La influencia de las metas de Aichi en la priorización de la restauración

de ecosistemas en Europa

J. Cortina (jordi@ua.es)

WHICH ACTION IS PRIORITAIRE?

BETTER TO FOCUS ON SMALL OR LARGE INTERVENTIONS?

EUR

OP

E

EU BIODIVERSITY STRATEGY 2020

TARGET 1 Fully implement the Birds and Habitats Directives

TARGET 2 Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services

TARGET 3 Increase the contribution of agriculture and forestry to biodiversity

TARGET 4 Ensure the sustainable use of fisheries resources

TARGET 5 Combat Invasive alien Species

TARGET 6 Step-up action to tackle the global biodiversity crisis

EUR

OP

E

TARGET 2. MAINTAIN AND RESTORE ECOSYSTEMS AND THEIR SERVICES Ecosystems and their services are maintained and enhanced by: • Green infrastructure by end 2012

• Restoring at least 15% of degraded ecosystems. By 2014:

each member state has developed a strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration!

• By 2015: no net loss of ecosystems and their services ‘biodiversity proof’ policy at all levels

EUR

OP

E

ACTION 6a: "By 2014, Member States, with the assistance of the Commission, will develop a strategic framework to set priorities for ecosystem restoration at sub-national, national and EU level".

EUR

OP

E

EUR

OP

E

• What is degraded?

• What is restored?

• Descriptors/threshold values?

• Multiple target ecosystems?

• Why past restoration efforts do not account? (baseline 2010)

• Why transformation within a given level do not account?

• Must prioritization be done at national or European level?

• Does the 15% target apply at a European or national level?

• How will be funded?

• Why not adopting a true landscape aproach?

• Why only Forests, Grasslands, Croplands, Wetlands, Urban?

STILL TOO MANY QUESTIONS EU

RO

PE

1 M$

in stream restoration/road decommissioning

12 to 28 jobs

Moseley and Nielson-Pincus (2009). Ecosystem Workforce Program Briefing Paper #14; winter 2009; Institute for Sustainable Development, Eugene, OR

EUR

OP

E

INNOVATIVE FINANCING INSTRUMENTS

• Potential of private non-profit sources to fund actions under Target 2

• Philanthropic donations by companies from private for-profit sources to fund actions under Target 2

• Public private partnerships and bonds for green infrastructure

• Insurance sector mitigating of environmental risk

• Payments for ecosystem services (PES)

• Tax Relief on capital assets in good environmental management

• Hypothecated tax funds

• Risk-sharing investment structures (first-loss loans, subordinated debt, etc.)

• Pro-biodiversity business (PBB) models - investment funds & funding platforms

• Product labelling and certification

• Bio-Carbon markets

• Biodiversity Offsets and Habitat Banking

EUR

OP

E

Decision making group

Forest expert subgroup

Peatland expert subgroup

Cultural habitats expert

subgroup

Coastal areas, tundra, rocky

outcrops

ECOLOGICALLY VALID IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

AICHI 15% ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION TARGET

Janne S. Kotiaho President of the Finnish Restoration Prioritization Working Group, Ministry of Environment, Finland Professor of Ecology, University of Jyväskylä, Finland Founder and Board of Directors, Peerage of Science @JanneKotiaho

FIN

LAN

D

Landscape area %

Eco

syste

m c

on

dit

ion

0

1

A

C

D

B

Options for restoration

0 100

Kotiaho et al. 2015: Target for ecosystem repair is impractical - Nature 519: 33.

Current condition

15% reduction in

degree of degradation

due to restoration

Current degree

of degradation

FIN

LAN

D

Computational prioritization among ecosystem types

Cost efficiency of restoration measures

Restoration measure portfolio within each ecosystem

Final expert, official and stake holder negotiated prioritization

Hydrological effects

Other ecosystem services

Carbon storage Quantify current ecosystem condition

Quantify the effect of restoration measures on

ecosystem condition

Quantify the costs of restoration

measures

Overall picture of the prioritization of restoration FI

NLA

ND

• Threatened and nearly threatened species, national

• Species in bad or unfavourable status, EU directives

• Threatened and nearly threatened habitats, national

• Habitats in bad and unfavourable status, EU directives

- Species and habitats have different weights

- Threatened habitats > directives habitats > threatened species > directive species

• Habitat area

• Degree of degradation in the habitat

- More degraded habitas have higher weight (greater extinction debt)

• Cost efficiency in ecosystem condition improvement

Components for across ecosystem prioritization

FIN

LAN

D

OBJETIVOS PLAN GENERAL REPOBLACIÓN FORESTAL (1939-1986)

Producción de madera

Control hidrológico, protección del suelo

Forraje

Tierra disponible

Empleo

Lucha contra el maquis

(Pemán et al. 2010; Sierra-Vigil, 2010)

1927

DGB-INIA

1994

ESPA

ÑA

WWF (2009). Bosques españoles. Los bosques que nos quedan y propuestas de WWF para su restauración. www.wwf.es/bosques

15% TARGET = 4.6 ·106 Ha

ESPA

ÑA

Criterio 1: zonas que contribuyen a la reducción de la combustibilidad en zonas de alta peligrosidad de incendios forestales, zonas con prioridad de actuación por necesidad de control del muérdago y zonas con prioridad alta por su contribución a la regulación climática y mitigación de la desertificación (93.749 ha). Criterio 2: zonas que contribuyen a tres o más servicios ambientales de los contemplados en el programa selvícola y zonas que contribuyen a dos servicios y ambos son prioritarios (13.592 ha). Criterio 3: zonas que contribuyen a la prestación de dos servicios y al menos uno de ellos es prioritario (97.928 ha).

CO

MU

NID

AD

VA

LEN

CIA

NA

PATFOR

CASE STUDY

THE BENI BOUFRAH CATCHMENT

MA

RR

UEC

OS

Area 163 km2

Climate Semi-arid

Mediterranean

Rainfall 326 mm

Temperature 18°C

Demographic

density

88 inhabitants/km2

Household

size

6,6

inhabitants/household

STUDY AREA M

AR

RU

ECO

S

MA

RR

UEC

OS

Definition of the data matrix

•Criteria: Ecosystem services

•Alternatives: Landscape units

Data collection

•Sampling

•Data bases exploration

Multicriteria Analysis

• Standardization

• Weighting

• Integrated evaluation

• Sensibility analysis

Pilot project

Participative ecological restoration

Tools for planning ecological restoration in the Region of Valencia (TERECOVA)

Global Change

Cost-benefit analysis

Landscape integration, Biodiversity

Participation

Innovation Planning

Evaluation-certification

DRYLAND RESTORATION

INTEGRATING PEOPLE VALUES AND ASPIRATIONS C

OM

UN

IDA

D V

ALE

NC

IAN

A

INTEGRATING PEOPLE VALUES AND ASPIRATIONS C

OM

UN

IDA

D V

ALE

NC

IAN

A

Ownership

Protection status

Flood risk

Connectivity...

GIS AREA STAKEHOLDER

PLATFORM

CRITERIA IDENTIFIED

WEIGHED CRITERIA

GIS CRITERIA

PRIORITY MAP

IDENTIFICATION-WEIGHT ES

SOCIO-ECO SCENARIOS

RESTORATION SCENARIOS

POTENTIAL ES COST-BENEFIT

ANALYSIS

VALUATION, TRANSFER, DIFFUSION

INTEGRATING PEOPLE VALUES AND ASPIRATIONS C

OM

UN

IDA

D V

ALE

NC

IAN

A

PAR

TIC

IPA

CIÓ

N

INTEGRATING PEOPLE VALUES AND ASPIRATIONS

Preferencias de los grupos de interés del valle de Béni Boufrah (Rif, Marruecos)

STA. TERESA FLOOD 1879

PAR

TIC

IPA

CIÓ

N

M. Balsalobre (P.R. Sierra Espuña)

PAR

TIC

IPA

CIÓ

N

INTEGRATING PEOPLE VALUES AND ASPIRATIONS

Research funded by projects : UNCROACH – Dynamics of woody vegetation in dry and semiarid landscapes under global change. Implications for the provision of ecosystem services (CGL2011-30581-C02-01). TERECOVA – Tools for integrating ecological restoration into land planning in the Region of Valencia (CGL2014-52714-C2-1-R)

SEMER – Optimización de la Provisión de Bienes y Servicios en Paisajes Forestales Degradados de Marruecos Mediante la Restauración Ecológica (AECI AP/040315/11))