Discussion Paper on Ecosystem Services for the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Final Report

Tables

Table 1: Categories of people interviewed directly so far in this study or whose views have been captured indirectly through the MDBA study. 5

Table 2: Examples of the distinction between ecosystems services and the benefits that flow from them with human inputs42 (see also Section 1.7). 15

Table 3: It has been argued that different classifications of ecosystem services might be needed for different purposes but that a common definition should be sought.102 16

Table 4: Proposed structure for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) for integrated environmental and economic accounting, and its relationship with ways in which natural capital is currently considered in the international System of Environmental Economic Accounts (SEEA).114 27

Table 5: Thematic, Class and Group structure proposed for the CICES.114 28

Table 6: Framework for assessing the viability of an ecosystem services approach for meeting natural resource management (NRM) objectives (adapted from a framework developed specifically for achieving conservation objectives).165 32

Table 7: An example of a qualitative expert assessment of ecosystem services from inland wetland ecosystems (from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment).152 Increasing size of the filled circles denotes low, medium and high magnitude of services; not known = ?. 36

Table 8: Differences between steady-state resource management and ecosystem stewardship.50 37

Table 9: Ecosystem services and their ecosystem service providers.134 47

Table 10: Summary of approaches to assessing values of ecosystem services in the TEEB project.215 55

Table 11: An example of a typology of ecosystem services provided by agricultural lands.136 65

Table 12: Soil-based ecosystem services appropriate to Australia illustrating the distinction between intermediate (supporting) services and final services (which lead directly to benefits) (from Bennett et al. 2010).30 67

Table 13: Public benefits potentially impacted by changes in soil management (from Bennett et al. 2010).30 Codes for services relate to Table 12. 68

Table 14: Estimated change in public and private net benefits produced by a change in soil management of light-textured Calcarosols in the Murray Mallee Bioregion from conventional tillage to either conservation tillage or restored native vegetation (from Bennett et al. 2010).30 69

Table 15: Five-year outcomes and strategies for Sustainable Farm Practices under Caring for Our Country.12 71

Table 16: Example of mapping land management practices to ecological processes. 72

Table 17: Summary of interview responses. 76

Table 18: Australian Government departments whose policies and programs affects the delivery of ecosystem services to Australians and/or might benefits from a strategic consideration of ecosystem services. 86

Table 19: Summary of the enablers and blockers of ecosystem services approaches identified in Figure 23. 90

Table 20: Ways in which ecosystem services approaches can add value to policy and decision-support cycles. 97

Table 21: Potential contributions of an ecosystem services approach to social, technological, economic, environmental and political/ legal dimensions of decision-making. 101

Table 22: Examples of how ecosystem services have been defined. 110

Table 23: Conceptual framework and typology adopted in a study of ecosystem services in southeast Queensland.150 116

Table 24: Ecosystem services classified according to their spatial characteristics (a type of classification that might assist landscape scale assessments and planning).67 117

Table 25: Ecosystem services classified according to their excludability and rivalness (a type of classification that might suit some economic assessments).67 117

Table 26: Ecosystem services related activities globally in 2011 (this is a selected summary as there are many activities underway). 119

Table 27: Major recent research and other activities relating to ecosystem services in Australia. 124

Table 28: The Robinson et al. (2010 and 2012)196 alternative way of categorizing soil natural capital 138

Table 29: Recommendations and insights, from various authoritative sources, about applying an ecosystem services approach. 139

Table 30: Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats associated with applying an ecosystem services approach within the Australian Government. 143

Figures

Figure 1: The conceptual framework used by The Economics and Ecosystems and Biodiversity project to link ecosystems and human wellbeing.215 xviii

Figure 2: Stages in the modern history of ecosystem services.109 7

Figure 3: The concept of total economic value.27, 170 17

Figure 4: Goods and services can be characterized along a continuum from rival to non-rival and from excludable to non- excludable. Some goods that are non-rival at low use levels (fisheries and CO2 storage) can move towards becoming rival goods with high use.102 18

Figure 5: A simplified version of the conceptual framework relating drivers of change, ecosystem services and human wellbeing from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.144 The relationship between ecosystem services and human wellbeing was specified in more detail in other parts of the framework, as was the nature of potential policy and management interventions. 21

Figure 6: The conceptual framework used by The Economics and Ecosystems and Biodiversity project to link ecosystems and human wellbeing.215 22

Figure 7: The conceptual relationships between intermediate and final ecosystem services and benefits.101 23

Figure 8: The conceptual framework for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment,228 which was itself adapted from Fisher et al. (2008).101 25

Figure 9: Possible relationships between biological diversity and ecosystem functions for the plant subsystem.237 40

Figure 10: Potential effects of intensification of agriculture on biodiversity.121 43

Figure 11: Functional forms for the relationship between loss of biodiversity and loss of function.84 43

Figure 12: Hypothesised relationships between diversity (as measured by species richness) and the efficiency of ecosystem services at plot to landscape scales.212 44

Figure 13: Generalized functional relationships between the levels of ecosystem services provision (Y-axis) and the degree of loss of biodiversity related to different land use intensities (X-axis).77 49

Figure 14: Conceptual framework for evaluating the implications of alternative future scenarios (e.g., policy choices) in relation to multiple ecosystem processes, services and benefits in the TEEB project.215 50

Figure 15: Conceptual Framework for the UK National Ecosystem Assessment showing the links between ecosystems, ecosystem services, good(s), valuation, human well-being, change processes and scenarios for the future of the UK.228 *Note that the term good(s) includes all use and non-use, material and non-material benefits from ecosystems that have value for people. 51

Figure 16: An example of how the broad state of ecosystems can be assessed visually and related to likely combinations of ecosystem services produced.103 53

Figure 17: A depiction insights for policy from an economic framework for ecosystem service provision.101 57

Figure 18: Number of papers using the term ‘ecosystem services’ or ‘ecological services’ in an ISI Web of Science search through 2007.102 61

Figure 19: Distribution of population and area across predominantly urban, intermediate and predominantly rural regions in the OECD in 2005.171 64

Figure 20: Spatial scales of metrics that relate to ecosystem services from rural land management.76 66

Figure 21: Conceptual relationship between land management practices, ecosystem services and benefits from ecosystems to people. 66

Figure 22: Ecosystem services as a foundation for resilience and sustainability (Dixon Landers, US EPA, personal communication 2011). 78

Figure 23: System map (depiction of key relationships, processes and issues that interviewees considered to affect Australia’s ability to consider the full range of benefits from the environment strategically and to translate this into human wellbeing). Broken lines indicate relationships considered to have weak influence over outcomes of the system and bold lines indicate especially strong influence. 84

Figure 24: Framework proposed by Turner and Daily (2008)222 for integrating ecosystem services analysis with policy and other decision-making cycles. 96

Figure 25: An operational model proposed by Cowling et al. (2008)70 for making assessment and management of ecosystem services part of mainstream decision-making. 96

Figure 26: Typology of ecosystem services and functions and potential indicators proposed by de Groot et al (2010).77 112

Figure 27: Framework for the provision of ecosystem services from soil natural capital (from Dominati et al. 201085 137