010 esercitazione4 ecoservices assessment_2015

Valutazione economica dei servizi ecologici

Ecoservices Economic Assessment.

PROGETTAZIONE ECOLOGICA PER LA QUALITÀ AMBIENTALE

PROGETTAZIONE URBANA SOSTENIBILE

PIANIFICAZIONE TERRITORIALE

2014/2015

Luca Marescotti 2 / 57

Ecosystems and Biodiversity

In slideshare.net/ & academia.edu /Luca Marescottisono disponibili altri moduli sulla valutazione della

qualità aria acqua suolo[Titolo generale 010_Esercitazione_Elementi]

In questa esercitazione si parlerà su come valutare i servizi svolti dagli ecosistemi

The Economics of Ecoservices and Biosphere TEEB

&

Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services CICES



LOCAL & GLOBALEnvirnoment needs a cross scaling vision,Is referred to a multidisciplinary approach

so that we can cover and mergea multiplicity of points of views



LOCALE & GLOBALE

LOCALE le leggi urbanistiche nazionali

(per esempio la L 765/1967 e i successivi decreti ministeriali sugli standard)

&GLOBALE i cicli geofisici e chimi della biosfera

(servizi ambientali, la ricchezza della biosfera)



LOCALE & GLOBALEnelle esercitazioni

LOCALE COMUNE

&GLOBALE PROVINCIA REGIONE



LOCALE & GLOBALEDUE PROBLEMI:

COME VALUTARE LA QUALITÀ AMBIENTALE,COME PESARE OMOGENEAMENTE IL VALORE DI SUOLI, che sono EDIFICABILI, AGRICOLI, BOSCATI COLTIVATI, BOSCATI

FORESTALI PROTETTI



LOCALE & GLOBALEIL SENSO DELLA BIOSFERA NELL'URBANISTICA

E LA LIMITATEZZA DEL PIANETA

LOCAL & GLOBAL

THE MEANING OF BIOSPHERE IN LAND USE PLANNING

AND THE EARTH'S LITTLENESS



INTEREZZA E ARMONIAIL SENSO DEGLI STANDARD URBANISTICI

WHOLENESS AND HARMONY

THE MEANING OF STANDARDS IN LAND USE PLANNING



FROM Local agenda 21 RIO ConferenceAND FROM

MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2003), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: A Framework for Assessment, Washington D.C., Island

Press.

MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005), Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Synthesis, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Washington

D.C., Island Press.

TOTEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity

http://www.teebweb.org/

CICES - Common International Classification of Ecosystem

http://www.cices.eu


http://www.cices.eu/



FROM Local agenda 21 RIO Conference

MA - Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

http://www.millenniumassessment.org/

TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity


CICES - Common International Classification of Ecosystem

http://www.cices.eu

TO Urban and Regional Planning Standards


http://www.cices.eu/


TEEB:

TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity / Heidi Wittmer, Haripriya Gundimeda (a cura di), TEEB for Local and Regional Policy

Makers, TEEB, 2010.

TEEB – The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity / Augustin Berghöfer (Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ) (a cura di), TEEB Manual for Cities: Ecosystem Services in Urban Management,

TEEB, 2011.



TEEB:

TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2013): Guidance Manual for TEEB Country Studies. Version 1.0.

Sukhdev, P., Wittmer, H., and Miller, D., “The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Challenges and Responses”, in D. Helm and C.

Hepburn (eds), Nature in the Balance: The Economics of Biodiversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press (2014).

TEEB http://www.teebweb.org/



TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2011 p.4


TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity2011 p.9

KEY MESSAGES FOR SPATIAL PLANNING



• Seeing the forest for the trees. The overriding benefit of spatial planning is that it can encompass the cumulative impacts of incremental decisions on ecosystems and their services. It examines the ‘parts’ to make decisions that affect the ‘whole.’• Knowledge really is power. An effective planning framework can make the policy and planning process transparent and inclusive, assessing who benefits from which ecosystem service, helping to avoid conflicts, especially if different stakeholder groups are part of the planning process.• Early thinking enables opportunities and management of changes. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) can contribute to the integration of biodiversity issues and ecosystem services in local and regional planning. This safeguards livelihoods, illuminates impacts on ecosystem services and highlights the risks and opportunities associated with changes.


• Start locally to think globally. A good strategy considers both local and global systems and stakeholders. Spatial planning, supported by EIA and SEA, may form a basis for sustainable, economically and socially appropriate responses, for example, to climate change.• Getting more than you bargained for, can be a good thing. The proactive inclusion of ecosystem services allows environmental assessment to identify the economic potentials, rather than simply the constraints, associated with development that supports biodiversity.



Alcuni riferimenti a: /some references to: LA21

For next slides

Quoted from:

www.curriculum-press.co.uk Number 203UNDERSTANDING THE AGENDAS

http://www.curriculum-press.co.uk/



Case Study: Mumbai’s Brown Agenda

In contrast to the Green Agenda, the Brown Agenda is important in developing world cities, especially where they are growing rapidly.

This is the case in Asia and parts of Africa and Latin America Mumbai (formerly Bombay), in India’s Maharashtra State has a population of 16 million people (at least 20 million if connected suburbs are taken into account), and this is expected to grow to 22-25 million by 2010.

Mumbai is a classic expanding megacity, and its citizens have to contend with the issues of the Brown Agenda on a daily basis. Think of the Brown Agenda as a list of environmental health problems that need to be solved:



• Up to 60% of Mumbai’s population live in informal, slum housing (called Zopadpattis). 60% of buildings are non-engineered (built by people themselves).

• Slums housing covers about 10% of Mumbai’s area, but holds 60% of its people.

• There is an average of 0.03 acres [121.41 square meters] of open space per person in Mumbai.



• In August 2005, floods caused $700 million in damage and killed 400 people; most of the city is only metres above sea level.

• Mangroves, which protect the city from floods, are being destroyed by urbanisation. 40% have been lost in the last 10 years.

• Mumbai generates 2225 million litres of sewage per day, most of which runs untreated into the sea.

• 97% of Mumbai’s population is exposed to suspended particulate matter air pollution above WHO guidelines.

• Whilst Mumbai is the 4th largest urban agglomeration in the world, it ranked 124th out of 130 cities in terms of quality of life in the 2005 EIU Economist Intelligence Unit survey.



Can we harmonize the agendas?


Section 1: An introduction to ecosystem services and cities 1.1 The Value of Nature for Cities

1.2 Ecosystem services: definitions and examples

1.3 A focus on ecosystem services: helping cities to achieve their goals

TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity 2011 contents [p. iii]


TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and BiodiversityTEEB 2011, p.1

“Cities depend on a healthy natural environment that continuously provides a range of benefits, known as ecosystem services. Some examples of ecosystem

services include drinking water, clean air, healthy food, and protection against floods.

Healthy ecosystems are the foundation for sustainable cities, influencing and affecting human well-being and most economic activity.”

[TEEB 2011, p.1]



“The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) is an international initiative to draw attention to the benefits provided by biodiversity (encompassing ecosystems, species and genes). It has compiled and synthesized the available evidence to highlight the values of biodiversity and ecosystem services, the growing costs of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, and the benefits of action addressing these pressures.”

[TEEB 2013, p.11]


Section 2: How to include ecosystem services in decision making and policy – The TEE B stepwise approach

Step 1: Specify and agree on the problem or policy issue with stakeholders

Step 2: Identify the most relevant ecosystem services that can help to solve the problem or policy issue

Step 3: Determine what information is needed and select assessment methods

Step 4: Assess (future changes in) ecosystem services

Step 5: Identify and compare management/policy options

Step 6: Assess the impacts of the policy options on the range of stakeholders

TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity2011 contents [p. iii]


Section 3: Applying the TEE B stepwise approach within city management

3.1 Communicating to decision makers and other line functions

3.2 Budget cycle

3.3 Spatial planning

3.4 Concluding remarks

Glossary

References and bibliography

TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity2011 contents [p. iii]


TEEB and TEEB related studies and assessments (in red) are currently underway in several regions and countries.



See case studies in

TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2013): Guidance Manual for TEEB Country Studies. Version 1.0.

TEEB - The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity2013 Chapter 2, boxes 2.1-2.11


Proposal for a Common International Classification of Ecosystem Goods and Services (CICES) for Integrated Environmental and Economic

Accounting

Paper prepared by Centre for Environmental Management, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom

Haines-Young, R. and Potschin, M. (2013): Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES): Consultation on Version 4, August-December 2012. EEA Framework Contract No EEA/IEA/09/003

[Download at www.cices.eu or www.nottingham.ac.uk/cem]

CICESCOMMON INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF ECOSYSTEM


1. The aim of this document is to propose a Common International Classification for Ecosystem Services (CICES). The need for CICES arises because despite recent efforts, there is no accepted definition or classification of ecosystem goods and services and as a result it is difficult to integrate and compare different data sources.

2. The proposal for CICES has been based on the proposition that any new classification has to be consistent with accepted typologies of ecosystem goods and services currently being used in the international literature, and compatible with the design of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting methods being considered in the revision of Socio-Economic and Environmental Assessments SEEA 2003.



3. Ecosystem goods and services are defined here as the contributions that ecosystems make to human well-being, and arise from the interaction of biotic and abiotic processes.

Following the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the term ‘services’ is generally taken to include both goods and services. While this is a convenient shorthand, in this proposal we distinguish the material and energetic outputs from ecosystems as ‘goods’ and the non-material outputs as ‘services’.

4. The general structure of CICES is shown in Table E.1, and described in more detail in Table E.2.

5. Three broad thematic categories are suggested as the basis of CICES. These cover the provisioning, regulating and cultural outputs from ecosystems. These widely recognised types of ecosystem output are further subdivided into nine generic classes, which nest into the major ‘functions of natural capital’ identified by the SEEA 2003 (Table E.1).



Warning: Tables E1 / E2

Nelle pagine seguenti dopo le tabelle originali sono riportate le variazioni per l'integrazione con le valutazioni socio-economiche e ambientali

strategiche SEEA Socio-Economic and Environmental Assessments



Table E.1



Table E.2


Warning: Tables E1 / E2

Check the differences!


6. The generic naming of the proposed groups allows CICES to be cross referenced to the existing standard classifications for activities and products used in the System of National Accounts, namely: the International Standard Industrial Classification of All Economic Activities (ISIC V4), the Central Products Classification (CPC V2), and the Classification of Individual Consumption by Purpose (COICOP). An indicative crosstabulation for each of them is presented.

7. The cross tabulation of CICES groups with international standard classifications for products and activities assists in identifying the ‘final outputs’ of ecosystems, and potentially helps overcome the problem of ‘double counting’ in valuation studies. By focusing on ’final products’ arising from ecosystems, the scheme does not cover supporting services, which are assumed to be embedded within each of the categories included in CICES.



It's a long way to go to environmental standards in planning

1) The consistence of Italian urban standards,

2) How to measure air-soil-water's qualities,

3) How to see and evaluate human impacts,

4) How to measure ecoservices

5) RE-THINK STANDARDS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING!


It's a long way to go to environmental standards in planning

TOOLSSTRUMENTI


FORESTRY HERITAGE INVENTORYInventario del patrimonio forestale

I-TREESi-Tree is a state-of-the-art, peer-reviewed software suite from the USDA

Forest Service that provides urban forestry analysis and benefits assessment tools.

The i-Tree Tools help communities of all sizes to strengthen their urban forest management and advocacy efforts by quantifying the structure of

community trees and the environmental services that trees provide.

https://www.itreetools.org

https://www.itreetools.org/


FORESTRY HERITAGE INVENTORYInventario del patrimonio forestale

Un'applicazione i-Tree in Europa

Lydia Chaparro, Jaume Terradas, Ecological Services of Urban Forest in Barcelona, CREAF Centre de Recerca Ecològica i Aplicacions Forestals [www.creaf.uab.cat], Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra, 2009


Le foreste italiane Italian Forestry

CRA Consiglio per la ricerca e la sperimentazione in agricoltura

[http://sito.entecra.it]

Il contenuto di carbonio nelle foreste italiane. Inventario nazionale delle foreste e dei serbatoi forestali di carbonio- INFC 2005

http://sito.entecra.it/


Buono studio

A settimana prossima

010 esercitazione4 ecoservices assessment_2015

Education

Transcript of 010 esercitazione4 ecoservices assessment_2015