10.pdf

PA R T I I I · T H E P R A C T I C E

Lead authors:

ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN CITIES

AND PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

Holger Robrecht (ICLEI), Leonora Lorena (ICLEI)

Contributing authors: Andre Mader, Elisa Calcaterra, Johan Nel, Marion Hammerl, Faisal Moola, David Ludlow,

Mathis Wackernagel, Anne Teller

Reviewers:

Francisco Alarcon, Marion Biermans, Karin Buhren, Giovanni Fini, Birgit Georgi, Oliver

Hillel, Tilman Jaeger, Wairimu Mwangi, Dominique Richard, Sara Wilson, Karin Zaunberger

Acknowledgements: Nigel Dudley, Alice Ruhweza

Editor:

Heidi Wittmer

Language editor:

Judy Longbottom

Content of this chapter

4.1 Benefits of Including Ecosystem Services in Public Management........................................................66

4.2 Pressure and Potential of Urban Areas................................................................................................69

4.3 Options for Local Managers................................................................................................................72

4.4 Integrated Management for responsible public management...............................................................75

The Integrated Management System (IMS)..........................................................................................75

eco BUDGET .......................................................................................................................................77

4.5 Action Points for Local Governments ..................................................................................................79

For further information.................................................................................................................................80

Key Messages

• Cities depend on nature. Many essential services provided by local governments depend on and

impact the ecosystems around them, either nearby or further afield.

• Nature is good for your budget. Local authorities oversee many crucial public management

processes. Using an ecosystem services approach can provide cost-effective solutions to municipal

service provisioning, such as land use, water and waste management.

• Take less, get more. Increasing urbanization puts pressure on ecosystems and biodiversity. City

managers have the potential to shift to a resource-efficient and low-carbon future by influencing modes

of production, procurement and incentive policies, and consumption patterns.

• There are many ways to make a difference. Local government can act as a role model. It can

promote and set incentives and it can improve regulation. They can take initiative in many key areas –

urban greening, housing, land-use, urban sprawl, solid waste and waste-water treatment, water supply,

energy supply and transport.

• Integration is key. Using an integrated management approach to deliver ecosystem-dependent

services is likely to be most effective. The eco BUDGET tool has been designed to enable the integration

of ecosystem services into decision-making.

T E E B F O R L O C A L A N D R E G I O N A L P O L I C Y M A K E R S

C H A P T E R 4 · E C O S Y S T E M S E R V I C E S I N C I T I E S A N D P U B L I C M A N A G E M E N T

“For too long, we have been of the opinion that there were only two types of capital

for development – financial and human capital, the latter being knowledge, skills,

creativity and education. We have been living in the illusion that there is nothing

like environmental or natural capital, and that we could use the environment, the

environmental capital free of charge. Only now, we can clearly see that this idea is no

longer carrying and not allowing for development processes, too. We have overspent

more than 60 percent of the ecosystem services available, as we luxuriously live

based on economic growth without reinvesting in the natural capital stock.”

Klaus Töpfer, Immediate past Executive Director UNEP, cited in UN-HABITAT et al. 2008

→ Public management is defined as the processes and

procedures used to ensure that public and govern-

mental institutions providing public services fulfill all

their goals and obligations to promote citizens’ well-

being and to manage the → resources available (UNEP

et al. 2001).

This chapter provides an overview of how local

governments can improve their performance, service

delivery and citizens’ well-being by taking into account

→ ecosystem services in public management. It high-

lights the benefits of the ecosystem services

approach (4.1); describes the increasing pressures

on ecosystems in a rapidly urbanizing world whilst

exploring the potential of urban areas to more

efficiently manage resources (4.2). Local govern-

ments’ options to act as linked to ecosystem services

are discussed (4.3) and tools for integrating ecosystem

services into public management through an integra-

ted management approach using eco BUDGET as

an example are presented (4.4).

For the purpose of this chapter, focus will be put on

local governments, although in many countries, a

higher level of government (province or state) has more

influence on certain areas of public management.

Political parties may differ in the way they address local

governance, with some mandates resting at Ministry

level, but overall, there is a clear trend towards growing

decentralization and local capacity building (‘localiza-

tion’ of mandates).

4.1 BENEFITS OF INCLUDING ECOSYSTEM

SERVICES IN PUBLIC MANAGEMENT

Local government leaders and city managers all

around the world are constantly working to improve

their citizens’ quality of life . In so doing, they face

the ongoing challenge of how to provide municipal ser-

vices with increasingly scarce resources (human, finan-

cial and natural) and to address issues of → poverty ,

unemployment, and inadequate living conditions.

housing uses natural resources in construction. There

are also costs to the ecosystem: → biodiversity and

natural habitats are separated or lost; additional

inhabitants convert more fresh water into sewage and

increase air pollution. Clearly, municipal action always

has implications both on ecosystems and their

services. Policy makers often neglect that implemen-

tation of their decisions not only requires skilled human

and financial resources, but also natural resources and

ecosystem services (UN-HABITAT et al. 2008). Parti-

cularly during economic and financial crises, local

governments try to reduce costs of their service

Whether nearby or further afield, the natural capital

from → ecosystems contributes to delivering muni-

cipal services . A new road requires raw materials and

land; a new well provides drinking water; and new

T E E B F O R L O C A L A N D R E G I O N A L P O L I C Y M A K E R S

C H A P T E R 4 · E C O S Y S T E M S E R V I C E S I N C I T I E S A N D P U B L I C M A N A G E M E N T

delivery, and foster economic prosperity in the area –

often without reinvesting in nature.

Biodiversity Index (Box 4.7).

• Reducing public management costs – local

governments work with limited budgets and need

to find the most cost effective solutions to provide

their municipal services. Some services (see

section 4.2), such as water supply and water

treatment, are highly dependent on healthy eco-

systems. Investment in natural capital and ecosys-

tem-based approaches, for example, green infra-

structure, can be cost-effective, when compared

with man-made solutions. Water treatment (Box 4.1

and TEEBcase Water fund for catchment manage-

ment, Ecuador) flood protection, climate regulation

are some obvious examples.

Through public management interventions, local

governments can diminish, maintain, or increase the

provision of ecosystem services in their administrative

area. Assessing ecosystem services and the bene-

fits they provide in public management is an im-

portant step to identify cost-effective management

options. Such assessments can help to identify inter-

ventions aiming at (re-)investing, maintaining and

restoring natural capital and the ecosystem services it

provides that will pay off and help decision makers

improve local wellbeing. Ideally, a municipality should

base its development and the wellbeing of its citizens’

on its own, local resources, hence decreasing its

dependence on those further away. Benefits of an eco-

system services based approach to public manage-

ment include:

• Fostering economic growth in the area – by

emphasizing local ecosystem services and devel-

oping policies to support them, local governments

can sustainably enhance these services and foster

economic prosperity. A healthy and safe envi-

ronment is likely to attract business and industry with

its commensurate job opportunities and wealth

creation. The beverage industry, for example,

depends on the supply of freshwater. Agribusiness

relies on nature’s pollination, pest control, and

erosion control services while the tourism industry

benefits from this ecosystem’s recreational value.

→ Ecotourism is a fast-growing sector which gene-

rates significant employment and opportunities for

local development (see Chapter 5 Section 4).

Building green infrastructure (green roofs, green

spaces) will provide jobs as well as improve air

filtration, CO 2 sequestration and energy saving.

Växjö, Sweden has been successful in sustainably

managing its ecosystems and fostering growth

(see Box 4.9).

• Enhancing citizens’ quality of life in urban areas

– a city with a healthy environment provides a higher

quality of life for its citizens. Locally generated

ecosystem services, such as air filtration, micro-

climate regulation, noise reduction, rainwater

drainage, sewage treatment, and recreational and

cultural services, have a substantial impact on

→ human well-being in urban areas (Bolund and

Hunhammar 1999). By developing strategies (in

urban planning, housing, transport) for maintaining

or enhancing local ecosystems to provide services

in urban areas, local governments can also safeguard

the environment for future generations, and profile

their city as a sustainable one. Examples include

the Toronto Green Belt (TEEBcase Economic value

of Toronto’s Greenbelt, Canada), a whole variety of

green planting initiatives (Box 4.5) or Singapore

Box 4.1 Natural vs man-made? Wastewater treatment in Uganda

The Nakivubo Swamp in Uganda provides not only wastewater purification of Kampala’s sewage but also

nutrient retention. The results of an economic evaluation comparing this natural effect with manmade

solutions showed a high economic value between US$ 1 million and US$ 1.75 million a year, depending

on the economic analysis method used. Furthermore, the Wetlands Inspectorate Division and IUCN

showed that a sewage treatment plant would cost over US$ 2 million to maintain each year. Not only

was the cost of expanding the sewage treatment plant greater than the value of the wetland, there were

associated costs to livelihoods.

Source: Protected wetland for securing wastewater treatment, Uganda. TEEBcase based mainly on Lucy Emerton et al. (see TEEBweb.org)

T E E B F O R L O C A L A N D R E G I O N A L P O L I C Y M A K E R S

C H A P T E R 4 · E C O S Y S T E M S E R V I C E S I N C I T I E S A N D P U B L I C M A N A G E M E N T

• Reducing poverty – there is a clear connection

between livelihoods and ecosystems, which in the

case of the poor is even more direct. Natural

resources are a basic source of their income

generation. Enhancing local ecosystem services can

help reduce poverty and provide the basic needs of

citizens. In rural areas the poor rely directly on

ecosystems for food, water and fuel. Though less

pronounced, the same holds true for many cities.

Moshi in Tanzania, is introducing energy efficient

stoves to save the forest on the slopes of Mount

Kilimanjaro. Nature in cities can also offer income

opportunities: local people in South Africa have

been trained to manage Pilanesburg National Park,

which, with its unique wild-life, is also a tourist

attraction.

areas. Examples exist from the timber industry and

forest management in Brazil: in order to deal with

its ecological footprint, the city of Sao Paulo has

adopted a policy about using certified timber which

is having an immediate positive impact on the

Amazonas. Aichi Prefecture, Japan, has established

a tap water fee in order to pay for sustainable forest

management practices (TEEBcase Water fee for

forest management, Japan).

• Becoming a political frontrunner – local gov-

ernment pioneers get recognition. Cities that have

been proactive in protecting their ecosystems and

halting biodiversity loss are internationally

renowned (Boxes 4.3 and 4.6).

Box 4.3 Cities taking part in Local Action

for Biodiversity (LAB) initiative

• Protecting against environmental disasters – a

range of ecosystems act as important buffers for

natural hazards, mitigating the damage caused by

extreme events such as floods, droughts and land-

slides. These events are increasing in intensity, as

well as frequency, due to climate change (see

Chapter 5.5 and Box 6.5). There is an increasing

number of examples. Kumamoto City, Japan, for

instance, has established a payment scheme for

returning ‘used’ groundwater by flooding agricultural

land between crop cultivation periods (TEEBcase

Payments for ground water recharge, Japan). Another

interesting example of ecosystem based climate

adaptation comes from Mumbai, India (Box 4.2).

With the aim of strengthening biodiversity ma-

nagement 21 pioneering local governments from

around the world piloted LAB. Between 2006 and

2009, they took part in a coordinated process

of biodiversity assessment, planning and imple-

mentation. This was underpinned by political

commitment through the signing of the internatio-

nally-recognized Durban Commitment. The LAB

initiative represents a partnership between ICLEI –

Local Governments for Sustainability and IUCN –

the International Union for Conservation of

Nature.

Source: Local Action for Biodiversity, www.iclei.org/lab

Box 4.2 Flood mitigation in Mumbai, India

During an unprecedented monsoon rainstorm in

July 2005, almost a meter of rain fell on Mumbai,

India, a city with a population of 19.8 million. Severe

flooding resulted, and over a thousand people lost

their lives. But loss of life and property damage

could have been much greater had it not been for

104 km 2 Sanjay Gandhi National Park, which lies

entirely within the city limits. The heavily forested

park absorbed much of the rainfall.

Source: Trzyna 2007

• Alleviation of pressures on the resource base of

other regions, ensuring the future provision of

services from areas beyond city administrative

T E E B F O R L O C A L A N D R E G I O N A L P O L I C Y M A K E R S

C H A P T E R 4 · E C O S Y S T E M S E R V I C E S I N C I T I E S A N D P U B L I C M A N A G E M E N T

4.2 PRESSURE AND POTENTIAL

OF URBAN AREAS

“The global effort for sustainability will be won, or lost, in the world’s cities, where

urban design may influence over 70 percent of people’s Ecological Footprint. High-

Footprint cities can reduce this demand on ecosystem services and natural capital

greatly with existing technology. Many of these savings also cut costs and make

cities more liveable.”

Wackernagel et al. 2006

Cities are growing in size, population and economic

power. More than half of humanity lives in cities,

which occupy only 2% of the world’s land

surface, yet are responsible for 75% of the

world’s natural resources consumed, and waste

produced (Klein Goldewijk and Van Drecht 2006 in

OECD 2008). This trend of global urbanization is

increasing and within the next two decades, 60% of

the world’s population will reside in urban areas

(UN-DESA 2007; UN-DESA 2008).

patterns into the surface area needed to sustain the

urban consumption, strives to present an indication

of this phenomenon. Many cities’ Ecological Footprint

greatly exceeds their territory. In Greater London,

the Ecological Footprint was 49 million ha at the

Millennium, which is 42 times its biocapacity and 293

times its geographical area (IWM 2002). Cities in

developing countries will increasingly face similar

challenges: Lagos, Bangkok, Guayaquil are following

this trend already.

In this scenario, decision makers in developing

countries may play an even more critical role than their

counterparts in developed ones, when it comes to

sustainable use of ecosystem services and biodiversity

for development. There are two reasons for this: a)

93% of urbanization is expected to occur in devel-

oping countries (UNFPA 2007) and b) although often

aware of biodiversity issues, municipalities in the South

may be more constrained than their Northern coun-

terparts to manage biodiversity and ecosystem issues,

both in terms of their capacity and support from their

national authorities. This is highly relevant considering

that the majority of the world’s biodiversity is con-

trolled by developing countries.

Cities deplete natural resources such as forests,

agricultural land, water, air to provide for con-

sumption needs of their inhabitants, as well as

demands for municipal infrastructure developments,

purchasing decisions and service delivery. According

to OECD and IEA (2008), cities globally consume

67% of energy and at the same time emit 70% of

greenhouse gases (Figure 4.1). Waste, pollution, and

emissions produced affect not only city surroundings

but are transported to other regions and can cause

global impacts.

This concentrated demand makes cities ripe for a

global paradigm shift to a resource efficient and low

carbon future (Uhel and Georgi 2009). Cities have the

potential to manage resources more efficiently and

protect ecosystem services. They could delink urban

development from resource consumption (less living

space and less energy for housing and transport per

person). For instance, increasing green spaces in cities

would increase quality of life, while contributing also to

CO 2 sequestration and thus climate change mitigation.

At the same time, urban development and the urban

environment cannot be seen in isolation from each

other. Growing cities and changing lifestyles require

an increasing quantity of natural resources for their

production and consumption needs, which are sup-

plied from rural and remote areas. The ‘Ecological

Footprint’ – an → indicator that translates consumption

T E E B F O R L O C A L A N D R E G I O N A L P O L I C Y M A K E R S

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: