Date post: | 27-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | nicole-bowman |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 1 times |
A future task in good hands
Benefits for man, climate and nature: peatland restoration and
ecologically sound flood prevention
Dr. Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft
German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation
Unit I 2.1: Legal Affairs, Economics and Ecologically Sound Regional Development
Email: [email protected]
Our Idea
…we wanted to
show the benefits (ecosystem services) of nature and nature conservation
not only in qualitative and physical terms
but also in monetary terms
Encouraged by the TEEB-Study (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity)
8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN
Our basis assumption (that was to be proved)
Regulating and cultural services are very often correlated with high biodiversity
Monetary value of ecosystem services can serve as an
additional (economic) argument for the conservation
and restoration of high-nature-value ecosystems
(e.g. ● C-sequestration by peatlands,
● mitigation of CO2 emissions by peatland restoration,
● flood-protection and water purification by natural flood plains)
8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN
Case-Study: Regaining natural flood plains by dike
shifting
Cost-benefit-analysis of measures at the river Elbe Source: Grossmann et al. 2010
486
177
926
Present Value
in Mio €Willingness to pay for the effects of regained flood plains on biodiversity and recreation
Flood damage reduction (very conservative estimate)
Value of additional nutrient retention / decomposition estimated by (saved) expenses for aquivalent measures to reduce nutrient load
Cost-benefit-ratio including ESS and willingness to pay for biodiversity:
1 / 3
8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN
Case study: Mitigation of climate gas emissions and
carbon sequestration by peatland restoration
rewetted grassland with elder afforestation
intensively used meadows and pastures on peat soil
Emission:24 t CO2 per ha/a
Sequestration: 1 t CO2 per ha/a
ESS = Mitigation of 25 t CO2 per ha/a
Valued with alternative costs for CO2 mitigation by wind power (40 € per t CO2)Value of ESS = 25 • 40 € = 1000 € per ha/a
Valued with avoided damage costs (70 € per t CO2):Value of ESS = 25 • 70 € = 1750 € per ha/a
Mitigation costs per t CO2:
0 – 4 €
Value for greenhouse gas
mitigation of 30,000 ha peatland
restoration in the state „Mecklenburg
Vorpommern“: 30 Mio. € per year (avoided damage
costs)
Source: Schäfer 2007, 2009
8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN
Case study:Ecosystem services of high-nature-value
grassland (meadows and pastures )
Data basis:
Representative sample of high-nature-value (HNV) grassland; estimated area of HNV-grassland in Germany: 1.062.322 ha = 2,8% of total land cover
Value of ecosystem services of HNV-grassland compared with conversion to cropland
● Production: reduced market returns minus production costs:
● Carbon sequestration, climate-gas-mitigation damage cost approach (70 € / t C02, +- Stern-Report)
● Groundwater purification compensation payments for reduced fertilizer input on cropland:
● Nature conservation downscaling of germanwide willingness to pay for nature-conservation measures on a simple ha basis:
0 – - 400 €/ha/a
160 €/ha/a
70 €/ha/a
1000 €/ha/a
Preliminary
findings,
all figures
to be
confirmed
8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN
830 - 1230 €/ha/a
Monetary calculation – limits and advantages –
Only a few ESS can be estimated for different ecosystems relative easily (e.g.: carbon sequestration, existence values for species habitats)
Other ESS are extremely hard to quantify because they depend heavily on local physical and social conditions (e.g.: flood mitigation)
Some monetary values of ESS can be heavily dependent on assumptions on discount rates (e.g. flood mitigation, climate gas mitigation)
But:
Often evaluating only a few aspects of the overall figure is enough to show that nature conservation counts even economically
8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN
Recommendations
8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN
Many kinds of projects that offer the chance to combine nature conservation with other targets, like
● climate gas mitigation and adaption to climate change, ● renewable energy, ● clean water supply● regional development,
are planned on a local or regional level
National policy should provide regions with
best practice examples
methods to assess economic benefits
funds to pay for supra-regional benefits like climate-gas-mitigation, downstream flood prevention or improved water supply
A future task in good hands
Many thanks for your kind attention
Dr. Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft
Unit I 2.1: Legal Affairs, Economics and Ecologically Sound Regional Development
Additional informations
The idea of monetary evaluation of ecosystem services (ESS)
applying cost-benefit-analysis helps to value gains in provisioning services against losses in regulating or cultural services (or the other way round) and thus helps to find decisions that are most beneficial for society regarding more than one aspect / especially conflicting aims
Cost-benefit-analysis is an instrument of welfare economics
Often there is a conflict between provisioning services (e.g. food production, biomass for use in energy-production) and cultural or regulating services (e.g. flood-protection, groundwater-protection, recreational use)
(All) Costs and benefits are made comparable and valued in monetary terms:
A ratio „benefit / costs“ that exceeds „1/1“ means: this project has positive effects on welfare.
8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN
An additional ongoing study: Cost-benefit-analysis of land use-
scenarios for Germany
Land use scenarios:
Status Quo Intensified land use for food and energy-biomass production
Reaching the goals of the national biodiversity strategy
focus on synergies between nature-conservation and climate gas mitigation
Costs and benefits:
Production
Restoration and management
Nature Conservation
Recreation
Climate-gas mitigation
Other ecosystem services
monetary valuation: differences between prices and prod.costs
monetary valuation: restoration and management costs
monetary valuation on the basis of revealed preferences for nature-related day trips (demand curve estimation on the relation between costs, frequency of trips and landscape features of the destination)
monetary valuation on the basis of choice analysis for willingness to pay for different nature-conservation programmes
partly monetary / partly semi-quantitative ++ + o – – –
semi-quantitative ++ + o – – –
8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN
Management actionsalong the Elbe:
500
Hamburg
Magdeburg
Leipzig
Dresden
Neu Darchau
Wittenberge
Havelberg
Tangermünde
Barby Wittenberg
Torgau
Dessau
400
300
200
Havel
Aland
Saale
MuldeN
10 km
100
S a x o n y -
A n h a l t
Brandenburg
S a x o n y
Morphological inundation area
Active inundation area
200 German Elbe-River KilometreBorder of the Biosphere Reserve
Sandau
Rogätz
Locations for potential dike shifting
● Dike shifting in order to regain up to 15,000 ha of flood plains
● Extensification of agriculture on new and existing flood plains (up to 40,000 ha)
Details: Dyke shifting along the river Elbe
Retentionsflächen
Siedlungen
aktive Aue
ehemaliger Überflutungsraum
0 25 5012,5 Kilometers
situation of flood plains:
proposed
historicalactually active
settlements
Source: Dehnhardt, Bräuer, 2007; Hartje, Grossmann, Meyerhoff, 2010)
0 25 50 75 1000
1000
2000
3000
Tage
Abf
luss
(m
3 s
-1)
50-JAHR EREIGNIS100-JAHR EREIGNIS200-JAHR EREIGNIS
0 500 1000 15000
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 100 200 300 400 5000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Elbe km
Beitrag der Nebenflüsse
Ist Zustand (100 Jahr Hochwasserereignis)
Beispiel mit Maβnahmen
Max
imal
er
Ab
fluss
m3s-1
0 100 200 300 400 5000
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
Elbe km
Beitrag der Nebenflüsse
Ist Zustand (100 Jahr Hochwasserereignis)
Beispiel mit Maβnahmen
Max
imal
er
Ab
fluss
m3s-1
140 150 160 170 180 190
75
80
85
Elbe km
Wasserstand HQ200 (m NN)
Deichkronenhöhe (m NN)
140 150 160 170 180 190
75
80
85
Elbe km
Wasserstand HQ200 (m NN)
Deichkronenhöhe (m NN)
2. Flood-routing model for the river
3. Inundation model / flooding model for areas behind the dykes
1. Statistical model of flood water incidents
wat
er l
evel
in
th
e
stre
am
(m N
N)
contribution of side rivers
flooding volume in areas behind the dyke in million m3
wat
er l
evel
in
are
as
beh
ind
th
e d
yke
(m
NN
)
heigt of surface area (m above NN)
flooding heigt above surface (m)
Details: Elbe – models applied for estimation
max
imu
m d
isch
arg
e /
wat
er r
un
-off
(m
3s-1
)
dis
ch
arg
e /
wat
er r
un
-off
(m
3s-1
)
stream km
stream km
days per year
current situationwith proposed measures
dyke height
water level
flooding
average occurrence:every 50 yearsevery 100 yearsevery 200 years
Source: Hartje, Grossmann, 2010
0
100
200
300
400
Siedlun
g dic
ht
Siedlun
g loc
ker
Indu
strie
Verke
hr
Acker
land
Grünla
ndW
ald
Sonst
iges
Infra
struk
tur
Sp
ezi
fis
ch
e V
erm
ög
en
sw
ert
e [
€/m
²]
_bau _aus _ert
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 1 2 3 4
Überflutungshöhe in mS
chad
en i
n %
des
sp
ezif
isch
en V
erm
ög
enw
erte
s
Details: Elbe – models applied
4. property damage model
Land use
lan
d u
se s
pec
ific
p
rop
ert
y v
alu
es (
€ /
m2
se
ttle
me
nt
de
ns
es
ett
lem
en
t s
pa
rse
ind
us
ty
tra
ns
po
rt
ara
ble
la
nd
me
ad
ow
s /
pa
stu
res
fore
sts
oth
ers
infa
str
uc
ture
flooding heigt above surface (m)d
amag
e in
% o
f p
rop
ert
y v
alu
e
average property value
damage function
Source: Hartje, Grossmann, 2010
(Large) River System
pro
ble
mm
od
el
de
nit
rifi
cat
ion
pro
ces
ses
Non-point N-Imission point N-Imission
StreamFloodplain
Influence of dike shifting on the structure of the
river
Influence of dike shifting on the structure of the
river
Lower runnig
velocity
Lower runnig
velocity
Increase in flooded area
Increase in flooded area
Increase in flooded area
Increase in flooded area
Model: Behrendt & Opitz (2000)
Model: Behrendt & Opitz (2000)
Inundation dynamic & morphology (site-specific) effective flooded area
Inundation dynamic & morphology (site-specific) effective flooded area
Rates of Denitrification (Literature)
Rates of Denitrification (Literature)
Floodplain
Details: Elbe – models applied
denitrificationSource: Dehnhardt, Bräuer, 2007
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
342
394
458
557
648
811
1.06
91.
377
1.70
42.
290
3.09
63.
895
discharge Q [m3/s]
ann
ual
flo
od
ing
[d
ays/
year
]
0
200
400
600
800
1.000
1.200
1.400
1.600
1.800
2.000
2.200
flo
od
ed a
rea
[ha]
flooded days Rogätz - actual state
Rogätz - after dyke relocation Sandau - actual state
Sandau - after dyke relocation
Details: Elbe – flooded area with and without at Rogätz and Sandau
8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
discharge Q [m3/s]
an
nu
al
flo
od
ing
[d
/a]
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
nit
rog
en
rete
nti
on
[t/
a]
flooded days Sandau - after dyke relocation Rogätz - after dyke relocation
Annual nitrogen retention for relocation sites Sandau & Rogätz – depending on the annual inundation days and the specific dischargeHigh variability of the effects difficult to scale up for the 15,000 ha in total
Details: Elbe – denitrification at Sandau and Rogätz – problems for
benefit transfer
8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN
Details: greenhose gas emissions / carbon sequestration of peatlands
Relationship between greenhouse gas emissions, average groundwater level and land use
average groundwater level (cm)
gre
enh
ose
gas
em
issi
on
s observed
average
conventional agricultue
low input grazing systems
meadows – nature conservation orientated
reed use
elder forests8th European Week of Regions and Cites, Brussels 4 – 7 October 2010, Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft, BfN
99 – 123
98
51
14
5 - 15
10
7
Biotope and species conservation / Avoiding bio-diversity loss in Germany (1990 currently updated)
15% of the Area of the country Schleswig-Holstein for nature conservation
Species Conservation in the region of Kraichgau and AllgäuProgramme for ecogically sound management of meadows and others measures for nature con-servation in the community of Erlbach / Vogtland
Conserving the butterfly “Heller Ameisenbläuling” on 64 ha meadows in the community of Landau / Pfalz
Ecologic forest management in the regions Solling and Harz
Conservation of biological diversity by ecological upgrading of the floodplains of Rhine (Elbe, Weser)
General aims / programmes covering Germany or greater parts of it
Special aims / programmes covering smaller areas
Willingness to pay in€ per household and
year:
Details: Willingness to pay for nature conservation in Germany
Literature
Grossmann, M.; Hartje, V. und Meyerhoff, J. (2010): Ökonomische Bewertung naturverträglicher Hochwasservorsorge an der Elbe. Naturschutz und Biologische Vielfalt, Heft 89, Bundesamt für Naturschutz, Bonn.
Schäfer, A. (2009): Moore und Euros. Die vergessenen Millionen. Archiv für Forstwesen und Landschaftsökologie, Bd. 43, Heft 4, S. 156-160
Barthelmes, A.; Joosten, H.; Kaffke, A.; Koska, I.; Schäfer, A.; Schröder, J. und Succow, M. (2005): Erlenaufforstung auf wiedervernässten Niedermooren. Institut für dauerhaft umweltgerechte Entwicklung von Landschaften der Erde. 68 S., Greifswald.
Dehnhardt, A. (2002): Der ökonomische Wert der Elbe als Nährstoffsenke: Die indirekte Bewertung ökologischer Leistungen. In: Dehnhardt, A. & Meyerhoff, J. (Hrsg.): Nachhaltige Entwicklung der Stromlandschaft Elbe. Nutzen und Kosten der Wiedergewinnung und Renaturierung von Überschwemmungsauen. Vauk: Kiel.