Dagmar Schröter and Marc J. Metzger

1. Global change impacts on ecosystem services and the vulnerability of the human-environment system– The European assessment ATEAM Dagmar Schröter and Marc J. Metzger Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research

2. European vulnerability study ATEAM-project, www.pik-potsdam.de/ateam 17 partners and sub-contractors, Funded by the European Union, 2001-2004.

3. Objectives 1. To assess potential impacts of global change on ecosystem services in Europe 2. To translate these impacts into maps of our vulnerability these maps should inform the decision-making of stakeholders about adaptation options to global change • Examples of questions to tackle • Which regions are most vulnerable to global change? •      Which sectors are the most vulnerable in a certain region? •      Which scenario is the least harmful for a sector?

4. food production slope stability tourist attraction fire prevention water storage biodiversity pollination fibre production fodder production flood protection carbon sequestration beauty recreation stabilising micro-climate game reserve shelter for lifestock • The environmental dimension of vulnerability • Ecosystems provide services that sustain and fulfill human life(see 1st MA book, Alcamo et al. 2003) • To know the potential impacts of global change on ecosystem services within a specific region is to understand an essential part of this region’s vulnerability.

5. maps of vulnerability combined indicators European Vulnerability Assessment Methodology multiple scenarios of global change: CO2climate, socio-econ.land use,N deposition changes in ecosystem services ecosystem models changes in adaptive capacity socio-economic dialogue between stakeholders and scientists Metzger & Schröter 2004 (submitted).

6. Consistent global change scenarios As input to our ecosystem and adaptive capacity models. • Spatially explicit: 10' x 10' (ca. 16 x 16 km) • 4 time slices (1990, 2020, 2050, 2080) • 4 Socio-Economic Scenarios • 4 Emission Trajectories (greenhouse gases) • 17 Climate Scenarios (four climate models, one control) • 7 Land Use Scenarios • 4 Nitrogen Deposition Scenarios

7. Sectors, ecosystem services and modelled indicators Metzger & Schröter 2004 (submitted).

8. Agriculture • Decline in arable land (cropland, grassland) • Surplus land (up to over 10 % of European land surface) • Land demand for bioenergy may go up, CO2 offset may approach 15% of 1990-emissions in 2080 • Climate driven decline in soil organic carbon, partly counteracted by land use and stimulated plant growth • Crop suitabilitiy changes; some current agricultural areas become too hot and too dry to support agriculture

9. Vulnerability exposure sensitivity adaptive capacity potential impact vulnerability

10. Integration: Vulnerability 2080A1 wood production Visual overlay PI potential impact vulnerability AC adaptive capacity V = f(PI, AC) A relationship that is not specified beyond high PI and low AC high V, etc...

11. … our digital atlas: ATEAM mapping tool Ca. 3200 maps and many more summarising charts. Under construction...

12. multiple scenarios of global change: CO2climate, socio-econ.land use,N deposition Potential impacts ecosystem models maps of vulnerability changes in adaptive capacity socio-economic combined indicators dialogue between stakeholders and scientists ...which areas, and who is vulnerable to global change? How can we adapt? Schröter et al. 2004 (in press), Metzger & Schröter 2004 (submitted).

13. Conclusions: Vulnerability • Vulnerable region: Mediterranean seems most vulnerable within Europe -multiplepotential impacts [water, forestry, agriculture, tourism, carbon storage]andlow generic adaptive capacity • Vulnerable sectors: • Agriculture? Soil. Extensification potential. How do farmers decide? CAP... • Forestry? Fire risk.Biofuel potential. Shift to other species. • Carbon storage. Soil respiration and fire vs. net primary production • Mountain tourism. Reliable snowcover declines. Risks and discomfort? • Water. Droughts, floods. Seasonality changes.Hydropower, storage capacity. • Biodiversity.Current debate. Syndrome of impoverishment?Dynamic reserve management. • Dialogue between science and stakeholdersis an important part of the results. Informed by best science, fair, focussed and sustained. Coordination,moderation, sociallearning. • The digital Atlas developed with stakeholders is a useful communication tool in this dialogue. • What will be most helpful to stakeholders? Maps of V? Maps of AC? Maps of 'raw data'? Which time slices? Scenarios?

14. And many thanks to: Rik Leemans (Wageningen University, NL) Wolfgang Cramer, Sönke Zaehle, Anne de la Vega-Leinert(Global Change and Natural Systems, PIK, DE) ... all other ATEAMers www.pik-potsdam.de/ateam Carlo Jaeger (Global Change and Social Systems, PIK, DE) Participants of the VulnerabilitySummerschool 2003 (from all over) www.pik-potsdam.de/avec Tony Patt (PIK and Boston University) Colin Polsky (Clark University, USA) Bill Clark (Harvard University, USA) Max Posch, Lex Bouwman, Jo Alcamo (RIVM, NL) Thank you!

15. Determinants Indicators Components Index Female activity rate Equality Income inequality Awareness Literacy rate Knowledge Enrolment ratio R & D expenditure Technology Number of patents Adaptive Capacity Ability N. of telephone lines Infrastructure Number of doctors GDP per capita Flexibility Age dependency ratio Action World trade share Economic Power Budget surplus Adaptive Capacity ‘the ability to implement planned adaptation measures’(based on IPCC TAR) 1990 2080A1 0.0 –1.0

16. Vulnerability map: Wood production economic A1 A2 2080 compared to baseline global regional B1 B2 environmental Compare regions, scenarios, time slices using....

17. Does it matter? Carbon emissions from energy & industry vs. carbon uptake by land use change Compared to anthropogenic carbon emissions, even the most optimistic potential sink is very small. Zaehle et al. 2004 (in prep).