Transcript Brussels_casestudies_final

WP3 Case studies
e-LUP, second review,
Brussels 17.11.2008
Why Case studies?
Case studies can:
(a) illustrate regional differences and sustainability
conditions – sustainability profiles,
(b) demonstrate the issues and above all mechanisms of
impacts at relevant spatial scale(s),
(c) can demonstrate interplay of assessment-policyresearch, i.e explore the scientific underpinnings of
IA
(d) should feed back into the chapter,
(e) observe the different user pathways of the tool.
e-LUP, second review,
Brussels 17.11.2008
e-LUP, second review,
Brussels 17.11.2008
Integration
WP2 Methodology
Tools
Chapters
e-LUP, second review,
Brussels 17.11.2008
Case studies
Models
Case study 1
Forest structure and yield
Ecosystem,vegetation + soil described in detail, in
forest stands under the same dominant tree species
and growth conditions, but far apart geographically
Shows the type of data needed to model forest growth and
carbon sinks, not innovative by itself, but:
•Portrays the variability in vegetation due to biogeographical, human
impact and local features – need to separate pollution and
eutrophication (N deposition) effects on vegetation from
biogeographical and local effects
•Integrated with the ’Forest-forestry-carbon sink’ chapter by
providing real data
•Links to the MODEL flash: PUME forest growth model, which
describes and extrapolates growth and stand dynamics >WP4
e-LUP, second review,
Brussels 17.11.2008
Case study 2. Air pollution
•Unique pollution gradient across Europe-Russia for a whole range of
pollutants, First data of this quality for Russia.
•New, policy-relevant data on methyl-mercury and POP’s on a wide spatial
scale, including pairwise comparison of urban and background levels
•Admittedly, limited sampling, but calibrated to expert labs with previous
large datasets in Europe for each pollutant.
The data collected:
• published in a top scientific journal
• Integrated into the Air pollution and climate change chapter (4), linked with
Pan-European policies and monitoring
• Also stand alone as a case study
• Linked with MODEL flashes Magic and Ecosense (acidification resp. health
effects)
e-LUP, second review,
Brussels 17.11.2008
Case study 2. Air pollution
SIA-relevance of conclusions made – as stated in the
beginning, cases should feedback into the chapters
• Sulphur and e.g heavy metal deposition has decreased, but N deposition is still
very high, resulting in continued acidification and eutrophication. Relevance to
climate change policy.
•Results very clearly indicate reason for concern about N in EU-area. Nutritional
disbalance in the Netherlands?
•High deposition of pollutants regionally in EU-area, but rather restricted to urban
sites in Russia. Long-range transport relevance. Important to realize: ’clean rural
areas’ is a nonsensical concept in parts of Western Europe!
• Major marine source for methyl mercury – large variation in background levels.
Relevance to monitoring programmes.
• Role of wetlands as sources/accumulators of methyl mercury. Take away for
management: even with present zero-tolerance to mercury emissions, there is a
huge storage in soil, which can be mobilized by land use
• Results show recent POP pollution in Russian near-urban areas – the need
for regulation
e-LUP, second review,
Brussels 17.11.2008
Case study 3. Habitat fragmentation and biodiversity loss
and
Case study 4. Modelling bird diversity and habitats
Tenet: While conservation of biological diversity has progressed in leaps and bound
via the Habitat and Bird Directive, the decline of biological diversity has continued,
mainly due to the lack of implementation of landscape-level tools built on
integrating specific conservation targets in sectoral policy making
Goal: To show how landscape pattern models can be used in policy making in
forestry and agriculture in a sustainable development setting where researchers,
landowners and policy makers are acting together on conservation of biological
diversity
e-LUP, second review,
Brussels 17.11.2008
Case study 3 and 4. Biological diversity
Data collected
In six landscape areas covering Europe and Russia:
•Landscape pattern described (relevance to MCPFE)
•Inventory of habitat quality – dead wood (relevance to MCPFE)
•Inventory of biological diversity using polypore diversity as an indicator
(relevance to SEBI 2010)
There have been no previous studies where rigorous data of this type has
been collected across a Eurasian gradient, or even on a cross-country basis.
In the Latvian landscape area:
•Landscape pattern described on a detailed level (relevance to MCPFE and
agroenvironment policy)
•Inventory of songbirds, including the EU bird indicator species
e-LUP, second review,
Brussels 17.11.2008
Case study 3 and 4 Biological diversity
Data analysis
Fragmentation metrics calculated – presently in state of infancy in
MCPFE reporting
Quality of habitat in relation of biological diversity – shows what
can be done with SEBI indicators and MCPFE data
Estimation of threseholds of biodiversity loss using metapopulation
models – without knowing threseholds, the policy maker can not
make decisions on targets (a nebulous “halt biodiversity decline by
2010 is not enough)
e-LUP, second review,
Brussels 17.11.2008
Case study 3 and 4 Biological diversity
Data analysis
•Habitat models derived for 30 songbird species, including the EU
indicator bird species. (Not previously done for all possible songbirds in
one area)
•Habitat models derived for farmland and forest specialist bird richness
(not previously done in any study).
•Effect of artificial landscape model patterns on bird diversity and bird
populations examined (not previously done in any study).
Monitoring of the continuing decline of bird diversity is not enough. This
must be linked with landscape pattern, to direct policy on specific bird
popluation and landscape targets.
e-LUP, second review,
Brussels 17.11.2008
Case study 3
Biodiversity
Chapter
E-tool
Case study 4
e-LUP, second review,
Brussels 17.11.2008
FLASH
Models in ecological
management
E-tool
To achieve a win scenario for biological diversity in
SIA:
•Knowledge of the habitat requirements for the
relevant focal species in the region
•Decided targets for populations of focal species
•Decided landscape targets (eg. habitat quality,
agricultural practice, coverage, land-use change)
If this knowledge is lacking, fill in a loser for
biological diversity
e-LUP, second review,
Brussels 17.11.2008