Challenges in using indicators to quantify ecosystems services for a CBA in the framework of ECLAIRE Wilfried Winiwarter

ECLAIRE Measurements at different scales Modelling at different scales Integrated Risk Assessment and Policy Tools Coordinated by CEH Edinburgh (Mark Sutton)

The GAINS model Minimized costs Share unabated ImpactsEmissionsDepositionActivityE.Factors Share abated Optimization target

Results of field experiments –Birch trees (F. Hayes): # of leaves, biomass, cross-sectional area –Oak AG biomass (G. Gerosa) NOT: hornbeams, root biomass –Annual pastures: O 3 reduces fertilization effects (R. Alonso) –NDVI, leaf weight, chlorophyll content (C. Amann) NOT: biomass Higher ozone concentration  damage Combined with N deposition  damage corrected (or: decreased NUE)

Optimization boundary conditions Only one dimension (endpoint) possible: conversions needed Practical experience with – largely – synergetic endpoints –Air pollution – climate change –“multi-effect” protocol Here: opposing effects Is ozone or nitrogen more important?

Cost benefit analysis van Grinsven et al. 2013

Valuation of ecosystems services Framework (Mike Holland) –Quantification of benefits –Treat those services qualitatively, for which quantification can not be given –Here: additional forest biomass due to N –Quantification of biodiversity value is difficult Focus on market values ?

Bateman et al. 2013

Biodiversity indicators “No net loss of biodiversity” Endpoints: Species number / preferential species Red list species / sensitive species Indicator species E.g. “relative environmental sustainability” or “positive indicator species” concepts

Conclusions “No net loss of biodiversity” Endpoints: Species number Red list species Indicator species E.g. “relative environmental sustainability” or “positive indicator species” concepts