Suchergebnisse

Ecosystem Services: Global Issues, Local Practices is a hands-on, transdisciplinary reflection on ecosystem services directed toward the future development of research, practice, and implementation by professionals. The diversity of values assigned to ecosystems and their services are used to inform policy from local to global scales."--Publisher description

Analyzing how humans benefit from ecosystems and understanding how benefits relate to ecosystem governance structures are high priority objectives of socio-ecological research. Several frameworks describing the delivery of ecosystem services (ES) have been proposed, and recently, an increasing attention is being given to the social component (i.e. the beneficiaries) of ES. Stakeholders do not access ES equally and consequently do not benefit the same way from ecosystems. Similarly stakeholders and institutions (with different mandates and governance levels, from local and national) do not contribute equally to ecosystem management and governance. Power relationships have an important role in ES tradeoffs. While there is an important body of literature dealing with power relationships and the access to natural resources, the concept of ES remains poorly related to those questions of equity and environmental justice. However, identifying power relationships is crucial to highlight the mismatch between stakeholders that highly depend on ES but that are excluded from their management and to design sustainable environmental policies that reduce social inequalities. This study aims to investigate the relationships between ES and stakeholders (including individuals and local to national institutions) in a Peruvian watershed. Relevant stakeholders were identified during focus groups. Two-mode Social Network Analysis was conducted based on 65 semi-structured interviews. They informed us about stakeholders-ES interactions related to benefits received from ES (use and exclusion) and influence on ES (positive or negative effect on their level). Network structural properties were computed to analyze the nature and intensity of relationships. Results showed that stakeholders were clustered regarding the ES they interacted with. There was a mismatch between stakeholders depending on ES and stakeholders managing them. This study underline the importance of integrating such power asymmetries in environmental and socio-economic policies since stakeholders that strongly depend on ES are also likely to be deeply affected by global changes (climate change, economic transformation, increase of population, etc.). (Texte intégral)

Understanding the benefits humans receive from ecosystems is a high priority in socio-ecological research. Recently, an increasing attention is being given to the social component (i.e. the beneficiaries) of ES. Stakeholders do not access ES equally and consequently do not benefit the same way from ecosystems. Inequalities are explained by spatial characteristics (i.e. upstream and downstream beneficiaries of a watershed), interactions among ES (i.e. tradeoffs between the provision of multiple ES) and among stakeholders (i.e. tradeoffs between beneficiaries). Power relationships have an important role in ES tradeoffs. While there is an important body of literature dealing with power relationships and the access to natural resources, the concept of ES remains poorly related to those questions of equity and environmental justice. However, identifying power relationships is crucial to highlight the mismatch between stakeholders that highly depend on ES but that are excluded from their management and to design sustainable environmental policies that reduce social inequalities. This study aims to identify the social variables that explain tradeoffs in the governance of ES through the analysis of relationships between ES and stakeholders in a Peruvian watershed. Relevant stakeholders were identified through focus groups and semi-structured interviews. Two-mode Social Network Analysis was conducted based on stakeholders-ES interactions related to benefits received from ES (use and exclusion) and influence on ES (legislation, control, monitoring, etc.). Network structural properties were computed to analyse the nature and intensity of relationships. Results showed that stakeholders were clustered regarding the ES they interacted with. There was a mismatch between stakeholders depending on ES and stakeholders managing them. This study underline the importance of integrating such power asymmetries in environmental and socio-economic policies since stakeholders that strongly depend on ES are also likely to be deeply affected by global changes (climate change, economic transformation, increase of population, etc.).

The urge to involve stakeholders from the start of ecosystem service (ES) assessments is increasingly addressed in literature. This is even more the case when studying rural landscape planning for which impacts on ES have proved to be highly context specific. Despite the growing amount of social ES valuations, few studies integrate them to a biophysical ES assessment. To fill in this gap, we developed a methodology where the social ES valuation directly serves the biophysical ES assessment. By combining components of the Delphi and the focus group methods, our approach allows to provide good insights on the preferred ES within the studied locality. Thanks to the deliberative phase, it also provides information on the divergences and convergences among the social values held by local stakeholders. The underpinning aim of the exercise is to reach a consent within the group. Conversely to a consensus where the decision must be unanimous, a consent seeks decisions where nobody has fundamental opposition to it. We believe that applying such approach has the potential to: - guide the biophysical ES assessment towards ES which are relevant to the study area and important in the eyes of local stakeholders; - create opportunity for collective social learning; - identify networks of influences and/or social interdependencies related to ES; - empower local stakeholders while enhancing the democratic process of decision-making. The presentation first introduces the backbone of the methodology. Two case-studies in which we applied the innovative approach will then be presented. The first case study relates to local ES assessment carried out in agroecological and conventional farms in a Western locality in Belgium. The second case-study relates to a land consolidation scheme project. Outcomes of the approach applied in both cases are put forward, and adaptation of the methodology for the distinct purposes and contexts are elucidated.

While the significance and needs of Ecosystem Services (ES) valuation is now more pregnant in decision processes, the design of operational tools remains complex because of the multiplicity and diversity of information sources, indicator types, scales of interest and the variety of managers. The most important challenges are 1) to build strong links between administrations responsible for information flows and scientists working on ES emerging definitions and valuations and 2) to re-organize these flows to link biodiversity assessment, environmental monitoring and social expectations to provide a common reference system. In Wallonia, the heads of several regional administration and academic institutions proposed to the Government to mutualize theirs skills and means to build WalES: a transdisciplinary Walloon platform on ES. Its conceptual model for ES assessment is based on a Driver-Pressure-State-Impact-Response (DPSIR) framework promoted by European Environment Agency to disentangle biodiversity and environment (state indicators) from ecosystem services (impact indicators). Ecosystem biocapacity is approached by a combination of ecological conditions (e.g. soil type and moisture, topography), main land use classes and management methods (pressures/responses indicators). ES indicators, proxy and models are declined along these three potential dimensions at different levels of precision and related to providing, benefiting, and negatively impacted stakeholders. We will present the original Walloon approach of a common and shared information system detailing data and data flows useful to assess ES, collecting relevant experiences and methods on ES valuation. The comparison of these information sources allows us to identify best practices, to combine the various data in order to improve their accuracy and to highlight missing data and methods needing further development. In this way, this operational database supports an integrated assessment of ES by measuring their diversity of components (capacity, flow and demand), values (biophysical and social) and their interactions at different scales.

Introduction Beyond the intrinsic, aesthetic and spiritual values one may assign to nature, the reasons to manage it are multiple due to its central role in a wide panel of ecological functions crucial to human wellbeing and development. For instance, biological structures and ecological processes provide us food, raw materials, water and energy, protect us against erosion or floods, control water quality, pest impact, pollination, give us large enjoyable spaces for recreation, sport and leisure activities, etc. Despite contributing considerably to economic development, social welfare and health, natural resources have often been considered as inexhaustible and unlimited which has caused dramatic damages in economic, social and environmental issues. This is mainly explained by the fact that many ecosystem services (ES) are 'public goods' or 'common goods': they are often open access in character and non-rival in their consumption. Market and policy decisions often fail to capture most ES values with the exception of a few marketed provisioning ecosystem services 'ES' (e.g. food, timber). This systematic under-valuation of ecosystem services and failure to capture the values is one of the main causes underlying today's biodiversity crisis1. ES valuations can serve as methodological baseline for decision support tools aiming at more sustainability thus guiding and accelerating transition. To sustainably manage the supply and the demand of ES, the policy level needs to gain knowledge on where and which services are provided2–4and who are the stakeholders involved. ES maps provide an explicit link between the biophysical data of the ecosystem and expectations of main concerned stakeholders2. There are an essential tool to help for more holistic and transparent decision processes .Additionally, ES valuations allow highlighting ES hotspots, bundles and trade-offs and priority areas for action5. At last, ES valuations can serve as policy efficiency barometer by measuring ES before and after a specific measure. The importance of the ES in policy is reflected at several levels. At the European level, the Strategy 2020 for biodiversity (resulting from the United Nation convention on biological diversity) presents the objective to 'preserve and enhance ecosystems and their services'. Under this objective, one of the actions requested to member states is to 'map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services in their national territory by 2014'6. Recently, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was launched to guide the flow of scientific information related to biodiversity and ES to governments and practitioners7. In this context, the Walloon government decided to work on the 'development of the implementation of the ES concept into practice within the Public Service of Wallonia (SPW)' (Walloon governmental decision 24/04/2014).To put the ES concept into practice, a common platform, entitled 'WalES', is currently being designed. Objectives The objectives of the WalES platform are multifold: • Developing a common interface between administrations and scientists and multiple actors to share up-to-date information, methods, tools, means, experiences, multiple data flows at multiple levels, etc. in order to organize a common information system on ecosystem services and develop a common methodological platform. • Providing a planification tool through the assessment and mapping of ES to highlight ES hotspots, priority areas for action and discrepancies between ES demand and supply, all providing valuable information to optimize planification. • Providing an impact assessment tool assessing ES before and after a project (e.g. infrastructure building) or a political measure (e.g. agri-environmental measures) in order to test their efficiencies and their impacts on sustainability. • Communicating to the public the importance of ES and the dependency of humans, society and economy upon them, hence demonstrating the emergency to take actions. Procedure and outcomes of the WalES project Since the platform aims at serving policy making, its development consults actors in an iterative way and by different means. Through an accompanying committee, different actors from distinct background follow and guide the project from its premises to its finalization. Among them, policy makers, Directorate Generals from the Walloon Region, university scientists and Governmental research agencies are involved. Additionally, consultations with the civil society are planned. Such participatory approaches are known, especially in ES valuation science, to improve the procedural quality of the assessment and provide assessments better answering the needs and questions of the different parties. As first step, all Directorates General of SPW have been consulted in order to identify fields within the distinct missions of SPW for which the development of ES-based tools would be feasible and desirable. From there, the project structure, method and objectives have been established. In a second and on-going step, all structures, research projects and actors involved are being inventoried in order to get insight into what is being done, what is already accomplished and what remains to be done. Simultaneously, a common and shared information system detailing all data and data flows which could serve as indicator or proxy or models for ES measurements, collecting all experiences and methods on ES valuation available at the Walloon and more detailed scales and proposing standardized or recommended ES evaluation method are developed. This common and shared database will be made available on the net for dissemination of ES holistic approaches and should be updated on a participative way. Subsequently, ES assessments and maps of the Walloon regions is developed in order to fulfill the requirements of the Biodiversity Strategy 2020. A conceptual and methodological framework is designed and will be submitted to stakeholders. A Walloon ES classification with corresponding indicators is setup and a methodology for mapping and assessing ES at various scales is developed. However, the framework and information system are not only defined as a simple recurring reporting tool. The holistic approach should be put in practices on a large spectrum of activities on the fields of agriculture, forestry, water management, nature conservation, rural development plan, urban development, tourism activities, etc. and all field experiences should be shared to demonstrate how it works and what are the limits. The ability of ES approach as decision support tool by different stakeholders will be assessed. Concurrently, a website is established in order to accomplish the communication objectives of the project. Besides communicating the importance of ES assessments and conservation for sustainability, the website serves as interactive platform where the methodological framework, the Walloon ES classification and the database of all indicators and proxy available is made available to all stakeholders or researchers needing some baseline. It thus also serves as a facilitating tool for future research on ES providing theoretical and practical information to ensure their sound scientific background and their practical policy implementation. Conclusions: implications of the project in terms of sustainable development The link between ES and sustainable development has now been the center of political and scientific attention for a while1,8–10. Much research is being carried out developing frameworks, tools and models to assess and map ES11–13. More recently, the importance of the ES concept as decision support tool for policy makers has been put forward. It is stated that ES assessments could guide policy decisions towards more sustainability by adding social and environmental criteria to the economic ones usually relied on14. In that sense, ES assessments could accelerate the transition by providing sound information upon which sustainable policy decisions could be made. However, to date, despite being a hot topic, ES assessments serving policy decisions are sparse15 and the challenge for real integration remains16. The WalES project is thus a real opportunity for the Walloon government and science to bind together to contribute to filling in this gap while simultaneously comply with European baseline by providing the requested national ES assessments and mapping. References 1. TEEB. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the economics of nature, a synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. (Progress Press, 2010). 2. Burkhard, B., Crossman, N., Nedkov, S., Petz, K. & Alkemade, R. Mapping and modelling ecosystem services for science, policy and practice. Ecosystem Services 4, 1–3 (2013). 3. Kandziora, M., Burkhard, B. & Müller, F. Mapping provisioning ecosystem services at the local scale using data of varying spatial and temporal resolution. Ecosystem Services 4, 47–59 (2013). 4. García-Nieto, A. P., García-Llorente, M., Iniesta-Arandia, I. & Martín-López, B. Mapping forest ecosystem services: From providing units to beneficiaries. Ecosystem Services 4, 126–138 (2013). 5. Palomo, I., Martín-López, B., Potschin, M., Haines-Young, R. & Montes, C. National Parks, buffer zones and surrounding lands: Mapping ecosystem service flows. Ecosystem Services 4, 104–116 (2013). 6. UE. EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020. (2011). at 7. Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). at 8. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. (Island Press, 2005). at 9. Abson, D. J. et al. Ecosystem services as a boundary object for sustainability. Ecological Economics 103, 29–37 (2014). 10. Costanza, R. & Folke, C. in Nature's Services societal dependence on natural ecosystems 49–68 (Gretchen C. Daily, 1997). at 11. Nelson, E. et al. Modeling multiple ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation, commodity production, and tradeoffs at landscape scales. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 7, 4–11 (2009). 12. Antle, J. M. & Valdivia, R. O. Modelling the supply of ecosystem services from agriculture: a minimum-data approach*. Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 50, 1–15 (2006). 13. Barrios, E. Soil biota, ecosystem services and land productivity. Ecological Economics 64, 269–285 (2007). 14. Bagstad, K. J., Semmens, D. J., Waage, S. & Winthrop, R. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation. Ecosystem Services 5, 27–39 (2013). 15. Laurans, Y. & Mermet, L. Ecosystem services economic valuation, decision-support system or advocacy? Ecosystem Services 7, 98–105 (2014). 16. Daily, G. C. & Matson, P. A. Ecosystem services: From theory to implementation. PNAS 105, 9455–9456 (2008).

The issues of power and equity are gaining attention in research on ecosystem services (ESs). Stakeholders benefiting from ESs are not necessarily able or authorized to participate in ES management. Thus, we have proposed an analytical framework to identify and qualify stakeholders' roles in relation to ES flows. Building on existing frameworks in the ES literature, we aimed to unravel the different direct and indirect management contributions to ES flows and link them to ES benefits. Direct management targets the functioning of ecosystems, the flows of services, and the benefits received by society, whereas indirect management facilitates, controls, or restricts the activities of direct managers. We applied this framework to the Mariño watershed (Peru) to describe stakeholders' roles using a set of 8 ESs. We have discussed the implications of our findings in terms of equity and power distribution. We conducted face-to-face semistructured interviews with representatives of 52 watershed stakeholders to understand how they managed and benefited from ESs. We used statistical analysis (permutation tests) to detect significant differences in the number of received and managed ESs among stakeholder sectors, i.e., civil society, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), business, and the public sector, and scales, from local to national levels. Indirect forms of ES management were more frequent than direct ones for all ESs. Water quantity, water quality, and agricultural production were managed by the largest number of stakeholder types. The differences in the number of stakeholder types benefiting from and managing ESs could result from intentional choices, e.g., preferences for local benefits. We also found clear differences in the identity of stakeholders who managed or benefited from ESs. Local stakeholders and the business sector benefited from a higher number of ESs, and public organizations and NGOs were most involved in ES management. More equitable governance of ESs should aim to integrate more diverse stakeholders into decision making. Further empirical research could use our framework to explore the factors determining stakeholders' roles and power distribution. There is a particular need to understand how rights, endowments, and entitlements, as well as spatial configuration, underpin inequities in different social and cultural contexts.

The governance of ecosystem services (ES) has been predominantly thought of in terms of market or state-based instruments. Comparatively, collective action mechanisms have rarely been considered. This paper addresses this gap by proposing a conceptual framework that brings together ES, social interdependencies, and collective action thinking. We use an ES conceptual lens to highlight social interdependencies among people so as to reflect on existing or potential collective actions among them. This framework can also contribute to increasing people's awareness of their mutual interdependencies and thereby fostering, framing, or enriching collective action, in ways that take into account the diversity and complexity of ecological processes underlying human activities. Our approach can contribute in particular to agroecological transitions that require landscape level innovations and coordination mechanisms among land users and managers. The framework distinguishes three types of social interdependencies: (i) between ES beneficiaries and ES providers, (ii) among beneficiaries, and (iii) among providers. These social interdependencies are in turn analyzed according to four main dimensions that are critical for collective action: (i) cognitive framing of interdependencies, (ii) levels of organization, (iii) formal and informal institutions, and (iv) power relations. Finally, we propose a strategy to turn this framework into action in contexts of participatory action research, a strategy grounded on a number of methodological principles and tools that convey complexity and increase people's awareness of interdependencies in agrarian social-ecological systems.