Dual benefit

The diagnosis for Germany is much the same as for Europe: ecosystems are in a poor state. The causes include intensive use by farming and pesticide inputs. Climate-related stress is increasingly a culprit, too. Yet there is also some good news: numerous actions do help to restore vital ecosystems, thus also doing justice to the European Nature Restoration Regulation. The Oeko-Institut is researching suitable instruments. Moreover, it is revealing the positive climate impacts these biodiversity actions can have.

The data published by the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (BfN) on the nationwide state of nature highlight an array of issues: 73 per cent of habitats are in an unfavourable condition. What is more, their condition is deteriorating steadily over time. In addition, 36 per cent of species are in an unfavourable-inadequate and 37 per cent in an unfavourable-bad condition and in this regard, too, the situation has deteriorated further since the last survey. “This trajectory is due partly to land-use changes, such as the conversion of grassland to arable fields. Greater intensity of land use similarly often has a negative impact on the condition. To these pressures are added the water pollution by sectors such as agriculture, industry and transport, and the drainage of agricultural and silvicultural land,” notes Dr Hannes Böttcher, Senior Researcher at the Oeko-Institut. “Furthermore, our ecosystems are exposed ever more to climate-related stress.” In many points there is simply a lack of sufficient knowledge about the state of nature – notably with regard to forests. “The national forest inventory survey concentrates mainly on the aspect of timber availability. The data collected in this manner do not suffice to assess the ecological status of forests, for instance their habitat value and connectivity.”

Biodiversity and climate action

The European Environment Agency (EEA) similarly stresses in its country profile for Germany that greater efforts and more measures for environmental quality and climate action are needed. Harnessing synergies among policy goals is a key lever. In a project commissioned by the German Environment Agency (UBA), scientists in the Oeko-Institut’s Energy & Climate Division show how biodiversity conservation and climate action can be combined effectively in Germany. Specifically, they analysed a range of measures in different ecosystem types – grassland, arable land, forests and peatland – that deliver effective, nature-based solutions for both climate and biodiversity. A publication titled “A programme of action for nature-based solutions: Harnessing synergies between biodiversity conservation and climate action” (only available in German: Das Aktionsprogramm Natürlicher Klimaschutz: Wie können Synergien zwischen Biodiversitäts- und Klimaschutz gehoben werden) emerged from the project. This showcases the diverse array of measures promising substantial synergies between climate change mitigation and adaptation on the one hand and biodiversity enhancement and conservation on the other. “We show in this publication how stronger nature conservation has positive effects upon the resilience of ecosystems,” notes Böttcher. Sustainable land use can enhance biological diversity while at the same time binding carbon in soils and biomass if measures are designed appropriately and are carried out on suitable sites.

Grassland

“Changing grassland management is a key measure, for grassland plays a pivotal role in carbon sequestration and biodiversity conservation. This implies, for instance, switching to extensive management practices that go without fertilisers and involve only moderate mowing.” A further benefit of species-rich grassland is that it is relatively resilient to climate change impacts such as drought.

Agroforestry and peatland

Agroforestry systems are another type of land use that offers major synergies between climate and biodiversity action, especially if local tree species are planted and particularly if this is done in landscapes with low structural diversity. “Agroforestry reduces erosion and increases soil carbon levels,” explains the Oeko-Institut expert. “Many species further profit from the greater habitat diversity and connectivity provided by agroforestry systems.”

Peatland and wetland restoration is particularly promising in terms of climate change mitigation, as rewetting is highly effective in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and conserving species dependent upon wet habitats. “This need not necessarily imply full rewetting, for moist meadows, in particular, such as litter meadows on lowland moors, are a valuable habitat for butterflies, dragonflies and many other organisms.”

Species-rich forests

Major benefits in terms of carbon storage and biodiversity are also to be found in forests, as the Oeko-Institut’s analysis shows. “Key measures include establishing new forest areas on the one hand, and converting existing ones to mixed, climate-stable forests rich in species. A more diverse composition of tree species can furthermore make forests more resilient to climate change impacts. An important point is to rely, wherever possible, on indigenous and site-appropriate tree species.” Not only the immediately visible part of forests plays a role: In view of their major importance as carbon reservoirs, greater attention needs to be paid to forest soils. “Grant programmes designed to finance more sustainable and low-impact forest management have a role to play here; for instance, they can offer financial incentives for forest owners to leave wood in the forest.” Here, as in all other approaches, the specific condition of a forest needs to be taken into account. To deliver simultaneous positive biodiversity and climate outcomes, forests that are not all too impaired by drought and other extreme weather events should be used less intensively than before. In severely impaired forests, on the other hand, targeted timber use can help to convert them more quickly. Whichever approach is taken, the overarching goal should always be to establish ecosystems that are resilient over the long term.

It is essential, Böttcher notes, that all measures are not considered in isolation but in an integrated manner. “We must keep sight of interactions and potential goal conflicts. If we conserve forests, timber production is likely to fall. This has to be balanced by utilising materials with as long a service life as possible and reusing timber resources more than in the past – above all, less timber must be consumed for energy production.”

Getting emissions down

The Oeko-Institut has quantified the tangible climate benefits of restoration measures in an analysis titled “Synergies between restoration and nature-based climate solutions. Scenario analysis of GHG mitigation potential in the land-use sector arising from implementation of the EU Nature Restoration Regulation”.

The project team shows in various scenarios how different variants of a potential national restoration plan would affect greenhouse gas mitigation. As the actual plan is still being drawn up, a number of simplifying assumptions were made for the purposes of scenario analysis.

The analysis reveals that rewetting peatland is by far the most effective measure. This can deliver additional annual GHG reductions in Germany amounting to up to five million tonnes CO2-equivalent (CO2e), depending upon water levels in the sites concerned and the proportion of paludiculture. “Agroforestry, too, can have a great effect,” stresses Dr Hannes Böttcher, “depending on how intensively the biomass is used and how much land is available, it delivers GHG reductions totalling up to 16 million tonnes CO2e.” Expanding the forested area can provide an additional emissions reduction of up to 3.5 million tonnes CO2e annually in Germany, moderate forest conversion to deciduous species up to two million tonnes CO2e.

Incentivising and rewarding ecosystem services

The Oeko-Institut’s researchers note that whoever restores ecosystems and their services needs to be rewarded, for instance by setting up a restoration fund from which payments can be made. “The whole of society benefits – for example through clean air and cooler cities. Forest owners should therefore receive financial compensation if they manage their forests with low impact in order to enhance ecosystem services. Similarly, farmers should receive payments for their efforts to ensure a healthy aquatic environment.” If such mechanisms are set up this could motivate many stakeholders to view the Nature Restoration Regulation not as a threat but as an investment in their own future.

---

Dr Hannes Böttcher holds a doctoral degree in Forest Sciences and is a Senior Researcher with the Oeko-Institut’s Energy & Climate Division since 2013, where he heads the Biogenic Resources and Land Use subdivision. He works on, among other topics, emissions from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), the carbon inventories of forest ecosystems and the forestry sector, and the biomass potential of agriculture and forestry.