Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Sitebased Assessment (TESSA) Jenny Birch, BirdLife International Jenny Birch RESTORE Mineral Sites for Future Benefits Wednesday 4th June 2014, Dortmund, Germany Summary • Overview of TESSA approach / methods • Case study: “Benefits and costs of ecological restoration: Rapid assessment of changing ecosystem service values at a UK wetland” Concept behind TESSA Lack of site-level tools available to non-experts on the ground to collect locallyrelevant data to inform local decision-making Nonexperts Participatory Rapid ? Limited capacity Reliable Objective: “To develop and deploy a rapid assessment tool to understand how far conserving sites for their biodiversity importance also helps to conserve different ecosystem services, relative to a converted state”. Toolkit for Ecosystem Service Site-based Assessments (TESSA) • A collaborative process • 3 workshops in Cambridge with 50+ experts engaged • 30 external reviewers of first draft in 2011 • >20 pilot sites (globally distributed) 2011-2013 • Regular steering committee meetings Inner Firth of Forth (Scotland) Hesketh outmarsh RSPB Middleton lakes (quarry) Wicken Fen / Ouse Fen / Lakenheath Haweswater RSPB Belarus peatlands Mastic forest, Grand Cayman Ecuador paramo wetlands Montserrat tropical forest Coffee plantation Cameroon Cambodia 2 wetland IBAs Kenya and Uganda Burundi Grasslands in Zimbabwe Fiji 3 permanent forest estates 4 Important Bird Areas in Nepal Tropical forest and mining India Malawi Coastal mangroves, Madagascar Vietnam Forest of Hope site How is TESSA different from other tools? media • Primary data collection in most cases with low cost methods • Compares ES benefits from the site compared with a plausible alternative state • Low specialist technical knowledge required (e.g. no GIS or economics degree required but simple excel/maths needed) • Provides tried and tested methods for each service, based on standardised approaches • Relevant to site scale / local decision-making Valuing change An alternative state Agree what the alternative state is through participatory stakeholder engagement An alternative state Locate a physical place that is representative of this alternative state Your site Another site which represents what your alternative state might be Scope Global climate regulation Nature-based recreation (includes tourism) Harvested wild goods Coastal protection (piloting) Water-related services Cultural services (forthcoming) Cultivated goods Pollination services (forthcoming) Carbon stock 1. Calculate above-ground carbon 1. 1. Are data on the stock of saleable timber available? Yes Habitat is grass-dominated, wetland (except forested wetlands) and/or non-woody crop-dominated No 1.2. Are resources for local field surveys available? No 2. Calculate below-ground carbon Use Climate 5 3. Calculate litter and dead wood carbon Use Climate 6 4. Calculate soil carbon Use Climate 7 Yes Use Climate 2 Use Climate 3 Habitat is tree-dominated (including woody cropdominated habitats) and/or forested wetland Use Climate 4 Use data from published sources Use Climate 2 TOTAL CARBON Do people use water from the site for domestic or industrial purposes? Water regulation Use Water M1 No Yes Ignore this section Yes Calculate water use using existing data Do data exist on the amount of water used by people from the site? Use Water M1 & M4.A Use Water M4.A No Use Water Estimate water use using household M4.B surveys Or Use Water World to estimate urban water use from the site where beneficiaries Use are in an urban area Water M4.C WaterWorld http://www.policysupport.org/waterworld Tourism and recreation in the alternative state • Stated preference of visitors to determine their likely behaviour under the alternative state • Nature-based value can be extrapolated from the total spend of the visitors who would not visit the site in the converted state. “Imagine if the state of site had changed [into arable farmland]. Would you still come here?” Key information media • Direct users: practitioners e.g. conservation professionals, project managers, technical field officers and students • Time required for data collection* = 56 person-days (~11wks, or 3months) • Field Cost** = €4,700 * based on data from 27 sites ** based on data from 19 sites Case Study Benefits and costs of ecological restoration: Rapid assessment of changing ecosystem service values at a UK wetland Wicken Fen National Nature Reserve, Cambridgeshire Undrained peat 3-4 metres deep (Old Fen) Farmed arable land. Degraded peats 30-80 cms deep (alternative) Wicken Fen Vision Drained ex-arable land, now re-wetted. Degraded peats 20 -100cms deep (Restoration Land-current) Greenhouse gas emissions • Method: published, peer-reviewed values for GHG flux (CO2, CH4 ,N2O) including emissions from soil, plant and animal sources • Results: cost of emissions from restored site $38 ha-1y-1 cf. arable land $111 ha-1y-1 Nature-based recreation • Method: Direct expenditure by visitors to the site. Questionnaire survey on distance travelled, expenditure and likelihood of visiting restored wetland and arable farmland • Results: 44,813 person-visits y-1 • Annual net economic benefit of restored wetland $810 ha-1y-1 cf. $139ha-1y-1 arable land. Grazing • Method: rental income paid per ha of land used for grazing • Result: annual net benefit from grazing estimated as $120 ha-1y-1. No grazing in the arable land Flood protection • Method: avoided damage to crops and property • Result: 2000ha of land protected by the reserve. Overall damage cost avoided $48 ha-1y-1 Arable production • Method: cropping mix derived from 2008 land use survey and net income derived from Farm Business Survey Database mean net farm income per ha • Results: Total annual net income of the land if used for farming = $526 ha-1y-1. Represents the opportunity cost to farmers. Economic valuation Net monetary benefit of around $95,500 y-1 ($199 ha-1 y-1) from the conversion of 479 ha arable land to restored wetland A comparison of the ecosystem service values and management costs (in US$ ha-1 y-1) of restored wetland and of the same land if returned to arable agriculture Figure taken from Hughes et al. (in review) Restored Arable land Difference Difference wetland ($) (479 ha) ($) (479 ($ha-1 y-1) ($) (479 ha) ha) Service flow ($ yr-1) Flood protection 23,075 0 23,075 48 57,316 0 57,316 120 0 975,643 975,643 2,037 387,920 66,358 321,562 671 18,429 52,964 34,535 72 Management cost ($ yr-1) 89,043 723,731 634,688 1,325 Net annual benefit ($ yr-1) 360,839 265,306 95,533 199 Net annual benefit ($ yr-1 ha-1) 753 554 199 Initial Restoration cost ($) 1,110,907 0 1,110,907 Grazing Arable production Nature-based recreation Disservice flow ($ yr-1) Greenhouse gas emission* 2,319 Distribution of beneficiaries Under restoration there is greater societal benefit, to a much broader range of stakeholders, including many more local (and some distant) visitors, as well as the global community (through reduced greenhouse gas emissions). Most of these benefits do not accrue to the landowner, who (in the absence of related incentives) continues arable production rather than undertake restoration Change in delivery of different services when arable land is restored to wetland, shown for beneficiaries at the local, national and global scale. Positive symbols indicate increases, negative symbols indicate decreases., and number of symbols indicates relative magnitude of change. Figure taken from Hughes et al. (in review) Resources Useful resources TESSA is accessible here: http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/info/estoolkit Publications: • • • Peh et al. (2013) TESSA: A toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance. Ecosystem Services 5, 51-55 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2013.06.003 Birch et al. (2014) What benefits do community forests provide, and to whom? A rapid assessment of ecosystem services from a Himalayan forest, Nepal Ecosystem Services Hughes et al. (in review) Benefits and costs of ecological restoration: Rapid assessment of changing ecosystem service values at a UK wetland Journal of Applied Ecology Acknowledgements: Andrew Balmford, Richard Bradbury, Claire Brown, Stuart Butchart, Ian Burfield, Francine Hughes, Kelvin Peh, Alison Stattersfield, David Thomas, Rosie Trevelyan, Bhaskar Vira, Matt Walpole, and everyone who attended workshops, contributed to the content and provided external reviews.