The ecosystem service agenda is an integral part of the European strategy to maintain and protect biodiversity. Pursuant to the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 (Action 5), Member States are obliged to map and assess the state of ecosystems and their services on their national territories by 2014. The assessment of economic values of these services, and the promotion of their integration into various systems on the national and EU level, is recommended by 2020.
Pilot Study Area Drava - Molve
Ecosystem services relevant for Drava-Sava-Danube floodplain ecosystems and Pilot Study Area: List of Ecosystem services relevant for Drava Sava Danube Floodplains Functions
Ecosystem service Flood mitigation
Highly relevant Q
Figure 2: Location and extent of PSA Drava – Molve, extent of inundation zone in PSA (width ranges from 1.5 to 3 km), and position of dykes
Supporting
Regulating
Balance of erosion and acumulation
8
Q
Provisioning
Q Q
Q
Q
Local climate regulation
Q
Q
Air purification
Q
Q
Draught mitigation, water storage
Q
Habitat and biodiversity provision
Q
Biocorridor provision
Fish production
Drinking water supply
Q Q Q
Q
Q Q
Q Q
Game animals production
Q Q
Q Q
Q Q
Irrigation water supply
Q
Q
Agriculture production
Q
Q
Estetic value of landscape
Q
Q
Recreation/Tourism
Greylag Goose (Anser anser)
Not
Q Q
Biomass energy
Cultural
N
tourism and nature protection were included in the project. Altogether, 25 meetings were held regarding the use of river and floodplain ecosystem services on regional and national level.
Evaluated
Carbon sequestration
Timber production
Evaluated Ecosystem Services ine ecosystem services have been evaluated in PSA, and two of them on the whole range of rivers Drava, Sava and Danube and their floodplains. To evaluate ecosystem services, different ecosystem valuation methods have been used, depending on data integrity and time availability. All relevant stakeholders and experts connected to the field of agriculture, forestry, water management, physical planning,
Nutrient retention and water self purification
Relevant
Q
Q
Naive art inspiration
Q
Raw material for local crafts
Q
Q
Habitats for indigenous breeds
Q
Q
Q
9
Comparison of scenarios for evaluated ecosystem services: List of Ecosystem services relevant tor Drava Sava Danube Floodplains Estimate for scenario
Ecosystem serviee
A $
B
C
mil. $. for pilote study area 201 km2.year–1
Wood production
284
$.ha of forest–1.year–1
60
55
67
Fish production
277
$.ha of water body .year
0,45
0,5
>A
Flood mitigation
5020
$.ha of floodplain–1.year–1
26,4
-7,4
31,5
Habitat provision
17800
$.ha of floodplain–1.year–1
139
107
179
Game animals production
18
$.ha of floodplain–1.year–1
1,45
<A
>A
Drinking water provision
396
$.ha of floodplain–1.year–1
19,5
?
>A
Nutritient retention
250
$.ha of floodplain–1.year–1
0,95
?
1,28
–1
–1
Scenario B: Drinking water provision can not be evaluated properly due to the complexity of hydrological processes and lack of data. However, it can be assumed that scenario B due to the absence of inundation and less permeable bottom of accumulation (compared to active river bottom) would lead to the reduction of groundawater recharge. To evaluate nutrient retention in scenario B additional analyses should be done.
Grey Heron (Ardea cinerea)