Ecosystem Services for Biodiversity Conservation: Study of Corbett
Download as PPTX, PDF5 likes4,764 views
The document discusses the degradation of ecosystem services impacting biodiversity and human well-being, noting that 60% of these services are compromised, contributing to increased natural disasters like floods and wildfires. It highlights the interdependence of ecosystem functions and conservation efforts, stressing the importance of protected areas for maintaining biodiversity and the services provided by natural environments. The text also identifies underlying causes of ecosystem degradation, such as information and market failures, and emphasizes the need for valuing ecosystem services for effective resource management.
![Biodiversity and Human Health
“Conserving forest biodiversity by valuing & harnessing it as
medicine is consistent with poverty reduction and local public
health prevention efforts.”
~ Bodeker, 2005
“In India approximately two million traditional health
practitioners use over 7500 species of medicinal plants.”
~ Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions, 2002
“The World Health Organization has recorded over 36 new
emerging infectious diseases since 1976, many of which,
particularly malaria and dengue, are the direct result of the
influence of landscape [changes] on the ecology of disease.”
~ Bodeker, 2005](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ruchichandigarh2016final-170223173229/85/Ecosystem-Services-for-Biodiversity-Conservation-Study-of-Corbett-16-320.jpg)
Ecosystem Services for Biodiversity Conservation: Study of Corbett
- 1. Ecosystem services for Biodiversity Conservation Ruchi Badola
- 2. Introduction The global ecosystem’s source and sink functions have limited capacity to support the economic subsystem. The economic subsystem has already reached/ exceeded important source and sink limits. Source limits are more open to substitution, private ownership and therefore to market and price controls. Sink limits involve common property where markets fail.
- 3. 60% of Ecosystem Services degraded which “…contributed to a significant rise in the number of floods and major wild fires on all continents since the 1940s”. (MEA 2005)
- 4. • Global warming is occurring, and humans are contributing to this, agree major (NASA and NOAA). • 2000 to 2010 warmest decade and 2010 & 2005 warmest years on record. • Worst bleaching of coral reefs ever recorded in 1998. • The first completely ice-free summer in arctic region may occur by 2040 or earlier-0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000
- 5. One-fifth of species are classified as ‘Threatened’ and 52 species of mammals, birds and amphibians move one category closer to extinction each year’. In the absence of conservation actions extinction risk for vertebrates classes would have further 16% .......... (Hoffmann et al, Science, October 2010). The world has failed to meet the 2010 target to halt the loss of biodiversity ………10th CBD, COP, Nagoya, Japan
- 6. Ecosystem function is the outcome or product of collective interaction between organisms and their physical environment Ecosystem services are the processes and conditions of natural ecosystems that support human activity and sustain human life (Daily,1997) The type, quality and quantity of services provided by an ecosystem are affected by the resource use decisions of individuals and communities Ecosystem functions and ecosystem services
- 7. Functions performed by natural ecosystems INFORMATION FUNCTIONS Aesthetic information Spiritual and religious information Historic information (heritage value) Cultural and artistic inspiration Scientific and educational information PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS Oxygen Water storage and supply Food and nutritious drinks Genetic resources Medicinal resources Raw materials for construction Fuel and energy Biochemical Fodder and fertilizer Ornamental resources FUNCTIONS OFTHE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT REGULATION FUNCTIONS Local and global energy balance Chemical composition of the oceans Local and global climate Runoff and flood-prevention Groundwater recharge Prevention of soil erosion Topsoil formation Solar energy fixation, biomass production Storage/recycling of organic matter Storage/recycling of nutrients Storage/recycling of wastes Biological (and genetic) diversity HABITAT FUNCTIONS (providing space and suitable substrate for) Human habitation, (indigenous) settlements Cultivation (e.g. of crops, cattle, fish) Energy conversion, Recreation and tourism Nature protection Migration and nursery habitats
- 8. Consequences of natural ecosystem loss on human well-being The degradation of ecosystem services often causes significant harm to human well-being and is a loss of a natural asset or wealth of a country
- 9. Crops Livestock Aquaculture Carbon sequestration Capture fisheries Wild foods Wood fuel Genetic resources Biochemicals Fresh Water Air quality regulation Regional & local climate regulation Erosion regulation Water purification Pest regulation Pollination Natural Hazard regulation Spiritual & religious Aesthetic values Timber Fiber Water regulation Disease regulation Recreation & ecotourism Enhanced Degraded Mixed Bottom Line: 60% of Ecosystem Services are Degraded
- 10. Increasing biodiversity in forests has a positive effect on their resilience capacity and often on their productivity including carbon storage (Thompson et al. 2009, Strassberg et al. 2010). A third (33 of 105) cities of the world obtain a significant proportion of their drinking water directly from PAs, 1.1 billion people (1/6) depend on PAs for their livelihoods, store almost half the terrestrial carbon More than 2000 group of indigenous people live in forests, More than 3% global trade in forest products Contribution of Natural environment to human wellbeing
- 11. Protected Areas (PAs) PAs are cornerstones of ecosystem conservation and critical to achievement of 2020 biodiversity target and the MDG There are >1,40,000 PAs worldwide, covering over 15.4% of earth’s land surface (IUCN-WCMC 2014) Underlying goal of PAs is to maintain ability of ecosystems to perform ecosystem services, to maintain iconic landscapes and places for recreation. PAs act as life’s buffers while serving as sanctuaries and strongholds of species in the face of climate change.
- 12. Protected Areas 1.1 b people (1/6) depend on PAs for livelihoods, traditional destination for global tourism industry. PAs cover 19.6% of tropical forests, 15% of terrestrial carbon stores are within PAs (Scharlemann 2010). Greatest loss in carbon stocks from PAs was in Tropical Asia and Oceania.
- 13. Pollinators and Ecosystem Services In temperate ecosystems 78.5 % of flowering plants require an animal pollinator to successfully reproduce. Three-quarters of our global food crops depend on pollination services from wild and domestic pollinators.
- 14. Value of pest control services has been estimated at $4.5 b/yr (Losey & Vaughan 2006). Data from 200 countries indicated that 75% crop species of global significance for food production rely on insect pollination (Klein et al. 2007). PAs help to conserve the wild relatives of crops, providing vital genetic material for crop breeding Water for agriculture – Madagascar, Periyar, Corbett Soil structure and fertility PAs and Agro-ecosystems
- 15. Supply ecosystem services for disaster reduction. Mangrove PAs of India The Whangamarino wetland PA in New Zealand was originally protected for its biodiversity but has been valued at U.S.$601,037/ on account of its flood control utility. Forested slopes are better able to withstand avalanches and landslides, (e.g Pakistan ) Countries like Kuwait are planning PA systems to maintain desert vegetation and stop dune formation and dust storms Protected Areas
- 16. Biodiversity and Human Health “Conserving forest biodiversity by valuing & harnessing it as medicine is consistent with poverty reduction and local public health prevention efforts.” ~ Bodeker, 2005 “In India approximately two million traditional health practitioners use over 7500 species of medicinal plants.” ~ Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions, 2002 “The World Health Organization has recorded over 36 new emerging infectious diseases since 1976, many of which, particularly malaria and dengue, are the direct result of the influence of landscape [changes] on the ecology of disease.” ~ Bodeker, 2005
- 17. Underlying causes of degradation Information failure: Lack of awareness about the values of conserved ecosystems Market failure: Failure of markets to reflect the full or true cost of services provided by conserved ecosystems Intervention failure: Absence of appropriate integrated resource management policies and inter-sectoral policy inconsistencies
- 18. Information Failure The value of PAs poorly understood and greatly under-valued by markets, politicians and the general public. Traditionally, the only market economic values PAs recognized are tourism revenues and income from extractive activities. The difficulty in quantifying many of the economic, social, environmental and cultural values of PAs lead to their undervaluation in land and resource use decisions It is often perceived to be more profitable to convert a natural ecosystem than to leave it intact
- 19. Market Failure Local communities paying the costs of conservation 90% hh in & around PAs suffer losses due to Wildlife (Karanth and Nepal 2011) Every year 400 people & 100 elephant killed and 400,000 families affected in conflict related instances (MoEF 2010)
- 20. Total Economic Cost Direct cost Indirect cost Opportunity cost Non-use value Indirect value Option valueDirect value Existence Bequest Timber, wood, food Ecological services Future direct & indirect value Intrinsic value Future generation Total Economic Benefit Use value Management Cost Wildlife Damage Alternate use forgone
- 21. FDA MoEFCC NBA BMC Forest Departments EDC JFM Knowledge Centre Community participation Landscape Level Authority MoPR PRI Elected body statutory financial power Where is the integration…?
- 22. Language “Come let us go down there and confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech” so said the Lord upon visiting the tower of Babel created by the sons of men Genesis II Economics talks and votes count
- 23. MODEL 1 Individual Utility/welfare Economic Process Goods & Services Cultural Norms & Policy Manufactured Capital Labor Land PublicPrivate GNP Consumption (based on fixed preferences) Investment (decisions about taxes, government spending, education, science and technology policy, etc. based on existing property rights regimes) Property rights Building Education, Training, Research Improvement PerfectSubstitutability BetweenFactors Conventional economic view of wealth and utility
- 24. Natural Capital Human Capital Organizational Capital Manufactured Capital LimitedSubstitutability BetweenCapitalForms Restoration, Conservation Education, training, research Building Solar Energy Individual Common Public Complex property rights regimes Ecological Services amenities Economic Process Wastes Goods & Services GNP Well Being (Individual & Community) Being, doing, relating Being, doing, relating Doing, relating - having - being Negative impacts on all forms of capital Positive impacts on human capital capacity Evolving Cultural Norms and Policy Investment (decisions of, taxes community spending, education, science, technology policy, etc., based on complex property rights regimes) Consumption (based on changing, adapting preferences) - having Alternative ecological economics models of economic activity MODEL 2
- 25. Why value benefits of Ecosystem Services • Valuation is an attempt to assign quantitative values to the goods and services provided by such natural resources where market prices are not available • It can: • indicate the overall economic efficiency of various competing use of natural resources and thereby contribute to informed decision- making • identify marginalized stakeholders who may threaten natural resources due to unsustainable use
- 26. Case studies
- 27. The Indian Himalayas Cover approximately 5,91,000 km2 or 18% of India's land Source of 9 major river systems Lie at junction of three Biogeographic realms viz. Palaearctic, Afro-Tropical and Indo-Malayan, 1/3 forest cover of India Biodiversity hotspots (26% endemic) Asylum value for species migrating under the influence of climate change Spectacular, diverse landscape, rich cultural heritage Provide important ecosystem services for human well being
- 28. Climate change and development impacts in Himalayas Global warming and climate change is impacting IHR at a much higher rate than other mountain regions Loss of natural ecosystems due to development projects, urbanization, forest dependence… Extreme rainfalls as well as drought events are likely to increase Uttarakhand, rainfed re-charge decreased 25% – 75% past 50yrs (Report of the Task Force, 2010), drying up of springs, abandoned villages, hardship for women Increase in incidences of pests and insects at high altitudes
- 29. Rapid retreat of greater Himalayan glaciers in comparison to the global average (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005
- 30. The main source of energy for local people is biomass, mostly provided by fuel wood, sourced from forests Shortage of fuel wood and the high price of imported conventional fuels result in high energy vulnerability Poor communities more vulnerable, in particular those concentrated in high-risk areas as they have more limited adaptive capacities, and are more dependent on climate- sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies Threat to ecological security Key challenges…
- 31. Studies from Himalayas indicate that about 30% of snow leopard habitat may be lost due to a shifting treeline and consequent shrinking of the alpine zone (Forrest et al. 2012). Loss of several species Himalayan monal Tibetan wolf Key challenges…
- 33. Cost of (US$) maintenance of the Corbett Tiger Reserve YEAR MAINTENANCE COST SALARY TOTAL 2006-7 1378,571 1050,000 2428,571 2005-6 1176,190 1007,143 2183,333 2004-5 857,143 990,476 1847,619 Direct costs
- 34. Indirect costs – Adverse impacts Parameters Kunkhet Chukam Mohan Teda Ringora Dhela Agricultural area (ha) 5.1 5.9 3.6 10.2 0.8 23 Losses /ha (US$) 1,776 1,737 1,477 1,527 834 1,146 Total loss (US$) 23,396 10,249 5,376 15,601 663 26,325 Economic loss due to crop damaged by wildlife around Corbett Tiger Reserve (2000-2004) Economic loss (US$) due to livestock depredation around Corbett Tiger Reserve (2000-2004) Parameters Kunkhet Chukam Mohan Teda Ringora Dhela Total loss 1143 976 2,310 1,417 1,476 13,238 Compensation paid 36 373 282 307 269 1,605 Net loss 1107 603 2,028 1,110 1,745 11,633
- 35. Lost access to forest resources around Corbett Tiger Reserve (2000-2004) • 73% villagers depend on the Reserve for fuel wood (cost US$ 7346/day) • 88% of fodder used extracted from buffer area of the Reserve • 22,000 cattle/day grazed in the Reserve • Seasonal grass ‘bhabhar’ (Eulalopsis binata) extracted-sold at US$ 12/100 kg Opportunity costs
- 36. • 3.842 mt carbon stored in forests of CTR • Offsetting a ton of CO2 in India- US $19 (Tvinnereim et al. 2009) • The total cost of CO2 mitigation by the forests of CTR- US $63.6 million • Annual flow -US $65.0 ha-1 year-1 Corbett TR-Indirect benefits YEAR Number of tourists Revenue (US$) 2006-7 1,44,000 564,286 2005-6 1,32,000 461,905 2004-5 1,10,000 432,541 Direct tourism revenue The recreational value of CTR was estimated as US $167,619 /yr Watershed benefits resulting in USD 41 million through generation of electricity since 1972
- 37. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 A B C D E F G H I Percent Tourists Villagers A- Purification of air (CO2 capture), B - Watershed protection, C - Recreation, D - Soil fertility, E- Fuel and fodder, F - Biodiversity conservation, G - Education, H Aesthetics, I - Employment Responses of tourists and local communities
- 39. 39 Total area 5860.69 km2 No. of villages in Transition zone 33 No. of villages in Buffer zone 47
- 40. 40 FUNCTIONAL OUTPUTS OF DIFFERENT LULC Forest types/LU LC Carbon (t/ha) NPK (t/ha) Soil moisture (hm) Water yield (m3/day) Conifer mixed 4683.2±566.7 34.9 ± 12.1 17.0±5.1 230.2±50.8 Oak-pine 3279.1±434.6 NE 13.6±4.3 109.5±24.6 Oak forest 2624.9±450.8 21.4 ± 9.5 19.6±7.8 44.4±11.5 Blue pine 1351.6±345.7 31.4 ±8.9 12.6±2.9 NE Birch 1276.1±237.6 19.1 ± 6.6 8.2±1.5 NE Deodar 1152.4±234.8 34.3 ± 11.7 13.8±3.8 NE Chir pine 705.4±123.7 34.8 ± 14.9 1.6±0.4 NE Alpine meadows 134.9±87.0 26.5 ± 12.5 17.3±9.7 NE Temperate grassland 113.4±73.6 16.9 ± 7.9 6.8±1.7 NE Juniper 80.4±43.6 24.3±10.5 5.8±1.9 NE Agriculture 115.2±76.2 16.3± 8.3 9.5± 2.6 NE
- 41. 41 ECONOMIC VALUE (US$/ha) OF DIFFERENT LULC LULC Carbon stock Nutrients Soil Moisture Biomass used Water yield Conifer Mixed 302000 9000 35 1000 11000 Oak-pine 211000 0 29 1000 5000 Oak 169000 5000 42 1000 2000 Blue Pine 86000 6000 26 NA NA Birch 82000 5000 17 NA NA Deodar 74000 9000 29 1000 NA Chirpine 45000 9000 3 NA NA Alpine meadows 9000 6000 37 NA NA Temprate grassland 8000 5000 14 NA NA Juniper 5000 6000 12 NA NA Agriculture 8000 5000 20 NA NA
- 42. Soil nutrient contentCarbon stock Soil moisture content
- 44. Provisioning services used by local community of NDBR Natural resource % of hh (n=764) Amount extracted (kg/hh/year) Direct earning US$ /hh/year) Fodder* 87.8 3648.73 ±67.04 112.27 ±2.06 Fuelwood* 95.7 2510.29 ±67.36 57.93 ±1.55 Leaf litter* 84.8 2321.07 ±41.31 53.56 ±0.95 Thatching 5.4 75.5 ±9.21 232.31 ±28.37 Vegetables 38 2.87 ±0.08 0.89 ±0.08 Fruits 16.1 7.07±0.31 5.91 ±0.55 Medicinal plant 4.5 0.25 ±0.01 32.69 ±1.92 C. sinensis 1 0.38 ±0.9 903.85 ±447.06
- 45. Spatial distribution of the direct benefits
- 46. 46 AGGREGATE VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES LULC US$/ha Conifer Mixed 320000 Oak-pine 220000 Oak 180000 Blue Pine 90000 Birch 90000 Deodar 80000 Chir pine 60000 Alpine meadows 10000 Temperate grassland 10000 Juniper 10000 Agriculture 10000
- 47. 47 RECREATION VALUE Net recreational demand curve • Recreation value –US$ 255000 /yr • Consumer surplus/visit million – US$ 0.65 Hypothetical travel cost NumberofVisits
- 48. 48 NET PRESENT ECONOMIC VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES *Excluding standing biomass value in terms of NTFP, timber, medicinal plants Ecosystem Service Billion US$ Carbon stock 5.11 Soil nutrient 0.53 Soil moisture 0.001 Biomass used 0.02 Water yield 0.07 Recreation value 0.001
- 49. 49
- 50. 50 SUMMARY Carbon stock contributed most towards net ecosystem service value and was highest for conifer mixed forests (4683 tons/ha). Oak and conifer mixed forests contributed the most towards provisioning services. Recreational value of NDBR high. Significant difference between level of overall wellbeing among hh close to and away from forests Access to forest resources for food, livelihood, economic and health security US States Climate Change Program (CCSP, 2008) establishes that human wellbeing is positively associated with availability of forest resources Challenge to maintain sustained flow of these ecosystem services in the face of growing developmental pressures.
- 55. • Contributions of ES to livelihoods of vulnerable groups • Conservation of highly threatened and irreplaceable services such as biodiversity • Distribution of benefits and costs • Identification of policy for conserving ES and for optimizing tradeoffs for socially desirable outcomes Key considerations for ES approach in Himalayas
- 56. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100Publications Ecosystem services Published Working paper Policy Types of ecosystem services studied n= 315
- 57. 3 10 27 36 1 5 6 16 19 4 3 4 9 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Publication Year Stable Increasing Decline Trends in ecosystem services
- 58. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Percentofpublication Ecosystem services studied Decline Increasing Stable Trends in ecosystem services
- 59. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Percentofpublication Country Decline Increasing Stable Trend in ecosystem services
- 60. Protecting biodiversity and securing ecosystem services is a smart investment option, Restoration a far more costly and complicated option Replacing ecosystem services through other means is prohibitively costly. Brand conservation Dudley et al 2011
- 61. Virtually all PAs include sacred sites, with managers often working with local communities and faith groups to maintain both sacred cultural and ecological values. Sacred natural sites have richer biodiversity than surrounding habitat. PAs provide forum for synergies to be explored and developed among a wide range of disciplines. Protected Areas The gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage; neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. Robert F. Kennedy, 1968