Heather Tallis

An ecosystem services framework to support both practical conservation and economic development

The core idea of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is that the human condition is tightly linked to environmental condition. This assertion suggests that conservation and development projects should be able to achieve both ecological and social progress without detracting from their primary objectives. Whereas “win–win” projects that achieve both conservation and economic gains are a commendable goal, they are not easy to attain. An analysis of World Bank projects with objectives of alleviating poverty and protecting biodiversity revealed that only 16% made major progress on both objectives. Here, we provide a framework for anticipating win–win, lose–lose, and win–lose outcomes as a result of how people manage their ecosystem services. This framework emerges from detailed explorations of several case studies in which biodiversity conservation and economic development coincide and cases in which there is joint failure. We emphasize that scientific advances around ecosystem service production functions, tradeoffs among multiple ecosystem services, and the design of appropriate monitoring programs are necessary for the implementation of conservation and development projects that will successfully advance both environmental and social goals. The potentially bright future of jointly advancing ecosystem services, conservation, and human well-being will be jeopardized unless a global monitoring effort is launched that uses the many ongoing projects as a grand experiment.

Natural Capital: Theory and Practice of Mapping Ecosystem Services

In 2005, The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) provided the first global assessment of the worlds ecosystems and ecosystem services. It concluded that recent trends in ecosystem change threatened human wellbeing due to declining ecosystem services. This bleak prophecy has galvanized conservation organizations, ecologists, and economists to work toward rigorous valuations of ecosystem services at a spatial scale and with a resolution that can inform public policy. The editors have assembled the worlds leading scientists in the fields of conservation, policy analysis, and resource economics to provide the most intensive and best technical analyses of ecosystem services to date. A key idea that guides the science is that the modelling and valuation approaches being developed should use data that are readily available around the world. In addition, the book documents a toolbox of ecosystem service mapping, modeling, and valuation models that both The Nature Conservancy and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) are beginning to apply around the world as they transform conservation from a biodiversity only to a people and ecosystem services agenda. The book addresses land, freshwater, and marine systems at a variety of spatial scales and includes discussion of how to treat both climate change and cultural values when examining tradeoffs among ecosystem services. Contributors to this volume - W.L. (Vic) Adamowicz - University of Alberta, Canada Edward B. Barbier - University of Wyoming, USA Karen Bennett - World Resources Institute, USA Kenneth Brooks - University of Minnesota USA Berry Brosi - Stanford University, USA Lauretta Burke - World Resources Institute, USA Giorgio Caldarone - Kamehameha Schools, Honolulu, USA D. Richard Cameron - The Nature Conservancy, USA Karen Carney - Stratus Consulting, Inc., USA Stephen R. Carpenter - University of Wisconsin, USA Kai M. A. Chan - University of British Columbia, Canada Marc Conte - Stanford University, USA Emily Cooper - World Resources Institute, USA Gretchen C. Daily - Stanford University, USA Brett Day - University of East Anglia, UK Eric Dinerstein - World Wildlife Fund, USA T. Kaeo Duarte - Kamehameha Schools, Honolulu, USA Paul R. Ehrlich - Stanford University, USA Driss Ennaanay - Stanford University, USA Cinzia Fissore - University of Minnesota, USA David Freyberg - Stanford University, USA Nicola Gallai - INRA, UMR406 Abeilles & Environnement, France Edward Game - The Nature Conservancy, Australia Renzo Giudice - University of East Anglia, UK Joshua Goldstein - Colorado State University, USA Lawrence H. Goulder - Stanford University, USA Sarah Greenleaf - California State University-Sacramento, USA Craig Groves - The Nature Conservancy, USA Anne D. Guerry - Stanford University, USA Rajendra Gurung - WWF Nepal Program, Nepal Neil Hannahs - Kamehameha Schools, Honolulu, USA Craig Hanson - World Resources Institute, USA Chris J. Harvey - NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center, USA Lauren Hay - USGS Denver Federal Center, USA David Harrison - The Nature Conservancy, USA Norbert Henninger - World Resources Institute, USA Frances Irwin - World Resources Institute, USA Ma Jianzhong - The Nature Conservancy, Peoples Republic of China Peter M. Kareiva - The Nature Conservancy, USA Donald Kennedy - Stanford University, USA Kekuewa Kikiloi - Kamehameha Schools, Honolulu, USA Christopher Kirkby - Chinese Academy of Science, China Jawoo Koo - International Food Policy Research Institute, USA Carolyn Kousky - Resources for the Future, USA Claire Kremen - University of California, Berkeley, USA Florence Landsberg - World Resources Institute, USA Joshua J. Lawler - University of Washington, USA David Lobell - Stanford University, USA Eric Lonsdorf - Lincoln Park Zoo, USA Andrew R. Marshall - University of York, UK Emily McKenzie - World Wildlife Fund and The Natural Capital Project, USA Guillermo Mendoza - National Research Council, USA Harold Mooney - Stanford University, USA Claire Montgomery - Oregon State University, USA PKT Munishi - Sokoine University of Agriculture (SUA), Tanzania Robin Naidoo - World Wildlife Fund, USA Erik Nelson - Stanford University, USA John Nieber - University of Minnesota, USA Hermann Oliveira-Rodrigues - Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brazil Nasser Olwero - World Wildlife Fund, USA Jouni Paavola - The University of Leeds, UK Stefano Pagiola - World Bank Liba Pejchar - Colorado State University, USA Andrew J. Plantinga - Oregon State University, USA Mark L. Plummer - NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center, USA Stephen Polasky - University of Minnesota, USA Simon G. Potts - University of Reading, UK Jai Ranganathan - University of California at Santa Barbara, USA Janet Ranganathan - World Resources Institute, USA James Regetz -University of California at Santa Barbara, USA Taylor H. Ricketts - World Wildlife Fund, USA Lee D. Ross - Stanford University, USA Mary H. Ruckelshaus - NOAA Northwest Fisheries Science Center, USA Susan Ruffo - The Nature Conservancy, USA Jean-Michel Salles - CNRS, UMR LAMETA, France James Salzman - Duke University, USA M. Sanjayan - The Nature Conservancy, USA Terre Satterfield - University of British Columbia, Canada Sarah L. Shafer - U.S. Geological Survey, USA Sabina Shaikh - University of Chicago and RCF Economic Consulting, USA Manu Sharma - Stanford University, USA Priya Shyamsundar - South Asian Network for Development and Environmental Economics Britaldo Silveira Soares-Filho - Chinese Academy of Science, China Luis Solorzano - Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, USA Bill Stanley - The Nature Conservancy, USA Charlotte Stanton - Stanford University, USA Heather Tallis - Stanford University, USA Christine Tam - Stanford University, USA C. Peter Timmer - Stanford University, USA Kerry Turner - University of East Anglia, UK R.K. Turner - University of East Anglia, UK Bernard E. Vaissiere - INRA, UMR406 Abeilles & Environnement, France Nathan Vadeboncoeur - University of British Columbia, Canada Nicole Virgilio - The Nature Conservancy, USA Michael Todd Walter - Cornell University, USA Sue White - Cranfield University, UK Eric Wikramanayake - World Wildlife Fund, USA Neal Williams - Bryn Mawr University, USA Rachel Winfree - The State University New Brunswick, USA Stacie Wolny - Stanford University, USA Stanley Wood - International Food Policy Research Institute, USA Ulalia Woodside - Kamehameha Schools, Honolulu, USA Hazel Wong - The Nature Conservancy, USA Douglas W. Yu - Chinese Academy of Science, China Wang Yukuan - Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Jing Zhang - University of Saskatchewan, Canada Wei Zhang - International Food Policy Research Institute, USA

Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice

The central challenge of the 21st century is to develop economic, social, and governance systems capable of ending poverty and achieving sustainable levels of population and consumption while securing the life-support systems underpinning current and future human well-being. Essential to meeting this challenge is the incorporation of natural capital and the ecosystem services it provides into decision-making. We explore progress and crucial gaps at this frontier, reflecting upon the 10 y since the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. We focus on three key dimensions of progress and ongoing challenges: raising awareness of the interdependence of ecosystems and human well-being, advancing the fundamental interdisciplinary science of ecosystem services, and implementing this science in decisions to restore natural capital and use it sustainably. Awareness of human dependence on nature is at an all-time high, the science of ecosystem services is rapidly advancing, and talk of natural capital is now common from governments to corporate boardrooms. However, successful implementation is still in early stages. We explore why ecosystem service information has yet to fundamentally change decision-making and suggest a path forward that emphasizes: (i) developing solid evidence linking decisions to impacts on natural capital and ecosystem services, and then to human well-being; (ii) working closely with leaders in government, business, and civil society to develop the knowledge, tools, and practices necessary to integrate natural capital and ecosystem services into everyday decision-making; and (iii) reforming institutions to change policy and practices to better align private short-term goals with societal long-term goals.

Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options

Ecosystem service approaches to conservation are being championed as a new strategy for conservation, under the hypothesis that they will broaden and deepen support for biodiversity protection. Where traditional approaches focus on setting aside land by purchasing property rights, ecosystem service approaches aim to engage a much wider range of places, people, policies, and financial resources in conservation. This is particularly important given projected intensification of human impacts, with rapid growth in population size and individual aspirations. Here we use field research on 34 ecosystem service (ES) projects and 26 traditional biodiversity (BD) projects from the Western Hemisphere to test whether ecosystem service approaches show signs of realizing their putative potential. We find that the ES projects attract on average more than four times as much funding through greater corporate sponsorship and use of a wider variety of finance tools than BD projects. ES projects are also more likely to encompass working landscapes and the people in them. We also show that, despite previous concern, ES projects not only expand opportunities for conservation, but they are no less likely than BD projects to include or create protected areas. Moreover, they do not draw down limited financial resources for conservation but rather engage a more diverse set of funders. We also found, however, that monitoring of conservation outcomes in both cases is so infrequent that it is impossible to assess the effectiveness of either ES or BD approaches.

Working together: A call for inclusive conservation

Heather Tallis, Jane Lubchenco and 238 co-signatories petition for an end to the infighting that is stalling progress in protecting the planet.

Setting the bar: Standards for ecosystem services

Progress in ecosystem service science has been rapid, and there is now a healthy appetite among key public and private sector decision makers for this science. However, changing policy and management is a long-term project, one that raises a number of specific practical challenges. One impediment to broad adoption of ecosystem service information is the lack of standards that define terminology, acceptable data and methods, and reporting requirements. Ecosystem service standards should be tailored to specific use contexts, such as national income and wealth accounts, corporate sustainability reporting, land-use planning, and environmental impact assessments. Many standard-setting organizations already exist, and the research community will make the most headway toward rapid uptake of ecosystem service science by working directly with these organizations. Progress has been made in aligning with existing organizations in areas such as product certification and sustainability reporting, but a major challenge remains in mainstreaming ecosystem service information into core public and private use contexts, such as agricultural and energy subsidy design, national income accounts, and corporate accounts.

A call for inclusive conservation

Heather Tallis, Jane Lubchenco and 238 co-signatories petition for an end to the infighting that is stalling progress in protecting the planet.

Who loses? Tracking ecosystem service redistribution from road development and mitigation in the Peruvian Amazon

Development projects must increasingly include mitigation actions to offset their negative environmental and social impacts. However, current mitigation approaches can exacerbate social inequality by ignoring how the spatial location of offsets affects the benefits local people receive from ecosystem services (ES). Here, we present a method for tracking changes in ES benefits resulting from development and mitigation actions. To demonstrate this approach, we use as an example a proposed road through the Peruvian Amazon. We assessed the roads ES impacts and prioritized offsets in a socially equitable way. We found that the road is likely to have a disproportionate negative effect on drinking-water quality for nearby indigenous communities, and that offsets cannot fully compensate for these impacts. Equity was improved by including ES in spatial prioritization of mitigation. Including ES information in a “serviceshed”-based approach reduced average remaining, unmitigated impacts to drinking-water quality m...

Climate change impacts on ecosystems and ecosystem services in the United States: process and prospects for sustained assessment

The third United States National Climate Assessment emphasized an evaluation of not just the impacts of climate change on species and ecosystems, but also the impacts of climate change on the benefits that people derive from nature, known as ecosystem services. The ecosystems, biodiversity, and ecosystem services component of the assessment largely drew upon the findings of a transdisciplinary workshop aimed at developing technical input for the assessment, involving participants from diverse sectors. A small author team distilled and synthesized this and hundreds of other technical input to develop the key findings of the assessment. The process of developing and ranking key findings hinged on identifying impacts that had particular, demonstrable effects on the U.S. public via changes in national ecosystem services. Findings showed that ecosystem services are threatened by the impacts of climate change on water supplies, species distributions and phenology, as well as multiple assaults on ecosystem integrity that, when compounded by climate change, reduce the capacity of ecosystems to buffer against extreme events. As ecosystems change, such benefits as water sustainability and protection from storms that are afforded by intact ecosystems are projected to decline across the continent due to climate change. An ongoing, sustained assessment that focuses on the co-production of actionable climate science will allow scientists from a range of disciplines to ascertain the capability of their forecasting models to project environmental and ecological change and link it to ecosystem services; additionally, an iterative process of evaluation, development of management strategies, monitoring, and reevaluation will increase the applicability and usability of the science by the U.S. public.

OPAL: An open-source software tool for integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services into impact assessment and mitigation decisions

Abstract Governments and financial institutions increasingly require that environmental impact assessment and mitigation account for consequences to both biodiversity and ecosystem services. Here we present a new software tool, OPAL (Offset Portfolio Analyzer and Locator), which maps and quantifies the impacts of development on habitat and ecosystem services, and facilitates the selection of mitigation activities to offset losses. We demonstrate its application with an oil and gas extraction facility in Colombia. OPAL is the first tool to provide direct consideration of the distribution of ecosystem service benefits among people in a mitigation context. Previous biodiversity-focused efforts led to redistribution or loss of ecosystem services with environmental justice implications. Joint consideration of biodiversity and ecosystem services enables targeting of offsets to benefit both nature and society. OPAL reduces the time and technical expertise required for these analyses and has the flexibility to be used across a range of geographic and policy contexts.