Image credit: Wikipedia
In a nutshell, market-based approaches assign an economic value to ecosystem services such as erosion control, flood buffers, and clean air. In some circumstances, developers are allowed to pollute or transform a valuable habitat as long as the affected ecological services are offset through separate habitat preservation, water conservation, or greenhouse gas reductions.
Supporters praise the approach for its promotion of conservation funding at a time when financial resources are scarce. But critics suggest the market is a last resort that indicates governments may be neglecting their duty to protect ecosystems as habitats come under increasing levels of stress.
The most widely known ecosystem commodity is carbon. The global carbon market - exchanges of mandatory or voluntary greenhouse gas reductions - rose 84 percent in value last year, according to the research group New Carbon Finance, which released a report on the topic last week.
The net worth of the carbon market was estimated at $118 billion in 2008, and the report predicted its value could grow to $150 billion this year as carbon prices rise on the European carbon exchange, known as the EU Emission Trading Scheme.
Due in part to the success of carbon markets, more countries are experimenting with market exchanges that seek to protect biodiversity and clean water as well.
With biodiversity banks, for example, landowners who cannot legally develop their property because of the presence of an endangered species or a wetland can collect payments or "credits" from the conservation of their land. Once the property is preserved, the landowner sells the credits to developers who need to offset development that occurs where similar habitats are found.
"We're finally looking at the opportunity to capture much more capital market investments to spend on conservation," said Michael Jenkins, president of Forest Trends, a sustainable forestry think tank that launched Ecosystem Marketplace in 2005. "There's never enough money through private foundations or agencies to address these issues."
The markets are most developed in the United States, where wetland offsets first appeared in the 1970s, but more countries are showing interest. Australia launched an active biodiversity offset program in 2006, and several countries require some form of environmental offset to allow any impact on a protected area.
Ecosystem Marketplace predicts the biodiversity markets will grow to $4.5 billion by 2010 due to continued interest in the United States and Australia.
Although the markets are growing, economic recessions worldwide may affect the offset markets. "Ultimately it'll be about the bottom line, so there is potential for some additional investments in offsets to slow down," said Joe Kiesecker, science director for The Nature Conservancy's Rocky Mountain region. "But once developments move forward, the process will continue."
With water markets, governments typically cap the level of degradation allowed in a given area and allocate pollution permits that can then be traded among the polluters. Similar programs are now found in North
America, Europe, Africa, and Australia. The size of actively trading water markets is expected to reach $500 million by 2010, Ecosystem Marketplace estimates.
As a sign of the growing interest in ecosystem markets, the U.S. Department of Agriculture is creating the first office dedicated solely to these emerging conservation strategies. The new Office of Ecosystem Markets and Services is tasked with creating uniform guidelines for the numerous markets, with an initial focus on carbon sequestration standards for agriculture and forestry.
Sally Collins, the office's first appointed director, said she was originally skeptical of the use of markets to protect ecological services. She eventually embraced the approach and began to implement market-based conservation strategies in her former role as the associate chief of the U.S. Forest Service.
"The regulatory framework that is so critical was driving people to do just the bare minimum. It was not doing enough to protect the land," Collins said in an interview. "Something different was needed."
Supporters of emerging ecosystem markets still acknowledge that the programs are not without their flaws. The offsets at times do not replace the lost ecological services - for instance, wetland offsets do not always provide as much habitat or flood control as the original ecosystem. For the markets to work, and for conservation efforts to succeed, the programs rely heavily on proper oversight and enforcement.
If successful, the shift in conservation strategy toward ecosystem services not only redefines the rationale for protecting a habitat, but it could also reshape the traditional role of rural areas, said Sara Scheer, president of Ecoagriculture Partners, a conservation research group.
"Historically we considered rural America as a way we got our food, where we found our parks," said Scheer, a contributing author to the Worldwatch Institute publication State of the World 2009. "Now we realize it has a really powerful role in providing ecosystem services."
This piece originally appeared on the Worldwatch Institute's news service Eye on Earth.
JM Eagle, the world’s largest plastic pipe manufacturer, and the Earth Institute at Columbia University today announced the official completion of a new water infrastructure system that is bringing safe drinking water to more than 13,500 people in one of the poorest and most remote areas of Senegal. Begun last summer as part of the Millennium Villages Project, the new water supply network consists of almost 70 miles – or over 108 kilometers – of plastic pipe that connects to 63 villages. Additionally, more than 99 percent of the region now has easy access to water via 81 new public taps as well as 11 animal troughs.
It's interesting that you talk about the "success of carbon markets" in this article in terms of the amount of money that's changing hands. I can't argue with you on that - the size of the carbon market is growing. But it would be a lot more interesting to look at carbon markets in terms of whether they are achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Or whether they are encouraging the development of low carbon technologies. The problem is that they aren't doing either. Carbon markets were specifically designed to allow greenhouse gas pollution to continue.
As George Monbiot noted after the 2007 Bali climate conference, we have Al Gore to thank for this scam.
I think you're 100% correct. My choice of words were unwise in that sentence. The growth of several ecosystem markets has been inspired by the GROWTH of carbon markets, more than their SUCCESS. Unfortunately it's too difficult to make a generalized statement about whether ecosystem services have benefited from these markets; it's really too soon to make a definitive, global statement.