Naturally, at your service:

Why i t pays to invest in nature

Ben

Hall(rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)

1

Foreword – The RSPB and ecosystem services 2

Key messages and recommendations 3

1. Ecosystem services and sustainable development 4

2. The big picture – redefining progress 6

3. Making an ecosystem service approach operational 83a. Defining ecosystem services for practical uses 93b. Valuing ecosystem services 113c. Winners and losers 133d. Ecosystem services deliver benefits over different time and geographical scales 143e. Capturing the values of ecosystem services 16

4. Ecosystem services and the importance of biodiversity 18

5. Do biodiversity and ecosystem service hotspots overlap? 20

6. Ecosystem services, development and poverty eradication 22

7. Embedding an ecosystem services approach 24

Case Studies 26Hope Farm 28Harapan Rainforest, Indonesia 28The UK Uplands 29SCaMP 29Lake Vyrnwy 30Cuilcagh Mountain 31Wallasea Island 32Freiston Shore 32Ouse Washes 33Insh Marshes 33The loss of vultures in India 34Wildlife recreation and charismatic species 35

Relevant RSPB publications and papers from sponsored work 36

Acknowledgements 37

Contents

2

A healthy natural environmentsupplies us with a multitude of lifesupporting and life enhancingbenefits. Conservation is therefore apractical necessity. These so called‘ecosystem services’ range from thecomplex biological processes thatcreate soil and clean water, toproviding inspiring landscapes oramazing wildlife spectacles. Theyrepresent the bridge that links thenatural world to human wellbeing.The RSPB has long recognised thata more natural environment benefitsboth wildlife and people. We arecommitted to actions that willcontribute to their delivery,particularly where this complementsour conservation goals.

In the run up to the 2002 WorldSummit on SustainableDevelopment, we felt it was timelyto assess what progress had beenmade to better value and protect theEarth’s ecosystems over the 10years since the Earth Summit in Riode Janeiro. We assembled a groupof international experts whocompared the loss and degradationof natural habitats with the benefitsof conservation. The conclusion wasthat, in spite of conservation actuallymaking greater economic sense, theloss of biodiversity had continuedunabated. The research found thatfinancing an effective globalprogramme for the conservation ofremaining wild nature would yield anestimated benefit one hundredtimes greater than the cost.

This conclusion fits in with morerecent findings from ‘The Economicsof Ecosystems and Biodiversity’(TEEB) project. Initial estimates inphase one of this project estimatedthat, by 2050, the costs of not haltingbiodiversity loss would be equivalentto a staggering US $14 trillion perannum, or 7 percent of global GDP.So, if protecting nature makes suchgood sense, why are we destroying itat an accelerating rate? A large partof the answer lies in the failure toaccount for the values of ecosystemservices in everyday decision-making.

As our understanding of the scale and imminence of the twin dangersof climate chaos and the catastrophicloss of biodiversity grows, so theneed to find effective solutionsbecomes ever more urgent.

If the concept of ecosystem servicesis to be of practical use, we need todemonstrate the value of nature atappropriate scales and find the means to integrate these values intoeveryday decision-making. To this end, the RSPB, supported by theCentre for Social and EconomicResearch in the Global Environment,Natural England and Defra, convenedtwo further international workshops in 2006, to explore how anecosystem services approach can be made operational and embeddedin policy processes. This publicationdraws heavily on the findings of that research and presents a newapproach that we feel is necessary if the concept is to bemade workable.

Foreword

We believe the concept ofecosystem services provides astrong economic case forconservation and a powerful meansto achieve a more sustainableeconomy. From a conservationviewpoint, we must understandbetter the trade-offs andopportunities for aligningconservation goals and the deliveryof valuable ecosystem services.

Economic valuation can provide apowerful reason to conserve. Thereare though, other compellingreasons. Many people, like us,believe conservation of the naturalworld to be a moral imperative andbelieve in the intrinsic right of otherspecies to co-exist on this planet.We have a duty to protect themeven if they are neither beautiful,nor seem to do anything useful.Nature’s value, in economic terms,is immense but, for these reasons, apurely economic valuation willalways be an underestimate. Tosucceed, the concept of ecosystemservices must complement, notreplace, ethical and scientificjustifications for conservation.

Mark Avery

3

Valuing ecosystem services is just a first step in making anecosystem services approachoperational. A necessary secondstep is to establish the means

of recognising or capturing

these values in real, private

and public sector decision-

making processes.

To apply ecosystem servicethinking, we will also need sciencethat helps us quantify wheresynergies and trade-offs lie in themanagement of ecosystems forbiodiversity and for other ecosystemservices.

Governments, at all scales, have a

central role to play if we are to

move from theory to practice.

While ecosystem service thinking isreflected in important new policies,such as the new marine legislationand the Water Framework Directive,considerable work needs to be doneto adapt policy and planning acrossgovernment.

We recommend that the UK

Governments:

• Lead on developing suitable toolsand guidance through theTreasury’s Green Book, forexample, and other majorappraisal processes to ensure anecosystem service approachunderpins all resource usedecisions

• Develop spatial planning regimes that reflect the scale and interconnectedness of ecosystems

• Promote collaboration acrossdecision-making tiers and regions

• Adopt adaptive managementapproaches, incorporatingfeedback systems, to account for any uncertainties or lack of full scientific information where appropriate

• Re-orient green fiscal strategies,based on the ecosystem serviceframework, to reflect the ‘polluter pays’ and ‘provider gets’ principles

• Invest in protecting globallyimportant ecologicalinfrastructure, such as tropicalforests, wetlands, and othervaluable habitats

• Broaden national accountingframeworks to reflect the statusof our ecological as well asfinancial health, by accounting forthe value and benefits ofecosystem services

• Provide funding for scientificresearch that develops a betterunderstanding of howecosystems provide services

Key messages and recommendations

Nature provides a myriad of

services, which are not only

essential for human life, but also

enrich it. Conserving it oftenmakes sound economic sense. Yet,in spite of this, we continue todestroy ecosystems’ ability todeliver critical services, like floodmitigation, soil formation, waterpurification, and climate regulation.

In our current planning andeconomic systems, decisions

about land and resource use tend

to focus on the short-run delivery

of one service, without adequateconsideration of the impacts on thefull range of services over time.

The ecosystem service approach

helps us balance the competing

demands we place on our natural

environment, helps us understandwhy growth today, at the expenseof ecosystem health, will be shortlived and outweighed by future,longer lasting, climatic andecological costs.

Ecosystem service valuation canserve to embed and makeoperational the principles ofsustainable development. Itprovides the rationale for taxing

damaging externalities and for

paying for the delivery of

valuable, non-marketed benefits,

consistent with the ‘polluter

pays’ and ‘provider gets’

principles. Key to this is thatvaluation should be based on allecosystem goods and services, andnot simply those that can be traded.

1. Ecosystem services and sustainable development

The question of the century is: how best can we shift to a culture of permanence, both

for ourselves and for the biosphere that sustains us?

Edward O. Wilson

“”

Wild

scape

(Alam

y)

5

make the approach operational.Adopting an ecosystem service

approach can then serve to

strengthen the scientific

underpinnings of the

environmental dimensions of

sustainable development.

This publication is divided into twoparts. The first part, containingsections one to seven, outline theRSPB’s thinking about ecosystemservices. It also summarises findingsfrom RSPB sponsored research,commissioned to examine how wetranslate theory into policy andpractise. The second part of thispublication contains a series ofexamples illustrating how theconcept of ecosystem services isinforming our own conservationpractice at a variety of scales and ina variety of places.

Nature contains stocks of capitalresources, such as forests andpeatlands, which yield a flow ofvaluable goods or services. Together,the stocks of natural capital and theservices they support underpineconomic activity and comprise theearth's life-support system.Traditionally we have valuedresources like timber and coal, buthave failed to recognise the full arrayof other services, such as soilformation or water quality regulation.In recent years, recognition of theseecosystem services has changed theway that we think about theinteraction between our economyand the natural world. Thisrecognition has led to thedevelopment of an ecosystemsapproach to environmentalmanagement which is designed topromote conservation andsustainable use in an equitable way.The concept of ecosystem servicesis integral to, but distinct from, thebroader ecosystems approach1. Keycharacteristics of the ecosystemservices concept are that it: • makes people an integral part

of ecosystems• incorporates economic valuation

of nature’s services• illuminates trade-offs in natural

resource management and helpsus identify winners and losers ofland and marine use decisions

• recognises multiple interests andpoints towards integrated land,marine and resource management

1 In referring to an ecosystem serviceapproach or concept, we mean the processof identifying, quantifying and valuingecosystem services. The ecosystemsapproach, as elaborated by the CBD andDefra, is a broader management approachbased on a set of principles that recogniseintrinsic values and include other valuejudgments not inherent to an ecosystemservice approach.

• requires varying spatial andtemporal scales to be taken intoconsideration when deciding onresource management options

The ecosystem service concept is consistent with the principles of sustainable development in that both:• focus on people, emphasising

what is fair and equitable• focus our minds on the wellbeing

of future generations, given thatmany changes today alter theflow of services for many years to come

• require consideration of local to global dimensions and interactions

• highlight the interconnectednessand interdependence of natureand economies

• recognise the existence ofenvironmental limits. Naturalcapital can be depleted, but notalways increased if ecosystemsare irreparably damaged or speciesgo extinct.

The concept is potentially a veryvaluable tool but, for it to be widelyaccepted and deployed, we need toknow how it fits in with existingpolicy and decision-makingframeworks, like spatial planning orcost-benefit analyses, or tounderstand what amendments wewill need to make to thoseframeworks. We also need to knowwhat research will help most to

Ecosystem services refer to the vast and varied ways that the natural worldsupports and enriches our lives. Recognising their value is key to sustainabledevelopment, which requires the integration of economic, social, cultural,political, and ecological factors in decision-making.

2.The big picture – redefining progress

That which seems to be wealth may in verity be only the gilded index of

far-reaching ruin

John Ruskin

“”

Ad

rianS

herratt

(Alam

y)

7

Currently, global economic growth is neither broad based nor sustainable. Theconcept of ecosystem services helps us understand why growth today, at theexpense of ecosystem degradation, will be short lived and outweighed by future,longer lasting, climatic and ecological costs.

The global economy is configuredto deliver growth in the hope that itwill meet our aspirations toeradicate poverty and provide abetter life for all. It is a soberingthought that economic growthtoday may actually be making us allpoorer in the future. The economyis part of an ecological world that ischaracterised by thresholdsexemplified by the dangers ofatmospheric greenhouse gases, thedamage done to the ozone layerand the collapse of some oceanfisheries. In conventionaleconomics, the mainsprings ofdevelopment are human ingenuityand technical invention but howeveringenious we are, there are limitsto the extent that we can findsubstitutes for the services theenvironment fortuitously provides.A healthy natural environment isfundamental to human existence.

The world’s ecological systemshave always experienced a degreeof change and periods ofdisturbance, but we are livingthrough a period in whichecosystems are being degradedand biodiversity is being lost atrates not seen in human history.That was a conclusion of theMillennium Ecosystem Assessment(MA), which found that over half ofthe world’s ecosystem services arebeing degraded or usedunsustainably. This matters bothbecause current rates of species

extinction are much higher thannatural extinction rates and because,combined with climate change,global consumption, and populationgrowth, this loss means animpoverished future for all, withmany regions in the world riskingcatastrophic environmentaldisruption.

This degradation of ecosystems andtheir services is seldom wilful orwanton. It happens mainly becausepeople can sell some services, likefood, fish or tourism, but not others,such as landscape beauty or cleanair. This selectiveness of markets isnot arbitrary; it simply reflects thefact that not everything that has

value can be traded. Suchproblems, of market failure, haveoften been compounded by policyfailures, like perverse subsidies.Together, these encouragedunsustainable agriculture, fossil fueldependency and led to the depletionof some fisheries.

The major drivers of biodiversity lossare essentially economic at heart.Forests are felled and converted tooil palm because, with today’smarkets, it is profitable; invasivespecies are spread throughinternational trade; and climatechange is essentially a consequenceof the way we produce the thingswe choose to consume. The

depletion of environmental

resources in pursuit of short-term

economic growth is akin to living

off capital rather than income. Thediversity of life and the formation ofour natural capital have beenmillions of years in the making.There is nothing to justify this raidon what should be the inheritanceof future generations.

So how can ecosystem servicethinking help us move away from afixation solely on economic growthand towards prosperity and asustainable economy? First comesvaluing the services we need fromland and sea. Acknowledging thevalue of ecosystem services indecision-making, together withunderstanding the fundamental roleof biodiversity in underpinningservices, helps balance the manycompeting demands placed on ournatural environment. Secondly, itcan help us to establish appropriatelimits on the use of naturalresources. Thirdly, it provides uswith a tool for greening oureconomic accounting frameworks,redefining what progress means andrefining our measures of prosperity.

Mar

kS

isso

n(r

spb

-im

ages

.co

m)

8

3. Making an ecosystem service approach operational

Earthworms, though in appearance a small and despicable link in the chain ofnature, yet, if lost, would make a lamentable chasm... worms seem to be thegreat promoters of vegetation, which would proceed but lamely without them... Gilbert White - The Natural History of Selborne 1789

Earthworms, though in appearance a small and despicable link in the chain of nature,yet, if lost, would make a lamentable chasm...

worms seem to be the great promoters ofvegetation, which would proceed but

lamely without them...

Gilbert White (1789)

“

”

Ben

Hall(rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)

As is apparent from the quotation above, the existence and importance of someecosystem services have been well known for centuries. The value of someservices, particularly food, fibre and recreational opportunities, are clearly valuedand already influence the way we use our land and seas. What has been lackingis a systematic approach to identifying and valuing the full range of nature’sservices. The idea of ecosystem services is intuitively appealing as it mirrors aproduction process linking natural capital with human well-being. If the concept isto shape policy, we need to acquire the right kind of evidence regarding servicedelivery and then develop the appropriate decision support tools. This sectiondescribes some of the key considerations we need to address in making anecosystem service approach operational. One of the case studies, presentedlater, Valuing the Arc, shows how the thinking described in this section isbeginning to be applied in practice.

9

3a. Defining ecosystem services for practical usesAn appropriate definition and classification system of ecosystem servicesdepends on the decision or policy-making context in which an ecosystemservices approach is being used.

The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment classification of ecosystem services

There is no one correct definition orclassification system of ecosystemservices. To date, most definitions of ecosystem services have beengeneral by design to embrace theirbroad and disparate nature. The bestknown classification comes from the MA and is summarised in thetable above.

The MA approach effectivelyillustrates the range and nature ofservices and is extremely useful forauditing the trend in services. Toenable ecosystem services to beintegrated into economic accounts,and for enabling us to estimatemonetary values, a differentapproach is needed. Specifically, weneed to distinguish between thequantities of service flow (which

relate to ecological processes) fromthe value people decide to place onthem. The starting point foreconomic valuation is to understandboth who benefits from a serviceand in what ways they benefit. So,to enable us to value services mosteffectively, we believe the followingdefinition of ecosystem services isappropriate:

Ecosystem services are the aspects ofecosystems utilized(actively or passively) to produce human wellbeing.

Diagram 1 (see page 10) illustratesthis approach to ecosystem services.

Provisioning Services Regulating Services Cultural Services

Products obtained from Benefits from regulation of Non-material benefits obtainedecosystems eg ecosystem processes eg from ecosystems eg

Food Climate regulation Spiritual and religious

Fresh water Disease regulation Recreation and ecotourism

Fuelwood Water regulation Aesthetic

Fibre Water purification Inspirational

Biochemicals Pollination Educational

Genetic Resources Sense of place

Cultural heritageA

nd

yH

ay(r

spb

-im

ages

.co

m)

“”

Supporting ServicesServices necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services

eg soil formation, nutrient cycling, primary production

This definition does not conflict withother definitions or classificationsystems. The distinction however isnot merely semantic. It is necessaryto help us identify and valueappropriately the benefits of natureand therefore fundamental tomaking the concept of ecosystemservices operational.

Here we have an ecosystem, orbiophysical structure, perhaps aforest or pond. This ecosystem mayitself deliver final ecosystemservices if it contains species orattractive views that people value.This ecosystem, will support anumber of ecological functions orprocesses that involve such thingsas decomposition or nutrientcycling. When these processeshave beneficial outcomes forpeople, they become services suchas fish, crops, clean water, andscenic landscapes.

For valuation purposes, we need todistinguish between intermediate

and final services. Pollination, forexample, is an intermediate servicewhile the apples and almonds we eatare the final service. Clean drinkingwater is a final service of waterprovision. In turn, water provision isa function of intermediate servicessuch as nutrient cycling and soilretention. This distinction, betweenintermediate and final service, isessential to avoid double countingwhen it comes to adding up thebenefits from an ecosystem.

Diagram 1. Conceptual framework for decision-making

Ern

ieJan

es(rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)

It should also be noted that, underthis approach, services are purelyecological in nature so excludecultural or spiritual phenomena.Benefits relate to the subjectivevalues people place on nature’sservices. They describe the variety of ways human wellbeing isimproved from utilising services.Distinguishing benefits from servicesis necessary if we are to valueecosystem services appropriately. A key implication of this approachis that some services can beintermediate for some benefits butfinal for others. Water purificationmight be one example. This is a final service to people who valueclean drinking water but it is anintermediate service to people whovalue clean water for the impact ithas on fishing or birdwatching.

A final point to note from thediagram is that the benefits ofecosystem services are commonlygenerated in combination with otherinputs and forms of capital such ashuman knowledge or equipment.Fish may be gifts of nature but thelanded value of a catch includes thelabour, boats, fuel, and nets used tocatch and transport them.

Benefits

Final service

Intermediate service

Other capital

Functioning

Ecosystem

11

for, but few ways to gauge the truevalue of anything. For this reason,many people remain scepticalabout valuing some aspects ofnature while others believe theintrinsic values of nature requirerights-based approaches toenvironmental management. Strong cases have been articulatedfor non-monetary approaches andmuch environmental managementis delivered through legislation.However, it is our failure to valueecosystem services, which meansthey are routinely assigned a low or zero value in the majority ofdecision-making contexts thatdetermine resource use.

Water is vital for life so somewhatmore useful than diamonds.Diamonds command much higherprices than water. This ‘paradox ofvalue’ was well known to thepioneers of economics. Economicgrowth is only a measure of themonetary value of goods andservices bought and sold in markets.It is not a good measure ofwellbeing. Sustainable developmentreally requires consideration of the‘true’ importance of the goods andservices which our decisions deliveror extinguish.

In reality, we have market prices toshow us what things are exchanged

Given the pervasive use of cost-benefit criteria in both public andprivate realms, valuing ecosystemservices can help us makesubstantially better decisions.

The MA identified four causes ofvalue that reveal the broad range ofways we benefit from nature. • Direct use values. These include

the benefits we get from eatingfood, fish, using timber or enjoyingoutdoor recreational activities.

• Indirect use values. These includethe processes that contribute tothe production of goods andservices like soil formation, waterpurification and pollination.

The economy is a wholly owned subsidiary of the environment

Senator Gaylord Nelson

“ ”

An

dy

Hay

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)

3b. Valuing ecosystem servicesEconomic valuation represents a powerful means of influencing decision-makingand is core to the ecosystem service approach. It must, however, be usedjudiciously. There are limits to economic valuation and some ecosystem servicebenefits lend themselves more successfully to monetary valuation than others.Additionally, some reasons we value nature, notably moral or spiritualmotivations, cannot be captured using economic techniques.

12

quantification of service provisionis seldom easy, let alonemeasuring the change in servicedelivery associated with differentland or marine use options.

• Undervaluation. The TEV of asystem will always be less thanthe Total Systems Value. TEV doesnot capture the infrastructurevalue associated with theunderpinning, life supportfunctions of healthy systems.Additionally, TEV excludes intrinsicvalues and, for practical reasons,we can only ever estimate valuesfor a subset of services.

• Moral considerations. As noted,the TEV framework does notinclude intrinsic values and somedecisions, for example one whichmay commit a species toextinction, are beyond the boundsof economics.

In addition to science andeconomics, effective environmentalmanagement is determined bybroader political, cultural, andhistorical factors and will alwaysrequire the use of a number ofadditional tools beyond valuation.Where valuation is used it should

generally be one component of a

broader decision-making

framework. This indeed is theadvice of the UK Treasury, whichrecommends the use of multi-criteria decision analysis when facedwith a combination of monetarymeasures and qualitative data.

• Non-use values. Many peoplederive pleasure from simplyknowing a resource exists orbecause they wish to bequeath itto future generations.

• Option values. Despite the factthat people may not currently begaining any benefits from them,many ecosystem services stillhold value for preserving theoption to use such services in thefuture either by the individual(option value) or by others(bequest value)2.

Taken together, these valuescomprise what economists refer toas Total Economic Value (TEV).Economists have tools, of varyingcredibility, to assess all these values.

Valuation is central to embeddingthe ecosystem service concept but,on its own, it is not appropriate forall environmental managementdecisions. Examples where valuationis not appropriate or will have alimited role include:

• Marginality. Valuation isappropriate for small changes;where many decisions are taken.

It makes sense to value thechange in service flow fromconversion of a hectare of forestbut not from conversion of theworld’s entire forests. The onlysensible answer to the costs oflosing the world’s forests wouldbe infinity.

• Threshold effects. These occurwhen a reduction in biodiversityto a certain level causes a suddencollapse in an ecosystem’s abilityto deliver services. The demise ofsome of the world’s mostprofitable fisheries, such as theGrand Banks cod fishery offNewfoundland Canada, is anexample of a threshold change ina once thriving population. Forpotentially large but uncertainenvironmental changes, or wherean ecosystem or service isdeemed susceptible to largereactions from further change,economics should be subordinateto scientific evidence.

• Complexity. The ability toaccurately value services islimited by the complexity ofnature itself. Accurate

2 A related kind of value is quasi option value.This represents the value of avoidingirreversible decisions until new informationreveals whether certain ecosystem serviceshave values that are currently unknown to us.

An

dy

Hay

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)

13

the forest, he will lose the potentialprofits from conversion. Within acost benefit framework, whatmatters is the net costs or benefitsbetween different potential options.There have been several hundredecosystem service valuationstudies done to date but only ahandful have sought to comparebenefits associated with alternativeresource management options.

There is, therefore, a majorquestion of equity in addressingbiodiversity loss and in how thecosts for benefits foregone of landor resource management, should beshared. The ‘polluter pays’ principleis widely accepted in economicsand environmental law. An

ecosystem services approach, in

identifying a range of non-

marketable benefits suggests a

corollary principle that the

‘provider gets’. In Europe, thisprinciple can provide a rationale foragri-environment payments related to ecosystem service provision. Atthe global level, where biodiversityrich areas are delivering valuableglobal public goods, such as carbonstorage and biodiversity conservation,the global beneficiaries should behelping to meet the costs ofconservation as well as theopportunity costs forgone by localpeople through conserving resources.Doing this could mean establishingincentive structures working in favourof conserving rather than fellingtropical forests or draining wetlands.The issue of payment distribution and how payments reach those that should benefit from them is a critical issue, particularly in countrieswhere governance, local capacity,knowledge and communication onthese issues may be poor.

3c. Winners and losersEnvironmental management changes entail costs and benefits to differentpeople, from the global to the local level. The focus on human wellbeingwithin an ecosystem services approach leads to a greater consideration ofthe distribution of these costs and benefits. This itself should be consideredintegral to an ecosystem service approach.

Economics is largely about how wemake trade-offs between alternativeoptions. A farmer may increaseprofits by converting a forest to awheat field. What if that conversiondecreases the supply of servicesthat may be of equal or greaterimportance to others, such aspollination, recreation, clean water,fuel wood or carbon sequestration?Striking the right balance betweencompeting interests requires anunderstanding of the full array ofservices associated with alternativeland or resource uses, as well aswho will benefit and who will loseout from the different options bothnow and in the future.

Identifying the range of peopleaffected, both positively andnegatively, by resource use decisionsis a key step for valuation. In theexample above, if the farmer retains

NiallB

envie(rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)

14

David

Tip

ling

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)

3d. Ecosystem services deliver benefits over different timeand geographical scalesUnderstanding how different services are actually provided is important forenvironmental management and planning. In relation to geographic scale,consideration of service delivery may lead us to interventions within larger,landscape-scale management approaches.

15

A similar challenge arises fromecosystem degradation or potentialrestoration. Rarely will solutionsrespect political boundaries or beachievable over short time horizons.Establishing rules, rights andresponsibilities at the range of spatial and temporal scales at whichecosystem services deliver is a major challenge. Effective

management requires a spatially

explicit approach, working across

boundaries. Success will depend on collaboration at several levels,from the local to the global.

Two key features of the ecosystemservice approach are that servicesonly exist if somebody benefits andthat those beneficiaries include futuregenerations. On the latter point,tropical forests today provide thebenefit of maintaining a liveableclimate for future generations. Interms of geography, services deliverover multiple spatial scales.Identifying and valuing them dependson knowing how the services aresupplied and where the beneficiariesare located. The benefits of someservices can only be realised in thesame place they are generated. Other services provide benefits, atvarious scales, beyond their point ofproduction. For example, the floodmitigation services provided bysaltmarshes benefit communitiesadjacent to the marsh, pollination mayhave local or regional benefits whilecarbon sequestration and biodiversityprotection generate benefits globally.These possibilities are shown in theillustration to the right.

For management, it is also importantto know how site-specific servicesare. Some services, like foodproduction or recreationalopportunities, can be delivered atvarying scales and in differentlocations. Many regulatory andsupporting services, on the otherhand, rely on complex ecologicalprocesses so the scale and locationcannot be easily influenced. Forexample, the maintenance of waterregulatory services requires alandscape and land-use managementapproach across an entire watershed.Such services pose particularchallenges for planning, given theirimmovability and the fact that theirprovision will seldom match existingpolitical boundaries.

Possible spatial relationship between service production areas (P)and service benefit areas (B). In panel 1, both the service provisionand benefit occur at the same location (e.g. soil formation, provisionof raw material). In panel 2 the service is provided omni-directionallyand benefits the surrounding landscape (e.g, pollination, carbonsequestration). Panel 3 and 4 demonstrate services that havespecific directional benefits. In panel 3, services provided in uphillareas, for example water regulation services provided by forestedslopes, deliver benefits down stream. In panel 4, the serviceprovision unit could be coastal wetlands providing storm and floodprotection to a coastline. (Reproduced from Fisher et al. 2008)

For environmental management,knowing what services regionsprovide and how they flow over thelandscape is necessary to balancethe different demands – food, energy,climate change mitigation andadaptation, water reliability, flood riskmanagement or conservation – weplace on our land and seas. Knowinghow and where services aredelivered is also important foridentifying potential opportunities fordeveloping payment schemes forecosystem services or effectivemeans of capturing the benefits.

Diagram 2.The delivery of ecosystem services

P/BB

P

P

B

PB

1 2

3 4

16

Conservation is usually seen as a chore. But conservation is not a drain on the economy,it's a source of benefit…the economic argument

for conserving the environment was not getting a hearing, although the economic

arguments against conservation are always emphasized

Geoffrey Heal

“

”3e. Capturing the values of ecosystem services Recognising the benefits of ecosystems and their values is just a first step inmaking an ecosystem services approach operational. Establishing the means ofincorporating these values in real, private and public sector decision-making and‘capturing’ the non-marketed benefits, is a necessary second step. Achieving thiswill depend on broad political and institutional changes. The challenges aresignificant. It will undoubtedly be hard, for example, to get people to pay forservices they have traditionally been receiving for free. Public attitudes matterbecause they underpin behaviour and affect value judgments on what changesare deemed acceptable. However, values can be changed and ecosystem servicethinking can help demonstrate just why nature is so important to us all.

An

dy

Hay

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)

17

If private decisions are to

coincide with what is socially

optimal it will be critical to put a

price on the environmental costs

and benefits, which currently

evade markets. Underlining thispoint, the Stern Review on theEconomics of Climate Changehighlighted avoiding deforestationas one of the most cost-effectivemeans of reducing current carbondioxide emissions. Yet, the rate ofglobal deforestation cannot beexpected to change unless thefinancial returns to forest owners,for sequestering and storing carbon,exceed the financial returns ofconverting forests. We, the globalbeneficiaries must be prepared toactually pay for the carbon benefitstropical forests offer.

Because many ecosystem servicesare, to varying degrees, publicgoods, their provision will generallyneed to be stimulated by publicactions or charitable funds. There will always be a major role forgovernment intervention to ensurean appropriate level of supply. Thiscan be done through traditionalregulatory approaches, fiscalinterventions, or innovativeapproaches like cap and tradeschemes or conservation auctions.Governments, at all tiers, will needto play a part. For the UK, theplanning system principally operatesat a local scale, and is not currentlyset up to manage services whichdeliver over broad scales.Collaboration will be essential.

Encouragingly, the private sector isbeginning to play its part. Aroundthe world, many innovative paymentschemes for ecosystem serviceshave been developed, particularly

Ele

ano

rB

enta

ll(r

spb

-im

ages

.co

m)

for carbon sequestration, waterquality and biodiversity. The coreidea of such schemes is that servicebeneficiaries make direct paymentsto local landholders in return foradopting land management practicesthat secure ecosystem conservationor restoration. A small number ofschemes have been purely privatesector initiatives driven by costefficiency. The Perrier bottled watercompany, for example, pays fees tolandowners in watersheds upstreamof their springs to retain forests,guaranteeing a clean, reliable watersource. Other schemes havedeveloped innovative approaches todeliver multiple objectives. In SouthAfrica, the ‘Working for Water’project removes invasive alien plants from watercourses with theaim of improving biodiversity andwater services and creating jobs for the poor.

The private sector has also developeda number of other approachesdesigned to internalise environmentalbenefits into markets. Eco-labelling isone example where consumers pay a‘green premium’ on top of themarket price for production methodsthat are certified to beenvironmentally benign.

However welcome these initiativesare, scaling up will requiregovernments to do much more toalign economic and financialincentives with service delivery andecosystem stewardship.Governments must help lay thefoundations for developing formaland informal markets in which a fuller range of the beneficiaries ofecosystems contribute to the costsof their maintenance. Withoutgovernment intervention, nature will continue to be undervalued and overexploited.

4. Ecosystem services and the importance of biodiversity

The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to make sure you don’t lose

any of the parts

Aldo Leopold

“”

Su

eK

enn

edy

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)

19

Any assumption that the delivery

of regulatory and supporting

services will automatically deliver

nature conservation objectives is

a dangerous folly, which is likely

to lead to the loss of many

species and habitats that do not

offer immediate and direct

benefits to human wellbeing.

We must improve our understandingof the relationships betweenspecies, diversity and ecosystemservices through research. In themeantime, we must not fail toconserve and enhance the livingdiversity that pervades andcomprises these systems.

Biodiversity – the variety of life onearth – can be considered anecosystem service in its own rightbecause beautiful or inspiringspecies and living communities arevalued by people for their sheerexistence. Biodiversity also hasvalue for the resources it harbours,which we have yet to study orexploit. The existence value ofwildlife is amply demonstrated bythe RSPB campaign to protectalbatrosses, which has, since 2005,raised over one million pounds from people, most of whom havenever, and will never, actually seean albatross.

Biodiversity also provides peoplewith large cultural benefits. Themillions of people who visit thecountryside or coast to ‘experiencenature’ demonstrates this. Wildlifein gardens and parks is also animportant source of inspiration andprovides recreation and relaxation.These benefits are clear to ourmillion members and the manymore who visit our reserves.

However, biodiversity is about morethan just the cultural services orcharismatic species and inspiringlandscapes. Less glorified elementsof biodiversity, such as earthwormsand soil microbes, are instrumentalin shaping nature’s structure andprocesses. In this, biodiversity playsa fundamental role in providing thewhole array of services.

But what level of biodiversity, in thebroader sense of richness ofnumber of species and number ofindividuals, is important? Therelationship between the overalldiversity of species in an area orsystem, and the ecosystemprocesses, stability andprovisioning services that result, iscomplex and poorly understood.Some species can apparently belost without major impact on widerprocesses – or at least no impactthat is immediately evident topeople. Other species, however,clearly have keystone ecologicalstatus and their loss leads tocascading and even catastrophicecosystem effects. We cannot yettell which species are critical tosystem processes in any general orreliable way. For this reason alone,humanity must always strive toprevent extinctions.

Some evidence suggests thatecosystems with greater biologicaldiversity might be more adaptableand resilient to stress, disease orexternal shocks. However, otherevidence does not support this. Thepicture is far from simple and it isnot possible to generalise. Ourunderstanding of dynamicecosystem processes, and howmyriad species interact to producethem, is profoundly incomplete.

Ecosystem services focus on the link between ecological processes andhuman wellbeing. The link between biodiversity and these processes isequally important in terms of nature conservation, but the relationship is, asyet, poorly understood.

Dav

idT

iplin

g(r

spb

-im

ages

.co

m)

5. Do biodiversity and ecosystem service hotspots overlap?

David

Greg

s(A

lamy)

Our observation of nature must be diligent, our reflection profound, and ourexperiments exact. We rarely see these

three means combined

Denis Diderot

“”

services than regions chosenrandomly. There was also littlecorrelation between differentservices.

Conclusions may differ for differentservices or at other spatial scalesbut, however preliminary thisresearch, these findings are acaution against generalisationsregarding relationships betweenbiodiversity and ecosystem serviceprovision. Exploiting an ecosystemservice approach will only benefitconservation where there is overlapbetween important locations forbiodiversity and ecosystem servicesand if there is congruence in theparticular land or marine uses thatbest delivers both. More generally,research on general patterns ofcongruence in ecosystem services

and biodiversity may ultimatelyprove less informative for decision-making than a more focusedregional approach.

Despite this note of caution, it isclear that ‘win-win’ locations, andecosystem categories, exist.Tropical forests appear to be one ofthe prime examples, largely due totheir carbon storage function. Foran ecosystem services agenda tobe used in support of conservation,it is important to understand wheresuch synergies, or trade-offs,between biodiversity conservationpriorities and ecosystem servicevalues exist. For policy purposes,this again stresses the need formulti-scale decision-making, so asto reflect both local conditions andbroader-scale priorities.

If global efforts to conserve biodiversity are to deliver broader economic benefitsto people, it is useful to know how biodiversity and ecosystem services overlapspatially. Identifying regions, that are important for both nature conservation andecosystem services production, could benefit spatial planning processes andsustainable development.

Global data exists on the ranges ofcertain species, but we have verylittle information on the location ofecosystem service provision. Thisis unsurprising given the limitedmeans we have of actuallymeasuring services. In 2006, aspart of its research programme,the RSPB organised a workshop to map the relationship betweenareas of high global biodiversityand high ecosystem service value.Global maps of four ecosystemservices were developed andcompared with maps of globaldistributions of conventional,species-based targets forconservation. Preliminary resultsfrom this research show thatregions selected to maximisebiodiversity conservation are nobetter at providing ecosystem

NiallB

envie(rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)

22

6. Ecosystem services, development and poverty eradication

Millions of people die each year becauseof their poverty and extreme vulnerability to

droughts, crop failure, lack of safe drinking water,and other environmentally related ills. The

desperation of the poor and heedlessness of therich also exact a toll on future well being in terms

of habitat destruction, species extinction, and climate change

Sachs and Reid

“

The economies of most developing countries will need to grow to meet the UnitedNations’ Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and eliminate poverty. However, itis now widely recognised that this growth needs to be environmentally sustainableand fair otherwise any gains will be transitory and inequitable.

”

PeterA

ustin

(iSto

ckph

oto

)

23

national development plans, fail tosystematically incorporateenvironmental considerations4 and therole of local civil society in nationaldecision-making is often limited5.

The UK Department for InternationalDevelopment (DFID) has recentlyannounced a new internationalinitiative on valuing natural capital that builds on ‘The Economics ofEcosystems and Biodiversity’ (TEEB).This should help countries incorporateenvironmental values into economicdecisions and will support widerefforts to build countries’ capacity forenvironmental management, including climate change adaptationand development plans6. This has the potential to improve the prospects for countries to achievepoverty eradication ambitions in ways that do not ultimatelyundermine their economies throughenvironmental degradation.

The MA concluded that any progressachieved in addressing the goals ofpoverty eradication, improved health,and environmental protection, isunlikely to be sustained if most ofthe ecosystem services on whichhumanity relies continue to bedegraded. Many regions facingsignificant problems of ecosystemdegradation, such as sub-saharanAfrica, Central Asia, some regions inLatin America and Southeast Asia,are also facing major challenges inachieving the MDGs. While it ispredominantly the rich who havebenefited from the over-exploitationof nature, the poor will be hardesthit by resource shortages and severeenvironmental degradation.

Unlike the rich, the rural poor arehighly dependent on the integrity oftheir local environment; they havefew alternatives and limited optionsfor buying-in substitutes for localecosystem goods and services oncethey fail. Environmental degradationcan exacerbate poverty, lead tohuman migration and conflict. Of the1.2 billion people living in extremepoverty, approximately 900 millionlive in rural areas, where biodiversityand ecosystem services contributeto food security and nutrition andprovide the raw materials thatunderpin health systems andlivelihoods. Those in urban areas alsoultimately rely on environmentalgoods and services for their basicneeds, just less directly.

Protecting biodiversity and

maintaining ecosystem function

can benefit livelihoods and

potentially help increase poor

people’s resilience and adaptive

capacity to natural and economic

shocks, including climate change.

In this context, economic valuationcan help demonstrate thatbiodiversity, and the ecosystemservices it provides, forms the basisof sustainable development andpoverty eradication. It can helpdecision-makers find environmentallysustainable and inclusive growth anddevelopment options.

Ecosystem service arguments per se are not, however, automaticallypro-poor. Some level of biodiversityand service supply is absolutelynecessary for human survival, richand poor alike, and ecosystemservices can be exploited in waysthat make poor or marginalised partsof society worse off. For example,poor people, who currently receiveservices, like water, for free, could be expected to pay, or they could find their resources beingexpropriated when hidden values are revealed and made marketable,for example forest carbon.

Managing ecosystem services in anequitable manner will depend onbroader political, governance andinstitutional considerations. A keycomponent of any ecosystem servicevaluation process should be engaging effectively with allstakeholders, including poor ormarginalised peoples, and ensuringthat any benefits are fairly distributed.

Sachs and Reid (2006)3 called on the rich donor countries to establish a Millennium Ecosystem Fund to give poor countries the wherewithalto incorporate environmentalsustainability into nationaldevelopment strategies. Manydecision-making frameworks at thenational level, such as povertyreduction strategy papers and

3 Sachs J, Reid W, (2006) Investmentstowards sustainable development, scienceVol 312 p1002.

4 Bojo J, et al (2004) Environment in PovertyReduction Strategies and Poverty ReductionSupport Credits. World Bank Environmentdepartment Paper No: 102 Washington DC

5 Bird N, Caravani A (2009) Environmentalsustainability within the new developmentagenda. ODI UK

6 Department for International Development,Eliminating World Poverty: Building OurCommon Future, July 2009

7. Embedding an ecosystem services approach

The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping

from old ones

John Maynard Keynes

“”

An

dy

Hay

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)

25

biodiversity and relationshipsbetween service provision andparticular conservation actions

• developing tools to identify howto optimise provision across arange of services

• developing tools for transferringestimates of service provision toalternative locations or times.

For policy and planning, adoptingecosystem service thinkingrequires us to deal with theuncertainty inherent in quantifyingservice flows. This necessitates anadaptive approach to managementwhich, in turn, requires feedbacksystems that do not just inform,but can mould and change policyas new evidence comes to light.We also need to pilot solutionsbased on existing, imperfectknowledge to take proven solutionsthrough to policy implementation.Finally, we need to communicateeffectively to the public at large,the vast and varied ways we allbenefit from nature.

Thinking around ecosystem servicesis at an early stage and we still havea lot to learn. To embed theapproach we need to understandthe policy contexts for using theapproach and undertake the rightkind of research to provide the rightkind of evidence to support policy.However, great strides have alreadybeen taken. Agri-environmentpayments, the new marinelegislation and the requirements ofthe Water Framework Directive,now contribute to a more integratedapproach to resource management.Defra’s Ecosystems ApproachAction Plan, launched in 2007,embodies ecosystem servicethinking. At the English regionallevel, progressive DevelopmentAgencies are developing ‘greeninfrastructure’ initiatives, whichrecognise the broad benefits ofnature. At the European level, theCommission has set an aim ofhalting the loss of biodiversity by2010 and its Communication onBiodiversity (2006) is couchedexplicitly in the language ofecosystem services. Globally, theG8+5 have commissioned researchinto ‘The Economics of Ecosystemsand Biodiversity’, and fundingagencies worldwide are exploringthe potential for developingpayment mechanisms to ‘capture’ecosystem service values, notablycarbon and water trading.

Two virtues of the ecosystemservice concept are its accessibilityand utility. In terms of accessibility,the concept requires us to rethinkland management to reflect itspotential multiple uses but does soin a language and concepts that themajority of people, especially landmanagers and users, can intuitively

understand. An ecosystem service

approach should not be seen as

an additional management

approach, but rather as a tool

that can support everything from

integrated spatial planning to

adopting an ecosystems

approach. It can be incorporatedwithin existing decision-making andsupport tools, like cost benefitanalyses, risk assessments orenvironmental impact assessments.

To scale up ecosystem serviceapproaches, we need improvedscientific understanding.Outstanding research goals include:

• developing a betterunderstanding of howecosystems provide services

• developing tools to bettermeasure and extrapolate serviceprovision to facilitate more robustmonitoring of state and trends inservice provision

• understanding dependenciesbetween ecosystem services and

Dan

nyG

reen

(rsp

b-i

mag

es.c

om

)

26

defending a coastline also deliversbiodiversity benefits.

4. Land where biodiversity is the

primary land use objective

Globally, and in the UK, we believethere are some regions of criticalbiodiversity importance, wheremanagement must be focusedprimarily on biodiversity conservationobjectives. Harapan Rainforest, inIndonesia, is one example wherebiodiversity conservation is the cleargoal, but where conservationmanagement can deliver importantco-benefits.

While most thinking aboutecosystem services is habitat based,individual species themselves candeliver important services to people.This is demonstrated by the casestudies on charismatic bird species

in the UK and vultures in India.

These case studies reflect the broadrange of services our work delivers,given the variety of actions weundertake, and the different scales atwhich we operate. The studies alsodemonstrate some of the benefitsand challenges of incorporatingecosystem service thinking intopractical resource and landmanagement.

The following case studies highlightexamples of our work, bothdomestically and internationally,where explicit consideration is beinggiven to ecosystem service delivery.Probably the best known servicesour work delivers relate to therecreation, educational and healthbenefits our reserves provide. These are not discussed here butare described in our otherpublications available on the web7.Many of the insights from ourresearch are reflected in thedecisions we have taken to bestachieve our conservation objectives.The first case study presented here,Valuing the Arc, has explicitlyincorporated elements of thethinking described in section 3.

One of the major challenges weface is the delivery of multipleservices. We need ecosystems todeliver ever more goods andservices at an ever increasing rates.Population growth and economicaspirations mean we want morefood, fuel and fibre from alandscape that we need to beresilient to drought, provides us withclean water and accommodatesfloodwaters. On top of that, we willneed land use that mitigates, orfacilitates, adaptation to climatechange for ourselves and wildlife. Itis clear that most land will need toplay more than one role8.

For land, the RSPB considers thatthe UK should provide a mosaic ofthe following:

1. Land wholly managed for a

single productive service

In our highly modified and variedlandscape, with so many pressureson land, it is inevitable that someland will be required to provide justone productive service to thedetriment of others.

2. Land primarily managed for

other uses but not actively

detrimental to biodiversity

This includes land managedprimarily for production but not tothe detriment of biodiversity. The

Hope Farm case study illustrateshow this is possible.

3. Multi-benefit land use

managed with biodiversity

in mind

This includes productive landscapes(eg agriculture and forestry),that aremanaged to provide otherecosystem services, andsympathetically for wildlife.Management of the UK’s Uplands

is increasingly recognising thepotential to deliver a range ofvalued services. For conservationsuch considerations are alsoincreasing the scale ofinterventions as demonstrated bythe Wallasea Island project. Inconsidering multiple services, it willinevitably be the case that somewill not be compatible withconservation goals. Insh Marshes

and the Ouse Washes representtwo contrasting examples from theUK’s wetlands. Freiston Shore

provides an interesting examplewhere a cost-effective means of

Case Studies

7 Our publications and related weblinks arelisted inside the back cover

8 Similar challenges exist for the marineenvironment

27

Valuing the ArcThe ecosystem serviceapproach forms part of theblueprint for a major five-yearresearch and policy program inTanzania’s Eastern ArcMountains. These mountainsprovide a variety of services tomillions of beneficiaries.

The programme is focused onquantifying, mapping and valuingkey ecosystem services, that flowfrom the mountains. These includeclean water provision, carbon,timber, non timber products andtourism opportunities. Exploring themeans of capturing ecosystemvalues in decision-making is also acore component of the work.

The diagram (right) illustrates thepractical steps involved in applyingan ecosystem service approach.

Using this approach to map andvalue ecosystem services will helpclarify links between nature andhuman wellbeing. It should alsohelp target payment schemes forecosystem services, and help aligngoals of conservation, economicdevelopment, and povertyalleviation. Overall, this five-yearprogramme represents a globallyimportant case study, testing thissystematic approach in one ofAfrica’s biodiversity hotspots.Further details of this project canbe found at:http://valuingthearc.org/

Case Studies

1. Inventory services, people and landscapes (population governance, land use, climate, etc.)

2. Measure, model and map service production

3. Measure, model and map service flows

5. Measure, model and map benefits of conserving services

6. Measure, model and map costs of conserving services

7. Map distribution or winners and losers

8. Construct plausible future scenarios and repeat 2-7

9. Design mechanisms that capture service valuesproviding incentives for conservation

10. Ex-post appraisal

4. Measure, model and map beneficiaries of services

Diagram 3. Implementing an Ecosystem Service Approach

28

Case Studies – Hope Farm

Hope Farm Hope Farm demonstrates how

land, managed primarily for food

production, can also deliver

biodiversity benefits. The farm

acts as a test bed for ideas

to help protect our birds and

other wildlife.

Over the past 30 years, the UK’sfarmland birds have sufferedappalling losses, partly due tochanging agricultural practices. In1999, the RSPB bought a workinglowland farm in Cambridgeshire toexplore wildlife-friendly ways offarming on a typical arable property.

Run as a commercial enterprise,Hope Farm is cropped in a patternfollowing those of other farm

businesses on similar soil types.Yields are comparable to other farms in the area and financial returns have increased.

Between 2000-2007, the numbers offarmland birds doubled on the farmwhilst numbers in the wider UKlandscape dropped by around sixpercent. This has been due tosimple, cost-effective, measures thatincrease the insect and seed richhabitats on the farm, as well asnesting sites.

Today, a critical challenge facingfarmers is how to mitigate, or adapttheir businesses to climate change.Farming contributes eight percent ofthe UK’s greenhouse gas emissions.In order to understand Hope Farm’simpact on the climate, the RSPB

commissioned research to assessthe farm’s carbon footprint. Thebiggest contribution to our farmcarbon footprint arises from fertiliseruse. We also discovered thatemissions vary significantly betweenthe crop types grown. Interestingly,environmental options designed tobenefit wildlife, such as grassmargins, are able to store carbon.The RSPB is currently investigatinghow farming operations can beadapted to reduce the footprint ofthe farm, whilst maintaining highyields and biodiversity.

The work at Hope Farmdemonstrates that, even where foodproduction is a priority, it is stillpossible to have more than onevaluable ecosystem serviceproduced from the same area.

An

dy

Hay

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)

29

the remaining three percent is beingdestroyed very rapidly. The projectconsortium has worked with theIndonesian Government to create anentirely new type of forestry licence,permitting ‘ecosystem restoration’within production forests.

The Harapan Rainforest projectinvolves both the prevention ofdeforestation and forest restoration.When compared to the alternativeland uses, the biodiversity benefitsare considerable. Harapan Rainforestis a critical site for a wide range offorest-dependent wildlife, includingall nine of Sumatra’s hornbill species,the agile gibbon, the Asian elephantand the critically endangeredSumatran tiger.

The net carbon credit potential ofthe project will vary from year to

Case Studies – Harapan Rainforest

year, but preliminary estimatesindicate that, when compared toconversion alternatives, the benefitcould be several hundred thousandtons of CO2 per year.

Apart from adding to climate change,conversion would impact indigenouspeople living in and around theproject site. Traditionally, most localcommunities used the rainforest forgathering products such as rattan,resins, and honey for their own useand for trade. Conversion wouldreduce the availability of non-timberproducts and destroy their traditionalway of life. Few forest-dependentpeople in central Sumatra are nowable to follow a traditional way oflife. Conservation and restorationalso offer the potential fordeveloping educational andrecreational opportunities.

Marco

Lamb

ertini(rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)

Dieter

Ho

ffman

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)

Harapan Rainforest,IndonesiaHarapan Rainforest is managedfor conservation but has thepotential to deliver other valuedservices, especially greenhousegas regulation. Curbingdeforestation is a highly cost-effective way of reducingemissions.

Tropical forests have long beenknown to hold the planet's richestterrestrial biological diversity andthanks to the Stern report, theircost effective carbon storage and sequestration potential isincreasingly recognised. Togetherwith the Indonesian NGO Burung Indonesia and BirdLifeInternational, the RSPB is involvedin one of the largest rainforestrestoration initiatives in the world,Harapan Rainforest.

Harapan contains about one-fifth ofthe surviving area of Sumatran drylowland forest, which is amongstthe richest and most threatenedhabitats on Earth. This habitat typehas been reduced by some 97percent over the last century, and

30

to assess the potential for SCaMPrestoration work to impact positivelyon the carbon flux.

Enhancing landscape and wildlifeoffers valuable recreational andaesthetic benefits to residents andvisitors. Working with farmers topromote sustainable landmanagement techniques reducesenvironmentally damaging diffusepollution. We are testing whetherbenefits to water quality includeimproved microbiology, reduced soilerosion, and water colour. Thisshould reduce the need for “end ofpipe” water treatment and savewater consumers money. SCaMPdemonstrates that managing forecosystem services and biodiversitycan be a win-win situation for all involved.

For land owners, the extnernalbenefits, in terms or ecosystemservices, of farm managementprovide a justification for agri-environment payments based on the ‘provider-gets’ principle.

Case Studies – The UK Uplands

An

dy

Hay

(rsp

b-i

mag

es.c

om

)

The UK Uplandsnature conservation, and multiple services.

SCaMPThe impact on water quality of landmanagement practises in watercatchments provides one of theclearest examples of where what isgood for nature is good for people.

Peatlands provide a variety ofecosystem services, such as habitatfor biodiversity, carbonsequestration, recreationalopportunities, as well as regulatingroles in water supply andpurification. In many instances these services can be providedsimultaneously. The SustainableCatchment ManagementProgramme (SCaMP) is developingan integrated approach to catchmentmanagement within two key areasof Bowland and the Peak District.Both areas comprise largely upland,open ground habitats, such as roughgrassland and heather moorland.They are part of the watercatchment area serving the NorthWest. The SCaMP project is beingundertaken by United Utilities, inpartnership with the RSPB. Itsobjectives are to:• deliver government nature

conservation targets • enhance biodiversity• ensure a sustainable future for

the company’s agricultural tenants• protect and improve water quality

Additionally the project will look atthe carbon stored in the peat soils

Lake VyrnwyThe Lake Vyrnwy catchment is a nature reserve, tourist destination,education resource, a source ofclean water, and a farm producingfine organic lamb and beef.European Commission funding iscurrently being used to carry outrestoration of blanket bog on alandscape scale.

This restoration work involves re-instating the water tables byblocking moorland drains. This aimsto halt habitat degradation.

The project is monitoring water run-off rates, discharge times, and the‘flashiness’ of upland streams.Initial results from the projectsuggest that drain blocking reducesthe peak flow rates and lengthensthe lag between rainfall and peakflow. These findings may haveimplications for reducingdownstream flood risk. A numberof water quality measures are alsobeing taken during the project.Preliminary results suggest thattotal water colour declinesfollowing drain blocking.

Ben

Hall(rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)

31

Cuilcagh Mountain The upland blanket bog of theCuilcagh Mountain, which straddlesthe international border betweenNorthern Ireland and the Republicof Ireland, is one of the best andmost extensive peatland areas onthe island.

In the late 1980s, the blanket bogsuffered unsustainable pressurefrom peat extraction, overgrazing,uncontrolled burning of surfacevegetation and the damaging useof all-terrain vehicles. This damagereduced the bog's ability to retainwater, resulting in flooding andabnormally high water levels in thecaves downstream. This, in turn,reduced tourist activity at theMarble Arch caves, a majorattraction in County Fermanaghwith over 53,000 visitors in 2007.

In 1997, a European Commissionfunded project to protect theblanket bog in Northern Ireland and

Scotland was approved. In NorthernIreland, the project was a partnershipbetween the Fermanagh DistrictCouncil and the RSPB. This led to therestoration of 28 hectares of cut-overblanket bog on Cuilcagh Mountain.The ecosystem services provided bythe restored peatland will help tomaximise the future tourismpotential of the Marble Arch caves aswell as conserving an importanthabitat that supports a wealth ofwildlife, including the hen harrier andgolden plover.

There is enormous interest in theability of peatlands to sequester andstore carbon, the degree to whichthis property can be compromisedby drainage, and whether this canbe remedied by restoration.Academics are capitalising on therestoration activity at the site tomeasure and compare thegreenhouse gas emissions fromintact, drained and restored peat.

The reserve at Lake Vyrnwy is alsothe largest organic farm in Englandand Wales. Owned by Severn TrentWater, and managed by the RSPB,the farm demonstrates that it ispossible to run a profitable, efficientfarm while benefiting local wildlifeand people, and protecting animportant source of drinking water.

By considering how managementcan better deliver a range ofecosystem services, Lake Vyrnwyexemplifies an ecosystem approachto land management.

Case Studies – The UK Uplands

David

Wo

otto

n(rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)

An

dy

Hay

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)C

hrisG

omersall(rspb-im

ages.com)

32

Wallasea IslandWallasea Island representsBritain’s biggest coastal wetlandrestoration project designed todeliver multiple benefits. TheRSPB’s plan for Wallasea will seethree-quarters of the islandrestored to saltmarsh, creeks, and mudflats.

The project involves long-term,landscape scale restoration andrepresents an innovative managed re-alignment scheme. It is designedto achieve significant wildlife benefitsand to sustainably manage theestuary to ensure delivery of othervaluable ecosystem services. Soundmanagement can provide grazingmarsh habitats, flood defence, andenhance fishery and recreationopportunities. It also has the potentialto increase carbon sequestration,nutrient cycling and water quality.

The Wallasea project also representsa large-scale demonstration of apractical solution to the impact ofclimate change-related sea level risefor low-lying and easily erodiblecoasts. It will involve significant landuse change, reducing agriculturalproduction on the island, althoughthis would be lost eventually whenthe sea defence fails.

Freiston Shore Managed coastal realignmentenhances biodiversity andrecreational opportunities, sofrequently represents a cost-effective solution to coastal flooddefence. Freiston Shore, inLincolnshire, is a prime example.

Economic analysis suggests thatrealignment at Freiston Shore, has ahigher net present value thanmaintaining hard flood defences.This outcome is achieved withouteven taking into account thesignificant environmental benefitsgained from creating 65 hectares ofintertidal habitat. Another additionalbenefit of realignment is theimproved recreation value of thesite. By 2008, almost 60,000 peoplewere visiting Freiston shore each

Case Studies – Wallasea and Freiston

8 Environmental Futures (2006) Economicsof managed realignment in the UK.

year compared with approximately11,000 people before therealignment. The nature reserve onthe site supports an estimated sixfull-time-equivalent jobs in the localcommunity and also provides avaluable place for local people toexercise and relax8.

Ben

Hall(rsp

b-im

ages.co

m)

An

dy

Hay

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)S

ue

Tranter

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)

33

Insh Marshes Unlike the Ouse Washes, InshMarshes is an example of awetland delivering bothconservation and multiple services.

The RSPB reserve at Insh Marshes is the largest floodplainmire in Great Britain covering 1,000hectares at the foot of theCairngorms in Scotland. Its diversehabitats contain birds and insectsof international importance.Recreation on the floodplain alsohelps to support the regionally vitaltourism economy, with over 12,000 people estimated to visiteach year. The services provided bythe floodplain support a range of economic benefits each year, including:

• Spending by visitors and tourists• Outdoor recreation and tourism

amenities • Educational facilities at the

RSPB’s Insh Marshes reserve• Local agricultural enterprises,

which utilise the floodplain• Fishing on the floodplain and

downstream on the river Spey• Flood defence benefits to

Aviemore, and other settlementsand farmland downstream.Constructing and maintainingengineered flood defenses forAviemore could cost over£83,000 a year.

• Potential improvements to water quality

located on rich peat soil, is grazedby livestock and provided floodmitigation and recreationalopportunities associated with itswildlife spectacles and ancient fen landscape.

Since the mid-1970s however, acombination of factors has led tomore regular spring and summerfloods, the nesting season forinternationally important waders andother ground-nesting birds. Continualspring and summer inundationjeopardises the site’s wildlife value.

Engineering solutions will be requiredfor the Ouse Washes to continueprotecting people and property, butretaining its flood defence propertieslimits the management interventionsavailable to protect its conservationinterest. The site can no longerdeliver both. Strengthening floodprotection will still enable the site toretain its importance for wintermigrants but not for summerbreeding waders. There is now aneed to create alternative breedinghabitat for waders if the conservationimportance and recreational value ofthe overall site is to be maintained.

Case Studies – UK Wetland

An

dy

Hay

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)

UK WetlandWetlands can deliver multipleservices from recreation to floodmitigation. Sometimes thesebenefits are compatible withconservation, other times not.

Ouse WashesThe Ouse Washes represent aninteresting example in habitatmanagement for multiple benefits.However, where for many yearsflood mitigation services,conservation and recreational use were complementary, itincreasingly appears that they areat odds.

The Ouse Washes form the largestarea of washland (grazing pasturethat floods in the winter) in the UK.They are an essential element in theflood control management of theEast Anglian fens and beyond. Theyallow for drainage of large areas ofarable land, protecting nearby townsand, in the process, have created ahaven for wildlife, notably winteringwildfowl and breeding waders.

Traditionally, the site has provided anumber of valued services. It is

34

in India. Their populations haveincreased substantially in parallelwith the vulture decline. Thepotential human health impact ofboth dog bites and rabies,associated with the vulture decline,is potentially very significant.

The loss of the vultures has alsoaffected the funerary rights of anancient religion. For millennia theParsee communities of India reliedon vultures to dispose of their dead as their religion forbids burialor cremation.

The loss of vulturesin IndiaWhile most ecosystem servicesare associated with habitats,some species play a critical rolein directly sustaining humanwellbeing. This case study is anexemplar of instances where thefailure to understand theenvironmental impacts ofeconomic decisions leads tocostly, unforeseen outcomes.

Since the 1990s, the populations ofthree species of South Asian vultureshave declined from many millions tojust a few thousand. Collapses of thisrapidity and geographical extent areunprecedented and all three speciesare now critically endangered havingonce been incredibly common. TheRSPB is currently involved, with arange of partners, to halt this declineand eventually re-establishsustainable populations.

The cause of the collapse has beenthe widespread use of the drugdiclofenac which, since the early1990s, has been used to treatlivestock ailments. Put simply,vultures die when they feed onlivestock carcasses that had beentreated with diclofenac.

However, by efficiently cleaning thebones of dead animals, vultures haveplayed a major role in environmentalhealth and in supporting industrieslike tanning, gelatine and fertilisers,that are based on animal by-products.Without the vultures, livestock

carcasses now rot for days, causingall kinds of problems. Municipalauthorities and villages must acceptthe disamenity of the stench andthe increased disease risks, or payfor carcass disposal. Skinners andbone traders, amongst India’s oldestand poorest occupations, alreadyface higher costs to obtain theirskins and bones. Burying carcasseswould deny livelihood opportunitiesto the poorest of the poor.

The rotting carrion now supportsbooming populations of feral dogs,the main source of rabies in humans

Case Studies – Vultures in India

David

Tip

ling

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)

35

over 58,000 people (including 6,500families). During the project, 107schools in the region (over 50 inGateshead alone), adopted redkites as part of the Northern Kites‘Adopt-a-Kite’ scheme and over36,000 children were engaged in its lifelong learning programmes.The study found that the NorthernKites project inspired local peopleto become more aware of wildlifeand the environment, and also totake part in physical activity andbecome more involved in their own community.

Wildlife recreationand charismaticspeciesThe presence of charismaticspecies, such as birds of prey or seabird colonies, frequentlyprovides recreationalopportunities, which generatesignificant economic benefits to regions where they can be seen.

Wildlife related tourism is bigbusiness. According to governmentresearch, the value of the touristtrade attracted by a high qualitynatural environment in the UK wasestimated at £5 billion in 2003, withthat spending supporting theequivalent of 92,000 full-time-equivalent jobs9. On Mull, forexample, white-tailed eaglesgenerate over £1 million worth ofincome to the island every yearthrough tourism10.

A recent study has been done onthe impact of red kites11. Between2004-2009 red kites were re-established in the north east ofEngland after an absence of some170 years. By 2008, it wasestimated that 100,000 people peryear were seeing red kites in thelower Derwent valley, and that fromvisitor spending activity alone, thekites added over £160,000 per yearto the local economy. Over itslifetime, the Northern Kites Projecthas supported 12.5 full-timeequivalent jobs and generated atleast £1.7 million in economicactivity, the majority of which hasfiltered through to local companiesand business people.

The project also provided manysocial benefits through itscommunity outreach and lifelonglearning programmes. Between2004 and 2008, 260 Northern Kitesevents were organised engaging

Case Studies – Wildlife recreation

9 Revealing the value of the naturalenvironment GHK (2004) title for Defra

10 Further details are contained in WatchedLike Never Before (2006) RSPB.

11 Frederick S. Milton, 2009, Taking Flight: AnEvaluation of the Economic Benefits ofUsing Red Kites Milvus milvus forEnvironment-led Regeneration.

An

dy

Hay

(rspb

-imag

es.com

)

36

Relevant RSPB publications and papers from sponsored work

Balmford et al (2002) Economic reasons for conserving wild nature. Science vol:297 no:5583 pp. 950-953

RSPB (2002) Reserves and local economies. Sandyhttp://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Reserves and Local Economies_tcm9-133069.pdf

RSPB (2003) Unravelling the Web, the global value of wild nature:http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/Global values_tcm9-133024.pdf

Turner et al (2003) Valuing nature: lessons learned and future research directions. Ecological EconomicsNo: 46 PP. 493:510

Bird W (2004) Natural Fit, RSPB, Sandy.http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/natural_fit_full_version_tcm9-133055.pdf

RSPB (2005) Wellbeing through Wildlife. Sandy http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/wellbeing_tcm9-132872.pdf

RSPB (2006) Wellbeing through Wildlife in the EU. Sandyhttp://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/wellbeing_tcm9-148929.pdf

RSPB (2006) Watched like never before. The local economic benefits of spectacular bird species. Sandyhttp://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/watchedlikeneverbefore_tcm9-133081.pdf

RSPB (2006) Healthy Wealthy and Wise. Creating the right environment for sustainable communities.http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/healthywealthywise_tcm9-132906.pdf

Bird W, (2007) Natural Thinking, RSPB, Sandyhttp://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/naturalthinking_tcm9-161856.pdf

Fisher et al (2008) Ecosystem Services and Economic Theory: integration for policy relevant research.Ecological Applications, vol:18 no:8 pp. 2050–2067

Naidoo et al, (2008) Global mapping of ecosystem services and conservation priorities. PNAS vol. 105no. 28 pp. 9495–9500

RSPB (2009) Natural Health, Sandyhttp://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/naturalhealth_tcm9-161955.pdf

Fisher et al (2009) Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. EcologicalEconomics vol: 68 pp. 643-653

Acknowledgements

The material in this publication draws heavily on workshop discussions funded by the RSPB, theCentre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, Defra and Natural England.It does not represent a consensus view. We would like to thank all workshop co-funders,participants and contributors to subsequent academic, and policy papers.

Kerry Turner, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Brendan Fisher, Princeton University, USA.Andrew Balmford, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. Roy Brouwer, Vrije University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. James Boyd, Resources for the Future Washington DC, USARobert Costanza, University of Vermont, Burlington VT, USA.Rudolf de Groot, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Stephen Farber, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh PA, USA.Paul Ferraro, Georgia State University, Atlanta GA, USA.Rhys Green, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK & RSPB.David Hadley, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.Julian Harlow, Natural England, Peterborough, UK.Paul Jefferiss, British Petroleum International, Middlesex, UK.Chris Kirby, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.Bernhard Lehner, McGill University, , Montreal, QC, Canada. Trent Malcolm, World Wildlife Fund Washington, DC, USAShaun Mowatt, Department of Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs, UK.Robin Naidoo, World Wildlife Fund, Washington DC, USA.Shahid Naeem, Columbia University New York USA.Jouni Paavola, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.Taylor Ricketts, World Wildlife Fund,Washington DC, USA.Bernardo Strassburg, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.Doug Yu, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.Matt Zylstra, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands.

We also thank the following people who took part in earlier workshops or who have supported this research: Jonathan Burney, Aaron Bruner, Philip Cooper, Ian Dickie, Helen Dunn, Aniol Esteban, MartinJenkins, Valma Jessamy, Joah Madden, Sarah Moon, Kat Munro, Norman Myers, MatthewRayment, Sergio Rosendo, Joan Roughgarden and Kate Trumper.

Cover image: Common starling flock flying to night roost at sunset Ham Wall, RSPB Reserve by Mike Read (rspb-images.com) The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) is a registered charity:England and Wales no. 207076, Scotland no. SC037654.

The RSPB speaks out for birds and wildlife, tackling the problems that threatenour environment. Nature is amazing – help us keep it that way.

The RSPB

UK HeadquartersThe Lodge, Potton Road, Sandy, Bedfordshire, G19 2DLTel: 01767 680551

Northern Ireland HeadquartersBelvoir Park Forest, Belfast, BT8 7QTTel: 028 9049 1547

Scotland HeadquartersDunedin House, 25 Ravelston Terrace, Edinburgh, EH4 3TPTel: 0131 311 6500

Wales HeadquartersSutherland House, Castlebridge, Cowbridge Road, East Cardiff, CF11 9ABTel: 029 2035 3000

Todow

nloada

PD

Fof

Naturally

atyou

servicevisit:

ww

w.rspb.org.uk/ecosystem

services