implementing ecosystem services within policy settings
DESCRIPTION
Implementing Ecosystem Services Within Policy Settings. Suzie Greenhalgh Royal Society Workshop 9 August, 2011. Biodiversity, ES & Well-being. Ecosystem Services Today. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Implementing Ecosystem Services
Within Policy Settings
Suzie Greenhalgh
Royal Society Workshop9 August, 2011
Biodiversity, ES & Well-being
Ecosystem Services Today
• Thinking in silos can lead to policy development & decisions that improves degraded ES BUT inadvertently damages other services
• Post-MEA focus seems to be around
– Valuing ecosystem services
– Creating markets for ecosystem services
• However, the real value of ES is thinking more holistically about our decisions
What Ecosystem Services Offers Decision-making?
• ES can facilitate integrated & holistic policy development
• It provides a consistent set of ES to consider in decision-making
– More structured framework than considering broad environmental, social, cultural & economic impacts
Incorporating ES into Decisions1. Frame the link between development & ES
2. Assess risks & opportunities
3. Explore future trends
4. Choose policy, planning & reporting approaches to sustain ES
Identify the ES in play
Screen the ES for relevance
Assess the condition & trends of the relevant ES
Identify ES risks & opportunities
Assess the need for an economic valuation of
services
NZ examples of ES into Policy
• DOC: Exploring how to link human well-being to ES to biodiversity
• Regional Council draft policy statements– NRC: What we want to achieve for biod & ecosystems
To recognize the true worth & public benefits arising from biodiversity values & ES to Northland’s social & economic well-being.
– WRC: Decline in state of resources impacts ES
• Objective on ES
The range of ES associated with natural resources are recognized & maintained or enhanced to enable on-going contribution to regional well-being.
Business engagement in ES
• Strengthen corporate strategy– Mondi (international paper & packaging group)
• Reduce risk of reputation & supply disruptions– Yves Rocher (global cosmetics firm)
• Strengthen corporate decision-making processes– Eskom (South African power company)
– ERM Ltd (global environmental consultancy)
– AkzoNobel (paints and coatings company)
• Identify new products & services– Syngenta (global agri-business group)
Corporate Ecosystem Services Review
Outline strategies for minimizing risks & maximizing opportunities through internal changes, sector or stakeholder engagement, policy-maker engagement
5. Develop strategies
Identify & evaluate business risks & opportunities that might arise due to the trends in these priority ecosystem services
4. Identify business risks
& opportunities
Research & evaluate conditions & trends in the priority ecosystem services, & drivers of these trends
3. Analyze trends in priority services
Systematically evaluate the degree of a company’s dependence & impact on 20+ ecosystem services
2. Identify priority
ecosystem services
Choose boundary within which to conduct ESR
1. Select the scope
ES, Modelling & Policy
• Example: Assessing policy in Hurunui/Waiau catchments– Baseline: Current carbon price for all sectors already in ETS (ie. not agriculture)– Current carbon price on all sectors– Higher carbon price on all sectors– Nutrient cap– Nutrient cap with current carbon price on all sectors– Nutrient cap with higher carbon price on all sectors
Scenario
Carbon Price on Ag
GHGs($/tCO2e)
Nitrogen Cap
PhosphorousCap
Baseline None None None
Baseline + current GHG price on ag $12.50 None None
Baseline + higher GHG price $25 None None
Nutrient cap (N & P) None 20% reduction 20% reduction
Nutrient cap (N&P) + current GHG price $12.50 20% reduction 20% reductionNutrient cap (N&P) + higher GHG price $25 20% reduction 20% reduction
Net Catchment Revenue Impacts (% change in farm income)
• All regulation reduces farm income
• Nutrient cap has smaller impact than current ETS carbon price
Catchment-level GHG Impacts(% change in GHG emissions)
• Nutrient cap & ETS reduce GHG emissions
• Nutrient cap reduces total GHG emissions more than current ETS carbon price
• Nutrient cap reduces net GHG emissions more than both ETS carbon prices
Nutrient Impacts (% change in N)
• ETS has a relatively small impact on nitrogen losses
Land-use (% change area)
Policy implications of Modelling
• Highlights benefits of looking more ES– Water quality policy alone can result in significant reduction in
GHG emissions– GHG policy alone not as effective at reducing nutrient losses
• Maybe more than “one way to skin a cat”– Given controversy over capping agricultural GHG emissions, a
water quality policy may give you the desired reductions in GHGs
• Still not sufficient as more ES need to be considered to understand true impact of a decision/policy
A Research Snapshot
• Tools & frameworks– Development of ES decision-making framework
– Economic modelling that incorporates multiple ES
– Policy reference guide
– Framework for choosing between policy instruments
• Implementation– Incorporating ES in regional policy
– Integrating ES thinking with resource consents
– Ecosystem Services Review for business
Implementing Ecosystem Services Within Policy Settings
Key Contacts:
General: [email protected]@landcareresearch.co.nz
Business:[email protected]
Application to Hurunui CatchmentApplication to Hurunui Catchment
• Growing concern over water use & environmental flows in North Canterbury
• Proposed Hurunui Water Project (HWP) would nearly double area of land that can be irrigated (22 to 42 THA):
• Opponents of HWP contest that additional irrigation would harm local ecosystem & impact river-based recreation opportunities
• Regional Council also considering nutrient loading constraints in same catchment as HWP
• Also need to consider implications of covering agriculture under NZ Emissions Trading Scheme in 2015
ES, Modelling & Policy 2• Example: Increased irrigation in Hurunui catchment
– Baseline irrigation with no carbon price– Baseline irrigation with carbon price– Hurunui Water Project with no carbon price– Hurunui Water Project with carbon price– Hurunui Water Project with nutrient cap but no carbon price
Scenario
Maximum Irrigated
Area(‘000 ha)
Carbon Price on Ag
GHGs($/tCO2e)
Nitrogen Cap
PhosphorousCap
Baseline 22 None None None
Baseline + GHG Price of $20/tCO2e 22 $20 None None
Baseline + GHG Price of $40/tCO2e 22 $40 None None
HWP with no GHG Price 41.4 None None None
HWP + GHG Price of $20/tCO2e 41.4 $20 None None
HWP + GHG Price of $40/tCO2e 41.4 $40 None None
HWP + Nitrogen and Phosphorous Leaching Capped at Baseline levels 41.4 None
Baseline Levels
Baseline Levels
Baseline Results
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Hills Plains Foothills
thou
sand
hec
tare
s
Baseline Enterprise Area
DOC
Scrubland
Dryland Other Pasture
Dryland Sheep and Beef
Dryland Dairy
Forest
Irrigated Arable
Irrigated Other Pasture
Irrigated Sheep and Beef
Irrigated Dairy
Net Revenue ($)
Total GHGs (tons)
Net GHGs (tons)
N Leaching (tons)
P Leaching (tons)
$153,191,968 804,148 606,509 1,752 22.5
• Nearly all irrigation in high-production plains area
• Sheep and beef dominant enterprise in Hurunui, with dairy and pine plantations in plains
• Net GHGs lower because of sequestration in native vegetation on scrub and DOC land
Net Catchment Revenue Impacts
-20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10%
BASE_20
BASE_40
IRR
IRR_20
IRR_40
NP+CAP
• Implementing irrigation scheme increases revenue relative to baseline
• Adding carbon price reduces revenue for all scenarios as farmers ‘taxed’ for GHG intensive production
• Capping N and P at baseline levels with irrigation scheme still results in economic gains
Change in Aggregate Enterprise Area
• Implementing irrigation scheme shifts forest and scrub to dairy and arable land– Aggregate area of
Sheep and beef change minimal, but shift does occur from dryland to irrigated
• Adding carbon price promotes expansion of forests as receive payments for carbon sequestration
• Arable crops still viable option for irrigation scheme with carbon price as less GHG intensive-200% -100% 0% 100% 200% 300% 400% 500%
BASE_20
BASE_40
IRR
IRR_20
IRR_40
N+P CAP
Arable
Forest
Dairy
Sheep and Beef
Other Pasture
Scrubland
Catchment-level GHG Impacts
-200% -150% -100% -50% 0% 50% 100%
BASE_20
BASE_40
IRR
IRR_20
IRR_40
NP+CAP
% Chg Net GHG Emissions
% Chg Total GHG Emissions
• Implementing irrigation scheme increases emissions by 19-64% from increased intensity and deforestation
• Adding carbon price reduces emissions below baseline for all scenarios
• Capping N and P at baseline levels results in net GHG emissions as landowners increase area of pine plantations
Breakout of GHGs (tons CO2e)
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
BASE BASE_20 BASE_40 IRR IRR_20 IRR_40 N+P CAP
thou
sand
tCO
2e
Forest C Sequestration
CO2 Electricity
CO2 Fuel
N2O Fertilizer
CH4 Manure Management
N2O Grazing
CH4 Enteric Fermentation
N2O Animal Waste Mgmt Systems
• Proportion of emissions roughly match latest national GHG inventory figures
• Annual forest carbon sequestration in baseline is all from native vegetation as model assumes same proportion of pine cut per annum is re-planted
• Additional forest sequestration in policy scenarios is from new pine or less conversion of scrub to pasture
Nutrient Impacts
-30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% 30%
BASE_20
BASE_40
IRR
IRR_20
IRR_40
NP+CAP% Chg P
% Chg N
• Implementing irrigation scheme increases N by 19% and P by 3% from more intensive land use
• Adding carbon price reduces nutrient loadings, but need close to $40/tCo2e to get near baseline levels for increased irrigation scenarios
Summary• NZ-FARM can estimate economic & some ES impacts
from various policy & land mgt decisions• Hurunui results demonstrates importance of
acknowledging trade-offs– may not be a ‘win-win’ situation when considering expansion of
irrigation along with improvement/preservation of environmental quality
• Model currently tracks water use, nutrients & GHGs but more ES could be added– Considering adding qualitative aspects to model
results/discussion to at least indicate likely directional change of other ES
NZ-FARM – Key ComponentsNZ-FARM – Key Components• Land-use/enterprises:
– Pastoral: dairy, sheep, beef, deer, pigs– Arable: wheat, barley, maize– Horticultural: potatoes, grapes, berryfruit– Forestry: pine, eucalyptus, native– Other: scrub and Dept of Conservation land
• Environmental outputs:– Nutrients: Nitrogen and Phosphorous – Water use– GHGs for farm and forest activities– Exploring water yield, sediments & pollination
• Endogenous farm practices:– Change enterprise or land use– Adjust fertilizer and stocking rates– Add dairy feed pad or apply DCDs– Enter forest carbon sequestration programme
Aligned Activities:Policy Choice Framework
• Freshwater Values, Monitoring & Outcomes Programme• To determine appropriate policy response(s) to an issue• 3 stages:
Stage 1: Primary instrument selection– Clarify cost/benefit justification for govt intervention
Stage 2: Land holder impacts– Landholder responses to policy instrument & its design
Stage 3: Organisational responses– Impact on the organisation implementing proposed policies &
what this means for achieving the policy objective.