SERVICES of NATURE Services of Nature – How Natura 2000 Contributes to the Provision of Ecosystem Services for Human Wellbeing

SERVICES OF NATURE Services of nature – How Natura 2000 contributes to the provision of ecosystem services for human wellbeing

» This publication has been prepared by CEEweb for Biodiversity. Written and edited by Urszula Biereznoj, Sarolta Tripolszky, Agnes Zolyomi and Kristina Vilimaite » CEEweb for Biodiversity is an international network of non-governmental organi- zations in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). The mission of the network is the conservation of the biodiversity through the promotion of sustainable development.

Editor responsible: Mátyás Prommer, CEEweb for Biodiversity, 2007, 2012 Address: Széher út 40,| 1021 Budapest » Tel: +36 1 398 0135 » Fax: +36 1 398 0136 E-mail: [email protected] » Website: www.ceeweb.org

Photo credits: Front cover photo – Lyndon Bartsch; page 3 upper left – Rurik Tullio; page 17 bottom middle – Marcos Santos; page 5 main photo – László Tóth, right top – Dominic Morel, right bottom – Philip Zaulig. All other photos are from www.sxc.hu. Services of nature

Acknowledgements How Natura 2000 contributes to the provision of We would like to express our thanks and appreciation to those who have provided the examples for this publication. ecosystem services for human wellbeing

CEEweb for Biodiversity gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the European Commission DG Environment for the preparation of this publication. The donor is not responsible for the expressed views and the use of information made available.

2012 PAGE 2 & 3

INTRODUCTION The main driving force of today’s society is the increasing social and economic welfare. This goes along with increased production and consumption of goods and services, which contributes to the degradation of ecosystems surrounding us. We can say that while prosperity grows – nature diminishes.

But does it really matter if a few unknown butterfly species go extinct? Or is there something more to lose?

The scientific evidence is growing that together with those butterflies, bugs and flowers much more could be gone. Degraded ecosystems lose their capacity to deliver services for humans, such as purify polluted water, pollinate crops, lessen the effects of natural disasters or buffer the effects of climate change.

The European Union has realised this threat and started to counteract the loss of natural diversity and ecosystem functions. Possibly the most important step in this regard is the establishment of the European ecological network Natura 2000. Today, the network includes sites in all 27 Member States – all of them put together would make an area bigger than two times Germany. As the EU recently highlighted1 the conservation and management of this ecological network can significantly contribute to halt the decline of nature and the life- supporting ecosystem functions it delivers. what is natura 2000? In this guidance we would like to introduce the non-expert to the topic of eco- Natura 2000 is the cornerstone of the European Union’s nature policy. The aim system services and to highlight the relationship between the conservation is “to contribute towards ensuring biodiversity through the conservation of and management of the Natura 2000 sites and the maintenance of ecosystem natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora in the European territory of the services. In particular, the publication tries to answer the following ques- Member States (…)” (Art 2.1. of the EU Habitats Directive). tions: Natura 2000 is a European ecological network of protected areas designated by EU Member States based on legally binding legislation: the Habitats and » What is the connection between the protection of animals and plants and Birds Directives. The network consists of two types of areas: special areas the welfare of people? of conservation (SAC) designated according to the Habitats Directive and » What is the EU doing to preserve nature and ecosystem services? special protection areas for birds (SPA) designated under the Birds Directive. » How can we keep ecosystems functioning through active management? Member States are responsible for taking all necessary measures to guaran- » What good examples exist at EU level? tee the conservation of these sites and prevent their deterioration. PAGE 4 & 5

What are ecosystem services? Human well-being derives from ecosystem services in numerous different Only when the last tree has died and the last river been ways. The food we eat, the clean water we drink, fuel, fibre are direct “pres- poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realize we ents” of nature. But we also utilise the “nature’s services”, which are a re- cannot eat money. sult of complex processes and interactions, such us the formation of soil, Cree Indian Proverb the natural decomposition of waste, protection from disasters like floods and storms, or the maintaining of a stable climate on earth. Ecosystem services are those goods and services of nature, which humans utilise for themselves. For instance a natural, healthy river ecosystem is a good home for the animal and plant species living in it. But it can also purify the waste water chan- nelled into it. However, a degraded river will be less able to provide us with fish, water and the capacity to purify sewage. Ecosystem services can be defined in various ways. The United Nations Millen- nium Ecosystem Assessment2 classified ecosystem services as follows:

Ecosystem service Description Examples services that are soil formation, photosynthesis, Supporting necessary for the primary production, nutrient services production of all other cycling and water cycling ecosystem services products obtained food, fibre, fuel, genetic re- Provisioning from ecosystems sources, biochemicals, natural services medicines, pharmaceuticals, ornamental resources and fresh water benefits obtained air quality regulation, climate from the regulation of regulation, water regulation, Regulating ecosystem processes erosion regulation, water purifi- services cation, disease regulation, pest regulation, pollination, natural If we do not permit hazard regulation the Earth to produce non-material benefits spiritual enrichment, cognitive beauty and joy, it will Cultural people obtain from development, reflection, recre- in the end not produce Our health relies entirely on services ecosystems ation and aesthetic experiences food either. the vitality of our fellow Joseph Woodkrutch species on Earth. Table: www.ecosystemservices.org.uk Harrison Ford PAGE 6 & 7

Monetary Benefits The estimated cost to maintain the Natura 2000 network (almost 18 percent of Europe’s area) is 5.8 billion euros per year. However, the benefits derived from the whole network sum up to at least (!) 200-300 billion euros each year. This means every euro invested into Natura 2000 has a 30-50-fold return rate! For instance, the social benefits can be expressed by the approximately 1.2— 2.2 million visitors to Natura 2000 sites per day, which creates around 6 million full time jobs.3

On the country level, there is even more evidence proving the benefits of Na- tura 2000 in terms of money. The implementation of the Natura 2000 network increased the GDP in Spain by an estimated 0.1–0.26 percent at the national level. In France, the benefits in relation to key Natura 2000 management activi- ties were calculated to be 142 euros per ha per year, approximately seven times higher than the cost of managing the Natura 2000 sites. In Finland, it was as- sessed that 1 euro investment in national parks and recreation areas can provide an average 7 euros return and can reach 20 euros. Similarly, in Scotland the protection of Natura 2000 sites was estimated to have a positive cost-benefit ratio of approximately 7 over a 25-year period. In the Netherlands, Natu- ra 2000 ecosystem services were estimated to deliver benefits of 4.5 billion euros every year.4 In Hungary, Romania and Bulgaria, restoration of 2.236 square kilometres of floodplains along the Lower Danube would cost 50 million euros, EXAMPLES »»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» whereas the flood protection, water purification and tourism benefits would In this section we will look at examples on how the management of Natura 2000 reach 112 million euros.5 In Belgium, the cost-benefit analysis of flood secu- sites contribute to the delivery of ecosystem services. rity at the Schelde river indicated that a combination of ecosystem-based and Five examples from different parts of Europe will be introduced. Each includes technical measures provides the most efficient flood protection. As a result, short information on the project background and the description of one high- authorities started to invest in the restoration of 5000 ha wetlands.6 lighted ecosystem service provided. While we highlight only one ecosystem service for the sake of simplicity it is important to keep in mind that natural Even more important, there are not only benefits quantified from Natura 2000. ecosystems provide a wide range of different services. A mountain forest can Losing these services would also cost us money. 35 percent of jobs in devel- be a source of timber, forest fruits, herbs for traditional medicine but it can oping countries and 7 percent of jobs (14.6 million) in the EU are dependent also be a popular destination for tourists. Besides this more direct goods and on ecosystem services.7 The cumulative loss of biodiversity and related eco- services, the forest can provide a number of indirect functions, as well: it can system services between 2000 and 2050 will be equivalent to 7 percent of the prevent the village in the valley from avalanches and storms purify the air and world Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2050.8 According to the European Com- water for the local inhabitants and in a more global context contribute to cli- mission, the cost of not implementing the existing environmental legisla- mate change regulation. Thus in order to give a more comprehensive picture tion and future biodiversity targets will be 50 billion euros every year.9 on the functions of the site a list of additional services is attached. »»»»»»»»» Example 1. Food production PAGE 8 & 9

BACKGROUND The Yorkshire Dales region in the North of England is famous for its landscape and has a long tradition of pastoral farming. The large number of hills and slopes and the low quality soil make the area especially Food suitable for cattle grazing. The existence of the characteristic flora and fauna production is entirely dependent on the livestock farming systems, e.g. grazing. The 1 animals are needed to keep grasslands free from overgrowing by trees and Highlighted ecosystem bushes. For conservation purposes, native cattle breeds are the most suitable, benefit: food production because they are adapted to the rough weather conditions and can be kept In addition to nature, people also gain outside almost all year. benefit from the project, if they con- sume the high quality beef meat pro- Over the last 40 years there has been a change from traditional cattle farming duced in the area. Although the cattle to more intensive sheep enterprises. The changes in the agricultural system, are not managed entirely to organic along with a general increase in stock numbers, have resulted in a general standards, no pesticides and fertilis- decline in the natural values of the site. ers are used on the Natura 2000 land with represents the principal part of An EU supported project started in 2002 with the primary aim to conserve the grazing. The native cattle are bet- the local flora and fauna. This was achieved through reinstating grazing by ter adapted to the harsh weather. They traditional cattle breeds. Through the provision of grants to farmers native spend more time grazing in the (non- cattle herds and the necessary infrastructure were established. 15 farming fertilised) fields all over the year and enterprises were converted to more appropriate mixed grazing systems. The less in the byre. There are some early project helped to restore and maintain some 1800 ha in two Natura 2000 areas. indications, that the beef meat pro- The continuous research on plant and animal species showed that the project duced under conservation manage- helped the number of rare plant species to grow. ment is healthier and tastier than the conventional one. A new Meat Qual- ADDITIONAL BENEFITS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES ity Research just started recently will » Clear water and soil compare the quality of beef meet pro- No fertilisers used in on the pastures » Ground water, surface waters duced under conventional circum- and soil are not polluted, animal fodder and beef meat doesn’t contain stances and in protected areas, e.g. fertiliser and pesticide residues through looking at components as n-3 » Socio-economic benefits (omega-3) polyunsaturated fatty acids New, high quality local product and a market was created » farmers and vitamin E. It will also compare the obtain premium prices for their product on the market » livelihood for quality and healthiness of meat from rural communities different breeds of cattle. » Genetic resources Breeding of traditional, native cattle breeds » genetic variations of cattle is maintained (can be used later in breeding) Example 2. Flood protection PAGE 10 & 11

BACKGROUND The Yzerbroeken is the name of the natural floodplains of the Yzer River located in the Western part of Belgium, near the French border. The area is a Natura 2000 area protected under the EU Birds Directive, but it is Flood also protected under the Ramsar Convention10 because of its special, rich bird PROTECTION fauna. It is a huge area (around 3-4000 ha), but it is not only important for 2 the birds and bird lovers. Due to its special location it served as an important flood protection area for decades.

The area is located about 25 km inland from the coast. The land between the Yzerbroeken and the sea is very characteristic: it is totally flat. Yzerbroeken is located just at the border of the flat area. When floods occur, a lot of water comes fast into the river at this point, but the river cannot discharge the water quickly into the sea: the water sticks in the floodplains. In addition, water discharge at the river mouth is only possible at low tides so that during high tides the river has to wait - leading to high water levels inland. Thus floods occur and have occurred for hundreds of years here creating a special type of grassland and marshland landscape and attracting special wildlife.

During the past few decades, agricultural use has changed in the floodplain. There has been a shift towards more intensive agricultural use. Dikes were built to protect the land from floods and the area was drained resulting in de- creased water levels – all of this had a very negative impact on nature gener- ally and birdlife in particular. Also, the more intensive land use in the area, in which flooding was prevented, increased the flood risk in villages elsewhere along the banks of the Yzer where in the past no floods had ever occurred. Highlighted ecosystem benefit: flood protection ADDITIONAL BENEFITS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES To halt the unsustainable agricultural practices and to restore the original » Recreation rich biodiversity a nature restoration plan for the entire valley was drawn up Restored floodplains » beautiful, restored natural landscape in 1990. At first there was a lot of opposition from local agricultural organi- » recreational opportunity for local people and tourists sations but then two disastrous flood events occurred in 1993 and 2005. After » Fresh water this, agreement was reached between all parties that the Yzerbroeken has Natural river ecosystem » decomposition and waste water to be managed as nature conservation and flood protection area. No more treatment – provision of fresh water (drinking, bathing water etc. ) dikes can be built and the agricultural practice is adapted to floods. Local » Adaptation to climate change people realised, that nature oriented land management doesn’t only benefit Climate change » sea level rise, more extreme weather events » nature but provides a very important ecosystem service: the protection from more floods » increased need for floodplain in the future floods. Example 3. recreation PAGE 12 & 13

BACKGROUND With its 940 hectares, Lake Fure is the biggest lake in Denmark. It was one of the most valuable water habitats for birds and fish species at the beginning of the 20th century, as well as a great place for recre- recreation ation for the inhabitants of nearby Copenhagen. The area is designated under the Birds and the Habitats Directive as well. Unfortunately, the uncontrolled 3 waste water loading from the highly urbanized surroundings disturbed the Highlighted ecosystem natural cycles and lead to a break down of the ecosystem functions of the benefit: recreation lake. The high nutrient levels resulted in a massive build-up of phytoplankton The enhanced environmen- (algae) and the spread of worthless fish species. The underwater-vegetation tal conditions, such us a more for which the lake was once famous also disappeared. transparent water and less phytoplankton (algae) benefit the A conservation project took place between 2002-2007 with the goal of restor- people who come to the lake ing the natural ecological processes and the recovery of the original vegeta- for different recreation pur- tion and stabilising fish populations. The nutrient load was reduced and a poses, such as fishing, swim- better oxygenation of the lake was achieved. The environmental conditions ming, sailing and other11. Also improved resulting in visibly cleaner water, fewer algae and less worthless businesses which are based on fish.The original flora and fauna is slowly recovering. While the transparency recreation (e.g. boat renting op- of the water is still not the best possible and algae numbers are still above the erators) benefit from the over- desired level, the project achieved much in this respect. It is expected that all improvement of ecological there will be a response time of a number of years before it is possible to see conditions. The EU supported all the results. The project is still running until 2012. nature conservation project in the Natura 2000 area increased ADDITIONAL BENEFITS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES the possibilities of human rec- » Nutrient regulation reation. Restored ecosystem functions » decomposition of natural and human waste (dead plants, animals) » nutrients (P, N) are recycled and are returned to the lake ecosystem » Food production Water quality improved » more valuable fish species » fish for food » Science and education Ecosystem functions, species and habitat restored » Limnology Scien- tific Station provides place for education and science » Social benefit Cleaner water – return of valuable fish species » Fishing societies and community’s thrive Example 4. pollination PAGE 14 & 15

BACKGROUND Not many people can imagine a successful combination of honey production, an economical enterprise and nature protection at the same time. But a Polish example shows that cooperation between local beekeepers and pollination environmentalists is possible and can be beneficial for both sides. In the South- West part of Poland, in the town of Przemków, a few open-minded beekeepers 12 4 started to work together with two NGOs and the local landscape park to develop a new initiative. Honey production at that time was economically not viable, so the primary goal of the initiative was to ensure job security for the beekeepers. The creation of a market for new honey products seemed a good opportunity. Beekeepers were actively involved in maintaining the characteristic structures in the Natura 2000 site “Przemkowskie Heathland”. Heathlands are rare and endangered ecosystems protected under the EU Habitats Directive. The most important threat for them is overgrowing. So beekeepers help to keep the fields open by removing trees and bushes and thus contribute to the conservation of nature of European importance. The honey produced here is certified by the European Union and is labelled as a regional product. To fulfil the standards of the regional product, certain quality criteria have to be maintained, e.g. the level of heaths’ pollen has to be more than 50 per cent. The fact that the honey is produced in a protected area, which is written on the bottles, is a guarantee for its high quality and healthy ingredients, and thus a higher price can be required. This is how the protection of the area has helped producers to find a market niche and is used as a tool to promote a regional brand. ADDITIONAL BENEFITS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES » Food production healthy, high quality local product – bio honey and other pollen prod- Highlighted ecosystem benefit: pollination ucts The management of heathlands is not only important for conservation » Natural pharmaceuticals but also for the beekeepers. The open flowery fields are necessary biochemical substances contained in honey for the bees to produce honey. Without management the fields would » Social benefits be overgrown by forest and beekeepers would loose their job. When creation of the regional product » income » maintenance of specialized maintaining the Natura 2000 sites, beekeepers are actually preserv- social structures: beekeepers’ communities and local rural communi- ing the very ground of their existence. The eco-honey is labelled as ties a regional product by the EU and helps beekeepers to secure a higher » Cultural benefits income. Wine&Honey festival organised once a year » maintenance of local tradi- tions, heritage Example 5. Climate change mitigation PAGE 16 & 17

BACKGROUND Wetlands are a characteristic element of the Latvian landscape. One of the great wetland areas is the Lubana Wetland Complex, which covers more than 40 000 ha. We can find a lot of different bogs, mires and fens Climate change here. In previous times the area was partially used for farming. The desiccation mitigation of peat bogs and grasslands through drainage ditches has lead to habitat degra- 5 dation and overgrowing. This contributed to a significant decline of natural as- sets, as well as to emission of CO2 and CH4 through carbon decomposition.

Bogs are unique wetland ecosystems. In these wetlands, dead plant material cannot fully decompose due to the acidic and anaerobic conditions. The partially decayed plant material is the peat, which gives the common name of these habitats: ‘peat bogs’.13 Bogs are inhabited by a highly specialised fauna and flora, which is often only found here and nowhere else. For their high natural values bog habitats are protected under the EU Habitats Directive.

But there is a special characteristic of peat bogs that makes them interesting for today’s societies. Scientist have proved, that well preserved peat bogs are one of the most important carbon sinks on Earth.14 The UK has about 15 percent of the world’s peatlands – storing the equivalent of over 20 years of UK industrial carbon dioxide emissions. Whilst undisturbed peat bogs take in and store carbon, damaged peat lands emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. When peat bogs dry out or when they are converted to other uses (e.g. agriculture) they quickly begin to lose the stored carbon in form of greenhouse gases, thus contributing to global warming. Therefore not only the special natural values make the conservation of bogs a priority. Keeping them in a good ecological state will also help to save the climate.15 Highlighted ecosystem service: climate regulation The peat bogs of the Lubana Wetland Complex store a large amount of ADDITIONAL BENEFITS AND ECOSYSTEM SERVICES carbon. If the bogs are drained, damaged or dry out they will emit the » Water purification carbon into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming. In 2003, Healthy peat bog » stores carbon and filters water » water coming from local authorities joined forces to restore the natural water regime and bog is clean to bring bogs back in a favourable condition. Ditches were blocked, » Aesthetic and cultural services dams and water gates were built in order to limit a water discharge Interesting bog, moor landscape (“home of ghosts”), funny “creatures” on almost 10 000 ha. These actions will contribute to the restoration of (e.g. fly-caching plants) » attractive for visitors, schoolchildren the peat bog ecosystems to help them maintaining and storing carbon » Food, herbs levels and thus counteract global warming. Local people use the area for collecting berries, wild fruits and herbs. Examples – Endnotes Further reading Contacts & Websites 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 European Environmental Policy (IEEP), 2006, Brussels, Belgium. 131 pp. 131 Belgium. Brussels, 2006, (IEEP), Policy Environmental European for P., Institute Brink, &ten M. Kettunen, Commission. European the for report Final services. system eco of loss the to led has loss biodiversity where examples EU Documenting biodiversity- of Value 2006 CEEWEB, by prepared ROM CD life” „Time is http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/management/gp/index.html G »http://www.natura.org/national_links.html information 2000 Natura National http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/index_en.htm Commission European the of homepage &Biodiversity Nature www.madona.lv/lubans/l_zinojumi_a.html [email protected], Bergmanis, Ugis » mitigation change Climate 5. Example www.eko.org.pl/kropla/23/miod.html [email protected], » Pollination 4. Example » 3. Recreation Example www.natuurpunt.be/download/activecontents/ac882paper.pdf www.framebpm.net, [email protected], » protection Flood 2. Example www.limestone-country.org.uk » production Food 1. Example

sity strategy to 2020 (COM(2011) 244) (COM(2011) 2020 to strategy sity biodiver EU an capital: natural our insurance, life Our Commission: European the from Communication Biodiversity Policy: Final Report, 2011. Report, Final Policy: Biodiversity of Dimension Social The Varma. A. M., Rayment, M., Pieterse, S., Naumann J., A. McConville, M., Lago, T., Kaphengst, A., Ghermandi, M., Davis, E., P., Cottee-Jones, Brink, ten B., Boteler, H., Ding, P.A.L.D., Nunes, pean Environmental Policy and WWF, 2010. WWF, and Policy Environmental pean Euro for Institute Basin. Danube the in study case ascoping services: ecosystem conserving and Valuing tura 2000: Delivering benefits for nature and people, 2011. people, and nature for benefits Delivering 2000: tura 2000 Natura Financing final. 1573 SEC(2011) Paper, Working Staff Commission European ing Group / edited by Rashid Hassan, Robert Scholes, Neville Ash., 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Ecosystem Millennium 2005 Ash., Neville Scholes, Robert Hassan, Rashid by /edited Group ing Work Trends and Condition the of –findings trends and state –current well-being human and Ecosystems TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity for National and International Policy Makers, 2009. Makers, Policy International and National for Biodiversity and Ecosystems of Economics –The TEEB mental Policy / GHK / Ecologic, 2010. /Ecologic, /GHK Policy mental Environ European for Institute Network. 2000 Natura the with associated Benefits Socio-Economic and P. Costs Brink ten H., Gerdes R., Landgrebe A., McConville M., Kettunen S., Bassi M., Rayment S., 4 Gantioler ood practices in managing Natura 2000 sites Peer Skaarup www.furesoeprojekt.dk [email protected], Andrzej Ruszlewicz (Fundacja Zielona Akcja), Akcja), Zielona (Fundacja Ruszlewicz Andrzej Paul Evans (Nature England), [email protected], [email protected], England), (Nature Paul Evans Floris Verhaeghe (Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap), Gemeenschap), Vlaamse de van (Ministerie Verhaeghe Floris Dace Arina (Project Manager), [email protected]; [email protected]; Manager), (Project Arina Dace

– Investing in Na in –Investing ------15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 Braat L., ten Brink, P. (eds). The Cost of Policy Inaction: The case of not meeting the 2010 biodiversity target. 2008. 2008. target. biodiversity 2010 the meeting not of case The Inaction: Policy of Cost The P. (eds). Brink, ten L., Braat

European Commission DG Environment. The costs of not implementing the environmental acquis, 2011. acquis, environmental the implementing not of costs The Environment. DG Commission European 1991), US. (Adamowicz, year per $80 and at $10 valued is purposes recreational for quality water that found have Studies Wikipedia, EUNIS habitat classification habitat EUNIS Wikipedia, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report, 2007. Report, Assessment Fourth on Change Panel Climate Intergovernmental Srodowiska (Partnership Foundation for Environment) Foundation (Partnership dla Srodowiska Partnerstwo Fundacja Action), Green (Foundation Akcja Zielona Fundacja Park, Landscape Przemkowski tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Organization Cultural and Scientific tional, Educa Nations United Habitat, Waterfowl as especially Importance International of on Wetlands Convention zén et al. 1996; Ajtay et al.1979; Sjörs 1980, 1982; Adams et al. 1990). 1990). al. et Adams 1982; 1980, Sjörs al.1979; et Ajtay 1996; al. et zén Fran 1994; (Franzén Gt 120-400 from range lands peat in globally stored carbon of amount the of Estimate PAGE 18 & 19 - - SERVICES OF NATURE