Links between science and policy - Why do we need to adopt a
multiple outcomes approach?
Lessons learnt from projects contributing to multiple
environmental benefits and outcomes, including
environmental economics
Steven Cork, CSIRO/ DEH
Economics and ecosystem services
• Origins of ecosystem services– Ecology and economics; 1970’s – 1990’s
• Language/ terminology– Ecology, Human Ecology– Economics, Environmental Economics,
Ecological Economics, externalities– Ecosystem Services, Environmental Services,
Nature’s Services, Nature’s Benefits …
Policy issues• Conservation of biodiversity• Climate change, drought policy, pests, weeds• International trade related issues • Sustainable use of natural resources • New institutional models for better NRM• Translating complex social-ecological systems
into simple messages for decision makers• Establishing consistent approaches to multiple
environmental benefits across jurisdictions (including valuation systems and markets)
Why we need a multiple outcomes approach and what we need from it• A new framework
– From single issues to an integrated approach – Characterising the full range of services/ benefits– Clarity about the role(s) of biodiversity
• Incentives– Different value perspectives (market/ non-market, use/ non-use) – Dynamic tensions between policy and political agendas – Drivers of behavioural change– Market-based mechanisms
• Setting targets and measuring progress– What mix of services is needed/ wanted?– Non-linear and discontinuous change across gradients and time– Spatial scales– Simple and clear measurement and reporting
Lessons: Frameworks
• Lack of clarity (even confusion) about the role(s) of biodiversity
ECOSYSTEM SERVICESCork and Shelton (2000), modified from Daily (1999)
Production of goodse.g. food, pharmaceuticals, genetic resources
Regeneration servicese.g., maintenance of soil fertility, purification of water and air, pollination,
dispersal of seeds and spores
Stabilisation servicese.g., pest control, flood mitigation, protection from temperature and wind,
resilience, waste assimilation, climate stabilisation
Life-fulfilling servicese.g., provision of aesthetic, cultural and spiritual values, existence of
biodiversity
Provision of options for the futuree.g. genetic material, new forms of resource use
Three types of Ecosystem Service
Natural assets (capital)(e.g. soil, living organisms,water and waterways, atmosphere)
Goods and other products(e.g. food and fibre, clean water, liveable climates, safety, life fulfilment)
3. Maintainingnatural assets
1. “Production”
2. Assimilation ofby-products
Natural assets (capital)(e.g. soil, living organisms,water and waterways, atmosphere)
Natural assets (capital)(e.g. soil, living organisms,water and waterways, atmosphere)
Goods and other products(e.g. food and fibre, clean water, liveable climates, safety, life fulfilment)
Goods and other products(e.g. food and fibre, clean water, liveable climates, safety, life fulfilment)
3. Maintainingnatural assets
3. Maintainingnatural assets
1. “Production” 1. “Production” 1. “Production”
2. Assimilation ofby-products
2. Assimilation ofby-products
Focus: Ecosystem Services The benefits people obtain from ecosystems
MA Framework
Two views of biodiversityBIODIVERSITY IS IMPORTANT TO PRODUCE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
• Functional diversity is of overarching importance
• Not all functions/ species necessary at all times and places
• Genetic/ species/ ecosystem diversity provides insurance/ option value
• Utilitarian value - related to contribution to land-use objectives
BIODIVERSITY IS IMPORTANT IN ITS OWN RIGHT
• The maintenance of genes, species etc. is a service
• Comprehensive, adequate, representative protection fundamental
• Genetic/ species/ ecosystem diversity is valuable in its own right
• Intrinsic value - related to rarity of genes/ species/ ecosystems
Two views of biodiversityBIODIVERSITY IS IMPORTANT TO PRODUCE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Research:• Diversity in relation to function• Responses along gradients,
thresholds, resiliencePolicy:• Defining critical functions• Managing sets of functions
across landscapes to meet multiple needs
• Investment based on costs, benefits, suitability of policy mechanisms in relation to multiple objectives, thresholds and reversibility of impacts
BIODIVERSITY IS IMPORTANT IN ITS OWN RIGHT
Research: • Habitat requirements• Viability of small or declining
populationsPolicy:• Protecting threatened species• Focus on protecting native
vegetation in reserves and private remnants
• Investment largely related to ideological arguments and perceptions about the relative value of conservation and other land uses
Lessons: Incentives• Valuation
– There are method for non-market valuation (DEH/ LWA, 2003)
– The challenges include poor public understanding, inadequate information (e.g. about marginal change)
– It comes down to real or perceived rarity
• Market-based instruments– Clarifying/ creating rights and responsibilities– Purchase, cap and trade (creating rarity), removing
obstacles to trade – MBI program; CSIRO; BushTender (Vic); PVP (NSW);
Productivity Commission; Katoomba Group
FINAL (ORANGE) VERSUS INITIAL (RED)RANKINGS (Wendy Proctor, CSIRO)
Lessons: Incentives• Valuation
– There are method for non-market valuation (DEH/ LWA, 2003)
– The challenges include poor public understanding, inadequate information (e.g. about marginal change)
– It comes down to real or perceived rarity
• Market-based instruments– Clarifying/ creating rights and responsibilities– Purchase, cap and trade (creating rarity), removing
obstacles to trade – MBI program; CSIRO; BushTender (Vic); PVP (NSW);
Productivity Commission; Katoomba Group
Lessons: Targets and measurement
• Early attempts focused on single services (eg. carbon or biodiversity)
• More recently, attempts to develop policy for multiple values, for example:– EcoTender, Victoria (habitat, groundwater recharge, stream flow,
water quality, carbon)– Property Vegetation Planner, NSW (water quality, soils, salinity,
biodiversity)• Need to be underpinned by measurement that considers:
– implications for human welfare (what services we need) – non-linear and/or discontinuous change– spatial issues
•what mix of services we need •change across gradients and time•spatial issues
Eco
syst
em s
ervi
ce
Ecosystem transformation
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Ecosystem Services and States
Focus: Consequences of Ecosystem Change for Human Well-being
GOODS SERVICES
GS Econ Prod
GS Knowledge Formation
GS Built Capital Formation
GS Social Capital Formation
GS Personal Consumption
w Exp
•Total Factor Productivity
•SC Exp
•S Rate Knowledge
•S Rate BC
•S Rate SC
Consumption Rate
GWP
GS Natural Capital Formation
•S Rate NC
•IC Goods and services
Social Cap price
GWP
WASTE
•Waste Exp
Prod reduction
•Economic Prod intercept
Boumans et al. (2000)
Conservation Joins Capitalism to Set Aside Wetland Habitat
Katherine Ellison, The Washington Post, January 25, 2002
• Allegheny Energy Inc. sold 12,000 acres of Canaan Valley land to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for $16 million
• Ecosystem services were estimated to be worth another $16 million
• Allegheny Energy Inc. claimed a charitable contribution of roughly $16 million and, therefore, a tax write-off
CSIRO, The Myer Foundation, Land & Water Australia, The GoulburnBroken Catchment Management Authority
Dai
ry
Frui
t and
gra
pes
Veg
etab
les
Gra
zing
Cro
ps
Inte
nsiv
e an
imal
s
Fore
stry
Food
pro
cess
ing
Hou
sing
Wat
er p
rodu
ctio
n
Rec
reat
ion
Cul
ture
/ bio
dive
rs
Pollination
Life-fulfillment
Climate regulation
Pest control
Genetic resources
Habitat regeneration
Shade and shelter
Soil health
Healthy waterways
Water filtration
River regulation
Waste absorption
SE
RV
ICE
SLAND-USES
CSIRO (Binning et al, 2000)
Scen
ario
s &
Stra
tegi
esB
ioph
ysic
al c
ompo
nent
Val
ue o
f se
rvic
esStrategies and
Scenarios
Land Use
ExpectedCropping Returns
Expected GrazingReturns
Actual Flooding
Tree andShrub
Regeneration
Tree andShrub
Germination
Logs andLitter
LivestockProduction
CropProduction
HerbageProduction
Land use Options(Crop, Graze, Conserve)
ExpectedFlooding
Landscape Effects-Neighbourhood Effects
Scen
ario
s &
Stra
tegi
esB
ioph
ysic
al c
ompo
nent
Val
ue o
f se
rvic
esStrategies and
Scenarios
Land Use
ExpectedCropping Returns
Expected GrazingReturns
Actual Flooding
Tree andShrub
Regeneration
Tree andShrub
Germination
Logs andLitter
LivestockProduction
CropProduction
HerbageProduction
Land use Options(Crop, Graze, Conserve)
ExpectedFlooding
Landscape Effects-Neighbourhood Effects
CarbonSequestration
Habitat Water FiltrationFinancial Returns
Scen
ario
s &
Stra
tegi
esB
ioph
ysic
al c
ompo
nent
Val
ue o
f se
rvic
esStrategies and
Scenarios
Land Use
ExpectedCropping Returns
Expected GrazingReturns
Actual Flooding
Tree andShrub
Regeneration
Tree andShrub
Germination
Logs andLitter
LivestockProduction
CropProduction
HerbageProduction
Land use Options(Crop, Graze, Conserve)
ExpectedFlooding
Landscape Effects-Neighbourhood Effects
Scen
ario
s &
Stra
tegi
esB
ioph
ysic
al c
ompo
nent
Val
ue o
f se
rvic
esStrategies and
Scenarios
Land Use
ExpectedCropping Returns
Expected GrazingReturns
Actual Flooding
Tree andShrub
Regeneration
Tree andShrub
Germination
Logs andLitter
LivestockProduction
CropProduction
HerbageProduction
Land use Options(Crop, Graze, Conserve)
ExpectedFlooding
Landscape Effects-Neighbourhood Effects
CarbonSequestration
Habitat Water FiltrationFinancial Returns
FLOODPLAIN MODEL
Management Options
Ecosystem Services
FUTURE VEGETATION OPTIONS
REGULATION OF GROUND WATER
MAINTENANCE OF SOIL HEALTH
Maintenance of habitat – Goulburn Broken
Art Langston, CSIRO
Landscape Function Analysis (David Tongway, CSIRO)
Natural asset(e.g. vegetation)
Ecos
yste
m s
ervi
ce
‘Leaky’ LandscapeHighly Dysfunctional
‘Retentive’ LandscapeHighly Functional
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
VAST framework
VIVIVIIIIII0
Native vegetationcover
Non-native vegetationcover
Vegetation States
Increasing vegetation modification
Transitions = trend
Vegetation thresholds
Ass
ets
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
VAST III: TRANSFORMED
NATIVE
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
VAST IV: REPLACED (ADVENTIVE )
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Accounting System Using VAST and Ecosystem Goods and Services
0 I II III IV V VI
Carbon
Biodiversity
Water -Nutrient mitigation
Prodn- Food Food and fibre
Water -Base Base stream stream flowflow
Salinity mitigation
Ecos
yste
m g
ood s
an d
se r
vice
s
S C I E N C E F O R D E C I S I O N M A K E R S
Hypothetical Trade-offs
– landscape futures
VAST VIe.g. wheat paddock
Production e.g. food and fibre
Carbon
Biodiversity e.g. Species
richness
Water e.g. base
stream flow
Water e.g. Soil
nutrients
VAST VIe.g. 15 yr old
hardwood plantation
Productione.g. food and fibre
Carbon
Biodiversity e.g. species richness
Watere.g. base stream
flow
Watere.g. Soil
nutrients
VAST VIe.g. Lucerne
and wheat rotation
Productione.g. food and fibre
Carbon
Biodiversity e.g. species richness
Watere.g. base stream
flow
Watere.g. Soil
nutrients
Focus: Consequences of Ecosystem Change for Human Well-being
Number of species
Ecos
yste
m s
ervi
ces
prov
ided
Resilient
Brittle e.g. population regulation by top predators; cultural services
e.g. nutrient cycling and water cleansing
1 2 34
5
POSTULATED ORDER OF BIODIVERSITY/ SERVICE LOSS
Higher trophic levels (e.g. top predators, vertebrate herbivores)
Cultural servicesMid-trophic levels (e.g. plants)
Regulating services
Lowest trophic levels (e.g. nematodes, mites, beetles, fungi, bacteria)
Support services
Why we need a multiple outcomes approach and what we need from it• A new framework
– From single issues to an integrated approach – Characterising the full range of services/ benefits– Clarity about the role(s) of biodiversity
• Incentives– Different value perspectives (market/ non-market, use/ non-use) – Dynamic tensions between policy and political agendas– Drivers of behavioural change– Market-based mechanisms
• Setting targets and measuring progress– What mix of services is needed/ wanted?– Non-linear and discontinuous change across gradients and time– Spatial scales– Simple and clear measurement and reporting
Degradation of ecosystem services often causes significant harm to human well-being
Degradation tends to lead to the loss of non-marketed benefits from ecosystems
The economic value of these benefits is often high and sometimes higher than the marketed benefits
Timber and fuelwood generally accounted for less than a third
of total economic value of forests in eight Mediterranean
countries.
Improvements in services can be achieved by 2050
Three of the four scenarios show that significant changes in policy can partially mitigate the negative consequences of growing pressures on ecosystems, although the changes required are large and not currently under way