Mapping and assessment of ecosystem services in Lithuania: status, plans & means. Dr. Vytautas Naruševičius Environmental Protection Agency

Transcription

1 Mapping and assessment of ecosystem services in Lithuania: status, plans & means Dr. Vytautas Naruševičius Environmental Protection Agency

2 Project name: Assessment overview Preparation of a national study on the distribution and state of the main ecosystem services on Lithuanian territory Funded by: EEA-Norway Financial Mechanism under the Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Programme (LT03) Time frame: Short time! 2. Limited resources! 3. Lack of data! 4. Ecosystem services - still novelty! 2

3 Assessment overview Overall goal and expected outcome: Improved integration of biodiversity considerations in sectorial policies and legislation by improved knowledge on the main ecosystem services in Lithuania, their distribution and state Expected outputs based on main objectives: Methodological basis for mapping and assessment of ecosystem services in Lithuania prepared Main ecosystem services on national scale mapped and assessed Increased public knowledge of ecosystem services and their value. 3

4 Assessment overview Results expected as a background for further steps towards the implementation of the next stage of the EU BS2020 Target 2 Action 5: assessment of economic value of ecosystem services, integration of ecosystem services approach and values into the sectorial policies, integration of ecosystem services into accounting and reporting systems,...thereby fostering the identification of the priority ecosystems to be restored. 4

5 Assessment scope Main activities foreseen for reaching the project objectives: Preparation of the methodological background for mapping of ecosystem services in at least 6 major ecosystem types, according to major habitat classes (SEBI 004); Establishment of the national priority list for ecosystem services; Test mapping and assessment methodologies at local level; Producing of interactive maps of the main ecosystems services on national level (at least 20 priority ecosystem services); Evaluation of the current status of the main ecosystems services (at least 24 ecosystem services) and, where possible, establishment of future trends; Analysis of data and findings by at least 7 public administration and/or economy sectors 5

6 Proposed assessment design Establishing of the primary national set of ESS Establishing priority list of ESS Establishing a network of complex model areas Evaluation of ESS comparative degree of significance for model areas Evaluation of the main ESS stocks, use, quality in model areas Extrapolation info from model areas network and merging it with other data for national mapping/assessment of ESS Mapping of the main ESS on national scale Assessment of the current state of the main ESS 6

7 Proposed priority list of ESS 7

8 Proposed priority list of ESS Important limitations: 1.Food crops, livestock, aquaculture, fuel crops grouped in one group anthropogenized food&fuel ESS, as being easily transformable heavily anthropogenized provisioning ESS; 2. Not included in the Priority List: non-biotic ESS (minerals [except peat], energy, underground/ground water etc.) urban ESS all supporting ESS, except habitat provision; 3.Strong emphasize on final ecosystems services and goods (FEGS - components of nature, directly enjoyed, consumed, or used to yield human well-being (Boyd & Banzhaf 2007)); 4.Mainly actual use of services and readily available amount of ESS is foreseen to analyse, not the capacity of ecosystem to provide a service 8

9 Establishing of the Network of model sites Main idea in order to save costs and time, detailed and highly accurate information for majority ESS will be selected during in-deep research only in selected model sites. Selected model sites shall represent Lithuanian territory and be based on physical, natural and social parameters: Forest/grassland coverage Coverage by wetlands and water bodies Density of inhabitants Proximity to bigger cities Local customs/habits Optimal size of the site ha. Part of protected areas within the total area of all model sites corresponds to the proportion of PA on national scale. 9

10 Establishing of the Network of model sites 10

11 Assessment of ESS in model sites Example: wild foods: mushrooms parameters evaluated: Mean productivity, Loss by worm-eating, Mushroom activity type (industrial, individual), Productivity according forest type; Productivity according regional localisation; Productivity according season (3 seasons starting, mushroom activity peak, growth intensity peak); Area of use; Use intensity (person/day, proximity, frequency parameters); Local habits. 11

12 Inventory and assessment of ESS for mapping Available data and primary research: Territory mapping, expected numbers, Available data from in-situ inventories, research and national monitoring, Interviews/questionnaires for stakeholders, Benefit-transfer method for ESS with global or national effect Main spatial information for mapping and analysis: Corine Land Cover data Ecosystem naturalness maps Protected areas cadaster Woodland Key Habitat inventory maps Inventory of Habitats of EU importance Landscape management maps Aerial pictures for precise analysis Drainage systems maps Wetland cadaster Forest cadaster Water bodies cadaster Soil cadaster Flood risk maps Relevant international GIS layers, e.g, Global ELUs maps, etc. 12

13 Mapping naturalness Selected biodiversity indicators for evaluation of the naturalness of main ecosystems (based on 336 species in total): Rare and indicatory plant species Orchid plants species Rare and indicatory insect species Dragonfly species Rare and indicatory fish and lamprey species Turtle breeding sites Breeding bird species Rare and indicatory breeding bird species Complex index of rare and indicatory taxons Nature Index calculation Maps of ecosystems naturalness 13

14 Recognizing difference of protected areas Main idea the same ESS complex in protected area (with staff, management and infrastructure) contains higher value, thus, indexing should be performed, when extrapolating results. Why Protected Area? 1) Added value: Specific complex of ES and ESS Exceptional value of individual/complex of ESS Specific manner/intensity of ESS use Higher responsibility/opportunities for local authorities/community Opportunities for precise assessment of ESS on national scale 2) Relatively easy to identify: Clear borders, area, cover, habitat composition/biodiversity, costs Opportunities to monitor use of main ESS 3) Supporting features for use intensity/value: Infrastructure, staff Supporting & provisioning (high biodiversity (genetic resources), habitats, medicines), cultural 14

15 First results of monetarization ESS complex in PA vs regular ESS complex = 1,28 15

16 Mapping cultural services: available maps e.g., visual (aesthetic) potential of landscape 16

17 Mapping cultural services: social research Main types of collection of the social data on use/preferences of ESS: Representative public opinion research Target groups research Main specialized research methodologies: Usage and awareness research Final Choice Model Satisfaction/loyalty research Customer behavior research Ecosystem services types mainly covered: Provisional services (e.g. wild foods, medicinal, ornamental resources) Cultural services 17

18 First input to environmental policy The Landscape and Biodiversity Conservation Action Plan for (approved in 2015) includes main actions, directly dedicated to implement the EU BS2020 Target 2 Action 5: To map ecosystem services and assess their status ( ) To perform economic valuation of the main ecosystem services and identify priorities for the restoration of ecosystems ( ) 18

19 Thank You! 19