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