Land use and ecosystem services

Abstract

This paper is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and the arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the OECD or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the authors. The publication of this document has been authorised by Ken Ash, Director of the Trade and Agriculture Directorate. This paper and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area. The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law Comments are welcome and may be sent to tad.contact@oecd.org.

A Review of Changes in Mountain Land Use and Ecosystem Services: From Theory to Practice

“…As shown in Table 1, land use and land cover data are used as input for the assessment of ecosystem services, mapping potential conflicts among ecosystem services and to discuss scenarios for the provision of ecosystem services under different land use planning strategies. Complex patterns of land use changes [78] stand out as one of the main pressures on ecosystem services, such as the effects of deforestation on greenhouse gas emissions, and could have permanent effects on ecosystems and the supply of ecosystem services, like in the case of insufficiently planned development [79]. In Section 4 of the paper, we present an overview of embedding the link between human land use activity and its impact on ecosystem services from the perspective of planning and policymaking.…”

Characterising agri-environmental policies

“…The European Commission has conducted ex ante evaluations of current RDP and ex post evaluations of RDP in CAP 2007-2013, but not at the agri-environmental payment scheme level for each of the EU countries considered in this report (European Commission, 2015 [30]; European Commission, 2018 [31]). 28 Low response rates on this question were either due to the respondent's unawareness of environmental effectiveness assessments or to the lack of a well-defined reference group.…”

Strengthening adaptation-mitigation linkages for a low-carbon, climate-resilient future

“…A number of studies have aimed at valuing both mitigation and adaptation benefits of NbS. For example, Vermaat et al, (2015 [42] ) found that NbS interventions to restore riverbeds in Europe have increased flood protection, while also enhancing agricultural production, carbon sequestration and recreation, for a total net economic benefit of EUR 1400 per hectare per year.…”

“…Due to the large adaptation potential offered by natural ecosystems, national governments are increasingly investing in nature-based protection against climate hazards. For example, as protecting, restoring or managing wetlands in upper catchments can secure and regulate water supplies, reduce soil erosion, and protect communities from flooding and wildfires (Vermaat et al, 2015 [42] ) (Seddon et al, 2020 [55] ), Canada has dedicated funds towards conserving its wetlands in the province of Saskatchewan. It is estimated that, over a 10-year period, the economic returns of this intervention might [63] ) and the IPCC Special reach USD 5-6 for every dollar that has been invested (OECD, 2019 [47] ).…”

“…Nature-based solutions can be considered as an umbrella term which encompass similar concepts such as "ecosystem-based adaptation" and "green infrastructure". For a more detailed review of the term and how it is used by countries and international organizations refer to (OECD, 2020[42] ).…”