able use, and to account for the goods and services that nature provides to ... A recent joint workshop â hosted by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and ...
GUEST EDITORIAL GUEST EDITORIAL GUEST EDITORIAL
Mainstreaming ecosystem services into decision making
539
A
s early as 1995, the Convention on Biological Diversity adopted an integrated ecosystems approach to natural resource management in order to promote conservation, to ensure equitable and sustainable use, and to account for the goods and services that nature provides to people. Twenty years on, how far have we come in incorporating nature’s benefits in decision making, and where do we go from here? The US and the European Union (EU) are moving rapidly toward integrating the assessment of ecosystem services (ES) into their decision-making processes. Potential applications range from where to site energy infrastructure and how to prioritize new restoration projects to the ways we assess the environmental and human risks of new and existing chemicals and consider nature-based or “green” buildings as we replace aging infrastructure and adapt to climate change. In 2008, the US incorporated the ES concept into rules for compensatory mitigation of degraded aquatic resources. Four years later, in 2012, the US Forest Service instituted a rule requesting that an ES assessment be incorporated into all agency-related planning involving national forests and grasslands. And in 2013, the White House Council on Environmental Quality released new principles and requirements for federal spending on water resource and infrastructure projects that also require an assessment of ES. Several federal agencies – including the US Army Corps of Engineers; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and the US Department of the Interior, which includes the US Bureau of Land Management and the US Fish and Wildlife Service – have started to develop guidance within the past few years on integrating the ES concept into their respective decision making. The US is not alone in recognizing the need to reflect ES in its decision making. In 2011, the EU published its Biodiversity Strategy, which set 2020 as a target for halting the loss of biodiversity and degradation of ES in EU Member States. The strategy is being implemented through relevant EU policies; one such policy is the Marine Strategy Framework Directive, which outlines a clear legislative agenda for managing human activities and supporting sustainable use of marine resources through an ecosystem-based approach. As recently as last year, the EU also adopted a green infrastructure strategy, which recognizes that rural and urban lands alike provide multiple ES and promotes green infrastructure projects through agricultural, economic, and environmental policies, as well as in disaster risk management efforts. This welcomed adoption of an ES-based decision-making approach is not without its challenges, including implementing such requirements, better understanding how human activities affect ES, and quantifying the ways in which people use, appreciate, and value nature’s benefits. A recent joint workshop – hosted by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry and the Ecological Society of America – at the National Conservation Training Center (Shepherdstown, WV) brought together international scientists from academia, government, and business to develop practical guidance for applying the ES concept to environmental decision making. One of the main conclusions from that workshop was that ecological production functions (EPFs), which translate ecological changes into outcomes that people use or value, are key to determining how anthropogenic impacts on ecosystems translate into changes in ES delivery. Another conclusion was that the complexity of natural systems can make it difficult to effectively and consistently incorporate ES considerations into decision making. Ultimately, that task will require governments and other partners to collect the pertinent data, develop EPF models, and, ideally, devise user-friendly decision-making tools, all of which can be shared through a well-maintained online network. Important efforts laying the foundations for consistency in methods and use include: the US Environmental Protection Agency’s EnviroAtlas (http://enviroatlas.epa.gov), the National Ecosystem Services Partnership’s Federal Resource Management and Ecosystem Services Guidebook (www.nespguidebook.com), the European Commission’s Mapping and Assessment of Ecosystems and their Services project (http://biodiversity.europa.eu/maes), and the United Nations Environment Programme’s initiative The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (www.teebweb.org). Despite lingering questions about how to quantify, assess, and value ES, and the challenges involved in developing EPF models, it is important to move forward with efforts to incorporate ES considerations in decision making. Doing so will help us understand not only where and how to apply the ES concept in decision making but also how to develop useful common metrics and measures. Every application encourages forward momentum and adds to our understanding of the relationship between ecosystem change and ES production and value. The result will be an improved awareness and consideration of the policy-related impacts on the ES upon which all life depends.
© The Ecological Society of America
Lydia Olander Nicholas Institute for Environmental Policy Solutions, Duke University, Durham, NC
Lorraine Maltby Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
www.frontiersinecology.org
