How ecosystem services are changing: an accounting application at the EU level

Ecosystem services accounts are a useful tool that provides relevant information on the role of ecosystems in delivering services, and the society benefiting from them. This paper presents the accounting workflow for ecosystem services at the European Union level adopted by the Knowledge Innovation Project on an Integrated system for Natural Capital and ecosystem services Accounting (KIP INCA) - a European Commission initiative. The workflow includes: 1) biophysical assessment of ecosystem services; 2) monetary valuation; and 3) compilation of accounting tables. Supply and use tables are presented for six ecosystem services assessed so far. The supply table shows woodland and forest, followed by wetlands, as the ecosystem types with the highest monetary value per unit area. Analyses of changes between 2000 and 2012 show an overall increase of the monetary value of ecosystem services, mainly due to an increase in demand for them. We also discuss advantages and disadvantages of adopting a fast-track approach, based on official statistics, in comparison to an accounting strategy based on spatial models. We propose a novel workflow for ecosystem services accounts, focused on assessment of the actual flow of ecosystem services, making a significant contribution to further development of the technical recommendations for ecosystem service

Ecosystem services accounts: Valuing the actual flow of nature-based recreation from ecosystems to people

Natural capital accounting aims to measure changes in the stock of natural assets (i.e., soil, air, water and all living things) and to integrate the value of ecosystem services into accounting systems that will contribute to better ecosystems management. This study develops ecosystem services accounts at the European Union level, using nature-based recreation as a case study and following the current international accounting framework: System of Environmental-Economic Accounting – Experimental Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EEA). We adapt and integrate different biophysical and socio-economic models, illustrating the workflow necessary for ecosystem services accounts: from a biophysical assessment of nature-based recreation to an economic valuation and compilation of the accounting tables. The biophysical assessment of nature-based recreation is based on spatially explicit models for assessing different components of ecosystem services: potential, demand and actual flow. Deriving maps of ecosystem service potential and demand is a key step in quantifying the actual flow of the service used, which is determined by the spatial relationship (i.e., proximity in the case of nature-based recreation) between service potential and demand. The nature-based recreation accounts for 2012 show an actual flow of 40 million potential visits to ‘high-quality areas for daily recreation’, with a total value of EUR 50 billion. This constitutes an important contribution of ecosystems to people's lives that has increased by 26% since 2000. Practical examples of ecosystem services accounts, as shown in this study, are required to derive recommendations and further develop the conceptual and methodological framework proposed by the SEEA EEA. This paper highlights the importance of using spatially explicit models for ecosystem services accounts. Mapping the different components of ecosystem services allows proper identification of the drivers of changes in the actual service flow derived from ecosystems, socio-economic systems and/or their spatial relationship. This will contribute to achieving one of the main goals of ecosystem accounts, namely measuring changes in natural capital, but it will also support decision-making that targets the enhancement of ecosystems, their services and the benefits they provide

Ecosystem services accounting: Part I - Outdoor recreation and crop pollination

The Knowledge Innovation Project on an Integrated system of Natural Capital and ecosystem services Accounting (KIP INCA) aims to develop the first ecosystem accounts at EU level, following the UN System of Environmental-Economic Accounting- Experimental Ecosystem Accounts (SEEA-EEA). The application of the SEEA-EEA framework is useful to illustrate ecosystem accounts with clear examples and contribute to further develop to methodology and give guidance for Natural Capital Accounting. The aim of this study is to assess and account for two ecosystem services: outdoor recreation and crop pollination. Each service was assessed biophysically within the ESTIMAP toolbox, allowing us to quantify different service components: the service potential that the ecosystems can deliver; the demand for each service; and the actual flow of the service used based on the spatial relationship between the service potential and demand. The results of the biophysical assessment were then translated into monetary units using valuation methods consistent with the System of National Accounts. Valuation methods require the integration of the key variables of the biophysical model to quantify the actual flow. In this way, changes in the value of the service are strictly linked to changes in biophysical assessment, which includes potential, demand and their spatial relationship determining the actual flow. Accounting of outdoor recreation shows that at EU level, forest ecosystems have the highest value for outdoor recreation, although this varies among countries. Households are the users of the service, with Germany being the country with the largest share of population whose demand for daily recreation is covered. As demonstrated, countries with a larger share of population living within 4 km of recreational areas present higher level of life satisfaction. EU accounting shows an overall increase in the use of the service between 2000 and 2012 (26%), mainly due to the enhancement of the recreation potential, and, to a lesser extent, to an increase in the demand (population). These results are useful to support policy decisions related to land planning, aiming at guaranteeing the equitable accessibility to outdoor recreation opportunities (citizen rights): 38% of the population at the EU have limited accessibility to recreational areas (unmet demand). We estimated for 2012 an actual flow of 40 million potential visits to recreational areas per year (daily use), with a total value of 31 billion euro. At this stage, the full accounting cannot be given for crop pollination due to the lack of connection between the available valuation methods and the biophysical model assessing the service flow. In this sense, further research is needed to develop suitable methods to link the valuation technique with the biophysical model. In spite of these limitations, the crop pollination assessment provides useful results for the EU Pollinators Initiative. The work presented in this report highlights the importance of the spatial relationship between ecosystem service potential and demand. The changes in the use of the service quite often cannot be explained solely by changes in the potential and the demand, but also by their spatial relationship. When dealing with ecosystem services the spatial component is a key driver that needs to be integrated within the accounting framework for a consistent assessment. The spatial relationship between potential and demand is different for each service. Crop pollination requires the spatial overlap between potential and demand, whereas proximity is the key spatial feature for outdoor recreation. As shown by the two examples presented here, ecosystem service accounts significantly differ depending on the service being assessed, both conceptually and methodologically. Hence, further examples of ecosystem service accounting are needed to produce accounting tables for a representative number of service. Ultimately, the availability of this information represents a key input for the analysis of synergies and trade-offs between ecosystem services.JRC.D.3-Land Resource

Ecosystem services classification : A systems ecology perspective of the cascade framework

Creative Commons License (CC BY 4.0)Ecosystem services research faces several challenges stemming from the plurality of interpretations of classifications and terminologies. In this paper we identify two main challenges with current ecosystem services classification systems: i) the inconsistency across concepts, terminology and definitions, and; ii) the mix up of processes and end-state benefits, or flows and assets. Although different ecosystem service definitions and interpretations can be valuable for enriching the research landscape, it is necessary to address the existing ambiguity to improve comparability among ecosystem-service-based approaches. Using the cascade framework as a reference, and Systems Ecology as a theoretical underpinning, we aim to address the ambiguity across typologies. The cascade framework links ecological processes with elements of human well-being following a pattern similar to a production chain. Systems Ecology is a long-established discipline which provides insight into complex relationships between people and the environment. We present a refreshed conceptualization of ecosystem services which can support ecosystem service assessment techniques and measurement. We combine the notions of biomass, information and interaction from system ecology, with the ecosystem services conceptualization to improve definitions and clarify terminology. We argue that ecosystem services should be defined as the interactions (i.e. processes) of the ecosystem that produce a change in human well-being, while ecosystem components or goods, i.e. countable as biomass units, are only proxies in the assessment of such changes. Furthermore, Systems Ecology can support a re-interpretation of the ecosystem services conceptualization and related applied research, where more emphasis is needed on the underpinning complexity of the ecological system.Peer reviewe

Linking accounts for ecosystem services and benefits to the economy through bridging (LISBETH)

The acronym LISBETH stands for LInking accounts for ecosystem Services and Benefits to the Economy THrough bridging. LISBETH is based on INCA (Integrated system for Natural Capital Accounting) and is meant to facilitate the use of INCA accounts in traditional economic analytical tools. Three practical examples are described and commented on. The first application shows how to combine crop provision accounts with the conventional accounts related to agricultural products and their trade. Combined account presentations are useful for policymakers, not only for technical analytical purposes but also for communicating with a wider non-technical audience. The second application shows how to build consumption-based accounts using multiregional input–output tables; in our example we assess the water purification service embedded in traded crops. Consumption remains in fact the ultimate driver behind production processes. The third application shows how to link ecosystem services accounts to general equilibrium models to assess the economic impacts generated by changes in ecosystem services; in our example we address the impact of invasive alien species on pollination and in turn on pollination-dependent crops and their trade. The three applications provide several insights in terms of their usefulness at different steps of the policy cycle, their feasibility, their technical complexity (and thus the level of skill required) and also in terms of the primary users (from specialised analysts to a non-specialised audience).JRC.D.3-Land Resource

Invasive Alien Species impact on Ecosystem Services

Invasive Alien Species (IAS) represent a major threat to biodiversity in Europe and worldwide, capable of causing significant damages to the ecology, economy and livelihood of recipient countries. Recognising the need for a coordinated set of actions for the prevention, early eradication and management of IAS, the European Parliament and Council adopted the EU Regulation 1143/2014 (hereafter referred as the IAS Regulation; EU, 2014). In this context, the EU Member States (MS) have given priority to a subset of species named as IAS of Union concern in relation to the potential of these species to cause severe damages such to justify the adoption of dedicated measures at European level. The IAS Regulation requires the risk assessment to include a “description of the adverse impact on biodiversity and related ecosystem services” and an “assessment of the potential costs of damage” of IAS in the EU territory. Despite the availability of several methodologies for IAS impact assessment, there is still a dearth of attention and interest on the effects on socio-economic aspects at EU level. An approach for the assessment of socio-economic impacts of IAS is needed to better perceive the potential damages caused by alien species, in support to the IAS Regulation implementation, with particular reference to the enforcement of Art. 5.1 dictating the inclusion of a description of the adverse impact on biodiversity and related ecosystem services (ES) in the species risk assessment. ES can be evaluated and used to estimate the benefits deriving from nature conservation and justify costs of interventions (Maes et al., 2014). We argue that the same approach can be followed to estimate the adverse impact of IAS on our society, in relation to biodiversity loss and services decline. With this report we intend to present a novel approach for the assessment of IAS impact on ES with application in the implementation of the IAS Regulation.JRC.D.2-Water and Marine Resource

Ecosystem services accounting - Part II Pilot accounts for crop and timber provision, global climate regulation and flood control

The Knowledge Innovation Project on an Integrated system of Natural Capital and ecosystem services Accounting (KIP INCA) aims to develop a set of experimental accounts at the EU level, following the United Nations System of Environmental-Economic Accounting - Experimental Ecosystem Accounts (SEEA EEA). The application of the SEEA EEA framework is useful to illustrate ecosystem accounts with clear examples, to further develop the methodology outlined in the United Nations Technical Recommendations, and to give guidance for Natural Capital Accounting. This report assesses and accounts for four ecosystem services (ES): crop provision, timber provision, global climate regulation, and flood control. The methodology applied for the accounts of each ecosystem service depends on the nature of the service and on data availability. Crop provision account is based on official statistics on yield production. Here, we combine yield statistics with a novel approach to disentangle the yield generated by the ecosystem from what is generated by the human inputs (i.e., planting, irrigation, chemical products). Timber provision account follows a similar rationale, but the data to assess the ecosystem contribution is derived from economic aggregates. The global climate regulation account uses carbon sequestration as a proxy. The account is built on the ecosystem CO2 uptake reported in the Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) inventories at country level. Copernicus data (Dry Matter Productivity) have been also used to map CO2 uptake by forest (the only ecosystem type acting across countries and over time, as reported in LULUCF inventories). Maps of CO2 uptake are useful to make comparisons with other ecosystem services in a later stage of the project, in particular to assess synergies and trade-offs. Complementarily, we also provide a thematic account for soil organic carbon based on data from Land Use/Cover Area frame Survey (LUCAS). However, this information is considered as an asset account in physical terms because it quantifies organic carbon stocks into the soil, and not flows. The valuation method used for crop and timber provision is based on market values and for global climate regulation is a proxy of market values. The account of flood control by ecosystems is the only service in this report based on biophysical modelling. Different components of the ecosystem service have been quantified: ES potential, ES demand, actual flow (or service use), and unmet demand. The actual flow, quantified as the hectares of demand benefiting from ecosystems in a given year, is also translated into monetary terms using as valuation technique the avoided damage cost. Results of the accounts at the EU level for the first period assessed (year 2000-2006) show a decrease of the monetary value of the services for crop (-5%) and timber provision (-2%), and a very slight increase for global climate regulation (+0.4%). The account for flood control was not available for the first period because of the lack of data, which is a limiting factor for a regularly updated ecosystem service account. In contrast, for the second period assessed (year 2006-2012), all four service show an increase in their monetary value: +34% for crop provision, +2% for timber provision, and +1.3% for global climate regulation and +1.14% for flood control. The use of spatially explicit models for the account of flood control provides very useful information to understand the drivers of changes in the value of this service. The increase of artificial areas benefiting from ecosystems controlling floods increases the value of flood control by ecosystems; however, its value per unit of economic asset decreases. This, together with an increase of the demand not covered by the ecosystem for artificial areas (i.e., unmet demand), show that there is a negative trend in the role of natural capital covering the need for flood control in these areas. So far, six ecosystem service accounts have been developed: crop and timber provision, crop pollination, global climate regulation, flood control and nature-based recreation. The supply table at the EU level for all these six ecosystem services in 2012 shows woodland and forest as the ecosystem type with the highest absolute (~70 billion euro) and relative values (~44 thousand euro/km2). In absolute terms, cropland appears as the second most important ecosystem given its large extent at the EU level; however, when it comes to relative values (value per square kilometre) cropland is among the ecosystem services with the lowest value. Complementary, the use table shows households, followed by the agriculture sector, as the main beneficiaries of these ecosystem services; receiving an annual monetary flow of about ~62 billion euro and ~25 billion euro, respectively. The experimental accounts shown for these ecosystem services, in a consistent way with the SEEA EEA, are useful to further develop the methodology applied for ecosystem services accounts. We also discuss about the advantaged and disadvantaged of the different data sources and methods used. Future releases of pilot ecosystem services accounts will include water purification, habitat maintenance and soil erosion control. The final integrated assessment will be carried out at the end of the KIP INCA project, when a more comprehensive list of ecosystem services become available. The integration of ecosystem services accounts will be useful to make trade-offs in decision making more transparent, inform efficient use of resources, enhance resilience and sustainability, and avoid unintended negative consequences of policy actions.JRC.D.3-Land Resource