How to value ecosystem goods and services
in agriculture at increasing land use pressure ?
Katarina Hedlund
Lund university, Sweden
Land use projections
• Production of goods is increasing
– Food, biofuels, timber, water use
• Natural habitats are declining
• Mitigating climate change
– Increased pressure on land for production
of biomass
Agricultural land use
EU biofuel strategy
2006
2010
2020
1% (produced in EU)
6%
10% of total area
10%
43% of total area
Nowicki 2006
Current land use in Europe
Land use in EU-27
arable land
permanent pastures
permanent crops
forests
other areas
Eurostat 2008
Land use demands
Biofuel production
Agriculture
Natural grasslands
How do we conserve ecosystem
services and biodiversity ?
Agri-environmental
schemes:
Heterogeneity in
landscapes
Extensification
Protected areas
Extensive agriculture, Dehesas in Spain
EU common agricultural policy
CAP
• Implemented nationally as rural development
plans with additional national funding
• CAP (12 000 million €/yr), 47% of EU budget
• Farming is 5% of European economy
• CAP subsidies
– Area based income support
– Rural development actions
– Agri-environmental schemes
Ecosystem services
threatened by
intensive agriculture
• Natural enemies
• Pollination
• Resistance to pests &
invasive species
• Nutrient cycling
• Water retention
• Carbon retention
Intensification and above
ground services
• Increased
heterogeneity may
give higher diversity
• Effect is scale
dependent
• Not true for all
species
Tscharnkte et al. 2007
Soil ecosystem services
• Nutrient cycling
N, P retention and availability to
plants
• Water retention
Aggregate structure, organic matter
• Carbon retention
Fuels microbial activity, mitigates
climate change
Soil ecosystem services
-the ”workers”
Soil services
Reduced under intensive management
30
25
20
grassland
field
15
10
5
0
bacterial biomass
AM-fungi
fungi
Hedlund 2002
SOILSERVICE
Conflicting demands of land use:
Soil biodiversity and the sustainable delivery of
ecosystem goods and services in Europe
• value soil ecosystem services.
• predict sustainability of ecosystem
services, by field and modelling studies.
• Build scenarios to identify economical
and social drivers of land use
http://www.kem.ekol.lu.se/soilservice/index.html
Soil carbon
Nutrients
Natural enemies
Pollination
Land use demands
Biofuel production
Agriculture
Natural grasslands
Valuation of ecological services
Market values of ecological services
prevention of pests - natural enemies
pollination
water retention
nutrient retention
Non market values
recreation
landscapes
Markanday et al 2008
Economic valuation
a dynamic approach
Ecosystem services in agriculture
- Dynamic network of interacting organisms
- Responding to changes in land use
- Depending on spatial and temporal scales
SOILSERVICE
Economic model
simulated landscapes
predicts regional land
use (20 yrs)
Ecological model
farmers scale
predicts output of
ecosystem services
Values of services
for farmer and society
Predictions on sustainability
Feed back to policymakers
AgriPoliS
Agent-based model of regional structural change
over time and space
Factor endowment
Interactions
Farms
Actions
Agricultural Policy Simulator (Happe 2004, Brady et al 2007)
Institute of Agricultural Development in Central and Eastern Europe (IAMO),
Halle, Germany
Drivers in relation to AgriPoliS
Exogenous
• Prices of
inputs/outputs
• Wage and interest
rates
• Agricultural policy
• Climate
• Technology
Endogenous
• Land market
• Regional markets
• Input & output levels
• Land use
• Landscape impacts
• ES production
Output from AgriPoliS
• Farm structure
– Average farm size
– Number of farms
– Distribution of farm
type
• Land use
– Composition of crops
– Distribution of field
size
– Landscape mosaic
• Econ. Performance
– Land rents by soil
type
– Farm income
– Farm profit
– Investment activity
– Returns to labour
• Livestock
– Numbers of livestock
– Animal density
SOILSERVICE field sites
Regions for
valuation of
services
SOILSERVICE partners
•Lund University, Sweden, Dr Katarina Hedlund
•Swedish Institute for Food and Agricultural Economics, Sweden
Dr. Mark Brady,
•University of Copenhagen, Denmark Prof. Søren Christensen,
•University of Helsinki, Finland Prof. Heikki Setälä,
•Netherlands Institute of Ecology, NL, Prof. Wim H. Van der Putten,
•Wageningen University, NL, Prof. Peter C. de Ruiter,
•Justus-Liebig-University of Giessen, Germany, Prof. Volkmar Wolters,
•Biology Centre of the Academy of Sciences, Czech Republic Dr. Jan Frouz,
•Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece, Dr. Stefanos Sgardelis
•Lancaster University, United Kingdom, Prof. Richard D. Bardgett
•University of Reading, United Kingdom, Dr. Simon Mortimer
Landscape impacts
– Land use & field size
(b) Change in mean Field Size, Västerbotten
60%
(b) Field type as proportion of landscape, Västerbotten
250%
50%
200%
40%
150%
30%
20%
100%
10%
50%
0%
-10%
Intensive
Grass
Extensive
Grass
Arable Crops
All Arable
Semi-Nat
Grassland
0%
Intensive Grass Extensive Grass
Arable Crops
-50%
-20%
-30%
Semi-Nat
Grassland
-100%
AGENDA
REFORM
BOND
AGENDA
REFORM
BOND
Land use data (GIS based)
Southern Sweden
Cereal production
Grasslands