cons.
Household cons
Monetary use
37.908.400
7.556.200
2.249.400
11.602.800
2.275.900
2.006.100
na
41.816.200
Possible applications
• Highlight importance of ‘non commercial’ ecosystem types
• MAP ES supply, identify users
• Compare to e.g. related employment, value added etc
• Timeseries: ES related costs and benefits of environmental
protection measures (EHS, Ruimte vd Rivier, zandmotor),
analysis of changes in condition and extent of ecosystems
• Comparison to National Accounts; GDP
Take home messages
• Ecosystem accounting is feasible in the Netherlands
• Ecosystem accounting is in demand (policy makers,
national and international: UN, World Bank, EU,
National governments)
• Challenges:
– monetary valuation; much more experimentation needed,
more (international) collaboration
– For a number of ES no/insufficient models or data
available (e.g. water recreation, recreational fishing,
mushroom picking)
Take home messages
The main of of Ecosystem accounting is NOT to calculate the
total value of ecosystems as precisely as possible.
Its main strength is in providing (inter)nationally consistent
numbers and timeseries
Thank you!
Funding:
Min. of Economic Affairs
Min. of Infrastructure and the Environment
ERC grant 263027(Ecospace)
Project participants:
Lars Hein and Roy Remme (Wageningen University)
Bram Edens, Rixt de Jong, Niek van Leeuwen, Sjoerd
Schenau, Marijn Zuurmond (Statistics Netherlands)
With contributions from RIVM and PBL