A future task in good hands Action 5 Implementation in Germany – First Experiences and Next Steps Burkhard Schweppe-Kraft Unit: Legal Affairs, Economics and Ecologically Sound Regional Development Fachgebiet: Recht, Ökonomie und naturverträgliche regionale Entwicklung

Ecosystem based planning in Germany In Germany since 1976: Landscape-Planning (Landschaftplanung) is an ecosystem based management tool on the federal states, regional and community (not national) level with the objective to direct land-uses in a way that the capacity of ecosystems to deliver services is protected and developed. MAES working group, 26 April 2013 (For a better understanding of the German expectations and problems regarding action 5 and its implementation)

Focus on maintenance and restoration of ecosystem functions = capacities to deliver services (mainly in the sense of “capacities”) (ecosystems, structures and processes) MAES working group, 26 April 2013

Methodolocial Multiplicity There exist recommendations how to compile landscape-plans in the different federal states but: The methodologies differ between the states, between regions and between communities Furthermore there is still no commonly applied system for data collection, storage, aggregation and exchange That means: Many data are available on the regional and local level only. And it would be a tremendous effort regarding money and time to aggregate them for analysis and mapping on the national scale. MAES working group, 26 April 2013

Integration into other Plans and Decision- Making Processes MAES working group, 26 April 2013

The „Weighting“ Process During the process of integration in binding regional plans or EIA/SEA-supported decisions, the recommendations and targets made/defined by landscape-plans are only integrated when they are weighted higher (given more weight) in the decision process than other targets and interests Integration is guaranteed only in those cases where the targets of landscape-plans are legally and strictly binding (which is often not the case) MAES working group, 26 April 2013

Opportunities of a National Ecosystem (Services) Assessment (= Action 5) for Germany National ecosystem services assessment and accounting could strengthen local, regional and federal-state landscape planning by: giving a stimulus to a methodological harmonization of landscape-planning on all stages giving more weight to the targets and recommendations of landscape-planning by looking not only at the supply-side (capacity of ecosystems to deliver services) but also on the current and future demand for ecosystem services the application of economic valuation as an additional (more objective and more precise) tool for weighting different targets defining national targets based on a national assessment MAES working group, 26 April 2013

Steps to Implementation of Action 5 in Germany 1. Step: Research project on “Ecosystem Services Accounting” Results: august / september 2013 propose quantitative indicators present quantative results (only for one period/year) propose mapping approaches present maps where possible 2. Step: Discussion on the proposed approaches with federal states, other ministries and experts (planned: 2014 to 2015 ?) 3. Step: (more or less parallel to the second step): try to refine and improve the sets of indicators and mapping approaches 4. Step: presenting results on the basis of improved methodologies for a series of years (2016 ?) MAES working group, 26 April 2013

Present Proposal for Indicators and Maps Map Crops (informations on different crops available) grasslands? tt/hacounty avarage Biomass for energy purposes cropstt/hacounty average timberm3/ha woodlands Pollination: Percentage of agricultural products depending on pollination by insects %county average Soil formation?? Erosion regulation: Permanent vegetation in areas threatened by erosion winderosion ha / % county average watererosion Climate Regulation: CO 2 -emissons / sink of different land- uses according to official reporting CO2 CO2 / ha land-use or county average Flood Regulation: Retention area covered by vegetation in actual and historical alluvial floodplains (100 year flooding event) ha % ha % river flood plains Regulation of water quality in running waters (existing indicator for naturalness of running waters) ?? Groundwater protection by soil and geological layersXX Groundwater recharge regulation by permeability of surface / soil m3m3/ha land-use / soils urban microclimate regulation by urban green areasha/ha selected cities Inner-urban recreation in urban green spacesha/ha > inhabit. recreation in the landscape people living near to waters with bathing-water quality and nature-conservation areas number region ? Indicator MAES working group, 26 April 2013

Experiences and Recommendations: Data gaps Small ecosystems in agricultural landscapes like hedgerows, hnv- grassland patches, etc. (about 15% of agricultural landscapes) are relevant for: recreation erosion prevention pollination pest regulation etc. and 50% of Germany´s species diversity The services of these ecosystems can only poorly be mapped because they are not existent or not existent as areas in gis-data that are available for the national level (CLC, Basis-DLM) Many Synergies between biodiversity conservation and ecosystem-services can hardly be documented with indicators and mapping-approaches based on available data Next CLC-generation should be far more precise Demand for joined efforts towards better access to DATA from the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS)

Experiences and Recommendations: methods to define service deficits In some cases ecosystem services decrease due to shrinking demand and not because of a loss of natural capital. In other cases ecosystem services grow due to restoration efforts. possible approaches are: target setting (beyond 15%-target, what other targets?) deviation from average supply benefits are higher than restoration costs high synergies with biodiversity conservation aims What is the political message of such cases? Do we have enough services when data show such trends? We not only need a concept for monitoring the development of services, but also a concept for determining the need for services and the gap between supply and demand MAES working group, 26 April 2013 Best ways for integration into action 5 implementation

Experiences and Recommendations: Focus on win-win In some cases the existing data gaps do not allow for clear arguments in favor of the maintenance of natural capital Perhaps we should first concentrate on those services where existing data show clear win-win situations between human wellbeing / nature conservation / and service maintenance and restoration MAES working group, 26 April 2013 Lowest level of ecosystem services in favor of climate regulation in the northern lowlands of agricultural used drained peatlands high win-win by rewetting and peatland restoration One example from Germany:

A future task in good hands Thanks for your kind attention