forescene_brussels_biodiversity_08sept08

1

The Biodiversity, Soils andLandscape sub-model

Alison Rollett & Roy Haines-YoungCentre for Environmental Management

University of Nottingham

2

General model structure

• Inputs (drivers, strategies) are considered at EU level

• Outputs (environmental impacts associated with EU) areconsidered at world level (except for water)

3

NFAC: Forest area change

Decreasing

Stable

Increasing

0

0

100

1 ± 0

NTPAC: Terrestrial Protected Area Condition

Unfavourable bad

Unfavourable inadequate

Favourable

71.7

24.9

3.38

-2.08 ± 1.8

NLF: Landscape fragmentation Effective m...

Fragmentation low

Fragmentation medium

Fragmentation high

0

41.6

58.4

1.13 ± 0.86

NPHA: Protected habitat area

5-10% of EU

10-15% of EU

15-20% of EU

10.0

70.0

20.0

13 ± 3.1

NTBS: Terrestrial Biodiversity Status

Unfavourable - bad

Unfavourable - inadequate

Favourable

52.8

22.1

25.0

-0.87 ± 5.5

NBIO: Overall Biodiversity Status

Declining

Stable

Improving

88.2

8.16

3.64

-3.92 ± 5.4

NABS: Aquatic Biodiversity Status

Unfavourable - bad

Unfavourable - inadequate

Favourable

58.4

24.1

17.5

-6.01 ± 5.5

NARA: Artificial area change

Decreasing

Stable

Increasing

48.7

9.70

41.6

0.071 ± 0.95

NAAC: Agricultural area change

Decreasing

Stable

Increasing

100

0

0

0.5 ± 0

NWLEP: Wider landscape ecological poten...

Green index low

Green index medium

Green index high

35.3

61.0

3.71

-1.52 ± 2.8

Generalised structure of the BSLsub-model

Biodiversity

4


Soils

NSE: Soil Erosion (t/ha/yr)

Erosion 0-0.5 t/ha/yrErosion 0.5-1 t/ha/yrErosion >1 t/ha/yr

30.836.532.6

0.759 ± 0.42

NSFD: Soil Framework Directive

NoneWeak protectionStrong protection

33.333.333.3

NSQ: Soil Quality

LowMediumHigh

51.825.422.7

NSOC: Soil Carbon (%SOC)

0 to 1% SOC1 to 2% SOC2 to 6% SOC

59.718.421.9

NFM: Forest management

BrownGreen (forest stewardship)

80.020.0

-0.6 ± 0.8

NORR: Organic recycling rates (t C/ha/yr)

-1 to 0 t C/ha/yr0 to 1 t C/ha/yr1 to 2 t C/ha/yr

77.716.75.67

5

NAAC: Agricultural area change

Decreasing

Stable

Increasing

100

0

0

0.5 ± 0

NFAC: Forest area change

Decreasing

Stable

Increasing

0

0

100

1 ± 0

NLF: Landscape fragmentation Effective m...

Fragmentation low

Fragmentation medium

Fragmentation high

0

41.6

58.4

1.13 ± 0.86

NARA: Artificial area change

Decreasing

Stable

Increasing

48.7

9.70

41.6

0.071 ± 0.95

NTPAC: Terrestrial Protected Area Condition

Unfavourable bad

Unfavourable inadequate

Favourable

71.7

24.9

3.38

-2.08 ± 1.8

NGHGE: Global greenhouse gas emissions ...

GHG 40-50 GtCO2 equiv per year



86.0

14.0

.040

46.4 ± 4.6

NAES: Agri-env support

<50% of rural development bud...

>50% of rural development bud...

85.0

15.0

-0.7 ± 0.71

NCC: Cross compliance

>10% non-compliance

<10% non-compliance

90.0

10.0

-0.8 ± 0.6

NWLEP: Wider landscape ecological poten...

Green index low

Green index medium

Green index high

35.3

61.0

3.71

-1.52 ± 2.8


Landscape

6

The ‘green background’

7

Fragmentation ‘mesh size’

8

Net ecological potential

9

Change in net ecological potential,1990-2000

10

Issues in developing the BSL sub-module

• Few strong empirical relationships exist:– Node states are represented by some ‘condition’

rather than a simple measurable parameter.– Much of the modelling has to be based on ‘expert’

judgement.– ‘Outcomes’ are generally probabilities of particular

states (e.g. ‘high soil quality’) rather than ‘quantifiableconditions’ (e.g. %SOC).

• There are likely to be strong regional differencesnot easily captured in EU-scale model.

• Changes over time of input parameters difficultto track through to effects, due to time lags.

11



30.836.532.6

0.759 ± 0.42



33.333.333.3

NSQ: Soil Quality

LowMediumHigh

51.825.422.7



59.718.421.9



80.020.0

-0.6 ± 0.8



77.716.75.67

Fragment of soil sub-model

12




25.833.141.1

0.826 ± 0.43



100 0 0

NSQ: Soil Quality

LowMediumHigh

56.825.917.3



68.216.115.8



80.020.0

-0.6 ± 0.8



93.05.002.00

13




31.237.631.2

0.75 ± 0.42



0 100 0

NSQ: Soil Quality

LowMediumHigh

51.926.022.2



60.918.021.0



80.020.0

-0.6 ± 0.8



80.015.05.00

14




35.439.025.6

0.701 ± 0.41



0 0

100

NSQ: Soil Quality

LowMediumHigh

46.924.428.7



49.921.129.0



80.020.0

-0.6 ± 0.8



60.030.010.0

15




40.837.521.8

0.655 ± 0.41



0 0

100

NSQ: Soil Quality

LowMediumHigh

42.323.833.8



33.533.533.0



0 100

1



60.030.010.0

16

Fragment of soil sub-model Back

casting



60.327.112.5

0.511 ± 0.38



28.232.938.9

NSQ: Soil Quality

LowMediumHigh

10.020.070.0



32.018.649.3



76.123.9

-0.521 ± 0.85



63.927.48.70

17



50.634.315.1

0.572 ± 0.39



29.733.337.1

NSQ: Soil Quality

LowMediumHigh

050.050.0



40.519.140.3



77.222.8

-0.544 ± 0.84



68.324.07.72

Fragment of soil sub-model Back

casting

18

Conditional Probability Table (CPT)for Soil Quality

19

Low SQMedium

SQHigh

SQ

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Low SC (0 to 1% SOC)

Erosion 0-0.5 t/ha/yr

Erosion 0.5-1 t/ha/yr

Erosion >1 t/ha/yr

Low SQMedium

SQHigh

SQ

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Medium SC (1% to 2%)



Erosion >1 t/ha/yr

Low SQMedium

SQHigh

SQ

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

High SQ (2%-6% SOC )



Erosion >1 t/ha/yr

Modelling the relationship betweensoil quality, rate of soil erosion and

organic carbon recycling

ConditionalProbabilities for Soil

Quality

20

The sustainability goal references are central:

Essential elements foralternative scenarios

• Overall biodiversity status: favourable• Terrestrial biodiversity status: favourable• Aquatic biodiversity status: favourable• Soil carbon: high• Soil erosion: low• Soil quality: high

Biodiversity,soils andlandscape

Water supply and water abstraction should be balancedWater

• Reduce TMR by 80%• Ratio (foreign TMR) / (domestic TMR) should not increase• Net import of land should not increase• Net agricultural land use per capita in Europe should notincrease world average land availability

Resource use

TargetsSubmodels

21

The sustainability goal references are central:

Essential elements foralternative scenarios

• Overall biodiversity status: favourable–Reduced fragmentation–Increasing net ecological potential

• Terrestrial biodiversity status: favourable–Increased area of protected sites–Improved condition

• Aquatic biodiversity status: favourable–Reduced nutrient inputs and water abstraction

• Soil carbon: high• Soil erosion: low• Soil quality: high

Biodiversity,soils andlandscape

TargetsSubmodels

Timing of measures such as

Biodiversity strategy, WFD, SFD,

nature of CAP reform etc

22

Modelling change over time

Change of soil quality, erosion and organic

recycling

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

Now 2025 2050

Prob of High Soil

Quality

Prob of HighCarbon Recycling

Prob of High Soil

Carbon

AssumesSFD is weakby 2025 and

strong by2050

23

Development of BSL sub-model

• Link to drivers from other sub-modules,e.g.:– Demand for biomass– Nutrient surplus– Changes in water use– Land use change (crop area etc.)

• Develop measures for characterisingimpacts on biodiversity, soils andlandscape outside EU.

forescene_brussels_biodiversity_08sept08

Documents

soil erosion thayrerosion

high soil quality

soil carbon

soil quality lowmediumhigh51

gtco2 equiv

t chayr77

t chayr1

t chayr0