SAEON student gains hands-on experience in biodiversity and ecosystem services assessment

The 27 aspirant PhD students who attended the Summer School came from 14 countries including Indonesia, Australia, India and South Africa (Picture courtesy M. Sharman) The tourism assessment group, with Musa fourth from left (Picture courtesy D. Reckien) Out on a fieldtrip, the students are addressed by the town landscape architect (Picture courtesy E. Dahl)

In September 2009 I was fortunate enough, courtesy of SAEON, to participate in a momentous Summer School which took place in a small village called Peyresq in the Alpes de Haute-Provence, in the south of France. This was the fourth summer school organised by ALTER-Net

The course emphasized the importance of an interdisciplinary approach in the study of biodiversity and ecosystems. This was achieved by focusing on five themes:

1 Biodiversity and ecosystems in Europe;

2 Ecosystem processes, function, services and benefits;

3 Resilience of social and natural systems;

4 Valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services; and

5 Linking biodiversity research with policy and the public.

The interdisciplinary approach was also reflected in the composition and research interests of the 27 aspirant PhD students, who came from 14 countries including Indonesia, Australia, India and South Africa.

The course comprised a number of stimulating lectures by eminent scientists, as well as field excursions, group projects and engaging aperitif talks. Dr Allan Watt from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, Edinburgh and Dr Martin Sharman from the EU Commission, Brussels kicked off the course with engaging talks on biodiversity, ecosystems, processes, functions, services, benefits, threats and sustainability. These talks set the scene by highlighting the latest trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services research.

Prof Wolfgang Cramer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research talked about the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) and its tricky relationship with biodiversity. Undoubtedly, the MA did biodiversity a big service in terms of placing its agenda high in the political and social discourses. However, considering the disparate views the different people - biologists, social scientists, economists and policy makers - have about biodiversity, problems and compromises were inevitable.

Hence some biologists question the usefulness of MA in addressing the loss biological diversity.

Assessment of ecosystem services

Talks by Prof Roy Haines-Young and Dr Marion Potschin from the University of Nottingham focused on the assessment of ecosystem services. The main issue here is subjectivity in assigning values, as these may differ based on a number of aspects (such as class, experience and culture) between communities and practitioners as well as in time and space. Although much has been achieved in the science of valuing ecosystem services, much more still needs to be done, especially in terms of standardisation.

In her talk about deep-sea ecosystem services, Dr Sybille van den Hove mentioned an interesting case where two international marine agencies unwittingly released contrasting statements, highlighting duplication in their jurisdiction. One agency was in the process of declaring a marine protected area, while the other was in the process of granting a mining license to the very same area.

All the talks were followed by extensive discussions, which I found to be very interesting and informative (whereas most presentations’ content can be found in the literature, the discussions are unique as they go well beyond the current knowledge).

Stakeholder involvement

One major recurrent theme was stakeholder involvement in decision-making processes, especially in decisions about biodiversity issues and the need to understand how such decisions affect local communities. To this end, group projects centred around assessing the vulnerability of the Verdon Catchment by consulting with different stakeholders to understand the current usage of certain ecosystem services, perceived future threats and likely adaptation measures. The MA framework was used for this vulnerability assessment.

During the excursion we met with a number of stakeholders including a town planner, landscape ecologist, farmers, shepherds, nature conservation officers and tourists (considering it was summer in southern France). After much deliberation about which two MA scenarios to use for our vulnerability assessments due to time constraints, we finally decided on Global Orchestration and Adapting Mosaic scenarios as they were more applicable to the case at hand.

Three different groups assessed the three most  important sectors in the area — tourism (on which the economy of this region is heavily dependent), agriculture and nature conservation. The fourth group was a ‘synthesis group’, and as the name suggests was responsible for collating the key findings from the different sectors into an integrated assessment of the Verdon Catchment.

For me this was the most important part of the entire Summer School. Whilst challenging at times given our different academic backgrounds, I found it a stimulating and enriching experience. The set-up of the project resembled a mini MA, and all the lecturers who had participated in the MA and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (e.g. Hal Mooney, Rik Leemans and Detlef van Vuuren) described the experience and the whole process as “absolutely priceless”.

I couldn’t agree more. Once again, thanks to SAEON for the financial support that allowed me to attend this truly enriching Summer School.

For further information contact Musa on Musawenkosi.mlambo@oulu.fi