Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 73
IDR Team Summary 7
Design a federal policy to maintain or improve
natural capital and ecosystem services within
the United States, including measuring and
documenting the effectiveness of the policy.
CHALLENGE SUMMARY
The renewable wealth of the United States resides in its people, land,
and waters. The capacity to generate ecosystem services is a component of
natural capital, which is in turn a component of renewable wealth. Natural
capital is related to the capacity of a region to provide food, fiber, pharma-
ceuticals, potable water and other goods; maintain water and air quality,
soil fertility, and other characteristics of a healthful environment; and pres-
ent people with educational, recreational, and spiritual values of nature. A
given area of landscape or seascape yields many ecosystem services, and the
aggregate yield of ecosystem services depends on management by people.
Yet natural capital is not monitored, unlike indices of financial and
social capital (stock markets, inflation, T-bill yields, unemployment, edu-
cational status, etc.). Regulatory ecosystem services (which maintain water
and air quality, soil fertility, and other characteristics of a healthful environ-
ment) and a number of provisioning and cultural ecosystem services are not
marketed and rarely measured. However some ecosystem services such as
food production and recreational use are marketed and measured.
“In the beginning, the world was one.” Now, however, the responsibil-
ity for natural capital, or the ecosystem services it generates, is balkanized
among federal agencies, as well as among federal, state, and local jurisdic-
tions. For example at the federal level, one agency deals with agricultural
and forestry yields and soil conservation; another deals with water infiltra-
tion and runoff; another with fish and wildlife; another with water and
air quality in relation to human health. And many ecosystem services
73
OCR for page 74
74 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
and important elements of natural capital fall between the cracks in U.S.
legislation and policy—there is no mandate, for example, to monitor and
maintain ecosystem services such as pollination, natural hazard regulation,
pest regulation, or aesthetic values.
Just as the nation developed policy and legislative frameworks for
environmental issues such as water and air quality and endangered species
in response to growing scientific and public understanding of the impor-
tance of these issues, it may now be time to develop a policy and legislative
framework for the more comprehensive management of natural capital and
ecosystem services.
Key Questions
• What would be the goal of a U.S. policy for natural capital and
ecosystem services? (In considering this and the following questions, be sure
to include regulating ecosystem services as aspects of natural capital that are
essential for sustained flows of all relevant ecosystem services.)
• How should a new U.S. policy or legislative framework integrate,
replace, or be integrated into the many existing laws and policies that guide
various aspects of ecosystem service management?
• What would key elements of a U.S. policy (considering both actions
that federal agencies could take within their existing mandates and needs for
new legislation) consist of, particularly with respect to (a) assessment of the
status of ecosystem services; (b) management; (c) monitoring; (d) account-
ing; and, (e) public communication and education? With respect to the
assessment needs, no federal policy provides for assessment of ecosystem
services or natural capital. How can this be done?
• How can the effectiveness of policy for ecosystem services be
measured? How can we improve policy based on iterative assessments of
ecosystem services?
Reading
Carpenter S, Matson P, and Turner S. Draft. Natural capital, services and human well-being.
In Sustainability Science.
Daily GC, Polasky S, Goldstein J, Kareiva PM, Mooney HA, Pejchar L, Ricketts TH, Salzman
J, and Shallenberger R. Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver. Front
Ecol Environ 2009;7(1): 21–28.
Heinz Center (The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment).
The state of the nation’s ecosystems. Island Press: Washington, D.C., 2008.
OCR for page 75
75
IDR TEAM SUMMARY 7
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. July 2011. Sustaining
enviromental capital: protecting society and the economy. Executive Office of the
President.
Scarlett PL and Boyd JW. Quantification, policy applications, and current federal capabilities.
Resources for the Future, March 2011.
Because of the popularity of this topic, two groups
explored this subject. Please be sure to review the other
write-up, which immediately follows this one.
IDR TEAM MEMBERS—GROUP 7A
• Genevieve Bennett, Ecosystem Marketplace
• Mark T. Brown, University of Florida
• David H. Festa, Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)
• Vilay H. Khandelwal, University of Southern California
• William H. McDowell, University of New Hampshire
• Volker C. Radeloff, University of Wisconsin-Madison
• James A. Riggsbee, RiverBank Ecosystems
• James Salzman, Duke University
• Kelly Wendland, University of Idaho
• Heather E. Wright, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
IDR TEAM SUMMARY—GROUP 7A
Vilay Khandelwal, NAKFI Science Writing Scholar
University of Southern California
IDR Team 7A was asked to develop an effective federal policy aimed at
maintaining or improving the legacy of the nation’s ecosystems for future
generations. Earth’s ecosystems—from rainforests to deserts, from marshes
to mountaintops—have been formed over millions of years of geological
changes and biological evolution. The diverse ecosystems provide shelter to
their plant and animal inhabitants while providing us with resources and
services that sustain and enrich our lives. Some resources like food, water,
and minerals can be priced in dollars; others, including the value of a forest
for its beauty, the aesthetics of a waterfall, or the preservation of pristine
places on Earth are intangible. Ecosystem services refer to the entire gamut
of benefits that ecosystems provide, both tangible and intangible.
OCR for page 76
76 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
Task at Hand
As the world population continues its super-exponential growth, a
greater need for human use of physical space is coupled to an ever-increasing
demand for basic necessities like food and water, in addition to the goods
that have come to define the comforts of modern human life. As society
encroaches upon ecosystems to satisfy these needs, the cost-benefit analysis
that underlies such actions is so heavily skewed toward tangible factors, that
intangible services meted out by the ecosystems are unspoken for.
This limited system of valuation is flawed. Given the long-term con-
tributions of ecosystems to human experience, it is important to not only
consider the immediate impacts of our actions, but also their legacy for
the future. Federal regulation of the environment through the Clean Air
Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act to name a few, are geared to
promote human health and biodiversity but not necessarily the health of
our ecosystems. As such, there is a need to revamp our federal policies to
protect our natural capital.
Redefining the Task
Just as the fiscal policy of the government is designed to increase the
GDP and expand the economy, the team recommended that environmental
policies ensure an overall net increase of natural capital within the national
balance sheets. In other words, it should be the objective of the federal govern-
ment to identify and rehabilitate strained ecosystems, strategize to maintain
or enhance the ones currently in use and prevent the degradation of others.
With near 10% unemployment, two wars, and the possibility of a
double-dip recession preoccupying an acrimoniously partisan Congress,
shepherding a new piece of environmental legislation through the Con-
gress would be a herculean task. Therefore, the team focused its efforts
on designing a conceptual framework to guide a federal policy over a long
term, while also recommending immediate measures within the purview of
existing mandates of federal regulatory agencies, sidestepping the need for
immediate legislative action.
Federal Policy
Given the great number of unknowns concerning ecosystem charac-
terization and valuation, the team chose to lay out a logical framework for
OCR for page 77
77
IDR TEAM SUMMARY 7
infrastructure building central to an effective policy. The best strategy for a
visionary federal policy would involve identification and measurement of key
variables, training of personnel, and effective implementation of the policy.
Building the infrastructure
For successful management, it is essential to keep a regular tab on the
assets. Thus, in agreement with the 2011 President’s Council of Advisors
on Science and Technology (PCAST) report, the IDR team recommended
instituting a quadrennial assessment of the state of the nation’s ecosystems.
This would entail the characterization of ecosystem health in terms of
measurable parameters. A scholarly identification of such parameters forms
the backbone of any such evaluation. If such parameters have not yet been
identified, it is essential to fund academic research to do so.
National ecosystem data portal
Once these parameters have been identified, it is essential to develop
tools for efficient data collection and analysis. Currently, data regarding
various aspects of any ecosystem are being collected by different agencies.
For instance, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collects data on
air and water quality while the Department of Agriculture (DOA) collects
data on soil composition. However, these data are not shared across agen-
cies, and the analytical tools to link data and extract information regarding
the health of our ecosystems are lacking. Thus, the team recommended
creation of a national repository, where all information pertaining to an
ecosystem, whether gathered by a local or a national agency, can be entered.
There is a need for the development of an analysis system to interchangeably
compare the costs of various components of an ecosystem in terms of their
benefits and incorporating this information with accounting decisions for
any projects. The interoperability of this interagency data portal would be a
key requirement for adoption of sound practices that analyze complex data
and include it in the rubric of federal decision-making.
Interagency training center
The team strongly felt the need to break down the governmental stove
piping and require regulatory agencies to share responsibility and make
management decision collectively. Given the lack of incentives for agencies
OCR for page 78
78 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
to engage in a dialogue, the team recommended creation of an interagency
training center to cultivate knowledgeable, skilled, and capable managers
from multiple agencies as a vehicle for ensuring better understanding of
ecosystems as a whole. With a goal to promote synergy, cooperation, and
efficiency as these agencies work together, the best practices would be shared
across agencies for the implementation of cost-effective actions.
Customize targets
Data collection is not the goal, ecosystem preservation is. The team
concluded that the need to set identifiable environmental goals is crucial
for ensuring sustainable ecosystem services. Academic research including
modeling studies need to be commissioned to identify clear endpoints for
the various ecosystems. Rather than rigid strategies like total maximum
daily loads (TMDL) for water pollution, the team realized that endpoints
would require adaptive management strategies, which would need to be
determined for each ecosystem on a case-by-case basis. It is not expected
that the ecosystems will be untouched, rather, that the final action would
be taken to maximize ecosystem service.
Were a new infrastructure for analysis and management to be put in
place, it would be the responsibility for the government to pass legisla-
tion aimed at codifying updated practices at the regulatory agencies and
employing adaptive management strategies to ensure timely response to
human actions. Evaluation of current tax subsidies while accounting for the
benefits from ecosystems is essential in order to ascertain whether existing
tax policy is hurting ecosystems. Adoption of ecosystem centric practices
within governmental bodies like Securities Exchange Commission would
set the tone for businesses to adopt similar practices.
Recommendations for Immediate Action
In addition to the long-term goals of federal infrastructure develop-
ment and Congressional action, the team made recommendations for
immediate implementation by federal agencies like National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the EPA, and the DOA that already
recognize the concept of ecosystem preservation and restoration. The Army
Corps of Engineers, whose mandate is “to restore significant ecosystem func-
tion,” also plays a role here. Schemes such as mitigation and species banking,
watershed management projects, as well as farmbill payment programs, cur-
OCR for page 79
79
IDR TEAM SUMMARY 7
rently at work at local, state, and national levels highlight regulatory agency
efforts for maintaining ecosystem health.
What hinders the effectiveness of these efforts in achieving optimal so-
lutions is the lack of proper targeting of resources. Absence of a framework
to reward projects with best practices and of incentives to replicate these on
a larger scale is another problem.
A clear example of ineffective resource management is the Conserva-
tion Reserve Program with an annual budget of $6 billion for payments to
farmers as incentives to adopt environmentally friendly practices. Rather
than recruiting farmers with land that can provide greatest net ecosystem
service, CRP recruits the lowest bidder. Incentives are provided for adop-
tion of practices irrespective of the final measurable benefits. Rather
than ensuring healthy practices on land currently in use, CRP focuses on
retired land.
CRP needs to identify ecosystems that would generate the most services
and link payments to measurable outcomes. For example, it makes greater
economic sense to ensure maintenance of wetlands in the Mississippi delta
than paying a farmer in the desert to not use a tractor on a Wednesday.
Other immediate recommendations include
a. assigning engineers at NASA to design satellites with enhanced
remote sensing abilities that can provide a real time account of the state of
an ecosystem’s health;
b. directing part of Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
budget on disaster relief to preventive pilot projects including wetland
preservation, as a buffer against flooding;
c. developing an interagency training center and data portal as out-
lined above;
d. implementing the findings of the PCAST 2011 report.
Summary
Given the academic consensus on the importance of the ecosystems
as a critical part of our nation’s present and future infrastructure, it was
the recommendation of the IDR Team 7A to enable better environmental
practices following a three step approach:
1. Lay the groundwork for comprehensive legislation to generate mo-
mentum within the civil service to make informed decisions.
OCR for page 80
80 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
2. Outline a national policy that would focus on adaptive management
strategies.
3. Guide immediate actions by regulatory agencies to optimize
decision-making based on tradeoffs between the benefits and consequences
of human actions to ensure long-term benefits from ecosystems.
IDR TEAM MEMBERS—GROUP 7B
• Katherine D. Cowart, Texas A&M University
• Janet A. Cushing, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
• Benjamin S. Halpern, University of California, Santa Barbara
• Heather M. Leslie, Brown University
• Lydia P. Olander, Duke University
• Diane E. Pataki, University of California, Irvine
• Kathryn A. Saterson, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
• Gary M. Tabor, Center for Large Landscape Conservation
IDR TEAM SUMMARY—GROUP 7B
Katie Cowart, NAKFI Science Writing Scholar
Texas A&M University
IDR Team 7B was asked to design a federal policy to maintain or im-
prove natural capital and the benefits humankind receives from ecosystems
within the United States, including measuring and documenting the effective-
ness of this policy. The first action the team took was to analyze the group’s
strengths. The team, mostly composed of ecologists and biologists, decided
that its purpose was to look for inspiration for protecting natural capital,
develop a “do no harm” policy, and illustrate where ecosystems could make
or have already made a difference in environmental quality.
These analyses led to a slight adjustment in the wording of the team
challenge: Design federal policy to maintain or improve natural capital
and ecosystem services within the United States, including that ecosystem
services be integrated into decision making and that policy effectiveness be
documented and measured.
Even with the revised wording, the team thought there are several chal-
lenges in this general task. The first challenge is defining natural capital,
OCR for page 81
81
IDR TEAM SUMMARY 7
and then how would anyone determine the value of an ecosystem service
or an improvement. Although there has been debate over the definition of
ecosystem services and what the term entails, the group decided to accept
the meaning that ecosystem services are the benefits humans receive from
the natural processes that make up an ecosystem. These benefits include
purified drinking water, food, climate regulation, pollination, and even
spiritual or recreational benefits.
The second challenge centered around the policy aspect of the task and
whether a new federal policy is needed and what the exact goal of the policy
would be. The third, and probably most delicate challenge, was in how to
handle tradeoffs among ecosystem services. Often an improvement in one
area will result in a detriment to another, or refocusing improvement efforts
from one area to another will result in harm.
What’s the Problem?
To help the team tackle the task, the group first tried to define the
problem. The issues surrounding the value of ecosystems are multifaceted,
and each of the sides must be taken into account before a successful policy
can be put into place. First and foremost, team members believed that it
is necessary to know the current state of ecosystems. After that, one can
address the knowledge problem. Among the general public, there is a lack of
understanding of what ecosystems are and why they are so valuable. In order
to effect change, the public, including legislators at all levels of government,
need to understand the role ecosystems play in providing benefits that are
important to human life and health.
The team also saw translation, institutional application, and commu-
nication as problems surrounding ecosystem services. Translation involves
monitoring the ecosystems themselves and analyzing the accumulated data
to determine the ecosystems’ status. Using this information, scientists can
better make informed tradeoffs to get the best overall value out of the eco-
systems. Combining the knowledge of ecosystem services and the transla-
tion of data into useable decision making tools makes up the institutional
application problem. Here, the knowledge and translation come together
for use in policy development, implementation, and management on the
appropriate scales. This is a tricky balancing act, requiring that the knowl-
edge and data are firmly and clearly in place. The last problem, communica-
tion, refers to the communication to the public and to policy-makers. The
team decided to put this issue aside for IDR Team 9 to handle.
OCR for page 82
82 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
All of these issues form a feedback loop that should be maintained
for optimal understanding. One issue to consider independently, however,
is that the relationship between these issues changes depending on which
frame is taken, either by the scientists providing the information or the
politicians acting on the data. The issue of ecosystem services maintenance
can be viewed through a human-centric lens, one in which human benefit
and well-being are focused on above all else. The other frame looks more at
protecting resources and ecosystems because it’s the morally right thing for
humans to do. One team member pointed out that the relationship between
human benefit and resource benefit is complex, since history has shown
human well-being to continue to increase even as resources or ecosystem
availability decreases.
How Will Policy Help?
At first, the team was skeptical new policies to regulate ecosystems
would even be accepted, considering the current political climate which
is averse to more regulatory policies and the introduction of a new policy
would be a long term goal. This view led the team to look at current poli-
cies, analyzing whether or not they are helpful or if they could be adjusted
to meet the ecosystem needs. Policies of other countries were also discussed,
because ecosystems often cross borders and to truly protect all of the eco-
systems that the United States enjoys, we will still need a global approach
to ecosystem maintenance. Of all of the different avenues available for legal
change in the United States, the team decided changes on multiple levels
need to be made.
New federal and state policies, such as implementing a set of minimum
standards to maintain the integrity of ecosystems, will help, but lower level
incentives need to be in place to really bring about a change to current eco-
system management. For example, municipal bonds or tax codes could offer
incentives to those doing their part to better local ecosystems. State-level
incentives for other green infrastructure could be suggested. The federal
government could encourage lower-level improvements in environmental
policy by enforcing current laws, by encouraging comprehensive planning,
and by offering subsidies and other incentives.
Passing a federal policy seems like a lofty goal, especially with so many
unknowns to account for. One of the major aspects to be considered is the
assessment of current ecosystems, though there is no policy currently in
place for this. Because little is known about the current state of ecosystems,
OCR for page 83
83
IDR TEAM SUMMARY 7
one of the only ways to create a policy in this area would be to create a broad
yet ambitious plan. The hesitation is that perhaps the policy would have
no effect because the lack of information available would mean little could
be done to enforce the policy. One thing that scientists could do to help in
this dilemma is to switch focus in research to look at the current states of
ecosystems. The team thought that could help tremendously in what they
called the “we don’t know” battle.
Policy Recommendations
Even with the pessimism about a regulatory bill passing now, the
team came up with a list of things to include in an ideal political world.
The team’s policy would contain sections addressing the following aspects:
Assessment, management, monitoring, accounting, communication, and
funding.
Under the assessment section, the policy should define the services and
natural capital for a given social-ecological context, be realistic about what
people can do and know, take a precautionary practice-based approach, be
explicit about the range of actors involved, do not limit to native species,
and set ecosystem services targets for restoration and improvement. These
targets would set standards that everyone using a particular area would need
to be aware of in order to maintain or improve the area and would include
things like limits on hunting or fishing, water pollution, crop fertilization,
or other human processes that can negatively impact an area. This section
also gives scientists the green light to study more, addressing the “we don’t
know” battle.
The management clause would identify policy and other strategies to
achieve the goals listed in the assessment clause. It could take into account
private versus public land as well as freshwater, marine, and terrestrial sys-
tems. The main purpose of this clause is to say who exactly is responsible
for which aspect of maintaining a specific part of an ecosystem or an area. It
would require interagency cooperation, such as between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the U.S. Corps of Engineers.
The third clause, monitoring, will measure the effectiveness of the
policy and related actions by building in explicit targets. This is primarily
a balance between the scientists and the government; scientists will look at
the changes in monitored areas over time and compare those values with
the values obtained before the policy started. If the values are better, show-
ing that the different aspects of the ecosystem are healthier, then the policy
OCR for page 84
84 ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
succeeded in that case. The final three clauses, which were not fleshed out
completely, deal with accounting, public education and communication,
and funding to monitor and manage adaptively.
Based on these ideas, the team recommended that we actually imple-
ment a policy meeting these criteria. The team thinks that passing this law
will integrate ecosystem services into current laws, create a demand for
ecosystem services approaches and information, generate policy-relevant
research, and lead to longer term institutional change at multiple scales of
governance. We as a society will be more adaptive, handle uncertainty, and
ensure provision of services if we do these things.
The team also recommended that a test site, like a case study, be done
in managing an ecosystem service. This test might include changing the tax
code or other benefits to those doing as suggested. A test site may provide
more incentive to a larger policy implementation if all goes well. And if that
policy is enacted, resulting in healthy ecosystems, that will lead to healthy
communities and healthy economies, greatly benefiting society.
