Ecosystems: Management Implications

Ecology Centre, University of Kiel Normative System-analytical Arguments: Arguments: Risk Minimization and Thermodynamics, Ecological Gradient Principle and Integrity Orientor Theory

Maturity Minor Indicators Ecological Orientors of the Risk as Capacity Indicators Major for Self- Ecological Organization Risk Pioneer Stage

Landuse- Natural Intensity (primary) Sucession

Use of ecosystem services causing environmental impacts

Environmental risk

Human needs Natural processes and activities and components

Use of ecosystems and consequent environmental impacts

Ecosystem Integrity Societal Drivers based upon self-organising capacity use of ecosystem services

Societal evaluation of ecosystem services and environmental risks: Interpretation of the Precautionary Principle (Management Responses)

Simple model of man & biosphere interactions , after de Groot (1992), slightly modified Zukunft Küste – Coastal Futures Das Ziel: Integration durch Verknüpfung

durch

Orientierung Zusammenarbeit

Naturwissenschaften Sozialwissenschaften Wirtschaft

Regionale Akteure Wissenschaftler Verwaltung

Region Land Bund EU

Global Markets Strong EU Green Regions

Free, unregulated Strong political leadership. Priority: environment, world markets. Regulated economy self-regulation. Priority: towards sustainability. Strong sustainability. economic growth. People: People: People: mid-term planners, long-term planners, short-term planners, risk averse to some degree. absolutely risk averse. no risk aversion.

EUROCAT

User specific perspectives

Offshore windparks Marine protection

Fishery

Disaster control

Shipping

The Core of ICZM: Interactions

Mariculture Employ- Windpower Benthos ment Risk of ship Industry Fish accidents Harbour Development Ecosystem Public Accep- Socio-Economic Birds tance System Visual Impact Marine Mammals Tourism Local Income Fisheries

Zukunft Küste – Coastal Futures

Scaling

Sea use • Southern Northsea ... Official data on planning • Windparks ... recent R&D results • Power-plant ... Available modelling results ... Own modelling activities ...

Welche Veränderungen betrachtet CF? Individuenbezogene Reaktionspotentiale

140 x ] B d [

n e g ö m r e v r ö H x x x 40 x Exergie-Aufnahme 120 1 Frequenz [kHz] 160 100 Exergie-Aufnahme 80 120 Stoffverluste 60 Stoffkreisläufe 100 40 80 20 Stoffverluste 60 Stoffkreisläufe 0 40 20 0 biotische Diversität Speicherkapazität Chlorophyll-a

biotische Diversität Speicherkapazität

(nicht aus ERSEM) Heterogenität

Bauphase Referenzwerte Heterogenität

Bauphase Referenzwerte Analysis of specific processes Analysis of indirect effects

Windpark Sandbank 24

B1=Standard+0.216 [mg m-3]

Wake effects

U U 1 2

Single turbine Wind

Wind speed M. Christiansen map from & C. Hasager ERS-2 data

Helgoland

240 Figure 4.2.2: p 240 in S (3) Figure 4.2.1: pi in S (0) i

Drivers, Pressures Coast Riverine input Nitrogen Pressures & Phosphorus Scenarios Silicate, Sediment Matter exchange with Greater North Sea ... Atmospheric input Societal Drivers … Extraction of sand and clay Food demand … 100 Loss or conversion of coastal habitats … EU leadership Urbanisation Fisheries 50 … Shipping and Ports … 0 Oil and Gas Nature Energy demand ... Conservation Offshore Windfarms ... Industry & Mobility & Waste Disposal … Housing Transport Recreation and Tourism ... Global Markets Strong EU Green Regions

Reference

Possible reference values: maximum value, average value, recent or former situation, wanted situation, expected situation, scenario situation, etc.

Recent situation: social State

100 k.A. > 100 Überangebot < 100 Unterangebot

Energy-szenario

Ausgangssituation Energieszenario

Green scenario

Ausgangssituation Naturraumszenario

The Background: Values and Perceptio ns of Society

World views, values and perceptions of society:

Define risk aversion of society

Different interpretation of policy targets and yardsticks

Policy and Management strategies

Zukunft Küste – Coastal Futures EUROCAT

Use of Scenarios in EUROCAT

Uncertainty about the Future

Revised Policy Mix Soil s e i t s i e v i i t t e r r

River c e e

a Working

h Targeted Economic p p c o S s with nature i Policies Instruments r o t p m

a m t o k A n

Estuary e o h c o e l

- l a d i c e s r y

Coast I

Different interpretations of the n h o i p p c o

Precautionary Principle (scenario u i o t S B dependent) s

Coastal response Green Strong Global Markets Regions EU

Modified after Colijn et al. (2002)

Measures for Reducing Nutrient Emissions

BAU Catchment Description Measures Elbe present levels (same as in 2000) are maintained no additional measures Humber present levels (1993-2001) are maintained until 2025 300 ha due to realignment Rhine present levels (same as in 2000) are maintained no additional measures PT Catchment Description Measures Reduction of inputs from the catchment (point and diff. Sources), Farm measures, WWTP update,tile drainage Elbe implementation of the Nitrate Directive (good agr. Practice) reduction up to 10% of arable land Reduction of inputs from the catchment, 20% reduction from point 20% reduction of riverine loads (point sources sources along the tidal reaches/estuary (implementation of the Urban Humber + Nitrate Directive implementation), Waste Water Directive), 75% of the area designated as Nitrate realignment area of 1321 ha Vulnerable area, management realignment Reduction of inputs from the catchment (point and diff. Sources), Farm measures, WWTP update,tile drainage Rhine implementation of the Nitrate Directive (good agr. Practice) reduction up to 10% of arable land DG Catchment Description Measures Farm measures, WWTP update, tile drainage Elbe Over-compliance with Environmental Directives and standards reduction up to 20% of arable land Reduction of inputs from the catchment, 50% reduction from point sources along the tidal reaches/estuary (implementaion of the Urban 50% red in point sources + Nitrate Directive Humber Waste Water Directive), 75% of the area designated as Nitrate implementation, realignment area of 7400 ha Vulnerable area, management realignment Farm measures, WWTP update, tile drainage Rhine Over-compliance with Environmental Directives and standards reduction up to 20% of arable land Sources: Cave et al., 2003 (Humber); Lise et al., 2003, 2004 (Rhine and Elbe) Karfeld in preparation (Elbe)

Reduction scenarios

Reference 1985 Humber: N 8%, P 37%

U Rhine: N 38%, P 51% A

B Elbe: N 35%, P 48%

Humber: N 19%, P 41% T

P Rhine/Elbe: N 50%, P 65%

Humber Humber: N 27%, P 42%

Source: Behrendt 2004 G Rhine/Elbe: N 70%, P 75% D Primärproduktion Landwirtschaft / Fischerei 100 100 Siedlungs - EU - Politik 50 50 entwicklung Nährstoffverluste Trophische Effizienz 0 0 Natur - Energiebedarf schutz Speicherung Artenvielfalt

Verkehr & Tourismus Transport Ref=100

1 2 3 4 9 4 9 5 9 6 9 7 COCOA Setup

6 0 o N 2 3 2 4 5 6 7 8 1 1 6 1 1 7 9 8 9 9 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 5 2 6 1 4 1 0 7 1 3 2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0 9 1 0 1 1 1 0 6 138 boxes in total 1 1 8 1 1 9 1 2 0 1 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 4 5 8 o N 3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 0 5 3 5 3 6 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 2 5 1 2 6 1 0 8 1 0 9 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 7 3 8 3 9 93 surface plus 1 2 7 1 2 8 1 2 9 coastal boxes 4 0 4 1 4 2 2 0 2 1 2 2 4 3 4 4 o 5 6 N 1 3 0 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 5 1 3 3 4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8 1 3 4 5 9 45 lower boxes 4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8 1 3 5 1 3 6 1 3 7 1 3 8 6 0 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9 5 4 o N 7 0 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8

7 9 8 0 8 1 8 2 8 3 Elbe Box = 77, 78, 68, 69,

8 4 8 5 8 6 8 7 58, 59

5 2 o N 8 9 9 0 9 1 8 8 9 2 9 3 Rhine Box = 91, 87, 83

Humber Box =70 5 0 o N 3 o W 0 o 3 o E 6 o E 9 o E 1 2 o E

Box 68 78 Model Field Model Field Mean winter DIN concen. 31.1 36.5 135.9 139.2 (mmol N m-3)

Mean winter DIP concen. 1.2 0.9 3.6 2.5 (mmol P m-3)

Mean winter DIN / DIP 26.2 40.4 39.3 50.8 ratio

Mean winter DIN / Si 9.5 10.3 1.6 2.3 ratio

ERSEM Validation

DIP (m mol P m-3)

CHL-a (mg Chl-a m-3)

Time series of Diatoms and Flagellates for box 78 (Elbe) for the standard scenario

Diatomeen (mg C m-3) Flagellaten (mg C m-3)

Pristine= pink BAU= red 1995= black PT= blue DG= green

Source: Lenhard, 2003

300

250 1995=100 200 80% 150 70% 60% 100 North Sea circulation patterns Pristine=10% 50

0 South NS Hum ber Box Rhine Box Elbe Box NS NS

Net primary production (g C m-2 a-1)

Monthly mean tracer concentration (mmol m-3). A point source near the Rhine outflow is responsible for the horizontal gradients. Horizontal distribution of net primary production simulated by ERSEM for the year 1995 in g C m-2 y-1.

Self-organsing Capacity Processes ERSEM indicators

Capability of enhancing the use of incoming energy Indicated by: Export of matter and primary production, light supply, energy (especially of scarce nutrients). Exergy Capture Indicated by: external nutrient load, matter losses into Nutrient availability adjacent ecosystems Ind. Net primary production (offshore) Matter Losses Ind. Nutrient losses into adj. ERSEM Boxes (org + Minimisation in.) Cycling Of energy and matter through the trophic structure Indicated by: trophic Heterogenity structure, turnover of w. Storage nutrients Of structures (both biotic and abiotic Capacity Ind. Turnover of winter patterns) is essential for resilience nutrients and adaptive capacity Indicated by: species composition, spatial sediment distrbution Ind. Diatom/nonDiatom ratio Of energy, nutrients and toxic compounds Indicated by: Particular Organic Matter Sediment (amount & quality) Ind. Sedime nt in/output Elbe

Exergy 100 50 Pristine Mini. Losses 0 Cycling BAU= 80% -50 Policy Target= 70% Deep Green= 60% Ref. 1995=0 Heterogeneity Storage

Costs (M Costs (M Measures Euros) Euros) Minimum Maximum present levels (same as in 2000) are Elbe BAU no additional measures 399 maintained Reduction of inputs from the catchment (point and diff. Sources), implementation Farm measures, WWTP update,tile drainage ElbePT 806,7 1804,5 of the Nitrate Directive (good agr. reduction up to 10% of arable land Practice) Over-compliance with Environmental Farm measures, WWTP update, tile drainage Elbe DG 1664,9 5935,7 Directives and standards reduction up to 20% of arable land Sou rces: Cave et al., 2003 (Humber); Lise et al., 2003, 2004 (Rhine and Elb e) Karfeld in preparation (Elbe) Rhine

Exergy 100

Pristine 50 Mini. Losses Cycling BAU= 80% 0 Policy Target= 70% Deep Green= 60% Ref. 1995=0 Heterogeneity Storage

Costs (M Costs (M Measures Euros) Euros) Minimum Maximum present levels (same as in 2000) are Rhine BAU no additional measures 816 maintained Reduction of inputs from the catchment (point and diff. Sources), implementation Farm measures, WWTP update,tile drainage Rhine PT 846,2 1202,4 of the Nitrate Directive (good agr. reduction up to 10% of arable land Practice) Over-compliance with Environmental Farm measures, WWTP update, tile drainage Rhine DG 1651,8 2971,8 Directives and standards reduction up to 20% of arable land

Sources: Cave et al., 2003 (Humber); Lise et al., 2003, 2004 (Rhine and Elbe) Karfeld in preparation (Elbe) Humber

Exergy 100

50 Pristine Mini. Losses 0 Cycling BAU= 80% -50 Policy Target= 70% Deep Green= 60% Ref. 1995=0 Heterogeneity Storage

Costs (M Costs (M Measures Euros) Euros) Minimum Maximum Humber BAU present levels (1993-2001) are maintained until 2025 300 ha due to realignment -55,5 Reduction of inputs from the catchment, 20% reduction from point 20% reduction of riverine loads (point sources + sources along the tidal reaches/estuary (implementation of the Urban Humber PT Nitrate Directive implementation), realignment -34,245 55,68 Waste Water Directive), 75% of the area designated as Nitrate area of 1321 ha Vulnerable area, management realignment Reduction of inputs from the catchment, 50% reduction from point sources along the tidal reaches/estuary (implementaion of the Urban 50% red in point sources + Nitrate Directive Humber DG -1039,995 -844,62 Waste Water Directive), 75% of the area designated as Nitrate implementation, realignment area of 7400 ha Vulnerable area, management realignment

Sources: Cave et al., 2003 (Humber); Lise et al., 2003, 2004 (Rhine and Elbe) Karfeld in preparation (Elbe) Costs (net benefits) [M Euros] of reduction scenarios

10000,00

8000,00

6000,00 Rhine Elbe 4000,00 Humber 2000,00 costs 0,00 (net) benefits -2000,00 Bau PT min PT max DG min DGmax

Elbe/Rhine: Only costs of measures are computed, benefits are qualitatively assessed in a MCA

Humber: Net present value is computed as a difference between costs and benefits associated with scenarios

120 Elbe 100 South North Sea 80

Ecological risk: Elbe Box The ecological risk of 1995 is 60 40 Elbe Box, North Sea Red. normalised to 100, the pristine is 20 normalised to 0, the ecological 0 risk of the considered scenarios 1 2 3 4 5 are normalised between 0 and 120 100. Rhine 100 South North Sea 80 Rhine Box Ecological risk is computed as 60 the average of normalised 40 Rhine Box, North Sea Red. values (1 to 100) of ecosystem 20 integrity 0 indicators for each scenario. 1 2 3 4 5

120 Humber 100

80 South North Sea 60 Humber Box 40

20

0 1 2 3 4 5 Marginal costs Economic Benefits of ecosystem conservation (marginal)

Risk ignorant Risk ignorant about economic risks about risks of natural hazards Risk management

Precautionary Green principle Regions Global markets

Risk averse Risk averse about risks of natural Satisfying about economic risks hazards Zone

use of ecosystem services

loss of ecological integrity (e.g. ecosystem squeeze)

After Windhorst &Turner 2003, in preparation Elbe 120

100 South North Sea 80 Elbe Box 60

40 Elbe Box, North Sea Red. 20

0 1 2 3 4 5

Case study reindeer herding in Northern Finland

Burkhard and Müller 2005 High Reindeer Densities Loss of in the Summer Grazing Land on the Winter Pastures

Landuse Change Tourism, Forestry, Hydro-Energy

High Reindeer Densities Loss of in the Summer Grazing Land on the Winter Pastures

Rapid Soil Drying Mechanical Disturbance in Summer by Trampling

High Reindeer Densities Loss of in the Summer Grazing Land on the Winter Pastures

Rapid Soil Drying Mechanical Disturbance in Summer by Trampling

Destruction of Likens Wind Erosion from and Bare Soils Soil Compaction Loss of „Soil Capital“ Key Problem:

Reduced Quantity and Quality of Grazing Areas

Podsolic Soils with Healthy (A) and Damaged (B) A B Lichen Covers

(Photo: Uhlig,Sveistrup & Schjelderup) Key Problem:

Reduced Quality of Grazing Areas

Ikonos Picture

Näkkälä Landuse Change Carrier Landuse Ecosystem Structures Functions Ecosystem Inputs Intensity Ecosystem Outputs

Reindeer Herding 120 Area and Intensity Other 100

Landuse 80 Human Habitation Activities 60 Forestry Cultivation 40 Energy Conversion Recreation 20 Nature Nature Protection 0 Agri- Protection culture

Energy Pressure Raw Materia ls Tourism & Recreation Conversion Ecosystem State Regulation Ecological Structure and Habitat Function Functions Integrity Integrity Self-Organisation

Exergy Capture Energy Balance 120

Climate 100 Organisation Exergy

Hydrology 80 Dissipation Biomass 60 Erosion and Sediments Biogeochemistry 40 Nutrient Balances 20 Soil Fertility Diversity 0 Storage Organic Matter Habitat Maintenance Biodiversity

-1 Biotic Water State Nutrient Loss Metabolic Effeciency-1 Flows Production Economic Economic Functions Welfare Consequences

Employment Oxygen 120 Water for Human Use Demography 100 Spending Food Power Genetic Resources 80 Medicinical Resources 60 Raw Materials 40

(Clothing, Building,...) Logistics 20 Significance Biochemicals and 0 Reindeer Fuel and Energy Infra- Herding Fodder structure Fertilizer Ornamental Resources

Efficiency Accomodation Impact Transport Information Social Social Functions Welfare Consequences

Health and Nutrition 120

Personal 100 Social Well-Being Security Aestetic Information 80 Spiritual Information 60 Historic Information 40

Cultural Inspiration Ethno- 20 Educational Information logical 0 Education Scientific Information Identity

Culture Impact Communicati on Leisure

Scenario A: Business as usual

Scenario B: Intensification of reindeer herding

Scenario C: Reduction of reindeer herding land use integrity

social economy welfare

Sustainability scenario

Outlook

The presented methodology represents a new approach towards policy implementation, the advantages are: • Determine the ‚role‘ and impact of each river system upon the whole North Sea basin and its potential improvement • Represent the indicators of ecological integrity as characterised by a dynamical and spatially differentiated equilibrium • Facilitate an approach to reduction based on the choice of ‚acceptable‘ ecological risk • Determine the values of ecological indicators related with the acceptable risk, thus facilitating monitoring campaigns

Further research topics are: • Validation with further field data • Revision and improvement of the aggregation procedure (from single indicators to env. Risk • Potential for further applications

Main contributing scientists: Hermann Lenhart Franciscus Colijn and Andreas Kannen Kerry Turner, Rachel Cave and Laure Ledoux Horst Behrendt and Jürgen Hofmann Wietze Liese and Ron Jannsen Benjamin Burkhard and Felix Müller Katarina Licht and Bernhard Gläser Stefan Garthe, Klaus Lucke and Ursula Siebert