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
• http://www.eclaire-fp7.eu/
• Coordinated by CEH Edinburgh
(Mark Sutton)
The GAINS model
Activity
E.Factors
Share
unabated
Emissions
Deposition
Impacts
Share
abated
Optimization target
Minimized costs
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: O3 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?
van Grinsven et al. 2013
Cost benefit analysis
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
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