In the effort to improve management of ecosystems and landscapes, the ESS concept recognises the need for territorial planning and informs decision makers about the benefits that biodiversity provides to both local populations and their economic development as well as the inter-dependence of local and distant ecosystems (Wilkinson C., 2013). Likewise, it enables the exchange with other components and factors of the landscape such as demographics, health, security, education and culture. Thus the ESS framework has the potential to make ecological issues more trans-parent and can be used to inform spatial planning processes.
1
4 2
5 3
The ESS framework could also be a useful interface between science and decision-making. Spatial plan-ning could benefit from adopting or adapting new tools and methods being developed by scientists. In this regard, a more detailed understanding of how ESS trade-offs are currently being implemented in decision processes would be valuable in order to enhance the development of novel systematic tools by ecologists.
Developing tools based on detailed knowledge of the institutional context and reflecting the political climate in which the spatial plan is implemented would greatly improve the decision-making capacity in respect to ESS trade-offs. Moreover, the use of an explicit ESS framework has the potential to improve the quality of spatial planning by better understanding how ecologi-cal dynamics and human actions shape and modulate multiple ESS (Wilkinson 2013).
Knowledge about ecosystem and landscape serv-ices and values should be investigated, assessed and necessarily clearly communicated to policy makers, stakeholders and the general public.
In addition, although much has been achieved, there is a further need to develop widely shared definitions of key concepts and typologies (of services, benefits, values), measurements, reporting practices and stand-ards for ecological socio-cultural and economic values robustly based on an underlying conceptual framework and widely shared among practitioners of the ESS ap-proach to ensure comparability and transferability (de Groot, 2010). However, recent efforts in this regard have changed the terms of discussion on nature conserva-tion, natural resource management, and other areas of public policy. It is widely recognised that nature con-servation and concon-servation management strategies do not always necessitate a trade-off between the environ-ment and developenviron-ment. Rather investenviron-ments in conser-vation, restoration and sustainable ecosystem use, can generate substantial (ecological, social and economic) benefits (de Groot, 2010).
Therefore, the challenges to the structural integration of ESS in planning and design usually entail applying ESS assessments and valuations to environmental manage-ment processes and subsequently finding solutions to generate a comprehensive and practical implementation framework (de Groot, 2010). In this way the concept of ESS can be mainstreamed into environmental planning and management at all levels of the decision-making process (Daily et al., 2009; de Groot, 2010).
3.9.6 Which ecosystem services for Alpine connectivity?
The ecosystem services topic is a central issue of the international political agenda under the auspices of the UN (MEA 2005) and parallel to the development and promotion of payment mechanisms and remuneration for these services (Engel et al., 2008).
Definition of the four ESS categories proposed by MEA (2005) remains of topical interest, and these terms are widespread in their use. In the past few years, this cat-egorisation has been retrieved and adapted in TEEB (2010) and in the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services developed by European Environ-ment Agency (Haines-Young and Potschin, 2013) The supporting and regulating biophysical ESS are of elemental importance for the use of natural capital and other services. This constitutes ecological func-tions and processes from ecosystems, that guarantee the flow of energy, information and labour for the functioning of the ecosystem itself. Considering the Total Economic Value (TEV), (MEA 2005) of an ecosys-tem, these services are characterised through the in-direct use by humans – services from which they will benefit regardless of whether they choose to or not.
For this reason, they are particularly important pub-lic and collective goods, together with option value and existence value. For this reason, supporting and regulating services should be evaluated as the primary basis for the following direct use of selected resources (for example use of wood for fire). This evaluation is necessary for the sustainable preservation of collec-tive ESS goods and economic – ecological budgeting in the landscape (Functional Ecologic Unit FEU, for example water catchment).
The ESS concept constitutes an important support framework in combining conservation objectives with the sustainable development of territories, especially in the mountain areas (Hastik et al. 2015; Gret-Regamey et al. 2012; Gibelli and Santolini 2015). Therefore, the eval-uation of local and regional demand is crucial when developing appropriate management strategies.
The preliminary evaluation of the carrying capacity of biophysical ESS, should be developed in order to as-sess the compatibility of competing direct uses, while considering and conserving public ESS goods. For ex-ample, a poor forest management plan, based solely on harvesting trees, will ultimately engender erosion and ecological dystrophy (loss of biophysical functions and
1
4 2
5 3
consequently following ESS, for example cultural ESS).
Therefore, in the Alpine region, farmers could stand as guardians for supporting and regulating ESS. In this approach they would, through their activities, become keepers of the landscape, maintaining the biophysical ESS, which in turn support touristic-recreational ESS.
When assessing ESS, it is important to adequately dif-ferentiate biophysical ESS – elemental ESS and the ba-sis of a good quality of life – from cultural/recreational ESS. Furthermore, the biophysical ESS are components of non-renewable natural capital, or at best, multigen-erational renewable and cannot be replenished with components of manmade capital (Turner et al., 1996).
For the implementation of robust management strate-gies, it is important to evaluate the ESS demand both at
a regional and local level, thus avoiding the risk of be-ing misled by global values. Biophysical ESS depend on ecologic and structural factors at a regional and local level. The biophysical ESS interact strongly with each other, so much so that it is necessary to identify clus-ters of ESS. For example, the water related ESS integrate functions from different ecosystems (for example river and riparian forest) as denoted in the Water Framework Directive 2000/60/EC and Risk of floods 2007/60/EC (for example water quality and quantity, absorption capacity, fishing and more) (Figure 13).
This observation and classification allows for the iden-tification of more reasonable and objective answers to the improvement needs of mountain territories both from an ecologic and an economic perspective, since
Atmosphere -ter and energy by biodiversity
// Figure 13: Framework for natural capital and biophysical ESS base for ecologic functionality and wellbeing
Source: Dominati 2010 mod
1
4 2
5 3
carrying capacity can be defined as the capacity of the functioning ecosystem to supply a certain stream of services. Calculation of the ESS supply and demand ratios needs an in-depth knowledge of the socio-ecological processes and related inter-connections (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2014). This suggests a new identity for the mountain territories along an ecological and economic gradient of functions and services offered and maintained by varying compatible activities and defined by a Payment of Ecosystem Services (PES) ap-proach. This approach has recently been highlighted in the relationship between the need for renewable energy production, and ESS preservation (Hastik et al., 2015), where the definition of the adequate procedures in identifying sustainable strategies, mitigates the dif-ficulties and draws attention to the benefits of ESS, which is of paramount importance.
3.9.7 Conclusions
The Alpine region is composed of a mosaic of habitats and ecosystems subject to varying degrees of anthro-pogenic impact that influence the ecological balance through increased fragmentation and decreased ter-ritorial connectivity (ECONNECT 2011). Ecological con-nectivity is closely related to biodiversity, and there is strong evidence that biodiversity has a positive effect
on the delivery of important ecosystem services. These concepts are directly relevant to the conservation of functioning ecosystems that enable our survival as in-dividuals. Through its components, including ecological dynamics, ecosystem limitation, and landscape dys-trophy, nature conservation is a primordial element of human existence. Any aspect of human wellbeing must be seen in the context of this assumption (Morelli and Møller 2015). Based on this knowledge, the following key recommendations are provided to identify strategies of sustainable management resources in an Alpine context:
Researchers must develop tools to analyse and assess ESS in a meaningful and harmonised fashion and con-tribute towards a more accurate and reliable decision-making model. This will ensure that results are compa-rable, (Grêt-Regamey et al. 2014; Santolini 2014).
Based on the variety of available methodologies (re-garding connectivity conservation, landscape connec-tivity, ecological functionality), it is important to start with one, clear, well-defined and framed objective, in order to avoid subsequent misunderstandings during the development of planning strategies and the associ-ated implementation decisions while consolidating the Ecological Network (Santolini 2014) and the Green Infrastructure (EEA 2013).
The ecological-economic assessment of biophysical ESS is elemental to the other types of ESS and provides the basis in assessing the carrying capacity of a FEU. This priority assessment improves the compatibility of the direct use of natural capital, and preserves the functions that sustain the ecosystem and the landscape, while re-ducing conflicts between competing uses (Bastian 2013).
The integration of ESS and natural capital values into economic processes by means of tools such as PES offers the opportunity to improve habitat condition, connectivity, and the ecosystem func-tionality. This has the potential to re-establish the economic balance between users and producers and to maintain functional ecosystems, to the ben-efit of the mountain population living and working in those areas.
Hay harvest in Nature Park Gruyère Pays-d’Enhaut.