Janne S. Kotiaho Chair of the Finnish Restoration Prioritization Working Group, Ministry of Environment, Finland Professor of Ecology, University of Jyväskylä, Finland @JanneKotiaho Mötesplats skyddad natur, Stockholm 29.11.2016 Framework for assessing and reversing ecosystem degradation
25
Embed
Framework for assessing and reversing ecosystem degradation · 2016-12-09 · ecosystems - Current state and state after restoration or any development / land use - Quantify compensation
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Janne S. Kotiaho Chair of the Finnish Restoration Prioritization Working Group,
Ministry of Environment, Finland
Professor of Ecology, University of Jyväskylä, Finland
@JanneKotiaho
Mötesplats skyddad natur, Stockholm
29.11.2016
Framework for assessing and
reversing ecosystem degradation
Background 10.2.2014 Finnish Ministry of Environment established a working
group with two tasks by 31.5.2015:
- Make national restoration prioritization plan to meet the 15% target
- Estimate the costs of the plan
Multistakeholder working group composed of c. 100 experts, officials
and lobbyists for forest industry, conservation and land owners
Where to start?
Q1: From where the 15% needs to be calculated?
A1: From the degree of degradation in every given degraded ecosystem
Q2: How to assess the degree of degradation?
Q3: How to determine cost effective restoration measures to reverse degradation
A2&3: Framework for assessing and reversing ecosystem degradation
Roadmap to the framework and results from Finland
Conceptually sound and operable definition of
degradation and the 15% restoration target - Broad definition of restoration
Overall picture of the prioritization
Quantification of the state of
ecosystems - Current state and state after restoration or any development / land use
- Quantify compensation need for no net loss and land degradation neutrality
Forming restoration measure portfolio within each ecosystem
Ecosystem specific costs of the 15% restoration target
Prioritization among ecosystem types
Cost of the prioritized 15% target with and without accounting for
cost efficiency
From an ecological perspective degradation has
at least two components
Extent of degraded area
Degree of degradation within each location
Ec
os
ys
tem
co
nd
itio
n
Part not degraded
0
1
0 100
Components of degradation
Landscape area in increasing order of
degradation %
Ec
os
ys
tem
co
nd
itio
n
Part not degraded
0
1 Degraded part of the landscape
Target: reduce the degraded part by 15%
0 100
Components of degradation
Landscape area in increasing order of
degradation %
Ec
os
ys
tem
co
nd
itio
n
Current condition
0
1
Condition before degradation Natural state baseline
Current degree of degradation
0
How can we quantify degree of degradation?
100 Landscape area in increasing order of
degradation %
From an ecological perspective also restoration
has at least two components
Extent of restored area
Magnitude of reduction of degradation within each location
Ec
os
ys
tem
co
nd
itio
n
Current condition
0
1
15% reduction in degree of degradation due to restoration
Current degree of degradation
0 100
How can we determine reduction of degradation?
Degree of degradation after restoration
Landscape area in increasing order of
degradation %
Condition before degradation Natural state baseline
NNL = loss due development – gain due compensation = 0
Ec
os
ys
tem
co
nd
itio
n
0
1 Current degree of degradation
DISSENTING OPINION! and a common problem globally
Some parties insisted on taking e.g. 50 yrs ago as a reference i.e. lowering the bar
Current condition
0 100 Landscape area in increasing order of
degradation %
Need of restoration to achieve 15%
Condition before degradation Natural state baseline
So
me
bio
div
ers
ity fe
atu
re
10
14
16
Natural state
baseline
Current state
12
Reference state
50 yrs ago
Target state
Why does it matter?
Natural state baseline vs. an arbitrary reference
18 Degree of degradation?
Kotiaho, ten Brink & Harris 2016. A global baseline for
ecosystem recovery. Nature 532:37
Degree of degradation?
Amount of improvement!
Target state ≠ Natural state baseline
Landscape area in increasing order of
degradation %
Ec
os
ys
tem
co
nd
itio
n
0
1
A
C
B
Options for restoration
0 100
Kotiaho, Kareksela et al. 2015: Target for ecosystem
repair is impractical. Nature 519: 33.
15% reduction of degradation
over entire area of the
degraded landscape
0
1 33% reduction of degradation
over random 45% of the
degraded landscape
Landscape area in increasing order of
degradation %
Ec
os
ys
tem
co
nd
itio
n
0 100
Options for restoration
Kotiaho, Kareksela et al. 2015: Target for ecosystem
repair is impractical. Nature 519: 33.
Implementation in practice?
Heuristic conceptual illustration
Concepts derived in formal mathematical form
Formal form produced to an operational excel template
𝑅𝐻 = 1−𝐿𝑛𝐻(1− 𝑛𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑟 𝑛𝑟𝑒𝑓)
𝑁𝐻
𝑛=1
Define foci
STEP 1. Decide focal ecosystem types and the area of each
STEP 2. Determine degraded components in each ecosystem type
Determine current condition of ecosystems
STEP 3. Determine current and natural state condition of each degraded component
STEP 4. Determine the loss of ecosystem condition from each degraded component