Desertification indicators for the European Mediterranean region: state of the art and possible methodological approaches [= Indicatori di desertificazione per il Mediterraneo europeo: stato dell'arte e proposte di metodo]

The Italian Environment Protection Agency (ANPA), and the Desertification Research Centre at the University of Sassary have worked jointly to provide decision-makers with an in-depth analysis of the state of the art and methodologies applicable to the evaluation of the desertification phenomenon. ANPA has promoted this important research activity, within the wider and more dynamic framework of actions it conducts in the Italian National Committee, providing its support to the definition and start up of the National Plan to Combat Desertification and Drought. The complexity of the phenomena and their causes leads to the individuation of a plurality of “actors” who might take the responsibility to carry out actions aimed at combating Desertification and Drought. Indicators represent a crucial link in the chain that, from knowledge, leads to taking decisions and promoting responsible behaviours: starting from an evaluation of the various, physical, biologic, socio-economic processes that contribute to land degradation and desertification, the goal is to individuate indicators that might prove useful in territorial planning and public information activities, and that might be a suitable answer to the request for direct knowledge of the status and evolution of the phenomenon, as well as the opportunity to take actions aimed at mitigating and, above all, preventing the occurrence of the phenomenon

The ecomics of ecosystems and biodiversity: scoping the scale

The G8 decided in March 2007 to initiate a “Review on the economics of biodiversity loss”, in the so called Potsdam Initiative: 'In a global study we will initiate the process of analysing the global economic benefit of biological diversity, the costs of the loss of biodiversity and the failure to take protective measures versus the costs of effective conservation. The study is being supported by the European Commission (together with the European Environmental Agency and in cooperation with the German Government. “The objective of the current study is to provide a coherent overview of existing scientific knowledge upon which to base the economics of the Review, and to propose a coherent global programme of scientific work, both for Phase 2 (consolidation) and to enable more robust future iterations of the Review beyond 2010.

Training materials for different categories of users

Agricultural and Food Policy, Environmental Economics and Policy, Farm Management, Land Economics/Use, Production Economics, Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

Mapping and assessment of ecosystems and their services. Urban ecosystems

Action 5 of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 requires member states to Map and Assess the state of Ecosystems and their Services (MAES). This report provides guidance for mapping and assessment of urban ecosystems. The MAES urban pilot is a collaboration between the European Commission, the European Environment Agency, volunteering Member States and cities, and stakeholders. Its ultimate goal is to deliver a knowledge base for policy and management of urban ecosystems by analysing urban green infrastructure, condition of urban ecosystems and ecosystem services. This report presents guidance for mapping urban ecosystems and includes an indicator framework to assess the condition of urban ecosystems and urban ecosystem services. The scientific framework of mapping and assessment is designed to support in particular urban planning policy and policy on green infrastructure at urban, metropolitan and regional scales. The results are based on the following different sources of information: a literature survey of 54 scientific articles, an online-survey (on urban ecosystems, related policies and planning instruments and with participation of 42 cities), ten case studies (Portugal: Cascais, Oeiras, Lisbon; Italy: Padua, Trento, Rome; The Netherlands: Utrecht; Poland: Poznań; Spain: Barcelona; Norway: Oslo), and a two-day expert workshop. The case studies constituted the core of the MAES urban pilot. They provided real examples and applications of how mapping and assessment can be organized to support policy; on top, they provided the necessary expertise to select a set of final indicators for condition and ecosystem services. Urban ecosystems or cities are defined here as socio-ecological systems which are composed of green infrastructure and built infrastructure. Urban green infrastructure (GI) is understood in this report as the multi-functional network of urban green spaces situated within the boundary of the urban ecosystem. Urban green spaces are the structural components of urban GI. This study has shown that there is a large scope for urban ecosystem assessments. Firstly, urban policies increasingly use urban green infrastructure and nature-based solutions in their planning process. Secondly, an increasing amount of data at multiple spatial scales is becoming available to support these policies, to provide a baseline, and to compare or benchmark cities with respect to the extent and management of the urban ecosystem. Concrete examples are given on how to delineate urban ecosystems, how to choose an appropriate spatial scale, and how to map urban ecosystems based on a combination of national or European datasets (including Urban Atlas) and locally collected information (e.g., location of trees). Also examples of typologies for urban green spaces are presented. This report presents an indicator framework which is composed of indicators to assess for urban ecosystem condition and for urban ecosystem services. These are the result of a rigorous selection process and ensure consistent mapping and assessment across Europe. The MAES urban pilot will continue with work on the interface between research and policy. The framework presented in this report needs to be tested and validated across Europe, e.g. on its applicability at city scale, on how far the methodology for measuring ecosystem condition and ecosystem service delivery in urban areas can be used to assess urban green infrastructure and nature-based solutions

Senior Thesis ST 2011-02

Agriculture in the Arctic is often limited by the low receipt of heat energy, which is often measured in growing degree days (GDD). With the advent of increasingly powerful climate modeling, projection and downscaling techniques, it is becoming possible to examine future climates in high resolution. Recent availability in Alaska has prompted interest in examining the distribution of current and the potential future of local agriculture. The goal of this study was to utilize Scenarios Network for Alaska Planning (SNAP) downscaled, ensemble projections to examine this in terms of GDDs in the Fairbanks North Star Borough of Alaska. Historic and projected monthly mean temperatures were utilized to calculate GDDs and then map the borough at a 4 km2 scale. Additionally, local agriculturalists were interviewed in order to put these theoretical calculations into context. Ultimately, projections of the examined agricultural locations showed an average of a 2% increase in GDD per decade and a 26% increase in GDDs from 1949 to 2099. This project indicated that the North Star Borough will receive increased heat energy due to climate change over the next century that may further enable increased yields and varieties of crops

Threats to soil quality in Denmark - A review of existing knowledge in the context of the EU Soil Thematic Strategy

The EU Commission is preparing a proposal for a Soil Framework Directive with the purpose of protecting the soil resources in Europe. The proposal identifies six major threats to the sustained quality of soils in Europe. This report addresses the threats that are considered most important under the prevailing soil and climatic conditions in Denmark: compaction, soil organic matter decline, and erosion by water and tillage. For each of these threats, the relevance and damage to soil functions as well as the geographic distribution in Denmark are outlined. We suggest a procedure for identifying areas at risk. This exercise involves an explicit identification of: i) the disturbing agent (climate / management) exerting the pressures on soil, and ii) the vulnerability of the soil to those stresses. Risk reduction targets, measures required to reach these targets, and the knowledge gaps and research needs to effectively cope with each threat are discussed. Our evaluation of the threats is based on soil resilience to the imposed stresses. Subsoil compaction is considered a severe threat to Danish soils due to frequent traffic with heavy machinery in modern agriculture and forestry. The soil content of organic matter is critically low for a range of Danish soils, which should be counteracted by appropriate management options. Soil erosion by tillage, and to a lesser degree by water, adversely affects soil quality on much of the farmland because degradation rates are much higher than generation of soil

Review of existing information on the interrelations between soil and climate change. (ClimSoil). Final report

Carbon stock in EU soils – The soil carbon stocks in the EU27 are around 75 billion tonnes of carbon (C); of this stock around 50% is located in Sweden, Finland and the United Kingdom (because of the vast area of peatlands in these countries) and approximately 20% is in peatlands, mainly in countries in the northern part of Europe. The rest is in mineral soils, again the higher amount being in northern Europe. 2. Soils sink or source for CO2 in the EU – Both uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2) through photosynthesis and plant growth and loss of CO2 through decomposition of organic matter from terrestrial ecosystems are significant fluxes in Europe. Yet, the net terrestrial carbon fluxes are typically 5-10 times smaller relative to the emissions from use of fossil fuel of 4000 Mt CO2 per year. 3. Peat and organic soils - The largest emissions of CO2 from soils are resulting from land use change and especially drainage of organic soils and amount to 20-40 tonnes of CO2 per hectare per year. The most effective option to manage soil carbon in order to mitigate climate change is to preserve existing stocks in soils, and especially the large stocks in peat and other soils with a high content of organic matter. 4. Land use and soil carbon – Land use and land use change significantly affects soil carbon stocks. On average, soils in Europe are most likely to be accumulating carbon on a net basis with a sink for carbon in soils under grassland and forest (from 0 - 100 billion tonnes of carbon per year) and a smaller source for carbon from soils under arable land (from 10 - 40 billion tonnes of carbon per year). Soil carbon losses occur when grasslands, managed forest lands or native ecosystems are converted to croplands and vice versa carbon stocks increase, albeit it slower, following conversion of cropland. 5. Soil management and soil carbon – Soil management has a large impact on soil carbon. Measures directed towards effective management of soil carbon are available and identified, and many of these are feasible and relatively inexpensive to implement. Management for lower nitrogen (N) emissions and lower C emissions is a useful approach to prevent trade off and swapping of emissions between the greenhouse gases CO2, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). 6. Carbon sequestration – Even though effective in reducing or slowing the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere, soil carbon sequestration is surely no ‘golden bullet’ alone to fight climate change due to the limited magnitude of its effect and its potential reversibility; it could, nevertheless, play an important role in climate mitigation alongside other measures, especially because of its immediate availability and relative low cost for 'buying' us time. 7. Effects of climate change on soil carbon pools – Climate change is expected to have an impact on soil carbon in the longer term, but far less an impact than does land use change, land use and land management. We have not found strong and clear evidence for either overall and combined positive of negative impact of climate change (atmospheric CO2, temperature, precipitation) on soil carbon stocks. Due to the relatively large gross exchange of CO2 between atmosphere and soils and the significant stocks of carbon in soils, relatively small changes in these large and opposing fluxes of CO2, i.e. as result of land use (change), land management and climate change, may have significant impact on our climate and on soil quality. 8. Monitoring systems for changes in soil carbon – Currently, monitoring and knowledge on land use and land use change in EU27 is inadequate for accurate calculation of changes in soil carbon contents. Systematic and harmonized monitoring across EU27 and across relevant land uses would allow for adequate representation of changes in soil carbon in reporting emissions from soils and sequestration in soils to the UNFCCC. 9. EU policies and soil carbon – Environmental requirements under the Cross Compliance requirement of CAP is an instrument that may be used to maintain SOC. Neither measures under UNFCCC nor those mentioned in the proposed Soil Framework Directive are expected to adversely impact soil C. EU policy on renewable energy is not necessarily a guarantee for appropriate (soil) carbon management