Payment for Ecosystem services

The concept of payment for ecosystem services is a key proponent of successful biodiversity conservation.

INTRODUCTION

This essay will start by defining the key concepts contained in the above statement. Their relationship will be explored, evaluated and the interdependence between nature and society and how perceived problems are framed.

ESSAY

Firstly, it is important that there is an understanding of the key concepts contained in the title as follows :-

Ecosystem – Defined as a natural unit of living things(animals, plants and micro-organisms) and their physical environment. These ecosystems can be terrestrial or marine, inland or coastal, rural or urban (Ecosystem services, Gov.Uk, 2013).
Ecosystem services – Defined as services provided by the natural environment that benefit people (Ecosystem services, Gov.Uk, 2013).
Biodiversity – A term that refers to the ‘variability of organisms in the living world and the interactions between them’ (Humphreys et al, 2016).
Conservation – Described as an approach to land management that emphasizes the efficient conservation of natural resources so that they can be later developed for the benefit of society (N. Carter, 2007, as cited in Humphreys et al 2016).
Payment for ecosystem services – Defined as payments to compensate for actions undertaken to increase the levels of ecosystems desired. A market-based approach linking those involved in supplying ecosystems more closely to the beneficiaries of ecosystem services, potentially in cost effective ways and making use of new streams of finance (“Ecosystem Services.” Gov.Uk, 2011).

The term ‘biodiversity’ is now used where previously the term ‘flora and fauna’, ‘nature ‘or ‘environment’ and has only been in common usage since the mid 1980’s. It is this biodiversity that creates the variety of ecosystems that people enjoy as ecosystem services. However, nature can be said to be socially constructed (Blake, 1995, Castree and Brown, 2001, Robbins, 2004 as cited in Humphreys et al, 2016) and refers to the observation that nature is both materially shaped overtime by human interactions with it. Therefore, if people are linked to nature, and consequently biodiversity, it must be in people’s best interest to conserve biodiversity and forge development and economic growth in a sustainable way.

Do we have a problem with biodiversity? According to many scientists the background rate of extinctions, over the past 200 years, has increased largely due to human activity. Causes of loss are complex and vary enormously from place to place but include climate change, pollution and habitat loss of which some is due to urbanisation and tropical forest clearance (Humphreys et al, 2016). However, exact figures are not known. According to the United Nations Environment programme (UNEP) and the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) just 1.75 million species have so far been identified of an estimated 14 million species. So, there is a knowledge gap preventing precise figures. If scientists are correct, then conservation would seem a sensible proposal. However, this is contentious in that it accepts the link between people, nature and economic development for the benefit of people. A counter suggestion is one of ‘preservation’ which suggests a separation between people and nature and indeed should be preserved from such interactions. This is perhaps supported by the viewpoint that nature has an ‘intrinsic’ value of its own that people appreciate species and ecosystems simply because of their existence.

During the Convention on biological diversity (CBD) a key decision was taken and conceived as article 8(d) emphasizing the principle of in-situ conservation, namely ‘the protection of ecosystems, natural habitats and the maintenance of viable populations of species in natural surroundings’(UN, 1992 as cited in Humphreys et al,2016). It was accepted that people depend upon nature and derive value from its wellbeing. As a result, people play a vital role in protecting endangered species and restoring degraded ecosystems. Biodiversity is therefore ‘framed’ as taking an ‘ecocentric’ view that people should respect nature as well as an ‘anthropocentric’ view that leads us to accept that it is possible to capture ‘value’ from the wellbeing that people derive from it. Some argue that nature has an ‘intrinsic’ value of its own and that people appreciate species and ecosystems simply because of their existence. This demonstrates the conflict that can arise concerning biodiversity and how it is valued and how the concept of payment for ecosystem services cuts across this.

Before delving deeper into the concept of payment for ecosystem services it is pertinent at this point to discuss how conservation of biodiversity is prioritized within environmental policies. Are some species seen as more valuable than others? Are some places seen as more valuable than others? Many nature conservation organisations, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) identify ‘flagship’ species which are chosen to symbolize conservation within a particular ecosystem. The WWF uses the Giant Panda. These help to mobilize public and political support. Whilst this may pluck at peoples heart strings the species chosen may not be as ecologically important as a ‘Keystone’ species on which the stability of an entire ecosystem depends. However, some scientists have communicated concerns over the usage or over-usage of designated ‘Keystone’ species. A change in the understanding of nature that demonstrates that ‘conservation policies should not be directed at an individual ‘Flagship’ species because each and every one, of these species, are linked to others in a complex network of connected landscapes and ecosystems’ (Paine, 1969 as cited in Humphreys et al 2016).

Whilst the concept of ecosystem service is widely used in international environmental policies it is still much contested for its anthropocentric viewpoint and that the concept promotes an exploitative people-nature relationship and concerns that this also conflicts with biodiversity conservation objectives. Biodiversity and ecosystem services are complex concepts but which appear to have important overlaps. The framework of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB) have acknowledged this overlap and have been influential in communicating this message to policy makers. Complicating the issue was the CBD’s inclusion of a clause which states ‘there should be fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of genetic resources’. This may appear reasonable but it raises the issues of intellectual property rights arising from patented knowledge. The Agreement on Trade Related Intellectual property Rights (TRIP’s) was negotiated when creating the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in 1994 which allows the patenting of Traits of species. Three groups have claimed that they have the right to benefit from the commercial use of the knowledge of said Traits. The first being patent holders who are largely business corporations claiming entitlements under TRIP’s. The second group are the indigenous peoples who claim to have already held such knowledge gained over time and therefore argue that they are entitled to some of the profits from the commercial exploitation and thirdly are the governments and states rich in biodiversity, particularly those with large expanses of tropical forest. An important note here is that the richest nations in biodiversity are often the poorest economically. Patent holders who receive benefits under TRIP’s have no incentive to agree to benefit sharing agreements as, social scientists state, represents a zero-sum game as a gain for one actor reflects an equal and opposite loss for another.

A good example of this is the Neem tree where local communities have found it possesses Traits that can be used to cure many human and animal ailments. This conflicts with patents now held with both US and Japanese corporation patent holders who use the certain traits of the Neem tree for the manufacture of emulsions, toothpaste and pesticides (Humphreys et al, 2016). TRIP’s seems to muddy the whole concept of payment for ecosystem services where local communities maintain local nature. Indigenous peoples also suffer under exclusory policies expulsion of the San people from protected areas in Botswana) used in, so called, biodiversity ‘hotspots, or ‘ecozones’ and ‘protected’ areas as designated by international bodies such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and the WWF. As previously stated the richest areas of biodiversity are often the poorest economically and poverty alleviation is a bigger priority despite the fact that many of such Nations are signatories to the CBD.

Share this: