to produce increasingly impressive and influential estimates of the economic 'value' of ... Table 21.1: Ecosystem service generation from wild biodiversity and ...
An argument for integrating wild and agricultural biodiversity conservation Authors: Attwood S. J. 1, Park S. E. 2, Marshall P. 3, Fanshawe, J.H.4, Gaisberger, H.1 Affiliations: 1Bioversity International, Rome; 2University of East Anglia; 3University of Queensland, Brisbane; 4BirdLife International, Cambridge.
[a]Abstract We consider how wild biodiversity (WBD), such as birds and insects, has been valued over time through both utilitarian and intrinsic lenses, and the implications this has had on conservation policy and practice. In doing so, we reflect on the evolution in biological conservation theory with respect to valuing WBD and highlight how the recent shift to a more utilitarian perspective has underpinned Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES). Meanwhile, the conservation of agricultural biodiversity (ABD), such as domesticated crop species and varieties and crop wild relatives, has taken a notably different evolution, being firmly rooted in intrinsic values. Yet, although PES has provided mechanisms to formalise the market for WBD and ecosystem services for some time, it is only relatively recently that Payments for Agrobiodiversity Conservation Services (PACS) have started to explore the potential to incentivise the conservation of ABD. Present WBD and ABD conservation attempts are largely being pursued separately in terms of research, policy, implementation and incentivised payment schemes. As such, these separate conservation approaches fail to adequately acknowledge the intricate and intrinsic connections between the two domains. WBD and ABD are often spatially and temporally juxtaposed at field,
farm, landscape and biome scales, resulting in multiple interactions and flows of services between wild and agricultural biodiversity. Both provide multiple ecosystem services that support food production, underpin food security and human wellbeing, and often suffer the impact of similar threatening processes, such as agricultural intensification. We argue the value of an integrated perspective on biodiversity conservation in agriculture that acknowledges and acts upon the synergies between WBD and ABD. This provides opportunities for the early development of incentive mechanisms and market-based instruments for conserving ABD to draw on lessons from the analogous, more established PES. We end by offering cautionary words around an over-reliance on an ecosystem service rationale for conserving all biodiversity.
“The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant, "What good is it?" If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not.” ― Aldo Leopold, Round River: From the Journals of Aldo Leopold [a]Wild biodiversity conservation A fundamental postulate of conservation biology is that “Biotic diversity has intrinsic value1, irrespective of its instrumental or utilitarian value” (Soulé, 1985). Much of the rationale for WBD conservation was originally constructed around intrinsic values of nature, ideas of wilderness, and the protection of sites of outstanding beauty. A notable example is the 1
Intrinsic values of biodiversity are difficult to define (Justus et al. 2009), but an illustrative example could be that nature has a fundamental right to exist and humans do not have the right to eradicate other species (Wilshusen et al. 2002).
designation of Yellowstone National Park in 1872. Here the combined efforts of the geologist Ferdinand Hayden, landscape artist Thomas Moran and photographer William Jackson were instrumental in bringing the beauty of the area to the attention of the U.S. Congress (RossBryant, 2013). Even today this National Park bases its conservation ethos on “highlight[ing] the park’s amazing wildlife, geothermal areas, rich history and awe-inspiring wilderness” (Yellowstone Association, 2016). As early as the 1930s, however, a different conservation paradigm started to surface (Peterson et al, 2010). This is based upon the premise that WBD has utilitarian and instrumental values for humanity. Using this perspective, conservation is justified only to the extent that it benefits human society. It follows that conservation efforts can be evaluated in terms of their costs and benefits to society. Utilitarian perspectives of ecological function started to truly gain traction in the late 1960s and 1970s. Westman (1977) reports on several early attempts to evaluate and quantify the benefits derived from various ecosystems and their processes. In doing so, he notes the ‘inexorable quest’ of Western policy makers to quantify the monetary value of that which had formerly been regarded as ‘priceless’ and ‘public goods (sensu Mitchell and Carson, 1989), such as clean air and water, and wilderness. These had generally only been considered to date in terms of their intrinsic or aesthetic values. As the application of a utilitarian perspective has grown, the natural world has increasingly come under the quantitative eye of economists and policy makers. However, as Westman states, and as others later came to demonstrate, the benefits of nature in an undeveloped, compared to a developed, state could be more objectively demonstrated using a utilitarian approach, thus leading to (in theory, at least) more informed decision making (Peh et al, 2013).
Utilitarian perspectives of ecological function and biodiversity have informed and underpinned the concept of ‘ecosystem services’ (first termed by Ehrlich and Ehrlich (1981)). Ecosystem services describe the direct and indirect contributions of ecosystems and biodiversity to human wellbeing (TEEB Foundations, 2010). Subsequent description and categorisation of ecosystem services has evolved; for instance, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment used the following categories: supporting (e.g. nutrient cycling), provisioning (e.g. food), regulating (e.g. climate regulation) and cultural (e.g. recreational) (MA, 2005). Similarly, TEEB (The Economics of Ecosystems and Bioversity) has more recently developed a list of 22 broad ecosystem services divided into 4 categories (provisioning, regulating, habitat and supporting, cultural and amenity) (De Groot, et al, 2010). Over the last couple of decades, ecosystem service concepts and frameworks have been used to produce increasingly impressive and influential estimates of the economic ‘value’ of biodiversity to humanity (e.g. Costanza, 1997). They have also described in detail the extent to which ecosystem services underpin human wellbeing (MA, 2005), and in doing so, galvanised the creation and application of a wide range of tools and approaches for assessing and valuing ecosystem services in a range of contexts (e.g. Peh et al, 2013). Many advocates of ecosystem services argue that the act of putting a financial value on biodiversity provides the means for achieving its conservation (Juniper, 2013), others disagree, stressing the intrinsic (McAuley, 2006; Monbiot, 2013). With vociferous advocates on both sides, the ‘utilitarian versus intrinsic’ debate remains one of the most hotly contested areas in biodiversity conservation (Justus et al, 2009; Schröter et al, 2014).
Regardless of issues around utilitarian and intrinsic approaches to conservation, a substantial body of evidence shows that WBD makes enormous contributions to a wide range of ecosystem services that benefit humans (Table 21.1). Consequently, there is a considerable push to both institutionalise and create incentives for the conservation of ecosystem services. Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) is a collective term used to describe a wide range of policy and institutional mechanisms used to incentivise WBD and ecosystem service conservation and deliver them to a wide range of stakeholders in numerous countries around the world.
Table 21.1: Ecosystem service generation from wild biodiversity and agricultural biodiversity using the TEEB ecosystem service classification (http://www.teebweb.org/resources/ecosystem-services/) and with selected supporting references for each example.
Ecosystem service
Provisioning: Food
Provisioning: Raw materials
Provisioning: Fresh water
How wild biodiversity contributes to ES
Selected key references
How agricultural biodiversity contributes to ES
Key references
Wild caught and farmed fish and other aquatic organisms;
De Groot et al, 2012;
Crop provisioning;
Thrupp, 2000;
Nicholson et al, 2009;
Livestock provisioning;
Johns and Sthapit, 2004;
Harvested wild plants;
Worm et al, 2006;
Kremen and Miles, 2012;
Other wild animals (e.g. mammals, birds, insects)
Reuter et al, 2016.
Nutritional and dietary diversity; increased number of functional traits leads to more resistant and resilient crops
Wood (e.g. for building, boats, fuel), biochemical compounds (e.g. gums, oils), fibres, animal feed (e.g. grasses)
De Groot et al, 2012;
Fibre, oils, biochemical compounds, animal feeds (e.g. grasses), timber, fertilizer, fuel
Calvet-Mir et al, 2012
Native vegetation influencing local to global rainfall patterns; roles in global hydrological cycle; localized water purification
Porras et al, 2008
Reduced need for pesticides due to agrobiodiversity-based pest and disease control; complex vegetation structure as filtration
Hajjar et al, 2008;
De Groot et al, 2002;
Hajjar et al, 2008; Malézieux et al, 2009.
Schwenk et al, 2012
Sheil 2014 Brauman et al 2007
Knowler and Bradshaw, 2007. Reganold, 1995.
Provisioning: Medicinal resources
Regulating: Local climate and air quality
Regulating: Carbon sequestration and storage
Regulating: Moderation of extreme events
Plants and animal parts used as traditional medicines; raw materials for pharmaceuticals.
Khan et al, 2013
Plants used as traditional medicines; raw materials for pharmaceuticals.
Khan et al, 2013
Provision of shade by trees; forests influence rainfall and water availability at multiple scales; plants regulating air quality by removing pollutants from atmosphere.
Jim et al, 2009
Increased trait diversity and varieties adapted to local and future conditions (increased capacity for adaptation to climate change)
Bellon et al, 2011
Ecosystems storing and sequestering greenhouse gases (thus regulating climate); biodiversity improving capacity of ecosystems to adapt to effects of climate change.
Alongi, 2012
Increased carbon sequestration through more continuous biomass; increased soil function and carbon sequestration; increased use of legumes reduces need for NPK use
Hajjar et al, 2008;
Ecosystems and living organisms create buffers against natural disasters, thereby preventing/reducing possible damage. E.g., wetlands absorbing flood water, tree and grass roots stabilizing
Nedkov et al, 2012;
Soil erosion reduction due to more continuous ground cover (e.g. cover crops, mulch); improved soil structure and condition through local crop variety use
Kassam et al, 2009;
Lawrence and Vandecar, 2015
Rajab et al, 2016
Brauman et al, 2007; Zedler and Kercher, 2005; Barbier et al, 2011;
Chianu et al, 2011; Rajab et al, 2016
Altieri, 2002; Hajjar et al, 2008; Bellon and Taylor, 1993.
soil on slopes, coral reefs and mangroves protecting coastlines from storm surges and damage.
Regulating: Wastewater treatment
Regulating: Erosion prevention and maintenance of soil fertility
Wetlands filter both human and animal waste and agricultural run-off, acting as a natural buffer to the surrounding environment. Soil microorganisms metabolise and break down waste and pollutants. Pathogen elimination/reduction.
Zedler et al. 2005;
Vegetation cover prevents/reduces soil erosion (e.g. through reduced water impact, soil stabilization of root systems, increased organic matter in soil, increased porosity). Soil fertility is maintained through complex interactions and functions of soil biota including bacteria, fungi and arthropods.
Mohammad and Adam, 2010;
Brander et al 2013 Blumenfeld et al 2009
Barrow, 1991.
Land use practices that ensure perennial ground cover, favour deep-rooted crops and protect or restore riparian vegetation contribute to better quality of water flowing out of agricultural areas.
Ayers and Westcot, 1985;
Soil erosion reduction due to more continuous ground cover (e.g. cover crops, mulch); improved soil structure and condition through local crop variety use.
Kassam et al, 2009;
Osborne and Kovacic, 1993;
Altieri, 2002; Hajjar et al, 2008; Bellon and Taylor, 1993; Snapp et al, 2010.
Regulating: Pollination
Regulating: Biological control
Habitat/supporting: Habitats for species
Animal-driven pollination is provided mainly by insects, but also by some species of birds and bats. It is essential for the pollination of many fruit and vegetable crops.
Hoehn et al, 2008;
Ecosystems regulate pests and diseases through the activities of predators and parasitoids. Birds, bats, insects and other arthropods (e.g. wasps, spiders), frogs and fungi all act as natural controls on a wide range of pests and diseases.
Letourneau et al, 2011;
Habitats provide everything that individual organisms or communities or organism needs to survive: food; water; and shelter. Each ecosystem provides different habitats that can be essential for a species’ lifecycle.
Fiedler et al, 2008.
Albrecht et al, 2012 Nicholls and Altieri, 2013
Karp et al, 2013
Greater crop diversity attracting greater abundance and diversity/richness of pollinating species
Brooker et al, 2015
Intercropping and interspecific crop diversity providing habitat and resources for natural enemies. Intraspecific diversity suppressing pests and diseases
Hajjar et al, 2008;
Nicholls and Altieri, 2013
Jarvis et al, 2007; Flint and Roberts, 2008; Noman et al, 2013
Intercropping and interspecific crop diversity providing habitat. Low external input agricultural systems supporting greater wild biodiversity
Wright et al, 2011; Perfecto and Vandermeer, 2008; Laube et al, 2008;
Barrett and Schluter; 2008.
Genetic diversity distinguishes different breeds or races from each other thus providing the basis for locally well-adapted cultivars and a gene pool for further developing commercial crops and livestock.
Lin, 2011.
Habitat/supporting: Maintenance of genetic diversity
Genetic diversity is the variety of genes between and within species populations. Genetic diversity provides the basis for species to adapt to changing environmental conditions (e.g. climatic change)
Diaz et al, 2006;
Agricultural landscapes, like grasslands and forests, offer space for recreation, including horse-riding and mountain-biking, while wellmanaged aquatic systems, including lakes and rivers, offer recreational fishing.
van Berkel and Verberg (2012)
Cultural: Recreation and mental and physical health
Recreational pursuits in green space have positive physical and mental health benefits. The positive impact of green space on mental health is increasingly becoming recognized. Ecosystems and biodiversity play an important role for many kinds of tourism which in turn provides considerable economic benefits for many countries. Cultural and ecotourism can also educate people about the importance of biological diversity.
Glowinski, 2008
Increasingly, farms land farmed landscapes attract tourists, so-called agri-tourism, notably from urban areas. Forests and marine habitats are also critical, including coral reefs, and areas recreational fishing, including sports sea fishing.
Carpio et al, 2008
Cultural: Tourism
Fuller et al, 2007 Sandifer et al, 2015.
US Fish and Wildlife, 2014 Balmford et al, 2015
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/iifet/2000/pape rs/williamson.pdf;
Phelan & Sharpley, 2010 Qui & Fan, 2016
Cultural: Aesthetic appreciation and inspiration for culture, art and design
Biodiversity, ecosystems and natural landscapes have been the source of inspiration for much of our art, culture and increasingly for science.
Oswald, 2005 Buckland, 2006 Armitage & Dee, 2009 Weintraub, 2012 Jordan, 2011 Nature’s Toolbox, 2012: http://www.artworksforchange.org
Cultural: Spiritual experience and sense of place
Nature is a common element of all major religions and traditional knowledge, and associated customs are important for creating a sense of belonging.
Tucker & Grim,1997-2004 Kala & Sharma, 2010 Cardelús et al, 2013.
Landscapes, such as Globally Important Agricultural Heritage Sites (GIAHS), have significant cultural value, and regular feature in the work of a wide range of artists, from painters to writers to photographers. Inspiration to artists from Renaissance paintings to food sculptures of Lernet and Sander
The existence, maintenance, and use of traditional foods, drinks, and flavourings, is a commonplace component of many faith-based practices, including in terms of fasting, and restrictions. Domestic animals also play a critical role many cultural traditions.
Lu and Li (2006) Nahuelhual (2013) Lernet and Sander :http://lernertandsander.com/cubes/ Ackroyd & Harvey, 2016: http://www.conflictedseeds.com/into-the-blue/
Lingreen & Hingley, 2009 Schut, 2012 Nath et al, 2013 Weldon & Campbell, 2014
Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) are incentives (e.g. monetary payments, tax levies), provided to owners or managers of land and other natural resources in exchange for maintaining a supply of ecosystem services. PES programs can involve contracts between consumers of ecosystem services and those who supply them (private deals); trading in formal markets (regulatory ecosystem services markets), or direct payments by governments or public institutions to landowners and/or managers (public payment schemes). One of the largest and original PES programs is the United States’ Conservation Reserve Program. This public payment PES scheme paid $19.5 billion to ‘rent’ a combined 33.9 million acres of land through 239,000 contracts with farmers and landowners, who agreed to manage the land so as to reduce soil erosion, improve water quality and foster wildlife habitat (Young and Osborn 1990). A local government authority-facilitated PES scheme run in Honduras offers an example of a private PES approach. Here the scheme was aimed at restoring water quality in the Cumes River. The villagers downstream who relied on clean river water made monthly payments as incentives to coffee producers upstream to improve land management and reduce the impacts of their farming practices on water quality (Porras & Neves, 2006). In contrast, regulatory PES schemes are characterised by open trading, with one of the best known examples being the carbon market established by the Kyoto Protocol. Managing the growth of forests is a prominent mechanism for sequestering carbon and generating carbon dioxide emission reduction certificates. These are sold through the market to entities required to offset their emissions in order to meet sectoral or national commitments.
While PES can apply to any type of ecosystem service valued by a potential purchaser, the majority of operational programs focus predominantly on climate change mitigation, watershed services and biodiversity conservation. PES schemes require specific conditions to operate effectively. These include a clear demand for ES that are financially valuable; threats to the supply of ES; specific actions to address supply constraints; and dependable institutions for implementing and enforcing contract arrangements (Forest Trends et al, 2008). Ecosystem service research trends Along with the development and expansion of PES schemes, research on ecosystem services has grown rapidly over the last 20 years. The number of academic papers focused on ecosystem services has increased from just two publications in 1995, to almost 800 in 2015 (Fig. 21.1). There has also been an increase in the diversity of disciplines to which the concept is applied. Having been initially nurtured in forest and woodland conservation arenas in its early years (nearly a quarter of all papers published before the year 2000 related to forests or woodlands), the concept has evolved rapidly and has been incorporated into disciplines as diverse as marine or ocean science, business and education. With almost a third of all ecosystem service journal papers published in 2015 focusing on policy related issues, research investment is set to support the apparent wave of enthusiasm by economists, businesses, politicians and policy makers to put a price on nature and stoke a nascent market of buyers and sellers of the services it provides.
Figure 21.1 Number of peer-reviewed journal papers with ‘ecosystem service’ or ‘ecosystem services’ in the title published per year (1995-2015 in Science Direct). Each search was conducted in the “Advanced” function of Science Direct (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/search) using paired search terms (e.g. “ecosystem services” AND policy) in the ‘Abstract, Title, Keywords’ database for each year and each search term. Note no papers were detected for 1996.
Arguably the most notable trend in research on ecosystem services over the past two decades has been in the agriculture and farming domains (Fig 21.1). The relationship between biodiversity and agriculture and farming has dominated the scientific literature on ecosystem services over the past 10 years, (representing 28% of publications between 2006 and 2015). The relationship between biodiversity and agriculture is complex and highly interdependent. For instance, agriculture is dependent upon biological diversity for ecosystem service delivery (e.g. pollination, nutritional diversity). Agricultural systems and landscapes can also support very high levels of biodiversity (Tscharntke et al, 2012), including threatened species (Wright et al, 2012). Yet, agricultural expansion and intensification are a great threat to many ecosystems, habitats and species (Laurance et al, 2014), many of which are functionally significant for human society (Attwood et al, 2008). This has led to an increasing use of an ecosystem services lens in locations where land-use and natural resource decisions attempt to reflect and negotiate complex societal, economic and ecological trade-offs. Ecosystem services are also being used within the nexus between agriculture, poverty and food security. Here, many global development institutions, researchers and practitioners are adopting a utilitarian lens in viewing the conservation of biodiversity as a central tenet of human development. As figure 21.1 shows, approximately 5% of ecosystem publications over the past decade have related to poverty and food security. Over the same period a number of high-profile global development and research-for-development initiatives have made notable shifts in their strategies to reflect the ecosystem services mantra. For example, the Millennium Development Goals, instigated in 2000, did not contain any explicit mention of ecosystem services. However, Goal 7, “To ensure environmental sustainability”, contains targets that seek
to “reduce biodiversity loss”, and “reverse loss of environmental resources” (Way, 2015). These are closely related to ecosystem services, but, crucially, the predominantly utilitarian and market-based language is absent. In contrast, the recently agreed Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) refer or allude to ecosystem services several times, notably in Goal 15. Here the targets are to “sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, halt biodiversity loss”, including: “by 2020, integrate ecosystem and biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts” (United Nations, 2015). Whilst the transition in language between these evolving global targets is subtle, it is significant. The Convention on Biological Diversity’s Aichi Biodiversity Targets (2011-2020) goes further still, with Strategic Goal D being to “enhance the benefits to all from biodiversity and ecosystem services” (CBD, 2011). The targets for the goals take into account multiple types of services and also include the need for equitable benefit distribution among end users. Agricultural biodiversity conservation The agriculture-biodiversity interface spans an enormous range of locations and issues, yet much of the focus of research, policy and practice has concentrated on how WBD utilises agricultural land or is impacted (often negatively) by agricultural practices (Wood and Lenne, 1997). Although presently less prominent, there also exists a growing and parallel stream of discourse, research and action focused on the conservation and use of inter- and infra-specific crop diversity and wild crop relatives (Jackson et al., 2007). Research and practice on Agricultural Biodiversity (ABD) is centred most prominently on food security, sustainable
intensification, pest and disease control, climate adaptation and human well-being outcomes (e.g. Castañeda-Álvarex et al, 2016). The rationale for conserving ABD is largely based on its utilitarian value, with advocates citing the proven linkages between diversified food production and societal requirements for food and nutrition (Jackson et al., 2007). Mirroring the evolution of a utilitarian perspective of WBD and the capture of values through PES market mechanisms, recent attempts have been made to develop and implement analogous payment schemes for ABD (Narloch et al., 2011). Much like the conservation of WBD, there is a parallel and burgeoning emphasis on the conservation of agricultural biodiversity (ABD) such as crops and livestock in global conservation and development frameworks. For instance, Aichi Biodiversity Target 13 is aimed at conserving the genetic diversity of cultivated plants, domesticated farm animals and crop wild relatives (CBD, 2011), and SDG target 2.5 focuses on maintaining genetic diversity of seeds, cultivated plants, farmed and domesticated animals and their related wild species (United Nations, 2015). Accordingly, there is a growing interest in incentivising in situ ABD conservation through Payments for Agrobiodiversity Conservation Services (PACS) which are analogous to PES. There is a considerable need for PACS due in part to market failures to recognise the public good of ABD conservation and the eroding of ABD through economic incentives for commercial, high-yielding crops (Narloch et al, 2011). The few instances of their use, to date, focus on ABDdependent poor smallholder farmers in the developing world. These farmers play a pivotal role in conserving ABD but cannot easily afford the opportunity costs between maintaining ABD and adopting improved crops and varieties (Krishna et al, 2013). As examples of PACS, Narloch et al, (2013) describe a reverse-auction process (i.e. sealed bids from applicants) operating in Bolivia
and Peru aimed at conserving crop diversity of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa). This scheme has been developed to address a narrowing in the number of quinoa varieties being grown (due to commercial pressures) and the need to conserve particular landraces and maintain traditions of farmer cooperation and equitability. A further example used a modelling approach to examine payment for minor millet landraces in India. This study indicated that farmer willingness to participate and levels of compensation required were strongly linked to crop and variety consumption value (Krishna et al, 2013). As research in this area grows, a range of potential obstacles to successful PACS implementation are becoming apparent. These include the creation of institutions capable of delivering PACS, resolution of context specific land tenure arrangements and issues, and the need for effective baselining and monitoring (Narloch et al. 2011). These are all issues that are shared by PES, and indicate that the development of PACS has the opportunity to be informed by the greater (current) level of WBD PES development and deployment. Integrating wild and agricultural biodiversity Today we witness an ecosystem services lens applied to both WBD and ABD, with conservation efforts in the two arenas focused on biodiversity in agricultural systems and the maintenance of biodiversity on farms and in farmed landscapes (FAO, 1997). Despite this convergence, there remain few examples in the research, policy development or practitioner communities where WBD and ABD are dealt with as an integrated ecological system and conservation challenge. Yet, there exists a high degree of spatial congruence between areas of high crop diversity and wild biodiversity (Fig. 21.2), implying the existence of areas with simultaneously high
conservation priorities for both wild and agricultural biodiversity. As a consequence, actions, interventions and policies need to reflect an integrated perspective if they are to ensure tradeoffs and synergies between target species for conservation are not overlooked.
Figure 21.2. Spatial overlap of areas of high crop diversity (>15 spp. crop harvested, from Monfreda et al, 2008) and Biodiversity Hotspots (Mittermeier et al, 2011) globally.
Evidence suggests that multiple elements of both WBD and ABD in these geographic areas of overlap generate an extremely wide range of ecosystem services (Table 21.1). It is hardly surprising that ABD generates a considerable number and diversity of provisioning services (e.g. food, raw materials), species and varietal diversity of agricultural crops at various scales and can also provide regulating ecosystem services including reduced soil erosion, increased rates of pollination and increased pest and disease control through biological mechanisms (Jackson et al., 2007; Mulumba et al., 2012). However, increased diversity of cropping systems can also
result in greater habitat complexity, both structurally and compositionally, which in turn supports a greater diversity of wild species at the field scale and in adjacent land uses and habitats, many of which may also be beneficial for production and provide their own ecosystem services, such as predatory arthropods (Letourneau et al., 2011). Agrobiodiversity-based management approaches to production not only have food security benefits (Rusinamhodzi et al, 2012; Bommarco et al, 2013), but can also lead to agricultural systems that support greater wild biodiversity (Bengtsson et al, 2005) and improve landscape permeability between native vegetation remnants (Melo et al, 2013). Such positive ecosystem services can have further beneficial effects in terms of the reduced need for expensive and potentially environmentally damaging external inputs, such as synthetic pesticides. Given that both WBD and ABD contribute to delivering a suite of similar ecosystem services, in some cases potentially being inter-dependent, mechanisms need to be explored and implemented that consider and enable the simultaneous conservation of both types of biodiversity. Importantly, such mechanisms need to explicitly consider the synergies and trade-offs occurring between ABD and WBD conservation efforts. The evolution of PES has made considerable ground in galvanising markets for ecosystem services for WBD, though it is only relatively recently that PACS has started to explore the potential to value ABD (Pascual and Perrings, 2007; Narloch et al, 2011; 2013). With the increased emphasis on the conservation of ABD, not least through global development agendas such as the Aichi Biodiversity Target 13 and SDG target 2.5, it is likely that mechanisms such as PACS will receive increased focus. This presents an opportunity for the many lessons from PES
design, implementation and monitoring, to be incorporated into efforts to incentivise ABD conservation. These lessons include:
Environmental and social change can take a great deal of time to occur, and therefore schemes and incentive programs should be conducted over long time periods (Attwood et al, 2009). This also provides surety for applicants and participants in schemes (Zammit et al, 2010).
Management actions need to be underpinned by evidence-based scientific evidence (Sutherland et al, 2013). For instance, systematic review approaches can be used to determine which management actions are likely to deliver a particular response (Dicks et al, 2014), and target taxa can be grouped into ‘guilds’ of response to particular management interventions (Dolman et al, 2012).
Payment options should be carefully appraised and considered in relation to the context of the objectives—for example, fixed rate payments versus conservation options, direct payments versus tax relief, individual actions versus collective actions.
Monitoring of scheme effectiveness is essential in order to indicate success (or otherwise) of management interventions, value for money in terms of investment, and provide a basis upon which to refine and improve the scheme (Lindenmayer et al, 2012). Failure to effectively monitor has been a major source of criticism of many European agri-environment schemes (Kleijn and Sutherland, 2003).
An over-reliance on utilitarian perspectives?
The rush to embrace a utilitarian perspective on both the wild and agricultural biodiversity associated with agricultural systems and landscapes, develop methods to value it, and build mechanisms to promote incentives for its conservation, has been accompanied by a growing body of disquiet and criticism of these approaches. McAuley (2006) examines a number of compelling arguments against the commodification of nature (and in favour of intrinsic arguments for conservation), proposing where an ecosystem services argument is limited and may even damage conservation efforts (e.g. highly ephemeral and volatile markets, costeffective technological surrogates; and opposing stances of biodiversity conservation and economic benefits). Other criticisms have also been expressed. The relationship between biodiversity, ecological function and ecosystem services is too poorly understood to allow effective management interventions to be prescribed or implemented (Hails and Ormerod, 2013). Provisioning ecosystem services are generally more readily valued and easily utilised than other less tangible or marketable classes of ecosystem services (Hails and Ormerod, 2013), and increasing provisioning services can often result in a decline in other ecosystem services (Benayas et al, 2009). Whilst ecosystem service valuations are continuously being refined and tested, the wide range of approaches, coupled with the inherent difficulty in measuring all services and values for all potential recipients, means that nature is frequently likely to be mis-valued (Stoeckl et al, 2011; 2014; Jackson et al., 2007). Ecosystem service arguments aim to provide a rationale for improved decision-making that takes into account the benefits that nature provides to humanity. However, ecosystem service
perception, use and valuation (monetary or otherwise) are highly subjective and user-specific (Daw et al, 2011). Unless there are more equitable power balances in how nature is managed, then the ecosystem service benefits of the most powerful are likely to hold sway (Scheffer et al, 2014). This creates an important role for public policy in ensuring that the multiple perspectives on ecosystem service values are fully and more accurately integrated into decision-making. Conclusion In this chapter, we chart the seemingly inexorable rise of the ecosystem services concept and the utilitarian framing it offers for valuing both wild and agricultural biodiversity as an incentive for conservation. Acknowledging the present philosophical debate around intrinsic versus utilitarian perspectives of nature and the many reasons to be wary of uncritically applying and relying upon ecosystem service approaches for biodiversity conservation, the natural world continues to decline. Wild and agricultural biodiversity loss is accelerating, multiple planetary boundaries are further transgressed, and critical environmental issues receive declining media attention (Andrews et al, 2014). In reflecting on the evolution of the ecosystem services concept as it has been applied to WBD and ABD, and the development of PES and, more recently, PACS, we highlight important observations on the spatial proximity of WBD and ABD, their intricate connection through myriad ecological processes, and the vast array of ecosystem services that they collectively provide to underpin global agricultural production. What is also clear from this reflection is that WBD and ABD conservation attempts have been largely pursued separately in terms of research, policy and incentive schemes. We argue that there is value in taking a more integrated perspective of biodiversity conservation that acknowledges
and acts on the synergies between WBD and ABD. in valuing and conserving biodiversity. The challenge lies before researchers, economists, policy developers and practitioners to develop theories, tools and mechanisms to take a more integrated perspective of biodiversity conservation in ways that deliver effective conservation, food security and poverty reduction outcomes. PES and PACS will undoubtedly continue to play an important role in operationalising wild and agricultural biodiversity conservation through the utilitarian concept of ecosystem services. The challenge will be to design and deploy schemes that integrate multiple ecosystem services from both wild and agricultural biodiversity and importantly, identify and manage trade-offs and synergies. When wielded judiciously, such schemes can offer much to delivering a pathway towards integrated funding and the conservation of biodiversity across multiple ecosystems and land uses.
References Andrews, K., Boykoff, M., Daly, M., Gifford, L., Luedecke, G., McAllister, L., and Nacu-Schmidt, A. (2016) United States Coverage of Climate Change or Global Warming, 2004-2016. Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/icecaps/research/media_coverage/usa/index.html, accessed 21 April 2016 Attwood, S.J., Maron, M., House, A.P.N. and Zammit, C. (2008) ‘Do arthropod assemblages display globally consistent responses to intensified agricultural land use and management?’, Global Ecology and Biogeography, vol 17, no 5, pp585-599 Attwood, S.J., Park, S.E., Maron, M., Collard, S.J., Robinson, D., Reardon-Smith, K.M. and Cockfield, G. (2009) ‘Declining birds in Australian agricultural landscapes may benefit from aspects of the European agri-environment model’, Biological Conservation, vol 142, no 10, pp1981-1991 Benayas, J. M. R., Newton, A. C., Diaz, A., and Bullock, J. M. (2009) ‘Enhancement of biodiversity and ecosystem services by ecological restoration: a meta-analysis’, Science, vol 325, no 5944, pp1121-1124
Bengtsson, J., Ahnström, J. and Weibull, A.C. (2005) ‘The effects of organic agriculture on biodiversity and abundance: a meta‐analysis’, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol 42, no 2, pp261-269 Bhattacharya, T. R. and Managi, S. (2013) ‘Contributions of the private sector to global biodiversity protection: case study of the fortune 500 companies’, International Journal of Biodiversity Science, Ecosystem Services and Management, vol 9, no 1, pp65-86 Bommarco, R., Kleijn, D. and Potts, S.G. (2013) ‘Ecological intensification: harnessing ecosystem services for food security’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 28, no 4, pp230-238 Castañeda-Álvarez, N.P., Khoury, C.K., Achicanoy, H.A., Bernau, V., Dempewolf, H., Eastwood, R.J., Guarino, L., Harker, R.H., Jarvis, A., Maxted, N. and Müller, J.V. (2016) ‘Global conservation priorities for crop wild relatives’, Nature Plants, vol 2, no 16022, pp16022 CBD (2011) Aichi Biodiversity Targets. https://www.cbd.int/sp/targets/, accessed 21 April 2016 Costanza, R., d'Arge‚ R., De Groot‚ R.S., Farber‚ S., Grasso‚ M., Hannon‚ B., Limburg‚ K, Naeem‚ S., O'Neil‚ R.V. Paruelo‚ J., Raskin‚ R.G., Sutton‚ P., van den Belt, M. (1997) ‘The value of the world's ecosystem services and natural capital’, Nature, Vol 387, pp253-260 Daw, T., Brown, K, Rosendo, S., Pomeroy, R. (2011) ‘Applying the ecosystem services concept to poverty alleviation: the need to disaggregate human well-being’, Environmental Conservation, vol 38, no 4, pp370-379 de Groot, R.S., Fisher, B., Christie, M., Aronson, J., Braat, L., Haines-Young, R., Gowdy, J., Maltby, E., Neuville, A., Polasky, S., Portela, R. and Ring, I. (2010) ‘Integrating the ecological and economic dimensions in biodiversity and ecosystem service valuation’, in: The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB): Ecological and Economic Foundations. Kumar, P. (ed), pp9-40, Earthscan, London Dicks, L.V., Walsh, J.C. and Sutherland, W.J. (2014) ‘Organising evidence for environmental management decisions: a ‘4S’hierarchy’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 29, no 11, pp607-613 Dolman, P.M., Panter, C.J. and Mossman, H.L. (2012) ‘The biodiversity audit approach challenges regional priorities and identifies a mismatch in conservation’, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol 49, no 5, pp 986-997 Ehrlich, P. and Ehrlich, A. (1981) Extinction: the Causes and Consequences of the Disappearance of Species. Random House, New York FAO (1997) The State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, pp 511, http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/documents/PGR/SoW1/SoWfullE.pdf, accessed 21 April 2016 Forest Trends, The Katoomba Group, UNEP (2008) Payments for Ecosystem Services Getting Started: A Primer. Forest Trends and the Katoomba Group http://www.unep.org/pdf/PaymentsForEcosystemServices_en.pdf, accessed 21 April 2016 Hails, R. S. and Ormerod, S. J. (2013) ‘Editorial: ecological science for ecosystem services and the stewardship of natural capital’, Journal of Applied Ecology, vol 50, no 4, pp807-810 Jackson, L.E., Pascual, U. and Hodgkin, T. (2007) ‘Utilizing and conserving agrobiodiversity in agricultural landscapes’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol 121, no 3, pp196-210 Juniper, T. (2013) What Has Nature Ever Done for Us? How Money Really Does Grow on Trees. Profile books, London, United Kingdom
Justus, J., Colyvan, M., Regan, H. and Maguire, L. (2009) ‘Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus instrumental value’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 24, no 4, pp187-191 Kleijn, D. and Sutherland, W.J. (2003) ‘How effective are European agri‐environment schemes in conserving and promoting biodiversity?’ Journal of Applied Ecology, vol 40, no 6, pp947-969 Krishna, V.V., Drucker, A.G., Pascual, U., Raghu, P.T. and King, E.I.O. (2013) ‘Estimating compensation payments for on-farm conservation of agricultural biodiversity in developing countries’, Ecological Economics, vol 87, pp110-123. Laurance, W.F., Sayer, J. and Cassman, K.G. (2014) ‘Agricultural expansion and its impacts on tropical nature’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 29, no 2, pp107-116 Letourneau, D.K., Armbrecht, I., Rivera, B.S., Lerma, J.M., Carmona, E.J., Daza, M.C., Escobar, S., Galindo, V., Gutiérrez, C., López, S.D. and Mejía, J.L. (2011) ‘Does plant diversity benefit agroecosystems? A synthetic review’, Ecological Applications, vol 21, no 1, pp9-21 Lindenmayer, D.B., Zammit, C., Attwood, S.J., Burns, E., Shepherd, C.L., Kay, G. and Wood, J. (2012) ‘A novel and cost-effective monitoring approach for outcomes in an Australian biodiversity conservation incentive program’, PloS One, vol 7, no 12, e50872 Melo, F.P., Arroyo-Rodríguez, V., Fahrig, L., Martínez-Ramos, M. and Tabarelli, M. (2013) ‘On the hope for biodiversity-friendly tropical landscapes’, Trends in Ecology and Evolution, vol 28, no 8, pp462-468 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2005) Ecosystems and Human Well-being. World Resources Institute, Washington, DC. http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf , accessed 21 April 2016 Mitchell, R. and Carson, R. (1989) Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent Valuation Method. RFF Press, Washington, D.C. Mittermeier, R.A., Turner, W.R., Larsen, F.W., Brooks, T.M. and Gascon, C. (2011) ‘Global biodiversity conservation: the critical role of hotspots’. In Biodiversity hotspots. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. Monbiot, G. (2013) Feral: searching for enchantment on the frontiers of rewilding. Penguin, UK. Monfreda, C., Ramankutty, N. and Foley, J.A. (2008) ‘Farming the planet: 2. Geographic distribution of crop areas, yields, physiological types, and net primary production in the year 2000’, Global Biogeochemical Cycles, vol 22. no1, pp337-342 Morar, N., Toadvine, T. and Bohannan, B. J. (2015) ‘Biodiversity at Twenty-Five Years: Revolution Or Red Herring?’, Ethics, Policy and Environment, vol 18, pp16-29 Mulumba, J.W., Nankya, R., Adokorach, J., Kiwuka, C., Fadda, C., De Santis, P. and Jarvis, D.I. (2012) ‘A risk-minimizing argument for traditional crop varietal diversity use to reduce pest and disease damage in agricultural ecosystems of Uganda’. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol 157, pp70-86 Narloch, U., Drucker, A.G. and Pascual, U. (2011) ‘Payments for agrobiodiversity conservation services for sustained on-farm utilization of plant and animal genetic resources’, Ecological Economics, vol 70, no 11, pp1837-1845 Narloch, U., Pascual, U. and Drucker, A.G. (2013) ‘How to achieve fairness in payments for ecosystem services? Insights from agrobiodiversity conservation auctions’, Land Use Policy, vol 35, pp107-118
Pascual, U. and Perrings, C. (2007) ‘Developing incentives and economic mechanisms for in situ biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes’, Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, vol 121, no 3, pp256-268 Peh, K.S.H., Balmford, A., Bradbury, R.B., Brown, C., Butchart, S.H., Hughes, F.M., Stattersfield, A., Thomas, D.H., Walpole, M., Bayliss, J. and Gowing, D. (2013) ‘TESSA: a toolkit for rapid assessment of ecosystem services at sites of biodiversity conservation importance’, Ecosystem Services, vol 5, pp51-57 Peterson, G. (2010) ‘Growth of ecosystem services concept’, Resilience Science, vol 21, http://rs.resalliance.org/2010/01/21/growth-of-ecosystem-services-concept/ Porras, I., Neves, N. (2006) Markets for Watershed Services -Country Profile: Honduras – Jesus de Otoro PASOCAC Initiative. watershedmarkets.org. http://www.watershedmarkets.org/documents/Honduras_Jesus_de_Otoro.pdf (Accessed 18 April 2016), accessed 21 April 2016 Ross-Bryant, L. (2013) Pilgrimage to the National Parks: Religion and Nature in the United States, Routledge, New York Rusinamhodzi, L., Corbeels, M., Nyamangara, J. and Giller, K.E. (2012) ‘Maize–grain legume intercropping is an attractive option for ecological intensification that reduces climatic risk for smallholder farmers in central Mozambique’, Field Crops Research, vol 136, pp12-22. Scheffer et al. (2014) Schröter, M., Zanden, E.H., Oudenhoven, A.P., Remme, R.P., Serna‐Chavez, H.M., Groot, R.S. and Opdam, P. (2014) ‘Ecosystem services as a contested concept: a synthesis of critique and counter‐arguments’, Conservation Letters, vol 7, no 6, pp514-523 Soulé, M. E. (1985) ‘What is conservation biology? A new synthetic discipline addresses the dynamics and problems of perturbed species, communities, and ecosystems’, BioScience, vol 35, no 11, pp727-734 Stoeckl, N., Hicks, C.C., Mills, M., Fabricius, K., and Esparon, M. (2011) ‘The economic value of ecosystem services in the Great Barrier Reef: our state of knowledge’, Ecological Economics Reviews, vol 1219 pp113–133 Stoeckl, N., Farr, M., Larson, S., Adams, V.M., Kubiszewski, I., Esparon, M. and Costanza, R. (2014) ‘A new approach to the problem of overlapping values: A case study in Australia׳s Great Barrier Reef’, Ecosystem Services, vol 10, pp.61-78 Sutherland, W.J., Mitchell, R., Walsh, J., Amano, T., Ausden, M., Beebee, T.J., Bullock, D., Daniels, M., Deutsch, J., Griffiths, R.A. and Prior, S.V. (2013) ‘Conservation practice could benefit from routine testing and publication of management outcomes’, Conservation Evidence, vol 10, pp1-3 TEEB (2010), The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity Ecological and Economic Foundations. P. Kumar, (ed) Earthscan, London and Washington Tscharntke, T., Clough, Y., Wanger, T.C., Jackson, L., Motzke, I., Perfecto, I., Vandermeer, J. and Whitbread, A. (2012) ‘Global food security, biodiversity conservation and the future of agricultural intensification’, Biological Conservation, vol 151, no 1, pp53-59 United Nations (2015) Sustainable Development Knowledge Platform: Goal 15 https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg15, accessed 21 April 2016 Way, C. (2015) The Millennium Development Goals Report 2015. United Nations, New York
Westman, W. E. (1977) ‘How much are nature's services worth?’ Science, vol 197, no 4307, pp960-964 Wilshusen, P.R., Brechin, S.R., Fortwangler, C.L. and West, P.C. (2002) ‘Reinventing a square wheel: Critique of a resurgent" protection paradigm" in international biodiversity conservation’, Society and Natural Resources, vol 15, no 1, pp17-40 Wood, D. and Lenne, J.M. (1997) The conservation of agrobiodiversity on-farm: questioning the emerging paradigm’, Biodiversity and Conservation, vol 6, no 1, pp109-129 Wright, H.L., Lake, I.R. and Dolman, P.M. (2012) ‘Agriculture—a key element for conservation in the developing world’, Conservation Letters, vol 5, no1, pp11-19 Yellowstone Association (2016) https://www.yellowstoneassociation.org/about, accessed 8 April 2016 Young C.E. and Osborn, C.T. (1990) ‘Costs and benefits of the Conservation Reserve Program’, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, vol 45, no 3, pp370-373 Zammit, C., Attwood S, Burns E (2010) Using markets for woodland conservation on private land: lessons from the policy-research interface. In D.B. Lindenmayer, A.F. Bennett, R.J. Hobbs (eds) Temperate woodland conservation and management, CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, pp297–307.
