1. Integrating and scaling data to create ecosystem accounts relevant to management decisions
23rd London Group Meeting
San Jose Costa Rica, th October 2017
Dr. Heather Keith
Research Fellow
Dr. Michael Vardon
Visiting Fellow
Emma Burns and David Lindenmayer

2. Questions to the London Group
We defined ecosystem condition as time since disturbance. Has this been used previously or considered useful in future?
In the current guidelines for ecosystem accounts, it appears that condition can be defined in two ways: (i) supply of ecosystem services, and (ii) ecosystem assets relative to a reference state. Should these two cases be described by different terms?
A “sustainable yield” providing ecosystem services can be a subjective definition, and dependent on perspective (condition for nature or for human use). Should such an indicator be included in accounts that are an information system, and interpretation is performed at a later stage?
Is there a difference between ecosystem extent and land cover extent? Using the same term in environmental accounts and ecosystem accounts would improve consistency and linkages between these accounts.
Spatial units are related to classification systems and how available data can be integrated within these classifications. Available financial data were highly aggregated, so that land use could be linked only to the highest level of classification of ecosystem services (CICES). Are there suggestions about how to quantify lower levels of ecosystem services?
Beyond accounting? We modelled changes in ecosystem services (net carbon stock change and water yield) in the counterfactual case – as if forest logging had not occurred. Is this considered a useful form of analysis to identify trade-offs between land use activities in their use of ecosystem services?

3. Central Highlands, Victoria, Australia
Mountain Ash forest

4. Ecosystem condition related to time since disturbance
Forest age – determined from stand-replacing events of wildfire and logging
(high severity wildfire kills montane ash forest but not mixed species forest)
years old regeneration period
> 75 before 1939
56 – – 1959
33 – – 1982
7 – – 2008
0 –

5. Change in ecosystem extent and condition over time
Time series
Forest age class = ecosystem condition
Land cover type:
= ecosystem extent

6. Forest age influences water yield
Reduction in water yield in younger montane ash
Accounting for change over time in ecosystem condition requires ecosystem process functions in relation to a reference state, for example water yield and forest carbon dynamics.

7. Forest age influences carbon stocks
Total biomass carbon stock changes over time due to rates of mortality, decomposition, regeneration, emissions, harvest and removal of wood, longevity of wood products, transfer and longevity in landfill.
Wildfire
Logging
Initial biomass in old growth forest
Ecosystem condition in terms of climate change mitigation value is the asset of total carbon stock (height up the Y axis) compared with the old growth forest (reference state).
Rate of carbon sequestration (slope of the dark green regrowth forest curve) is not the correct metric for mitigation value.
‘Sustainable yield’ in terms of harvesting wood products is not equivalent to the maximum asset value that is considered the reference state for ecosystem condition.

8. Ecosystem condition for biodiversity
1. IUCN Red List of Threatened Ecosystems
CRITERION A and B
CRITERION C
CRITERION D and E
Ecological processes
Assessment threat status and risk of loss of the Mountain Ash ecosystem.
Threat status based on 5 criteria covering different spatial and temporal scales.
Habitat attributes
Disturbance
factors
Spatial extent and connectivity
8 species of aboreal marsupials
Species dependencies

9. Ecosystem condition for biodiversity 2
Ecosystem condition for biodiversity 2. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species
Ecosystem condition indicated by:
Number of species listed
Increase in severity of threat class over time

10. Abundance of arboreal marsupials declined over time
Ecosystem condition for biodiversity 3. Animal abundance and habitat attributes
Abundance of arboreal marsupials declined over time
Number of arboreal marsupials positively related to hollow-bearing trees

11. Gains in non-monetary values
Trade-offs defined explicitly
Ceasing native timber harvesting increases ecosystem services for:
Carbon sequestration and water provisioning calculated – Known gains
Plantation timber provisioning and recreational services estimated – Potential gains
Gains in non-monetary values

12. Defining spatial trade-offs
Trade-offs defined spatially
Defining spatial trade-offs
Interaction index of ecosystem services of water, carbon and timber provisioning.
‘Hotspots’ are the highest values for all ecosystem services.
Trade-offs are required when land uses conflict.
Native forest available for harvesting
Timber harvesting reduces ecosystem services for carbon storage and water yield

13. Questions to the London Group
We defined ecosystem condition as time since disturbance. Has this been used previously or considered useful in future?
In the current guidelines for ecosystem accounts, it appears that condition can be defined in two ways: (i) supply of ecosystem services, and (ii) ecosystem assets relative to a reference state. Should these two cases be described by different terms?
A “sustainable yield” providing ecosystem services can be a subjective definition, and dependent on perspective (condition for nature or for human use). Should such an indicator be included in accounts that are an information system, and interpretation is performed at a later stage?
Is there a difference between ecosystem extent and land cover extent? Using the same term in environmental accounts and ecosystem accounts would improve consistency and linkages between these accounts.
Spatial units are related to classification systems and how available data can be integrated within these classifications. Available financial data were highly aggregated, so that land use could be linked only to the highest level of classification of ecosystem services (CICES). Are there suggestions about how to quantify lower levels of ecosystem services?
Beyond accounting? We modelled changes in ecosystem services (net carbon stock change and water yield) in the counterfactual case – as if forest logging had not occurred. Is this considered a useful form of analysis to identify trade-offs between land use activities in their use of ecosystem services?