Christoph Schröter-Schlaack

From explanation to application: introducing a practice-oriented ecosystem services evaluation (PRESET) model adapted to the context of landscape planning and management

Abstract The development and use of the conceptual framework of ecosystem services (ES) has been very successful in supporting the broad diffusion and application of ES within science and policy communities. However, most of the currently proposed interpretations of the framework neither correlate to environmental planning nor to decision-making contexts at the local and regional scale, which is a potential reason for the slow adoption and practice of the ES conceptual framework. This paper proposes a practice-oriented ES evaluation (PRESET) model specifically adapted to the requirements of local and regional planning and decision-making contexts, and discusses its potential benefits and implications for practice. Through the usage of PRESET we suggest making a distinction between ‘offered ES’, ‘utilized ES’, ‘human input’, and ‘ES benefits’ as relevant information for decision-making. Furthermore, we consider it important to link these decision-support categories to different value dimensions relevant in planning and management practice. PRESET provides guidance to inject the ES concept into planning, but needs to be implemented together with concrete assessment methods, indicators and data. The planning strategic benefits of using PRESET include its reference to existing legislative objectives, avoiding the risk that monetized ES values might dominate decision-making, clarification of human contributions, and easier identification of land use conflicts and synergies. Examples are given for offered and utilized ES, as well as for respective evaluation approaches and instruments of implementation.

‘Ecosystem service opportunities’: A practice-oriented framework for identifying economic instruments to enhance biodiversity and human livelihoods

Economic instruments that promise “win-win” solutions for both biodiversity conservation and human livelihoods have become increasingly popular over recent years. There however remains a gap in terms of practical and policy-relevant guidance about appropriate approaches that take into account the local needs and the specific cultural, legal, and ecological context in which such instruments are being developed and applied. This paper presents a step-by-step framework that helps conservation and development planners and practitioners to identify economic instruments that can promote pro-conservation behaviour in a specific setting. The concept of ‘ecosystem service opportunities’ builds on, and brings together, general economic principles and an ecosystem services perspective. The framework was designed to also address a number of concerns regarding economic approaches in order to help practitioners recognise the potentials and limits of economic approaches to nature conservation. The framework is illustrated by its application within the realm of a biodiversity conservation project in Thailand.

Reviewing the role of habitat banking and tradable development rights in the conservation policy mix

Habitat banking and tradable development rights (TDR) have gained considerable currency as a way of achieving ‘no net loss’ of biodiversity and of reconciling nature conservation with economic development goals. This paper reviews the use of these instruments for biodiversity conservation and assesses their roles in the policy mix. The two instruments are compared in terms of effectiveness, cost effectiveness, social impact, institutional context and legal requirements. The role in the policy mix is discussed highlighting sequential relationships, as well as complementarities or synergies, redundancy and conflicts with other instruments, such as biodiversity offsets and land-use zoning. Habitat banking and TDR have the potential to contribute to biodiversity conservation objectives and attain cost-effective solutions with positive social impacts on local communities and landowners. They can also help to create a new mind-set more favourable to public-private cooperation in biodiversity conservation. At the same time, these policy instruments face a number of theoretical and implementation challenges, such as additionality and equivalence of offsets, endurance of land-use planning regulations, monitoring of offset performance, or time lags between restoration and resulting conservation benefits. A clear, enforceable regulatory approach is a prerequisite for the success of habitat banking and TDR. In return, these schemes provide powerful incentives for compliance with regulatory norms and ensure a more equitable allocation of the benefits and costs of land-use controls and conservation. Environmentally harmful subsidies in other policy sectors as well as alternative offset options, however, reduce the attractiveness and effectiveness of these instruments. Thus, the overall performance of habitat banking and TDR hinges on how they are integrated into the biodiversity conservation policy mix and fine-tuned with other sectoral policies.

Implementing Nature-Based Solutions in Urban Areas: Financing and Governance Aspects

Fostering nature-based solutions in urban areas is an issue that receives increasing attention on the political agenda. But in many cases, only insufficient financial resources are available for the implementation of such solutions. A central issue in this context is the structure of municipal revenues, which stem from either municipal tax revenue, fees for municipal services, or fiscal transfers from other governmental levels. Many of these revenues are however absorbed by specific tasks, especially social expenditure; thus there is little room left for autonomous investments, e.g. into nature-based solutions and green infrastructure. In this chapter we elaborate on the structure of the problem such as the corresponding fiscal and constitutional restrictions and analyse which solutions are possible to allow for greater investments into multifunctional urban nature-based solutions.

Ökosystembasierte Klimapolitik für Deutschland

Die Leistungen der Natur konnen zur Losung des Klimaproblems beitragen, indem sie gezielt fur den Klimaschutz und die Anpassung an den Klimawandel genutzt werden. Hierdurch lassen sich einerseits kostengunstiger Klimaschutz und andererseits Synergien zwischen Klimapolitik und Naturschutz- und Biodiversitatspolitik erzielen. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden zunachst die Wirkungen der deutschen Energie- und Klimapolitik auf die Biodiversitat und die Okosysteme in Deutschland aufgezeigt. Im Anschluss daran erfolgt eine Untersuchung der Okosystemleistungen naturnaher Landnutzungen fur Klimaschutz und Klimaanpassung. Es zeigt sich, dass im Agrarsektor erhebliche Minderungspotenziale fur Klimaschutz vor allem durch den verringerten Ausstos von Lachgas sowie die Erhaltung von Grunland bestehen. Moore und andere kohlenstoffreiche Boden konnen durch Erhaltung und Wiederherstellung als Kohlenstoffsenken dienen. Auenflachen leisten insbesondere einen Beitrag zum Hochwasserschutz und damit zur Anpassung an den Klimawandel. Die Klimawirkungen in den einzelnen Bereichen werden okonomisch bewertet und Handlungsempfehlungen fur eine okosystembasierte Klimapolitik formuliert.

Soil and land use research in Europe: Lessons learned from INSPIRATION bottom-up strategic research agenda setting

We introduce the INSPIRATION bottom-up approach for the development of a strategic research agenda for spatial planning, land use and soil-sediment-water-system management in Europe. Research and innovation needs were identified by more than 500 European funders, endusers, scientists, policy makers, public administrators and consultants. We report both on the concept and on the implementation of the bottom-up approach, provide a critique of the process and draw key lessons for the development of research agendas in the future. Based on identified strengths and weaknesses we identified as key opportunities and threats 1) a high ranking and attentiveness for the research topics on the political agenda, in press and media or in public awareness, 2) availability of funding for research, 3) the resources available for creating the agenda itself, 4) the role of the sponsor of the agenda development, and 5) the continuity of stakeholder engagement as bases for identification of windows of opportunity, creating ownership for the agenda and facilitating its implementation. Our derived key recommendations are 1) a clear definition of the area for which the agenda is to be developed and for the targeted user, 2) a conceptual model to structure the agenda, 3) making clear the expected roles, tasks, input formats regarding the involvement and communication with the stakeholders and project partners, 4) a sufficient number of iterations and checks of the agenda with stakeholders to insure completeness, relevance and creation of co-ownership for the agenda, and 5) from the beginning prepare the infrastructure for the network to implement the agenda.