ecosystem services for biodiversity conservation: study of corbett
Post on 11-Apr-2017
143 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Ecosystem services for Biodiversity Conservation Ruchi Badola
Introduction
The global ecosystem’s source and sink functions have limited capacity to support the economic subsystem.
The economic subsystem has already reached/ exceeded important source and sink limits.
Source limits are more open to substitution, private ownership and therefore to market and price controls.
Sink limits involve common property where markets fail.
60% of Ecosystem Services degraded which “…contributed to a significant rise in the number of floods and major wild fires on all continents since the 1940s”. (MEA 2005)
• Global warming is occurring, and humans are contributing to this, agree major (NASA and NOAA).
• 2000 to 2010 warmest decade and 2010 & 2005 warmest years on record.
• Worst bleaching of coral reefs ever recorded in 1998.
• The first completely ice-free summer in arctic region may occur by 2040 or earlier
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
One-fifth of species are classified as ‘Threatened’ and 52 species of mammals, birds and amphibians move one category closer to extinction each year’.
In the absence of conservation actions extinction risk for vertebrates classes would have further 16% .......... (Hoffmann et al, Science, October 2010).
The world has failed to meet the 2010 target to halt the loss of biodiversity ………10th CBD, COP, Nagoya, Japan
Ecosystem function is the outcome or product of collective interaction between organisms and their physical environment
Ecosystem services are the processes and conditions of natural ecosystems that support human activity and sustain human life (Daily,1997)
The type, quality and quantity of services provided by an ecosystem are affected by the resource use decisions of individuals and communities
Ecosystem functions and ecosystem services
Functions performed by natural ecosystems INFORMATION FUNCTIONS
Aesthetic informationSpiritual and religious
informationHistoric information
(heritage value)Cultural and artistic
inspirationScientific and educational
information
PRODUCTION FUNCTIONSOxygen
Water storage and supplyFood and nutritious drinks
Genetic resourcesMedicinal resources
Raw materials for construction
Fuel and energyBiochemical
Fodder and fertilizerOrnamental resources
FUNCTIONS OF THE
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
REGULATION FUNCTIONSLocal and global energy balanceChemical composition of the oceansLocal and global climateRunoff and flood-preventionGroundwater rechargePrevention of soil erosionTopsoil formationSolar energy fixation, biomass productionStorage/recycling of organic matterStorage/recycling of nutrientsStorage/recycling of wastesBiological (and genetic) diversityHABITAT FUNCTIONS(providing space and suitable substrate for)Human habitation, (indigenous) settlementsCultivation (e.g. of crops, cattle, fish)Energy conversion, Recreation and tourismNature protectionMigration and nursery habitats
Consequences of natural ecosystem loss on human well-being
The degradation of ecosystem services often causes significant harm to human well-being and is a loss of a natural asset or wealth of a country
Crops Livestock Aquaculture Carbon
sequestration
Capture fisheries Wild foods Wood fuel Genetic resources Biochemicals Fresh Water Air quality regulation Regional & local climate
regulation Erosion regulation Water purification Pest regulation Pollination Natural Hazard
regulation Spiritual & religious Aesthetic values
Timber Fiber Water regulation Disease
regulation Recreation &
ecotourism
Enhanced
Degraded
Mixed
Bottom Line: 60% of Ecosystem Services are Degraded
Increasing biodiversity in forests has a positive effect on their resilience capacity and often on their productivity including carbon storage (Thompson et al. 2009, Strassberg et al. 2010).
A third (33 of 105) cities of the world obtain a significant proportion of their drinking water directly from PAs, 1.1 billion people (1/6) depend on PAs for their livelihoods, store almost half the terrestrial carbon
More than 2000 group of indigenous people live in forests, More than 3% global trade in forest products
Contribution of Natural environment to human wellbeing
Protected Areas (PAs)
PAs are cornerstones of ecosystem conservation and critical to achievement of 2020 biodiversity target and the MDG
There are >1,40,000 PAs worldwide, covering over 15.4% of earth’s land surface (IUCN-WCMC 2014)
Underlying goal of PAs is to maintain ability of ecosystems to perform ecosystem services, to maintain iconic landscapes and places for recreation.
PAs act as life’s buffers while serving as sanctuaries and strongholds of species in the face of climate change.
Protected Areas
1.1 b people (1/6) depend on PAs for livelihoods, traditional destination for global tourism industry.
PAs cover 19.6% of tropical forests, 15% of terrestrial carbon stores are within PAs (Scharlemann 2010).
Greatest loss in carbon stocks from PAs was in Tropical Asia and Oceania.
Pollinators and Ecosystem Services
In temperate ecosystems 78.5 % of flowering plants require an animal pollinator to successfully reproduce.
Three-quarters of our global food crops depend on pollination services from wild and domestic pollinators.
Value of pest control services has been estimated at $4.5 b/yr (Losey & Vaughan 2006).
Data from 200 countries indicated that 75% crop species of global significance for food production rely on insect pollination (Klein et al. 2007).
PAs help to conserve the wild relatives of crops, providing vital genetic material for crop breeding
Water for agriculture – Madagascar, Periyar, Corbett Soil structure and fertility
PAs and Agro-ecosystems
Supply ecosystem services for disaster reduction. Mangrove PAs of India The Whangamarino wetland PA in New Zealand was originally
protected for its biodiversity but has been valued at U.S.$601,037/ on account of its flood control utility.
Forested slopes are better able to withstand avalanches and landslides, (e.g Pakistan )
Countries like Kuwait are planning PA systems to maintain desert vegetation and stop dune formation and dust storms
Protected Areas
Biodiversity and Human Health“Conserving forest biodiversity by valuing & harnessing it as medicine is consistent with poverty reduction and local public
health prevention efforts.”~ Bodeker, 2005
“In India approximately two million traditional health practitioners use over 7500 species of medicinal plants.”
~ Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions, 2002
“The World Health Organization has recorded over 36 new emerging infectious diseases since 1976, many of which,
particularly malaria and dengue, are the direct result of the influence of landscape [changes] on the ecology of disease.”
~ Bodeker, 2005
Underlying causes of degradation
Information failure: Lack of awareness about the values of conserved ecosystems
Market failure: Failure of markets to reflect the full or true cost of services provided by conserved ecosystemsIntervention failure: Absence of appropriate integrated resource management policies and inter-sectoral policy inconsistencies
Information Failure
The value of PAs poorly understood and greatly under-valued by markets, politicians and the general public.
Traditionally, the only market economic values PAs recognized are tourism revenues and income from extractive activities.
The difficulty in quantifying many of the economic, social, environmental and cultural values of PAs lead to their undervaluation in land and resource use decisions
It is often perceived to be more profitable to convert a natural ecosystem than to leave it intact
Market Failure
Local communities paying the costs of conservation 90% hh in & around PAs suffer losses due to Wildlife
(Karanth and Nepal 2011) Every year 400 people & 100 elephant killed and
400,000 families affected in conflict related instances (MoEF 2010)
Total Economic Cost
Direct cost Indirect cost Opportunity cost
Non-use value
Indirect value Option valueDirect value Existence Bequest
Timber, wood, food Ecological services
Future direct & indirect value Intrinsic value Future generation
Total Economic Benefit
Use value
Management Cost Wildlife Damage Alternate use forgone
FDA
MoEFCC NBA
BMC
Forest Departments
EDC JFM Knowledge Centre
Community participation
Landscape Level Authority
MoPR
PRI
Elected body statutory
financial power
Where is the integration…?
Language
“Come let us go down there and confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech” so said the Lord upon visiting the tower of Babel created by the sons of men
Genesis II
Economics talks and votes count
MODEL 1
Individual Utility/welfare
EconomicProcess
Goods & Services
Cultural Norms &
Policy
Manufactured Capital
Labor
Land
PublicPrivate
GNP
Consumption (based on fixed preferences)
Investment (decisions about taxes, government spending, education, science and technology policy, etc. based on existing property rights regimes)
Property rights
Building
Education, Training,
Research
Improvement
Perf
ect
Subs
titut
abili
ty
Bet
wee
n Fa
ctor
s
Conventional economic view of wealth and utility
Natural Capital
Human Capital
Organizational Capital Manufactured Capital
Lim
ited
Subs
titut
abili
tyB
etw
een
Cap
ital F
orm
s Restoration,Conservation
Education, training,research
Building
SolarEnergy
Individual Common Public
Complex propertyrights regimes
EcologicalServicesamenities
EconomicProcess
Wastes
Goods&Services
GNP
Well Being(Individual &Community)
Being, doing, relatingBeing, doing, relating
Doing, relating
- having- being
Negative impacts on all forms of capital
Positive impacts on human capital capacity
EvolvingCultural
Norms and Policy
Investment(decisions of, taxes community spending, education, science, technology policy, etc., based on complex property rights regimes)
Consumption(based on changing, adapting preferences)
- having
Alternative ecological economics models of economic activity
MODEL 2
Why value benefits of Ecosystem Services
• Valuation is an attempt to assign quantitative values to the goods and services provided by such natural resources where market prices are not available
• It can:• indicate the overall economic efficiency of
various competing use of natural resources and thereby contribute to informed decision-making
• identify marginalized stakeholders who may threaten natural resources due to unsustainable use
Case studies
The Indian Himalayas Cover approximately 5,91,000 km2 or
18% of India's land Source of 9 major river systems Lie at junction of three Biogeographic
realms viz. Palaearctic, Afro-Tropical and Indo-Malayan, 1/3 forest cover of India
Biodiversity hotspots (26% endemic) Asylum value for species migrating
under the influence of climate change Spectacular, diverse landscape, rich
cultural heritage Provide important ecosystem services
for human well being
Climate change and development impacts in Himalayas
Global warming and climate change is impacting IHR at a much higher rate than other mountain regions
Loss of natural ecosystems due to development projects, urbanization, forest dependence…
Extreme rainfalls as well as drought events are likely to increase
Uttarakhand, rainfed re-charge decreased 25% – 75% past 50yrs (Report of the Task Force, 2010), drying up of springs, abandoned villages, hardship for women
Increase in incidences of pests and insects at high altitudes
Rapid retreat of greater Himalayan glaciers in comparison to the global average (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005
The main source of energy for local people is biomass, mostly provided by fuel wood, sourced from forests
Shortage of fuel wood and the high price of imported conventional fuels result in high energy vulnerability
Poor communities more vulnerable, in particular those concentrated in high-risk areas as they have more limited adaptive capacities, and are more dependent on climate-sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies
Threat to ecological security
Key challenges…
Studies from Himalayas indicate that about 30% of snow leopard habitat may be lost due to a shifting treeline and consequent shrinking of the alpine zone (Forrest et al. 2012).
Loss of several species
Himalayan monal
Tibetan wolf
Key challenges…
Corbett Tiger Reserve
Cost of (US$) maintenance of the Corbett Tiger Reserve
YEAR MAINTENANCE COST
SALARY TOTAL
2006-7 1378,571 1050,000 2428,571
2005-6 1176,190 1007,143 2183,333
2004-5 857,143 990,476 1847,619
Direct costs
Indirect costs – Adverse impacts
Parameters Kunkhet Chukam Mohan Teda Ringora Dhela
Agricultural area (ha) 5.1 5.9 3.6 10.2 0.8 23
Losses /ha (US$) 1,776 1,737 1,477 1,527 834 1,146
Total loss (US$) 23,396 10,249 5,376 15,601 663 26,325
Economic loss due to crop damaged by wildlife around Corbett Tiger Reserve (2000-2004)
Economic loss (US$) due to livestock depredation around Corbett Tiger Reserve (2000-2004)
Parameters Kunkhet Chukam Mohan Teda Ringora Dhela Total loss 1143 976 2,310 1,417 1,476 13,238 Compensation paid 36 373 282 307 269 1,605 Net loss 1107 603 2,028 1,110 1,745 11,633
Lost access to forest resources around Corbett Tiger Reserve (2000-2004)
• 73% villagers depend on the Reserve for fuel wood (cost US$ 7346/day)
• 88% of fodder used extracted from buffer area of the Reserve
• 22,000 cattle/day grazed in the Reserve • Seasonal grass ‘bhabhar’ (Eulalopsis
binata) extracted-sold at US$ 12/100 kg
Opportunity costs
• 3.842 mt carbon stored in forests of CTR
• Offsetting a ton of CO2 in India- US $19 (Tvinnereim et al. 2009)
• The total cost of CO2 mitigation by the forests of CTR- US $63.6 million
• Annual flow -US $65.0 ha-1 year-1
Corbett TR-Indirect benefits
YEAR Number of tourists
Revenue (US$)
2006-7 1,44,000 564,286
2005-6 1,32,000 461,905
2004-5 1,10,000 432,541
Direct tourism revenueThe recreational value of CTR wasestimated as US $167,619 /yr
Watershed benefits resulting in USD 41 million through generation of electricity since 1972
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A B C D E F G H I
Perc
ent
TouristsVillagers
A- Purification of air (CO2 capture), B - Watershed protection, C - Recreation, D - Soil fertility, E- Fuel and fodder, F - Biodiversity conservation, G - Education, H Aesthetics, I - Employment
Responses of tourists and local communities
39
Mapping ecosystem services of Nanda Devi Biosphere Reserve for conservation planning
Total area 5860.69 km2
No. of villages in Transition zone
33
No. of villages in Buffer zone
47
40
FUNCTIONAL OUTPUTS OF DIFFERENT LULC
Forest types/LU LC Carbon(t/ha) NPK (t/ha)
Soil moisture
(hm)Water yield
(m3/day)
Conifer mixed 4683.2±566.7 34.9 ± 12.1 17.0±5.1 230.2±50.8Oak-pine 3279.1±434.6 NE 13.6±4.3 109.5±24.6Oak forest 2624.9±450.8 21.4 ± 9.5 19.6±7.8 44.4±11.5Blue pine 1351.6±345.7 31.4 ±8.9 12.6±2.9 NEBirch 1276.1±237.6 19.1 ± 6.6 8.2±1.5 NEDeodar 1152.4±234.8 34.3 ± 11.7 13.8±3.8 NEChir pine 705.4±123.7 34.8 ± 14.9 1.6±0.4 NEAlpine meadows 134.9±87.0 26.5 ± 12.5 17.3±9.7 NETemperate grassland 113.4±73.6 16.9 ± 7.9 6.8±1.7 NEJuniper 80.4±43.6 24.3±10.5 5.8±1.9 NEAgriculture 115.2±76.2 16.3± 8.3 9.5± 2.6 NE
41
ECONOMIC VALUE (US$/ha) OF DIFFERENT LULCLULC Carbon
stock Nutrients Soil Moisture
Biomass used
Water yield
Conifer Mixed 302000 9000 35 1000 11000Oak-pine 211000 0 29 1000 5000Oak 169000 5000 42 1000 2000Blue Pine 86000 6000 26 NA NABirch 82000 5000 17 NA NADeodar 74000 9000 29 1000 NAChirpine 45000 9000 3 NA NAAlpine meadows 9000 6000 37
NA NA
Temprate grassland 8000 5000 14
NA NA
Juniper 5000 6000 12 NA NAAgriculture 8000 5000 20 NA NA
Soil nutrient contentCarbon stock
Soil moisture content
43
Provisioning of freshwater
Provisioning services used by local community of NDBR
Natural resource % of hh (n=764)
Amount extracted (kg/hh/year)
Direct earning US$ /hh/year)
Fodder* 87.8 3648.73 ±67.04 112.27 ±2.06Fuelwood* 95.7 2510.29 ±67.36 57.93 ±1.55Leaf litter* 84.8 2321.07 ±41.31 53.56 ±0.95Thatching 5.4 75.5 ±9.21 232.31 ±28.37Vegetables 38 2.87 ±0.08 0.89 ±0.08Fruits 16.1 7.07±0.31 5.91 ±0.55Medicinal plant 4.5 0.25 ±0.01 32.69 ±1.92C. sinensis 1 0.38 ±0.9 903.85 ±447.06
Spatial distribution of the direct benefits
46
AGGREGATE VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICESLULC US$/haConifer Mixed 320000Oak-pine 220000Oak 180000Blue Pine 90000Birch 90000Deodar 80000Chir pine 60000Alpine meadows 10000Temperate grassland 10000Juniper 10000Agriculture 10000
47
RECREATION VALUENet recreational demand curve
• Recreation value –US$ 255000 /yr
• Consumer surplus/visit million – US$ 0.65
Hypothetical travel cost
Num
ber o
f Visi
ts
48
NET PRESENT ECONOMIC VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
*Excluding standing biomass value in terms of NTFP, timber, medicinal plants
Ecosystem Service Billion US$Carbon stock 5.11Soil nutrient 0.53Soil moisture 0.001Biomass used 0.02Water yield 0.07Recreation value 0.001
49
50
SUMMARY Carbon stock contributed most towards net ecosystem service
value and was highest for conifer mixed forests (4683 tons/ha). Oak and conifer mixed forests contributed the most towards
provisioning services. Recreational value of NDBR high. Significant difference between level of overall wellbeing among
hh close to and away from forests Access to forest resources for food, livelihood, economic and
health security US States Climate Change Program (CCSP, 2008) establishes
that human wellbeing is positively associated with availability of forest resources
Challenge to maintain sustained flow of these ecosystem services in the face of growing developmental pressures.
• Contributions of ES to livelihoods of vulnerable groups
• Conservation of highly threatened and irreplaceable services such as biodiversity
• Distribution of benefits and costs
• Identification of policy for conserving ES and for optimizing tradeoffs for socially desirable outcomes
Key considerations for ES approach in Himalayas
Cultur
al
Provis
i...
Regula
...
Suppo
r...0
102030405060708090
100
PublishedWorking paper
Ecosystem services
Publ
icat
ions
Types of ecosystem services studied
n= 315
1977
-1981
1997
-2001
2002
-2006
2007
-2011
2012
-2016
0%20%40%60%80%
100%
1 5
6 16 19
310 27 36
4 3 4 9
StableIncreasingDecline
Year
Publ
icat
ion
Trends in ecosystem services
05
101520253035404550 Decline Increasing Stable
Ecosystem services studied
Perc
ent o
f pub
licat
ion
Trends in ecosystem services
Afghan
istan
Bangla
desh
Bhutan
China
India
Myanm
arNep
al
Pakist
an0
1020304050 Decline Increasing Stable
Country
Perc
ent o
f pub
licat
ion
Trend in ecosystem services
Protecting biodiversity and securing ecosystem services is a smart investment option,
Restoration a far more costly and complicated option Replacing ecosystem services through other means is
prohibitively costly. Brand conservation
Dudley et al 2011
Virtually all PAs include sacred sites, with managers often working with local communities and faith groups to maintain both sacred cultural and ecological values.
Sacred natural sites have richer biodiversity than surrounding habitat.
PAs provide forum for synergies to be explored and developed among a wide range of disciplines.
Protected Areas
The gross national product does not allow for the health of our
children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It
does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our
marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of
our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage;
neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor
our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short,
except that which makes life worthwhile.
Robert F. Kennedy, 1968
Thank You…ruchi@wii.gov.in
top related