MANaging ECOsystem services in low alpine cultural landscapes through livestock grazing (MANECO) NFR Miljø2015: <30% of the land area lies

Transkript

1 MANaging ECOsystem services in low alpine cultural landscapes through livestock grazing (MANECO) NFR Miljø2015: <30% of the land area lies above the current climatic tree line 45% is estimated to be alpine

2 Fordeling av sauens metabolsk biomasse i norske kommuner i 1999 Increase in mountains, decrease at the coast from 1949 to Sum av TOTBEITE coast inlandlow mountain ALTREG AAR

3 MANaging ECOsystem services in low alpine cultural landscapes through livestock grazing (MANECO) NFR Miljø2015: Knowledge gained from previous grazing projects in alpine environments WP1,2,4: Basic science WP1: Nutrient dynamics WP2: Treeline dynamics WP4: Cultural and social services WP3: Synthesis on BD and ES WP3:Assessment of ecological, cultural and social effects of sheep grazing Management of sheep grazing WP5: Stakeholder views WP5: Stakeholders: knowing the grazing effects on alpine cultural landscapes and the services provided by different grazing regimes, what type of grazing regime do the stakeholders want?

4 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Hal Mooney Økosystemtjenester er definert som den nytte vi har av naturen og deles ofte inn produserende, regulerende og kulturelle økosystemtjenester igjen som avhenger av en fjerde gruppe støttende økosystemtjenester.økosystemtjenester er et begrep som er på vei inn i norsk naturforvaltning i hovedsak takket være FN-initiativer: Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) 2005

5 Økosystemtjenester Human Well being and Poverty Reduction Basic material for a good life Health Good Social Relations Security Human Well being Freedom of choice and action Indirect Drivers of Change Demographic Economic (globalization, trade, market and policy framework) Sociopolitical (governance and Indirect Drivers institutional framework) Science and Technology Cultural and Religious Ecosystem Services Direct Drivers of Change Changes in land use Species introduction or removal Direct Drivers Technology adaptation and use External inputs (e.g., irrigation) Resource consumption Climate change Natural physical and biological drivers (e.g., volcanoes)

6 Beiting og økosystemtjenester Provisioning services: Livestock meat, trees Regulating services: Tree line dynamics (encroachment), carbon storage Cultural services: The grazing pastures as a cultural heritage, a landscape for outdoor life (hiking, hunting, etc.), agricultural traditions. Supporting services could be defined as services necessary for the delivery of other ecosystem services: Clean water, soil productivity (nitrogen and phosphorus levels) and nutrient cycling. Biodiversitet Biodiversitet Biodiversitet Biodiversitet BiodiversitetBiodiversitetBiodiversitet Biodiversitet

7 Ecological effects No grazing Sheep growth Total meat production Meat produced per sheep No grazing Low sheep densities Low sheep densities High sheep densities High sheep densities References References Low High (Mysterud and Austrheim 2005) High Reduced (Mysterud and Austrheim 2005) Game meat Reindeer Grouse Less graminoids, more lichens Intermediate breeding density = no grazing More graminoids (summer), some trampling of lichens (winter) breeding density > no grazing (Mysterud and Austrheim 2008) (Loe et al. 2007)

8 Plant responses No grazing Low sheep High sheep References densities densities Birch encroachment Strong recruitment High growth Limited recruitment High growth Limited recruitment, Limited growth (Speed et al. 2010; Speed et al. 2011b) Plant productivity No effect Small increase Decreased (Austrheim unpub.) Plant community composition Elevational advance No effect No effect Speed et al., submitted Biodiversity Insect feeding breeding density breeding density (Loe et al. 2007) birds = no grazing > no grazing Beetles More beetles in the short term Intermediate beetles in the Less beetles in the short term; Mysterud et al. 2010; unpubl. (2003); no longterm difference (2009) short term; no longterm difference no longterm difference Spiders More spiders Intermediate spiders Less spiders (Mysterud et al. 2010) Diptera Similar Similar Similar (Mysterud and Austrheim 2005) Vascular plants Minor effects Minor effects Minor effects (Austrheim et al. 2008b)

9 Ecological effects No grazing Low sheep densities High sheep densities References Soil C, N and runoff water Carbon storage Nitrogen storage and loss Potential N mineralization Increased Decreased (Martinsen et al. 2011d) Minor effects Minor effects (Martinsen et both on N both on N al. 2011c; storage and storage and Martinsen et loss loss al. 2011a) No effect No effect Increased (Martinsen et al. 2011c) Nitrogen cycling Runoff water quality No effect Slightly increased Slightly increased Increased risk of high conc. of coliform bacteria; No risk in loss of nutrients (Martinsen et al. 2011a) (Martinsen et al. 2011b)

10 (WP5) Ecosystem services: knowing the grazing effects on alpine cultural landscapes and the services provided by different grazing regimes, what type of grazing regime do the stakeholders want? William Fagerheim, Mind the Gap AS, ansvarlig for prosessen i fokusgruppen Gunnhild Setten, Geografisk institutt, NTNU Katrina Brown, James Hutton, UK Gunnar Austrheim, NTNU Vitenskapsmuseet 10

11 Fokusgruppe: næring, forvaltning (landbruk, natur), grunneier, friluftsliv og miljøorganisasjoner Deltagere 1Kjartan Askim 2Erik Hagen 3Arnodd Håpnes 4Hans Erik Lerkelund 5Carl Libach, 6Erik Lund, 7John Petter Løvstad 8Carl Erik Semb, 9Webjørn Svendsen, Institusjon DNT Norges Fjellstyresamband Naturvernforbundet FRIFO Statskog DN Småbrukarlaget SLF NJFF 10 Finn Erlend Ødegård, Bondelaget 11 Kari Anne Wilberg, Sau og Geit 12 Akse Østebrøt DN 13 Rune Aanderaa, SABIMA

12 Prosessen Resultat Utgangspunkt Kunnskap/ forskning Fokusgruppen Langsiktig tenkning og strategisk rettet dialog Anbefalinger til forvaltningen Ny kunnkskap/ forskning Formål: Å gjennomføre en systematisk og sammenhengende prosess der deltagerne i fokusgruppen i fellesskap kommer frem til hva som kan være en god og bærekraftig forvaltningspraksis av biomangfold og økosystemtjenester i fjellet.

13 Gjennomføring - 3 workshoper WS1 Scenarier 2035 WS2: Målbilde WS3: Fremtidens forvaltning Workshop 1: Hvilket landskap ser vi for oss i fjellet i 2035? Workshop 2: Hvilket målbilde for beitebruk i fjellet er ønskelig? Workshop 3: Hvordan utvikle en bærekraftig forvaltningspraksis for beitebruk i fjellet?

14 Time plan Workshop 1: Scenarier 2035: Onsdag/torsdag i uke 41 eller 42 i Trondheim Workshop 2: Målbilde: september 2013 i Grimsdalen Workshop 3: Morgendagens forvaltningspraksis: oktober 2014 i Oslo 14

15 Organisation and collaboration: WP1. Jan Mulder and Vegard Martinsen will be responsible in cooperation with Jens Leifeld, Agroscope Reckenholz Tänikon Research Station ART, Switzerland and Ed Tipping, CEH, UK. WP2. James Speed will be responsible for field sampling and modelling in close cooperation with Gunnar Austrheim, Alison Hester, Øystein Holand and Atle Mysterud WP3. Gunnar Austrheim will be responsible in cooperation with whole research group including UK partners Des Thompson, SNH, UK, Alison Hester, James Hutton Institute UK. WP4. Gunhild Setten Geography, NTNU and Katrina Myrvang Brown, James Hutton Institute UK will be responsible for research on cultural services. WP5. William Fagerheim (WF), Mind the Gap ASA will be responsible for mediating the stakeholder focus groups. Ecologists and social scientists will contribute.