James E. Salzman

Ecosystem Services in Decision Making: Time to Deliver

Over the past decade, efforts to value and protect ecosystem services have been promoted by many as the last, best hope for making conservation mainstream – attractive and commonplace worldwide. In theory, if we can help individuals and institutions to recognize the value of nature, then this should greatly increase investments in conservation, while at the same time fostering human well-being. In practice, however, we have not yet developed the scientific basis, nor the policy and finance mechanisms, for incorporating natural capital into resource- and land-use decisions on a large scale. Here, we propose a conceptual framework and sketch out a strategic plan for delivering on the promise of ecosystem services, drawing on emerging examples from Hawai‘i. We describe key advances in the science and practice of accounting for natural capital in the decisions of individuals, communities, corporations, and governments.

The promise and perils of payments for ecosystem services

Created by the interactions of living organisms with their environment, ecosystem services support our society by providing clean air and water, decomposing waste, pollinating flowers, regulating climate and by supplying a host of other benefits. Yet, with rare exception, ecosystem services are neither prized by markets nor explicitly protected by the law. In recent years, an increasing number of initiatives around the world have sought to create markets for services, some dependent on government intervention and some created by entirely private ventures. These experiences have demonstrated that investing in natural capital rather than built capital, can make both economic and policy sense. While markets for ecosystem services hold great potential, they also create challenges. This paper identifies the different types of service markets and examines the challenges created by each, focusing on moral hazards, rent-seeking, free riders and perverse incentives.

Climate Change, Dead Zones, and Massive Problems in the Administrative State: A Guide for Whittling Away

Mandates that agencies solve massive problems such as sprawl and climate change roll easily out of the halls of legislatures, but as a practical matter what can any one agency do about them? Serious policy challenges such as these have dimensions far beyond the capacity of any single agency to manage effectively. Rather, as the Supreme Court recently observed in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell swoop, but instead whittle away over time, refining their approach as circumstances change and they develop a more nuanced understanding of how best to proceed. Whether sprawl, climate change, or other daunting challenges, agencies are increasingly being told to address massive problems but without obvious tools or strategies to do so. In this Article we explore what it means for agencies to whittle away at massive problems. Administrative law scholarship has assumed that massive problems are similar to one another, focusing instead on issues of jurisdiction and instrument choice - who should whittle and which knife they should use. In Part I we argue that the nature of the problem - the stick to be whittled - deserves equal attention. Some problems, because of the presence of certain types of cumulative effects from multiple sources, are significantly more difficult for agencies to manage. In Part II, using examples from the fields of environmental and land use law, we develop a model to identify the different attributes of cumulative effects that drive massive problems and how these can distort or undermine policy responses. In Part III we explore the three different strategies currently used in administrative law to manage massive problems, showing each to be deficient. In Part IV we draw from recent scholarship on Dynamic Federalism, New Governance, and Transgovernmental Network theories to propose an effective strategy for agencies to whittle away at massive problems through loosely-linked weak ties networks of federal, state, and local agencies. Part V illustrates how this can work in practice, using a case study of water pollution in the Gulf of Mexico. We explore both how such multi-scalar, multi-agency coordination networks function and the challenges they pose for administrative law. The Courts observation is quite correct - agencies, even when working together, can only whittle away at massive problems. This article takes the next step, creating models that explain the challenges posed by different types of massive problems and proposing strategies for engaging in more effective multi-agency coordination.

The global status and trends of Payments for Ecosystem Services

Recent decades have witnessed a considerable increase in Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)—programmes that exchange value for land management practices intended to provide or ensure ecosystem services—with over 550 active programmes around the globe and an estimated US

Peer reviewed: facing the challenges of a service economy.

36–42 billion in annual transactions. PES represent a recent policy instrument with often very different programmes operating at local, regional and national levels. Despite the growth of these programmes, comprehensive and reliable data have proven difficult to find. This Analysis provides an assessment of the trends and current status of PES mechanisms—user-financed, government-financed and compliance—across the domains of water, biodiversity, and forest and land-use carbon around the world. We report the various dimensions of growth over the past decade (number of programmes, geographical spread, dollar value) to understand better the range of PES mechanisms over time and to examine which factors have contributed to or hindered growth. Four key features stand out for scaling up PES: motivated buyers, motivated sellers, metrics and low-transaction-cost institutions.A unique dataset of over 550 programmes of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) worldwide, grouped into water, forest- and land-use carbon, and biodiversity programmes, is used to assess the trends and the current status of such policy instruments.

Corn Futures: Consumer Politics, Health, and Climate Change

The environmental impacts of the large-and growing-service-based sector of the U.S. economy are poorly characterized.

Creating Markets for Ecosystem Services: Notes from the Field

The Mexicans have long been known as the Corn People, but that label perhaps provides a better fit for modern day Americans. The simple seeds of corn play a fundamental role unprecedented in the history of human agriculture. Corn now underpins two major sectors, arguably the two most important sectors, of our modern economy - food supply and energy supply. How we choose to consume this seed has far-ranging consequences for pressing issues as far apart as climate change and diabetes, energy policy and immigration, tropical deforestation and food riots.