Ecology Centre, University of Kiel

Ecosystems:Management Implications

Indicatorsof the

Capacityfor Self-

Organization

Landuse-Intensity

Orientorsas

Indicators

Natural(primary)Sucession

MinorEcological

Risk

MajorEcological

Risk

Maturity

Pioneer Stage

NormativeArguments:

Risk Minimization andEcological Integrity

System-analytical Arguments:

Thermodynamics,Gradient Principle and

Orientor Theory

Societal Driversuse of ecosystem services

Ecosystem Integritybased upon self-organising capacity

Human needsand activities

Natural processes and components

Societal evaluation of ecosystem services and environmental risks:Interpretation of the Precautionary Principle (Management Responses)

Use of ecosystem services causing environmental impacts

Simple model of man & biosphere interactions, after de Groot (1992), slightly modified

Use of ecosystems and consequent environmental impacts

Environmental risk

Das Ziel: Integrationdurch Verknüpfung

Zukunft Küste – Coastal Futures

durch

Orientierung Zusammenarbeit

Naturwissenschaften Sozialwissenschaften Wirtschaft

Region Land Bund EU

Regionale Akteure Wissenschaftler Verwaltung

Priority: environment,self-regulation. Strong sustainability.People:long-term planners,absolutely risk averse.

Strong EU

Strong political leadership.Regulated economy towards sustainability.People:mid-term planners,risk averse to some degree.

Free, unregulated world markets. Priority: economic growth. People:short-term planners,no risk aversion.

Green RegionsGlobal Markets

EUROCAT

User specific perspectives

Marine protectionOffshore windparks

Fishery

Shipping

Disaster control

Birds

Fish

MarineMammals

Benthos

Ecosystem

Risk of shipaccidents

Socio-EconomicSystem

Harbour Development

Fisheries

Tourism

Visual Impact

WindpowerIndustry

MaricultureEmploy-ment

PublicAccep-tance

LocalIncome

Birds

Fish

MarineMammals

Benthos

Ecosystem

Risk of shipaccidents

Socio-EconomicSystem

Harbour Development

Fisheries

Tourism

Visual Impact

WindpowerIndustry

Mariculture

Socio-EconomicSystem

Harbour Development

Fisheries

Tourism

Visual Impact

WindpowerIndustry

Mariculture

Socio-EconomicSystem

Harbour Development

Fisheries

Tourism

Visual Impact

WindpowerIndustry

MaricultureEmploy-ment

PublicAccep-tance

LocalIncome

The Core of ICZM: Interactions

Zukunft Küste – Coastal Futures

Scaling

• Southern Northsea• Windparks• Power-plant

Sea use... Official data on planning... recent R&D results... Available modelling results... Own modelling activities...

Welche Veränderungen betrachtet CF?

xx

xx xxxx xx

Frequenz [kHz]

Hör

verm

ögen

[dB

]

140

40

1601

0

20

40

60

80

100

120Exergie-Aufnahme

Stoffkreisläufe

Speicherkapazität

Heterogenität

biotische Diversität

Stoffverluste

Bauphase Referenzwerte

0

20

40

60

80

100

120Exergie-Aufnahme

Stoffkreisläufe

Speicherkapazität

Heterogenität

biotische Diversität

Stoffverluste

Bauphase Referenzwerte

(nicht aus ERSEM)

Chlorophyll-a

Individuenbezogene Reaktionspotentiale

Analysis of specific processes Analysis of indirect effects

B1=Standard+0.216 [mg m-3]

Windpark Sandbank 24

Wind

Wind speed map from ERS-2 data

M. Christiansen & C. Hasager

Wake effects

Single turbine

U2

U1

Helgoland

Figure 4.2.1: 240ip in S (0) Figure 4.2.2: 240

ip in S (3)

Societal Drivers

Pressures Coast

0

50

100Food demand

Urbanisation

Energy demand

Mobility &Transport

Industry &Housing

Nature

Conservation

EU leadership

Reference

Global Markets Strong EU Green Regions

Riverine input NitrogenPhosphorusSilicate, Sediment

Matter exchange with Greater North Sea ...Atmospheric input…Extraction of sand and clay…Loss or conversion of coastal habitats…Fisheries…Shipping and Ports…Oil and Gas ...Offshore Windfarms ...Waste Disposal…Recreation and Tourism...

Possible reference values:maximum value, average value, recent or former situation, wanted situation, expected situation, scenario situation, etc.

Drivers,Pressures &Scenarios

Recent situation: social State 100 k.A.> 100 Überangebot< 100 Unterangebot

Energy-szenario

AusgangssituationEnergieszenario

Green scenario

AusgangssituationNaturraumszenario

World views, values and perceptions of society:

Define risk aversion of society

Different interpretation of policy targets and yardsticks

Policy and Management strategies

The Background: Values and Perceptions of Society

EUROCATZukunft Küste – Coastal Futures

Use of Scenarios in EUROCAT

Soil

River

Estuary

Coast

Atm

osph

ere

Bio

phys

cial

pro

pert

ies

Soci

o- e

cono

mic

act

iviti

es

Coastal response Green Regions

StrongEU

Global Markets

Workingwith nature

TargetedPolicies

EconomicInstruments

Different interpretations of the Precautionary Principle (scenario

dependent)

Revised Policy Mix

StakeholderInputs

Uncertainty about the Future

Modified after Colijn et al. (2002)

Measures for Reducing Nutrient Emissions

Catchment Description MeasuresElbe present levels (same as in 2000) are maintained no additional measures

Humber present levels (1993-2001) are maintained until 2025 300 ha due to realignmentRhine present levels (same as in 2000) are maintained no additional measures

Catchment Description Measures

Elbe Reduction of inputs from the catchment (point and diff. Sources), implementation of the Nitrate Directive (good agr. Practice)

Farm measures, WWTP update,tile drainage reduction up to 10% of arable land

Humber

Reduction of inputs from the catchment, 20% reduction from point sources along the tidal reaches/estuary (implementation of the Urban

Waste Water Directive), 75% of the area designated as Nitrate Vulnerable area, management realignment

20% reduction of riverine loads (point sources + Nitrate Directive implementation),

realignment area of 1321 ha

Rhine Reduction of inputs from the catchment (point and diff. Sources), implementation of the Nitrate Directive (good agr. Practice)

Farm measures, WWTP update,tile drainage reduction up to 10% of arable land

Catchment Description Measures

Elbe Over-compliance with Environmental Directives and standards Farm measures, WWTP update, tile drainage reduction up to 20% of arable land

Humber

Reduction of inputs from the catchment, 50% reduction from point sources along the tidal reaches/estuary (implementaion of the Urban

Waste Water Directive), 75% of the area designated as Nitrate Vulnerable area, management realignment

50% red in point sources + Nitrate Directive implementation, realignment area of 7400 ha

Rhine Over-compliance with Environmental Directives and standards Farm measures, WWTP update, tile drainage reduction up to 20% of arable land

BAU

PT

DG

Sources: Cave et al., 2003 (Humber); Lise et al., 2003, 2004 (Rhine and Elbe) Karfeld in preparation (Elbe)

Reduction scenarios

Humber

Source: Behrendt 2004

Humber: N 27%, P 42%

Rhine/Elbe: N 70%, P 75%

Humber: N 8%, P 37%

Rhine: N 38%, P 51%

Elbe: N 35%, P 48%

Humber: N 19%, P 41%

Rhine/Elbe: N 50%, P 65%BA

UD

GP

T

Reference 1985

0

50

100Landwirtschaft / Fischerei

Siedlungs -entwicklung

Energiebedarf

Verkehr &Transport

Tourismus

Natur -schutz

EU - Politik

0

50

100Landwirtschaft / Fischerei

Siedlungs -entwicklung

Energiebedarf

Verkehr &Transport

Tourismus

Natur -schutz

EU - Politik

0

50

100Primärproduktion

Trophische Effizienz

SpeicherungArtenvielfalt

Nährstoffverluste

Ref=100

COCOA Setup

3 o W 0 o 3 o E 6 o E 9 o E 1 2 o E 5 0 o N

5 2 o N

5 4 o N

5 6 o N

5 8 o N

6 0 o N

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8

9 1 0 1 1

1 2

1 3

1 4

1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9

2 0 2 1 2 2

2 3 2 4

2 5 2 6

2 7 2 8 2 9 3 0

3 1 3 2 3 3 3 4

3 5 3 6

3 7 3 8 3 9

4 0 4 1 4 2 4 3 4 4

4 5 4 6 4 7 4 8

4 9 5 0 5 1 5 2 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 6 5 7 5 8

5 9

6 0 6 1 6 2 6 3 6 4 6 5 6 6 6 7 6 8 6 9

7 0 7 1 7 2 7 3 7 4 7 5 7 6 7 7 7 8

7 9 8 0 8 1 8 2 8 3

8 4 8 5 8 6 8 7

8 88 9 9 0 9 1

9 2 9 3

9 4 9 5 9 6 9 7

9 8 9 9 1 0 0 1 0 1

1 0 2 1 0 3 1 0 4

1 0 5

1 0 6

1 0 7

1 0 8 1 0 9 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 2

1 1 3 1 1 4 1 1 5

1 1 6 1 1 7

1 1 8 1 1 9 1 2 0

1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4

1 2 5 1 2 6

1 2 7 1 2 8 1 2 9

1 3 0 1 3 1 1 3 2 1 3 3

1 3 4

1 3 5 1 3 6 1 3 7 1 3 8

93 surface plus coastal boxes

45 lower boxes

138 boxes in total

Elbe Box = 77, 78, 68, 69, 58, 59

Rhine Box = 91, 87, 83

Humber Box =70

Box

Mean winterDIN concen.(mmol N m-3)

Mean winterDIP concen.(mmol P m-3)

Mean winterDIN / DIP ratio

Mean winterDIN / Si ratio

68Model Field

31.1 36.5

1.2 0.9

26.2 40.4

9.5 10.3

78Model Field

135.9 139.2

3.6 2.5

39.3 50.8

1.6 2.3

ERSEM Validation

DIP (m mol P m-3)

CHL-a (mg Chl-a m-3)

Time series of Diatoms and Flagellates for box 78 (Elbe) for the standard scenario

Diatomeen (mg C m-3) Flagellaten (mg C m-3)

Source: Lenhard, 2003

Pristine= pink1995= black

BAU= redPT= blueDG= green

Net primary production (g C m-2 a-1)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

South NS Humber Box Rhine BoxNS

Elbe Box NS

1995=100

80%

70%

60%

Pris tine=10%North Sea circulation patterns

Monthly mean tracer concentration (mmol m-3). A point source near the Rhine outflow isresponsible for the horizontal gradients.

Horizontal distribution of net primary production simulated by ERSEM for the year 1995 in gC m-2 y-1.

Self-organsing Capacity ProcessesERSEM indicators

Export of matter and energy (especially of scarce nutrients). Indicated by:matter losses into adjacent ecosystems (offshore)Ind. Nutrient losses into adj. ERSEM Boxes (org + in.)

Of energy, nutrients and toxic compoundsIndicated by: Particular Organic MatterSediment (amount & quality)Ind. Sediment in/output

Of energy and matter through the trophic structureIndicated by: trophic structure, turnover of w. nutrientsInd. Turnover of winter nutrients

Of structures (both biotic and abiotic patterns) is essential for resilience and adaptive capacity Indicated by: species composition, spatial sediment distrbutionInd. Diatom/nonDiatom ratio

external nutrient load, Nutrient availability

Ind. Net primary production

Exergy Capture

Heterogenity

Matter Losses Minimisation

Cycling

Storage Capacity

Capability of enhancing the use of incoming energy Indicated by: primary production, light supply,

-50

0

50

100Exergy

Cycling

StorageHeterogeneity

Mini. Losses

Pristine

BAU= 80%

Policy Target= 70%

Deep Green= 60%

Ref. 1995=0

Elbe

MeasuresCosts (M

Euros) Minimum

Costs (M Euros)

Maximum

Elbe BAU present levels (same as in 2000) are maintained

no additional measures 399

ElbePT

Reduction of inputs from the catchment (point and diff. Sources), implementation

of the Nitrate Directive (good agr. Practice)

Farm measures, WWTP update,tile drainage reduction up to 10% of arable land

806,7 1804,5

Elbe DG Over-compliance with Environmental Directives and standards

Farm measures, WWTP update, tile drainage reduction up to 20% of arable land

1664,9 5935,7

Sources: Cave et al., 2003 (Humber); Lise et al., 2003, 2004 (Rhine and Elbe) Karfeld in preparation (Elbe)

0

50

100Exergy

Cycling

StorageHeterogeneity

Mini. LossesPris tine

BAU= 80%

Policy Target= 70%

Deep Green= 60%

Ref. 1995=0

Rhine

MeasuresCosts (M

Euros) Minimum

Costs (M Euros)

Maximum

Rhine BAU present levels (same as in 2000) are maintained

no additional measures 816

Rhine PT

Reduction of inputs from the catchment (point and diff. Sources), implementation

of the Nitrate Directive (good agr. Practice)

Farm measures, WWTP update,tile drainage reduction up to 10% of arable land

846,2 1202,4

Rhine DG Over-compliance with Environmental Directives and standards

Farm measures, WWTP update, tile drainage reduction up to 20% of arable land

1651,8 2971,8

Sources: Cave et al., 2003 (Humber); Lise et al., 2003, 2004 (Rhine and Elbe) Karfeld in preparation (Elbe)

-50

0

50

100Exergy

Cycling

StorageHeterogeneity

Mini. LossesPristineBAU= 80%Policy Target= 70%Deep Green= 60%Ref. 1995=0

Humber

MeasuresCosts (M

Euros) Minimum

Costs (M Euros)

MaximumHumber BAU present levels (1993-2001) are maintained until 2025 300 ha due to realignment -55,5

Humber PT

Reduction of inputs from the catchment, 20% reduction from point sources along the tidal reaches/estuary (implementation of the Urban

Waste Water Directive), 75% of the area designated as Nitrate Vulnerable area, management realignment

20% reduction of riverine loads (point sources + Nitrate Directive implementation), realignment

area of 1321 ha -34,245 55,68

Humber DG

Reduction of inputs from the catchment, 50% reduction from point sources along the tidal reaches/estuary (implementaion of the Urban

Waste Water Directive), 75% of the area designated as Nitrate Vulnerable area, management realignment

50% red in point sources + Nitrate Directive implementation, realignment area of 7400 ha

-1039,995 -844,62

Sources: Cave et al., 2003 (Humber); Lise et al., 2003, 2004 (Rhine and Elbe) Karfeld in preparation (Elbe)

-2000,00

0,00

2000,00

4000,00

6000,00

8000,00

10000,00

Bau PT min PT max DG min DGmax

RhineElbeHumber

Costs (net benefits) [M Euros] of reduction scenarios

costs(net) benefits

Elbe/Rhine: Only costs of measures are computed, benefits are qualitatively assessed in a MCA

Humber: Net present value is computed as a difference between costs and benefits associated with scenarios

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5

South North SeaHumber Box

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5

South North Sea

Elbe Box

Elbe Box, North SeaRed.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5

South North Sea

Rhine Box

Rhine Box, NorthSea Red.

Elbe

Rhine

Humber

Ecological risk: The ecological risk of 1995 is normalised to 100, the pristine is normalised to 0, the ecological risk of the considered scenarios are normalised between 0 and 100.

Ecological risk is computed as the average of normalised values (1 to 100) of ecosystem integrity indicators for each scenario.

After Windhorst &Turner 2003, in preparation

about risks of natural hazards

Marginal costsof ecosystem conservation

use of ecosystem services

loss of ecological integrity (e.g. ecosystem squeeze)

SatisfyingZone

GreenRegions

Precautionary principle

Globalmarkets

Risk averse

Risk ignorant

Risk management

Economic Benefits(marginal)

about risks of natural hazards

about economic risksRisk ignorant

Risk averseabout economic risks

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5

South North Sea

Elbe Box

Elbe Box, North SeaRed.

Elbe

Case study reindeer herding in Northern Finland

Burkhard and Müller 2005

High Reindeer Densitiesin the Summer

on the Winter Pastures

Loss ofGrazing Land

Landuse ChangeTourism, Forestry, Hydro-Energy

Rapid Soil Drying in Summer

Mechanical Disturbanceby Trampling

High Reindeer Densitiesin the Summer

on the Winter Pastures

Loss ofGrazing Land

Rapid Soil Drying in Summer

Mechanical Disturbanceby Trampling

Destruction of Likensand

Soil Compaction

Wind Erosion fromBare Soils

Loss of „Soil Capital“

High Reindeer Densitiesin the Summer

on the Winter Pastures

Loss ofGrazing Land

Key Problem:

Reduced Quantity and Quality of Grazing Areas

Podsolic Soilswith Healthy (A)and Damaged (B)Lichen Covers(Photo: Uhlig,Sveistrup & Schjelderup)

A B

Key Problem:

Reduced Quality of Grazing Areas

IkonosPictureNäkkälä

Landuse ChangeEcosystem Structures

Ecosystem InputsEcosystem Outputs

CarrierFunctions

Pressure

LanduseIntensity

0

20

40

60

80

100

120Reindeer Herding

Forestry

Tourism & Recreation

Other LanduseActivities

NatureProtection

Agri-culture

Raw Materials Energy Conversion

Human HabitationCultivation

Energy ConversionRecreation

Nature Protection

Area and Intensity

Ecosystem StateStructureFunctionIntegrity

Self-Organisation

Regulation and Habitat

Functions

State

EcologicalIntegrity

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Exergy Capture

Exergy Dissipation

Metabolic Effeciency-1

Organisation

Diversity Storage

Nutrient Loss-1 Biotic Water Flows

Energy BalanceClimate

HydrologyBiomass

Erosion and SedimentsBiogeochemistry

Nutrient BalancesSoil Fertility

Organic MatterHabitat Maintenance

Biodiversity

Economic Consequences

ProductionFunctions

Impact

EconomicWelfare

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Employment

Spending Power

Transport

Demography

Logistics and

Infra-structure

Significance Reindeer Herding

EfficiencyAccomodation

OxygenWater for Human Use

FoodGenetic Resources

Medicinical ResourcesRaw Materials

(Clothing, Building,...)Biochemicals

Fuel and EnergyFodder

FertilizerOrnamental Resources

SocialConsequences

InformationFunctions

Impact

SocialWelfare

0

20

40

60

80

100

120Health and Nutrition

Social Security

Leisure

Personal Well-Being

Ethno-logical

IdentityEducation

Communication Culture

Aestetic InformationSpiritual InformationHistoric InformationCultural Inspiration

Educational InformationScientific Information

Scenario A: Business as usual

Scenario B: Intensification of reindeer herding

Scenario C: Reduction of reindeer herding

land use integrity

economysocial welfare

Sustainability scenario

Outlook

The presented methodology represents a new approach towards policy implementation, the advantages are:

• Determine the ‚role‘ and impact of each river system upon the whole North Sea basin and its potential improvement

• Represent the indicators of ecological integrity as characterised by a dynamical and spatially differentiated equilibrium

• Facilitate an approach to reduction based on the choice of ‚acceptable‘ ecological risk

• Determine the values of ecological indicators related with the acceptable risk, thus facilitating monitoring campaigns

Further research topics are:• Validation with further field data• Revision and improvement of the aggregation procedure (from single

indicators to env. Risk• Potential for further applications

Main contributing scientists:

Hermann LenhartFranciscus Colijn and Andreas Kannen

Kerry Turner, Rachel Cave and Laure LedouxHorst Behrendt and Jürgen Hofmann

Wietze Liese and Ron JannsenBenjamin Burkhard and Felix MüllerKatarina Licht and Bernhard Gläser

Stefan Garthe, Klaus Lucke and Ursula Siebert