eija Pouta, heini Ahtiainen, Janne Artell and tuija Lankia
At present, scientific studies do not offer value estimates for the various ecosystem services and changes in their provision. One approach to obtain information on the relative importance of various ecosystem services or information on priorities for ecosystem management alternatives are work-shops eliciting expert and stakeholder opinions (e.g. Milcu et al. 2013). Here, with information ob-tained from an expert workshop, we aim to identify those ecosystem services that are affected either negatively or positively by environmental changes, and measure the expert opinion on the strength of the effect of the environmental changes on eco-system services. The experts were also asked to allocate public funds to secure ecosystem services affected by environmental changes and thus to in-dicate the importance of ecosystem services. The information collected in the workshop can also be used to identify the most important topics for fu-ture valuation studies.
TEEB for Finland workshop of 27 experts and stakeholders was organized on 18th March 2014.
The experts and stakeholders represented research organizations, environmental and natural resource administration, extension organizations, natural resources related firms and interest groups. Before the workshop, we identified the environmental changes that are considered most severe at present (Putkuri et al. 2013). These environmental changes can also be assumed to threaten ecosystem services and thus they are potential targets for public pol-icies aiming to prevent loss in ecosystem servic-es. The environmental changes that were selected were climate change, land use changes, nutrient leaching to surface waters (later eutrophication) and the use of chemical and other harmful sub-stances (later chemicalization). In the workshop, the experts stated their perceptions of the direc-tion and strength by which each environmental change would affect the ecosystem services. The presentation of the ecosystem services was based on the CICES classification. The participants were asked “How strongly and in which direction do you think environmental changes will affect the following ecosystem services in Finland within the next 30 years?”
70 The Finnish Environment 1en | 2015
The next question provided information on how the experts would allocate public funds between a set of ecosystem services under environmental changes. These results can also be interpreted as information on the relative value the experts and stakeholders place on these services and the en-vironmental changes affecting them. Participants were shown the previously identified nine ecosys-tem services that were considered to be deteriorat-ing the most due to environmental changes. They were asked the following question: “How should the input to support the ecosystem services be al-located, if you think about the welfare effects of ecosystem services for people?” The experts were asked to allocate 100 points to the environmental change – ecosystems service pairs. The means of the allocations that ranged from 0 to 100 points are presented in Table 5.6.1.
The results showed that the experts emphasized the importance of supporting the quality of water ecosystems, as on average over half of the inputs were allocated to water ecosystem services. 27% of the total inputs were directed towards two effects of eutrophication: the maintenance of the chemical conditions of waters and the recreational use of na-ture. Two other climate change effects were related to water ecosystems, i.e. supporting the hydrolog-ical cycles and erosion control, comprising 22% of the total available input to support ecosystem ser-vices. Furthermore, the effect of chemicalization on water ecosystems ability to maintain water condi-tions received 12% of the allocated input.
The most positive effects of environmental changes were related to provisioning services.
Climate change in particular was considered to have a positive impact on food, wood and fiber and bioenergy production. Land use changes and eutrophication were also considered to support bi-oenergy production.
The most negative effects of environmental changes on ecosystem services were targeted at regulating and cultural services. Land use changes and chemicalization were seen as decreasing the supply of ecosystem services in general. However, the effects of climate change were the most widely dispersed, involving both the most negative and the most positive estimates. Climate change was perceived as having a negative effect especially on hydrological cycles and flood protection, global climate regulation, pest and disease control and control of erosion. Land use changes were con-sidered to have a negative effect particularly on the recreational use of nature and maintenance of populations, habitats and gene pool protection. Eu-trophication of waters was perceived as decreasing the ecosystems’ ability to maintain the chemical condition of waters and also as reducing the pos-sibilities for recreation in nature. Chemicalization of the environment was professed as disturbing the ecosystems’ ability to maintain the chemical conditions of waters.
table 5.6.1. expert allocation of 100 points to support ecosystem services undergoing environmental changes.
environmental change – ecosystem service pairs Average of allocated input (scale 0-100) eutrophication: ability to maintain the chemical condition of waters
Climate change: global climate regulation
Land use change: maintenance of populations, habitats and gene pool protection Climate change: hydrological cycles and flood protection
Chemicalization: ability to maintain the chemical conditions of water Land use change: recreational use of nature
Climate change: pest and disease control eutrophication: recreational use of nature Climate change: control of erosion
1814 1413 1212 129 9
The effect of land use changes on the mainte-nance of biodiversity and recreation received 26%
of the input to support ecosystem services overall.
Although regulating services are intermediate and do not provide final benefits to people, they were emphasized in the allocation. Preventing the ef-fects of climate change on regulating services in particular collected a high level of support. Of the total input, 48% was allocated to regulating servic-es controlling global climate, hydrological cyclservic-es and floods, pests and diseases, and erosion.
Previous valuation studies have shown that the recreation benefits of reducing eutrophication (one-meter increase in sight depth) were valued at around €30.6–92.4 million in Finland (Vesterinen et al. 2010). This provides a benchmark of the magni-tude of the benefits of reducing the harmful effects of environmental changes. As shown in Table 5.6.1, several other environmental threats were of great-er importance than the eutrophication effects on recreation in stakeholder and expert judgments.
However, a majority of these regulating ecosystem services that were evaluated as highly important by experts and stakeholders were intermediate ser-vices. As intermediate services do not affect human well-being directly, it is important to identify their contribution to the provision of final ecosystem services and thus benefits. Although the discus-sions in the workshop revealed some difficulties in stakeholders’ and experts’ understanding of regu-lating services for, the results still emphasized the need to take regulating services into account more rigorously in the valuation of ecosystem services.
72 The Finnish Environment 1en | 2015
YhA-Kuvapankki / milla Popova
6 Ecosystem services in society and policy
In Finland there are already numerous regula-tory instruments including direct regulations (e.g.
species and habitats protection instruments in the Nature Conservation Act (1096/1996)), economic instruments (e.g. the METSO-programme for for-estry) and planning instruments (e.g. land use plan-ning and water management plans), introduced to steer economic and other actors in protecting biological diversity and environment. All of these are relevant for securing provisioning of ecosystem services as well. However, most of these regula-tions were not introduced with ecosystem services in mind, and thus they may either fail to take into account knowledge of ecosystem services or act as actual barriers for their consideration. Thus it is important that the present regulation models are carefully re-evaluated. (Ruhl & Salzman 2007)
On one hand, the situation can be improved to some extent without major legislative changes through providing information on how ecosystem services can be taken into consideration within the framework of existing regulations on decision-mak-ing. Effective implementation of existing environ-mental regulations is also often considered impor-tant in this regard (Mertens et al. 2012). On the other hand, some changes to regulations may be need-ed in order to remove barriers. Furthermore, new instruments that integrate the value of ecosystem services into economic system could be introduced.
Below, the aspects that are important in assess-ing and developassess-ing regulatory frameworks for in-tegrating ecosystem services into decision-making are discussed. Based on these aspects remarks are made on the current regulatory system. The aim is not to carry out a thorough review of the very comprehensive set of regulations that currently ap-ply, but rather to highlight some possibilities and limitations of the current regulatory frameworks based on previous research (see especially Similä et al. forthcoming, Borgström & Kistenkas 2014, Borgström, forthcoming). In addition to this, needs for developing the knowledge systems providing content for decision-making will be discussed.
eCosYstem serviCes As PArt of A Green eConomY AnD sUstAinABLe DeCision-mAKinG
6.1