www.ieep.eu@IEEP_eu

Water, wetlands and ecosystem services

Marianne Kettunen & Patrick ten BrinkInstitute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP)

22 January 2015

ESWG Webinar

Picture © Stefan Simis

Wetlands and their ecosystem services

Picture © IEEP M. Kettunen

xxxPicture © 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 rechargewater regulationwater purification

xxxPicture © IEEP Web

Wetlands & other ecosystem services

© photos: www.ramsar.org

Agriculture

Subsistence

Aesthetics

Recreation / Bird watching

Carbon storage

Fisheries

Source: TEEB case by L. Brander & K. Schyut (2010) The economic value of world’s wetlands (benefit transfer) www.teebweb.org

© Photos EEA report

• 1/3 of the 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

Restoration and rehabilitation of 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

• 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 ?

Valuation of water & wetland related ecosystem services

Picture © IEEP M. Kettunen

TEEB approach for valuation (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

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 benefitsof 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

Quantitative

Qualitative

Monetary

Full range of benefits 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 wetlands,

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 Dudley

Source: modified from Kettunen & ten Brink 2013

Picture © Nigel Dudley

• 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)

• Situation: Plans to 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)

• Situation: Vittel natural 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)

Wetland ecosystem services in practice- from big ideas to concrete solutions -

Picture © IEEP M. Kettunen

Ecosystem service stock

(status & trends)

Ecosystem service flow

(status & trends)

Ecosystem servicevalue

(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

ES Stock – Flow – ValueBiodiversity 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

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)

Regulation of water quality (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)

• Situation: The Napa 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)

• Situation: Surface runoff 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)

• Situation: In the 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

• Situation: drainage of 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.htmRestored peatland in Trebeltal 2007

Foto: D. Zak, http://www.fv-berlin.de

Cost savings: climate change mitigation

• Situation: Bet Bet, 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 salinitycredits from other farmers who had achieved higher reductions than thoseestablished in their contracts

© www.surfline.comSource: Connor et al. (2008)

Slide by Daniela Russi

Cost savings: water availability / aquifer recharge

Further informationPicture © 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

www.ieep.eu@IEEP_eu

Picture © Stefan Simis

Marianne Kettunen

Principal Policy Analyst IEEP

mkettunen@ieep.eu

Patrick ten Brink

Senior Fellow / Head of Environmental Economics IEEP

ptenbrink@ieep.eu

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