11th Drop: Threats and Management Approach towards Ecosystem Services?

~HELLO!! It's the last day of term! Hope everyone is doing well and ending it on a good note :)

Threats towards Ecosystem Services?

Through the posts from the past 2 to 3 weeks, it is clear that there are various complex interactions and feedbacks that occur between the socio-economic system of people and the ecological system of the ecosystems. While we have covered how climate change and climate variability might affect the functioning of lake ecosystem services, we have not covered in much detail the other anthropogenic threats that challenge these lake ecosystems and their services. Today's post will thus cover a fairly recent and short article on how ecosystems of lakes in Africa are under threat. Through such an understanding of humans' influence on ecosystem services degradation, there is hence a greater impetus for a more interdisciplinary and integrated management approach towards governing these lake ecosystems.

Ecosystem Resilience and Livelihood Strategies under Threat

African lakes have been described as highly productive centers of biodiversity providing critical ecosystem services that support the life cycles and livelihoods of species and humans respectively. Kafumbata et al. (2010) thus highlights that because of these key ecosystem services provided by African lakes, these areas have become 'magnets for migration and local centers of population growth'. The authors go on to explain the various anthropogenic threats of unsustainable resource management and exploitation that result from high demand by rapidly increasing populations of these lake areas (specifically for Lake Chad, Lake Chilwa and Lake Naivasha). Such anthropogenic threats relating to resource use and food security, along with climate variability were seen as the key challenges surrounding the management of African lakes. The authors then go on to introduce some programmatic responses to these challenges which largely revolved around more interdisciplinary and integrated approaches towards bridging knowledge generation and policy making, integrating the sustainability of natural resource management with livelihoods in light of future population demands and climatic variability.

Here are some of my thoughts on the article:

1) Anhropogenic impacts on African Lakes' ecosystems and their associated services

• High productivity of African Lakes: various provisional, regulating and supporting ecosystem services that benefit people living around the lakes
• People dependent on ecosystem services: food security and livelihoods (sale of resources)
• Authors point that lakes thus become 'magnets for migration' very valid
• Services and resources offered serve as a major pull factor to attract migrants and retain locals seeking social protection mechanisms for food due to social/ political/ climate disturbances
• Increasing demand due to population growth puts stress on ecosystems (negative anthropogenic impacts of various socio-economic activities like irrigation, fishing and harvesting)
• Authors also highlight how high levels of poverty might result in more unsustainable resource usage and inappropriate management of ecosystem given climatic variations
• ? Beyond simplistic argument of high levels of poverty, perhaps a clearer explanation behind unsustainable resource usage could be that of lack of knowledge and consequences by locals?
• ? As well as inadequate institutionalised 'safety nets' by governments during extreme events to help locals adapt: poor locals living near lakes are forced to prioritize short-terms needs over long-term sustainability?

> Negative anthropogenic impacts on lake ecosystems in Africa can largely be explained by the increasing demand being placed on the ecosystems and their associated services. The influence of socio-economic contexts and activities on ecosystem services functioning thus should not be underestimated and neglected. More importantly the degradation of ecosystem services have complex feedback effects on socio-economic contexts and activities as highlighted in the previous post because of the linkages and dependence of socio-economic activities on ecosystem services. Such complexity is further complicated by climate variability, affecting stocks and flows of ecosystem services and goods thus exacerbating feedback effects. Hence anthropogenic stresses along with climate variability serve as key factors that challenge ecosystem services functioning, and again the need for a more interdisciplinary understanding of interactions/ linkages between socio-economic activities and ecological processes/ ecosystem services is re-emphasized.

2) Towards a more integrated management approach?

• Authors go on to highlight integrated lake management plans being implemented in Lake Chad, Lake Chilwa and Lake Naivasha
• Authors also briefly explain how these management plans aim to reverse ecosystem degradation and achieve more sustainable natural resource and ecosystem service use that is in line with livelihoods and development requirements of locals
• Similar interdisciplinary approach towards understanding how ecosystem services and ecological processes are linked with socio-economic development was advocated throughout the different management plans
• Such an understanding is intended to bridge the gap between knowledge generation and policy level decision-making
• ? An interdisciplinary approach would also benefit from greater inclusion of local knowledge and perspectives - leading to more equitable and sustainable development as well ?
• Most importantly such an integrated and interdisciplinary approach that integrate sustainability of natural resource management with livelihoods can better inform policy makers to make decisions that will take into account future demands and climatic variations that will affect food security and ecosystem services

> The call for an integrated management approach is not necessarily in conflict with the call for more adaptive management highlighted in last week's post. Ultimately both articles emphasize on the need for a more interdisciplinary approach that takes into account interactions and linkages between socio-economic influences and ecological processes of ecosystem services. Similarly with adaptive management, integrated management would benefit from a more inclusive and equitable approach. More importantly the challenge of system heterogeneity or more specifically complex dynamic systems of lake ecosystems must similarly be addressed be management approaches - management approaches must recognise and embrace such heterogeneity and complexities.

THANKS for reading this post! Hope you have enjoyed this fairly short (I hope) article and wish you guys a good and enjoyable Xmas break! :)

~ Till Next Time ~

Photo of Lake Chad from National Geographic Society by John Scofield

10th Drop: Human and Natural system dynamics of fisheries in Lake Victoria

~ HI THERE!! Hope everyone is doing well and here is another interesting article I found :)

Ecosystem services and Social system dynamics?

I ended off last week's post with a point on how there is a need for greater understanding of the interactions between the physical aspect of ecosystem services and the human aspect of ecosystem services exploitation/ degradation. But indeed such an understanding is definitely easier said than done. Today I will cover an article, similarly on Lake Victoria, which attempts to understand the complexity of such interactions between humans and the lake ecosystem with reference to the provisioning ecosystem service of fisheries. Hopefully this article will reinforce the complexities, but also highlight the potential in understanding coupled ecosystem and social system dynamics.

Coupled Human and Natural system dynamics, Lake Victoria

The importance of the provisioning ecosystem service of fisheries within Lake Victoria for the millions of people on the lake have been emphasized time and time again. While there are plenty of research on the different aspects of Lake Victoria's fisheries system (eg. stock dynamics, lake biodiversity, eutrophication, fishing communities and market systems) these research have largely been separate and narrowly focused. Downing et al. (2014) thus seeks a more multi-disciplinary approach to understanding the fisheries system dynamic as a whole so as to capture the system-wide chain reactions/ effects that result from disturbances in a particular aspect.

This is done through developing a qualitative model of the lake's social-ecological system of the fisheries, using expert knowledge from different fields and from respective social and ecological subsystem stakeholders. The model is then investigated through a qualitative loop analysis where feedback loops - pathway of interactions that go from a component and back to itself, through other components defined in the system - in the system were identified. These feedback loops were assigned +ve or -ve signs depending on whether it "reinforces" process or "self-regulates" process respectively. Feedback loops identified were then classified into nutrient 'enrichment' loops, eutrophication loops and exploitation loops to investigate how disturbances through such forms might have system wide chain reactions. Detailed findings about the different feedback loops are explained in the article itself.

Here are some thoughts that I had from the article:

1) Complexity of coupled ecosystem and social system dynamics/ interactions

• authors emphasized the interconnection diagram between ecosystem and social systems
• highlighted that there are multiple pathways to a single phenomenon
• complexity of the entire system: changes can initiate and drive different dynamic regimes
• eg. high connectivity of fisheries between owners and markets, adaptability of fishers and access to both international and domestic markets...allow for changes in stocks
• possible +ve impact on social-economic system where fishers are more robust to the loss of the international market
• but also -ve impact on ecosystem where more stocks are vulnerable to exploitation, dampening the self-regulating exploitation feedback loop 
• despite such complexities, high connectivity and multiple pathways of interactions...it also represents multiple tools to management

> The article has clearly articulated the complexity and interconnections surrounding ecosystem service of fisheries in Lake Victoria. It is definitely beyond just ecological understanding of the ecosystem itself but also involves interactions with social-economic system of markets and livelihoods. The importance of understanding such interactions could not be further emphasized by how even slight disturbances can result in unpredictable changes that cascade throughout the entire system via feedback loops. Such understanding is even more important, and hopeful, for management of ecosystem services as it highlights the presence of multiple tools to a problem. For example the article highlights the need to go beyond just fisheries stock management and for more explicit eutrophication and biodiversity management to address concerns relating to the ecosystem service of fisheries production.

2) System Heterogeneity and Adaptive Management

• authors also emphasize that dominant processes shaping lake dynamics are heterogeneous in both space and time
• temporal changes to ecosystem service of fisheries production in Lake Victoria is not foreign: sudden collapse of native Tilapia species and dominance of introduced Nile Perch
• spatial heterogeneity in terms of eutrophication effects across the lake: inshore-offshore gradients
• heterogeneity + complexity of the system highlighted above + unpredictable seasonal and interannual variations in weather due to climate change => significant management challenges
• authors highlight the need to first understand the different spatio-temporal scales at which different processes dominate first
• such understanding should go hand-in-hand with understanding the interactions between ecosystem and social system dynamics
• need for adaptive management approach that recognises and embrace such heterogeneity
• adaptive management (Ostrom 2009) requiring stakeholders to work together and develop a common understanding and knowledge of their system
• making of management choices as key part of the learning process
• knowledge constantly developed from changes resulting from different choices made
• hence constantly adapting management/ policies

> Such system heterogeneity, connectedness and complexity is not unique to just Lake Victoria but definitely prevalent throughout other ecosystems (wetlands, forest and even agricultural areas) in Africa. Hence there are significant challenges and complexities surrounding these ecosystems and the management of ecosystem services. A clear understanding of the processes at work - in terms of scales at which they dominate and the possible cascading effects as a result of interconnections - will thus go a long way in helping to formulate appropriate management plans. The suggestion of adaptive management is definitely a valid one but not without its own challenges. The first big question would be the involvement of multiple stakeholders and ensuring equity in representation. Secondly significant will and commitment will need to be invested by all stakeholders in the development of a comprehensive understanding and management plan of the lake's coupled ecosystem and social system. 

THANKS for reading this fairly wordy post :P Hope that this article has been as interesting for you as it has been for me! :)

~Till Next Time~

Photo of Lake Victoria in 1985 by Vintage National Geographic

9th Drop: Ecosystem Services - Tradeoffs, Synergies and Poverty Traps?

~ HELLO!! Thanks for visiting and hope everyone had a good week :)

Conceptual Framework of Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services as a concept was known to have originated from the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, which highlighted the integral role and dynamic interactions between people and the components of their surrounding ecosystems. Beyond just formally defining the meaning of the different ecosystem services that we have covered, the assessment also draws out critical conclusions on the current state of our ecosystems and the imminent threats (basically degradation and over-exploitation driven by rapid growth in human demands) that our ecosystems are facing. Hence the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is definitely well worth a read. Now a key point highlighted in the report, but also in my post previously, was that of tradeoffs between ecosystem services. Today we will thus be looking at an article on Lake Victoria which uses the conceptual framework of ecosystem services (the different services and the dynamic interactions between people and ecosystems) to show that beyond just tradeoffs, their are also synergies and 'poverty traps' to be found.

Tradeoffs, Synergies and Traps among Ecosystem Services, Lake Victoria

Previously we covered the importance of Lake Victoria in terms of fisheries output for fishers living near the lake itself and the detrimental impacts that might occur if this provisioning ecosystem service collapses. However fisheries output is merely one small aspect of ecosystem services provided by the ecosystems within Lake Victoria (second largest freshwater lake in the world). Swallow et al. (2009) thus compares the provisioning ecosystem services of crop production against that of the regulating ecosystem service of reduction of sediment yield. This was to investigate tradeoffs between the 2 ecosystem services across space (distribution due to land-use differences across the 2 basins being studied) and across time (due to land-use changes over time) and thus provide evidence to evaluate the possibilities of tradeoffs, synergies and poverty traps. In particular the authors refer to 'poverty traps' where some farmers within the basins are caught in a vicious poverty-environment trap of low production, low investment and hence continued ecosystem degradation. More importantly this article is significant in identifying out areas where land-use management is of particular concern - of no additional economic value and at risk of ecosystem degradation - further reinforcing the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment's point on dynamic interactions between humans our surrounding ecosystems.

Here are some of my thoughts after reading the article:

1) Tradeoffs in provisioning service of agricultural production - spatially and temporally

• Spatially both Nyando and Yala showed significant differences in agricultural production across the entire basin
• Temporally Nyando was subjected to greater land-use changes and corresponded with greater tradeoffs made for provisioning services: loss of forests and wetlands
• Yala showed a relatively constant area of natural vegetation but instead land-use changes in the types of agricultural crops being harvested
• More importantly Figure 3C within the article highlighted the changes in agricultural production in economic terms, as a result of land-use changes over time
• Tradeoffs were made not only between ecosystem services but also within provisioning service of agricultural production itself i.e. what type of agricultural crops to be planted for economic reasons
• There is a clear relationship between altitude and value of production from both temporal and spatial anaylsis
• Value of production low at lower altitudes but higher in mid-to-upper altitude
• Likely because higher altitude areas are upstream of basin and less impacted by impacts on ecosystem health caused by land-use changes
• Compared to lower altitude areas which are more likely to be impacted by upstream users

> The significance of these findings is thus as highlighted previously - in identifying areas within the basin where land-use changes are of particular concern. More specifically areas where the expansion of agricultural land is greatly threatening forest and wetland habitats which are both critical to the wider Lake Victoria ecosystem. At the same time the consideration of the difference agricultural products being planted at different areas also highlight the human aspect of the ecosystem services concept. Ultimately tradeoffs between agricultural production and the environment is down to a matter of management choices made by humans.

2) Tradeoffs, Synergies or Poverty Traps?

• Results suggest no significant relationship between provisioning (agricultural production) and regulating (reduced sediment yield) ecosystem services
• Figure 4A and 4B adequately highlights the distributions of what the authors identified as tradeoffs, synergies and poverty traps
• Roughly equal number of areas within the basin where tradeoffs and synergies are found
• Both virtuous environment-poverty cycle and vicious poverty-environment traps are found as well
• Vicious poverty-environment traps are especially found within the mid-altitude part of Yala (supported by earlier studies) and low-mid altitude zones in Nyando
• As emphasized by the authors the main solutions to poverty-environment traps and tradeoffs cannot be found from the environment and water sector alone
• Incorporation of the agriculture sector is important, especially because it is a key source of livelihood and economic development for locals within the basin
• Understanding of the various agricultural crops in terms of their environmental impacts due to their practices, as well as their economic value would help authorities advice farmers to make the appropriate choices
• An extension of the study to other provisioning services such as livestock production and timber harvesting can also be conducted to further capture different ecosystem services

> Article appropriately reinforces the point that the understanding of ecosystem services is not just simply that of understanding the physical aspect of ecosystems, but more about the human aspect of interactions between people and their ecosystems. It has reinforced my previous understanding of tradeoffs between ecosystem services and highlighted how there is no fixed relationship governing such tradeoffs. As mentioned in the previous point, careful consideration of our management choices is thus needed for the sustainable use of our ecosystem services. This is especially so in the context of development in Africa where economic development and livelihoods are so clearly and tangibly tied to their surrounding environment and ecosystems.

THANKS for staying with me through this post! Hope it has been as useful for you guys as it has been for me! :)

~ Till Next Time ~

Photo of sunset over Lake Victoria from safari.co

8th Drop: Valuation & Modelling of Ecosystem Services in Pongola Floodplain, South Africa

~ HEY THERE! Thanks for coming back and reading :) Hope everyone had a good week

Valuation of Ecosystem Services for Policy Making

Now after all these points about the concept of ecosystem services, how it can be implemented and how valuation of different services can be carried out, a more fundamental question is why do we adopt ecosystem services valuation? There is greater recognition of the importance of viewing our environment as interconnected and complex systems/ processes (i.e. as a larger ecosystem unit) rather than as individual ecological units. More importantly there are undeniable trade-offs between conservation and development. Thus valuation of ecosystem services can be seen as an imperative to help create greater awareness about the need for conservation (when in reality would likely have not existed if no economic valuation is placed on the environment) and facilitate a more informed decision making process. The article that I am going through today hence showcases how valuation and modelling of ecosystem services in a river system can help support policymakers' decision making process.

Modelling of Water Allocation and Ecosystem Services in Pongola Floodplain

The Pongola Floodplain in South Africa is highly dependent on the annual summer floods and hence river flows from the Pongola River system. However the creation of the Pongolapoort Dam - primary purpose was to control floods and provide an assured water supply for irrigation of ~40 000 ha of land adjacent to the floodplain - has greatly altered river flows. The consequent impacts on floodplain ecosystems and downstream users are thus significant and cannot be overlooked. Lankford et al. (2011) thus talks about the Pongola River Ecosystem Services for Poverty Alleviation (PRESPA) Project, which quantified the economic benefits provided by the water resources of the Pongola river and floodplain to the 8 different livelihood sectors identified by the authors. PRESPA project undertakes eco-hydrology modelling of 3 developmental scenarios of regulated flow release by the upstream Pongolapoort Dam to explore trade-offs and outcomes of poverty alleviation through; (1) status quo of unregulated releases and unstructured economy; (2) regulated releases and structured diverse economy; and (3) structured 'single sector' agriculture economy. It is hoped that the results from such a modelling project would help inform policymakers on the options and trade-offs of various development scenarios and thus support such decision making.

Once again here are some of my thoughts:

1) Modelling results: Comparing of various economic benefits attained

• Scenario (3) shows highest economic value acquired in total as well as for the poorest
• Important to consider societal contexts, distribution and equity issues?
• Values assigned to (3) assumes full participation (production & labour) and no political barriers hindering full uptake of irrigation schemes (planned 40 000 ha)
• Authors also noted that values only captured provisioning services
• Values for (2) are underestimations; regulating & supporting services left out
• Values for (3) possibly overestimated? Hydro-ecological feedbacks due to altered river flow?
• Scenario (2) may be more equitable; allow diversified economy and accommodate livelihoods
• Authors utilises the scenarios to highlight the variety of 'futures' possible for the floodplain
• (3) appear to alleviate poverty in short term but pose long term repercussions
• Scenario (2) more sustainable in the long run; more resilient environment and economy
• Clearly (1) represents the most undesirable scenario: call for action of more active management

> Ecosystem services valuation and modelling are nonetheless still just merely estimations as highlighted by the case study. However these estimations are still valuable because they allow decision makers to more weigh more accurately the pros and cons of various scenarios and hopefully make a more informed decision. At the same time, i do feel that we must not romanticize conservation and miss out on key developmental opportunities, especially if scenario (3) seems more economically beneficial and environmental consequences can be effectively mitigated and addressed. 

2) What to make out of such modelling exercises?

• Clearly invaluable in considering different future scenarios and in supporting decision making
• But must be critically analysed, such exercises can also be inherently subjective?
• Variables taken, choice of what services to be considered and calculations used?
• Case study of PRESPA seems to have made fairly reasonable assumptions and choice of valuations
• Case study did not consider the complexities/ uncertainties of ecosystems and climatic chan
• Possible improvements if regulating and supporting services are considered as well? Using proxy values/ estimated using related provisioning services as covered previously?
• Improvements of considering changes in climatic conditions as well?
• More complex eco-hydrology model but definitely useful to help make a more informed decision

> Such modelling exercises are definitely invaluable in helping policymakers make a more informed decision and choice based on an ecosystem service framework. Within the case study, clear and important learning points on the need for better management and poverty alleviation have been made. That said models are hardly ever complete and improvements can always be made. The choice of models and their various calculations thus depends on what the models are meant to be used for. Regardless model results should never be taken without critical analysis, especially when talking about ecosystem services because there are clear uncertainties and complexities involved.

* Point of reflection: This article also reiterated a previous article's point on trade-offs between ecosystem services! :) I also do feel that valuation of regulating services and supporting services can be undertaken by the model through the related provisioning services as highlighted in a previous post.

THANKS for reading through this post! Hope this was a slightly shorter and refreshing article for you guys :)

~ Till Next Time ~

National Geographic Photo of Pongola River Valley by Michelle Riley

7th Drop: Payments for Ecosystem Services in Tanzania, Operational & Sustainable?

~ HELLO!! Hope everyone had a productive reading week :) Back to school and back to weekly posts :p

Development of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) Schemes?

We talked about the "Working for Water" PES scheme in South Africa previously and covered how the scheme achieved both societal and environmental objectives. This PES scheme has been a long running initiative and thus most articles have been focusing on assessing the impacts/ results that the scheme has had. I have chosen this article today, which also talks about a PES scheme based on water resources within Africa, because of its specific focus on the progress made and future challenges of a newly initiated PES scheme. Hopefully through this case study, we can have a better understanding of the challenges in piloting and developing a sustainable PES scheme within the African context.

Payments for Water Ecosystem Services in Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania

Uluguru Mountains is of key hydrological importance to cities such as Dar es Salaam because water flows from tropical cloud forests of the mountains form the major catchment to the Ruvu River and is estimated to provide substantial amounts of environmental services (HEP, drinking water, water for industrial and agricultural uses) to downstream users. However these forests are increasingly threatened by land-use changes and poor land-use management, critically affecting both quantity of dry season water flow and quality of water flow in Ruvu River.

A pilot watershed PES scheme in Uluguru Mountains, Tanzania has been initiated by CARE-WWF since 2005. The Equitable Payment for Watershed Services (EPWS) project has undergone 2 phases of development. The first phase consisted of a feasibility assessment to establish baseline understanding of the environment and societal contexts, which eventually helped in the formulation of an outline business case and signing of memorandum of understanding with potential service buyers. The second phase was the actual implementation of the water PES scheme on a pilot scale, involving 4 local communities in Uluguru Mountains and 2 downstream buyers in Dar es Salaam. Specifically the EPWS project aims to link upstream rural 'service providers' with downstream urban 'water users' through financial payments to encourage proper land use management and prevent further degradation of forests habitats within Uluguru Mountains. Lopa et al. (2012) explores the lessons learnt from the second phase of the project and also the potential of expanding the pilot project to a larger scale.

Here are some reflections that I had:

1) An operational scheme? Link between land-use changes and improvements in water resource

• Progress made by the project;  feasibility assessment, formulation of business case, signing of memorandum with 2 major water users (Dar es Salaam Water Co. and Coca Cola Kwanza Ltd.) and large enrollment of farmers from 4 local communities!
• Indication of a fairly operational scheme: users agree to pay farmers based on improvements made to their land management practices
• Engel et al. (2008) highlights that supply of environmental services by PES project depends on: (1) enrolment; (2) conditionality; (3) additionality; and (4) land use-servcie linkages
• However currently there is still no direct link between land-use changes and improvements in water quantity/ quality!
• No significant change in water quality observed yet! (NB. scale of project too small to have significant impact on water quality)
• Initial funding were donations by international organisations and grants made by users
• If link between land-use changes and improvements in water resource unclear, unlikely for scheme to be operational in long term? Not really a PES, merely donations for conservation...
• Users have little motivation to pay if no improvements observed?
• If payments cease for farmers, little incentive for proper land-use management? Revert back...

> While legally and theoretically the EPWS project has established a fairly operational scheme where clear cut conditions for payments for ecosystem services are laid out, as of now there is still no clear cut land use-service linkages. This will seriously undermine the operations of the project as users will have little impetus to carry on future payments if there is no clear improvements in the ecosystem services.

2) Sustainability of scheme? Expansion of pilot project to a larger scale and progress into 3rd phase

• Rapidly increasing enrollment of farmers, huge positive for the project
• Achieved equitable outcomes in rural areas, improvements to incomes of participating farmers and investments (towards more profitable commercial agriculture) made by farmers for even greater improvements to livelihoods
• But equitable outcomes for urban poor downstream unclear? Urban poor (no access to water mains) unlikely to benefit from cheaper water tariffs and resource provided by Dar es Salaam Water Co. even if there is cost savings
• Nonetheless clear incentive to stop further degradation of forests
• Hence understandable push towards expanding the pilot project and phase 3
• But point (1) on lack of land use-service linkages also serve to undermine sustainability
• Clear establishment of land use-service linkages must be eventually made to justify the project (especially for users to continue funding payments)
• Moving towards more community-based management as foreign donors exit project...
• Positive because removes bureaucracies in terms of having a middleman + better understanding of local contexts and needs 
• But require proper capacity building of local communities to allow them to undertake negotiations and management of payment schemes in the future
• As well as proper monitoring and compliance strategies to be undertaken by local communities themselves

> There are still various challenges to overcome before the EPWS can be seen as fully operational and sustainable. A key task would be to establish the land use-service linkages as they would provide a clear incentive for both users and rural service providers to carry on with the PES scheme. Progress into phase 3 needs to be carefully planned out as the transition towards more community-based management as foreign donors exit, might have significant impact on the running of the project.

*An interesting point to note that the EPWS also showcases the potential of the use of water as an umbrella service to help in conservation of biodiversity of the forests within Uluguru Mountains!*

THANKS for reading such a long post! Just felt that there were a lot of interesting points brought up which were worthy for discussion. Do leave your comments on what you feel about this article! Hope this post has been helpful :)

~Till Next Time~

Photo of waterfall in Uluguru Mountains from Kili Worldborn Safaris

6th Drop: Effects of climatic changes on Ecosystem Services, Lake Tanganyika

~ HEY THERE!! Hope the past few days during reading week has been good for everyone :) As promised, here is another post for this week!

Ecosystem Services and Climatic Changes

I believe we have covered quite a fair bit on the different provision and regulating ecosystem services related to water in Africa and how they can be related to Payment-for-ecosystem services management approach. While I did not cover specifically on cultural and supporting services, I believe that they too can be approached in a similar manner to regulating services - valuing them based on their provision benefits (i.e. Happiness & Cultural learning for cultural services and nutrient levels & agricultural productivity for supporting services). Again the key issue revolves around how an accurate value can be assigned to these services and subsequently how a Payment-for-ecosystem approach can effectively take into account societal context to encourage proper resource management and ecosystem conservation.

Now beyond just anthropogenic changes that have been affecting ecosystems, a much bigger concern in this day and age would be the effect of climatic changes on our ecosystems and hence the services that we are so reliant on! This is partially because there are significant uncertainties and gaps in our understanding of future climate change, much less the extent of the impact it will have on ecosystems and their services. Which brings me to the post today which will cover a case study of how climatic changes have affected a key ecosystem service in an African lake, Lake Tanganyika.

Decrease in aquatic ecosystem productivity in Lake Tanganyika

O'Riley et al. (2003) discuss about the biotic and ecosystem-scale responses to climate change that have been exhibited in Lake Tanganyika. More specifically the authors compare Carbon isotope records from sediment cores of the lake, with changes in climatic effects such as surface-water temperature and wind velocity to suggest that climatic changes have resulted in an approximate 20% decrease in primary productivity of the lake. This translates into a 30% decrease in fish yields thus explaining the decline in pelagic fishery landings (previously attributed to unknown environmental factors).

Here are some personal reflections:

1) Complex effects of climatic changes on ecosystems and ecosystem services

• Increased surface-water temperature and decline in wind velocity - stability of water column and reduced mixing depth
• Diminish deep-water nutrient inputs to the surface waters (disruption of supporting service?)
• And hence decrease in primary productivity, affecting pelagic fishes 
• Such complex interactions are hard to predict, but more importantly mitigate 
• Global anthropogenic activities can affect specific ecosystems and their services as well
• These impacts can often be subtle, progressive and hence potentially dire

> Climate change effects are expected to be significantly impactful within the tropics, and hence the African continent. Such significant and complex effects on ecosystems and their services, combined with the heavy reliance of this densely populated region on these services should be of significant concern to leaders within the continent. And hence, proper understanding of these impacts on ecosystems and mitigation measures should be taken.

2) Potential for payment-for-ecosystem services approach to management of Lake Tanganyika?

• Possibility of valuing the supporting service of primary productivity of the lake by relating the service to fisheries productivity?
• Considering that impacts are due to global climate change, solutions may not just specifically address issue of primary productivity in Lake Tanganyika
• Carbon Credits as a possible solution? (Though might be too generic for Lake Tanganyika)

> A specific payment-for-ecosystem services approach may require a more detailed study and understanding (as highlighted in previous posts as well). More importantly if we take into consideration the impacts of global climate change on ecosystem services, more general forms of payment-for-ecosystem services approach of carbon credits might likely be more appropriate and effective.

THANKS for reading and hope this post was helpful to you! :)

~Till Next Time~

National Geographic Society Photo by Saskia Marijnissen

5th Drop: "Regulating Services" in Lake Victoria

~ HELLO! Hope reading week is going fine for everybody :) Here is a mid-week post!

"Regulating Services"?

Now I have been talking an awful lot about ecosystem services but strangely enough, have yet to properly expand on the concept of ecosystem services! Apologies for such a late and haphazard clarification :X So the concept of ecosystem services was first popularized by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 

"Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as food, water, timber, and fiber; regulating services that affect climate, floods, disease, wastes, and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling."

So while we have been focusing mainly on provision services, I think it is time we moved on to other definitions of ecosystem services and to see the feasibility of accounting for these services to help promote sustainable management of ecosystems in Africa.

More specifically regulating services of ecosystems can be understood as functions and components of ecosystems that affect the reliability and resilience of the ecosystems to continue their provisionservices - ability to allow ecosystems to continue to produce over a range of stresses or shocks. In this week's post we will look specifically at one such regulating service of nutrient buffering by wetlands in Lake Victoria.

Regulating Service - Nutrient Buffering by Wetlands in Lake Victoria

Simonit and Perrings (2011) developed a bioeconomic model using water and nutrients data from a catchment in Lake Victoria to understand the interactions between agriculture and fisheries activities as mediated by wetlands of the lake margins. More specifically they hope to account for the nutrient buffering service provided by wetlands - filtering of nutrient runoff from agricultural land before discharge enters into Lake Victoria. As highlighted in the last post fisheries in Lake Victoria are key sources of income and food for locals within the catchment, but are however facing declines in fish landings. This decline in fisheries production has been attributed to overfishing and more importantly eutrophication - nutrient runoff from agricultural lands and discharges from urban settlements. Wetlands in particular are of interest here because they serve as  buffers by absorbing some of these nutrients released by runoff from agricultural and urban areas. However they are increasingly being threatened by land-use changes.

Here are some reflections that I had:

1) Valuing regulating services by the provision services that are being protected/ threatened

• Regulating services like water quality are harder to value: less understood and easily measured 
• Relating regulating services to the provision services benefits/ losses help provide a more quantifiable approach - externality of nutrient loading related to fisheries output losses
• Value of regulating services vary with the value of the protected service as well as variability of environmental conditions (withstand greater variability, greater value of service)
• Externality of nutrient loading can thus vary across different agriculture areas
• Authors also compared the benefits from nutrient loading (greater agricultural output) against losses of fisheries outputs
• "...loss of regulating services would not warrant conservation of the wetland."
• While I can see the economic logic behind this statement, I believe a key point that should not be forgotten is that the services (and hence value) of wetlands should not be viewed in isolation.

> Article provides a key method and perspective of valuing regulating service by relating it to the respective provision service. This is helpful in emphasizing the importance of the ecosystem as a holistic structure rather than just individual services.

2) Translating value of regulating services into payment-for-ecosystem services

• Authors highlighted the potential for payment-for-ecosystem services
• Through payment for on-farm nutrient buffering to make up for losses in wetland buffering
• Different considerations of spatial distribution of externality will thus lead to differences in payments by individuals as well
• Externality by source (farmers most guilty of nutrient loading) vs Externality assigned to converted area (farmers on converted wetlands)
• More social/ legal considerations of rights i.e. rights to clean water vs property rights

> The implementation of payment-for-ecosystem services solutions for regulating services is possible too as long as values can be realistically assigned to them. More importantly the article has also highlighted the complicated social and legal considerations that must be taken when adopting such payment-for-ecosystem services approach. If properly considered and implemented such an approach could potentially allow for a more sustainable form of development within Africa, where development can co-exist with ecosystems conservation.

THANKS for reading this fairly long post again and hope my reflections would be of some help :)

~Till Next Time~

National Geographic Society Photo by Claudine Swiatek

4th Drop: Collapse of Ecosystem Services? Fisheries in Lake Victoria

HELLO ~ Hope everyone is doing well! It is less than 2 days till reading week and I definitely hope to be posting a bit more frequently over the next week *fingers-crossed*

Collapse of Ecosystem Services?

Anyway...We have been talking a lot on the positives of ecosystem services and how these benefits can be valued so as to help us achieve conservation goals. Perhaps it is a good opportunity for us to look on the flip-side; the repercussions of a collapsed ecosystem and hence disruption in provision of ecosystem services. A clear understanding of the negative repercussions and losses of ecosystem services should help paint an even more stark picture of the importance of ecosystem conservation.

Fisheries in Lake Victoria

'Catastrophic change in species-rich freshwater ecosystem' (Kaufman 1992) is a detailed case study that covers the ecosystem changes within Lake Victoria. More specifically the article takes a more ecological slant covering firstly on the freshwater ecosystem changes (trophic levels and food webs) within Lake Victoria, followed by the reasons behind these changes and lastly key lessons learnt. 

Briefly Lake Victoria should be understood in the context of other similar East African lakes, such as Lake Malawi and Lake Tanganyika, in that fish faunas within exhibit the products of rapid speciation from very few ancestors. A key native fish group within Lake Victoria that exhibits great biodiversity would be the fish family Cichlidae. In contrast the 'antagonist' within this story would be the Nile Perch which was introduced in 1954 but only underwent population explosions in the late 1980s.

Here are some key reflections:

1) Collapse of Freshwater Ecosystem: Result of a series of anthropogenic changes

• Over-fishing of native species within fisheries + intro of alien species (Nile Perch)
• Cessation of biological mixing and 'recycling' capacity as native species population diminished
• Land-use practices and pollution (esp. from agriculture activities)
• Eutrophication due to nutrient loading
• Resulting anoxia!! esp. in deeper parts of the lake
• Positive feedback? Anoxia leading to dwindling fish supply (both native and Nile Perch)

> It is easy to criticize these anthropogenic actions with the knowledge of hindsight. However what I do feel is a more critical learning point from the Lake Victoria case study is the need for proper ecological understanding of the ecosystem we are reliant on (and at times tempted to alter; much like the introduction of the Nile Perch). There is huge variability and complexity just from the ecological perspective, much less when the ecosystems in Africa are heavily influenced by hydrological variability as well. Hence conscientious monitoring and study to develop greater understanding of the ecosystems should be constantly done, so that an ecosystem service approach might be successful.

2) Impact on the Fisheries?

• Increase in Nile Perch actually a benefit to the Fisheries: More tonnage + More Valuable
• BUT what are the actual distribution of these benefits? Unequal!
• Local fisherman unable to exploit the more valuable Nile Perch resource (lack equipment)
• Malnutrition in the lake basin despite exporting nearly 200,000 tons of fish protein/ yr
• Locals complain about the lost of native fishes which has greater variety of taste and texture
• "analogous to the common practice of clearcutting rainforest and replacing it with one or a few fast-growing, easily processed, exotic timbers" => significant alteration of the ecosystem!
• What ecosystem services approach SHOULD NOT look like? As covered previously, ecosystem services are often part of a wider bundle of services provided by the ecosystem!

> Repercussions of collapse of ecosystems are thus clearly captured by the loss of the benefits provided by the ecosystem services. As covered previously, these services benefit individuals differently and dynamically - the same service can be altered without significant changes to the quantity but yet still have an important impact (eg. change from native fishes to Nile Perch). Valuation of ecosystem services would thus benefit from greater considerations of socio-economic context. More importantly it is easy to assume that only a particular service is loss from the collapse of an ecosystem but it is important to realise that there are other ecosystem services that are affected.

CHEERS for reading these reflections of mine and I hope they are helpful to you as well :)

~ Till Next Time ~

National Geographic Society Photo by Aerin Jacob

3rd Drop: Provision Ecosystem Services

Hello~~ Firstly I am really sorry to the 2 of you who have commented, I would really love to reply them but have been caught up with other things in life (like procrastinating)...In any case I really hope to be posting more often and actively reply your comments, do bear with me...

Provision Ecosystem Service: Fisheries

Now we have generally been focusing on the more obvious ecosystem service of water provision in Africa. However it is important to realise that water is merely a single type of provision ecosystem service that actually come as part of a bundle of associated flood-dependent services in complex socio-ecological landscapes. The article that I have chosen to share this week focuses on another of such provision ecosystem service: food through fisheries. 

Fisheries in Lower Rufiji floodplains, Tanzania

'To connect or not to connect? Floods, fisheries and livelihoods in the Lower Rufiji floodplain lakes, Tanzania' by Hamerlynck et al. 2011 analyses village-based water-level and fisheries data collected locally from lakes across the floodplain to understand the potential impacts of changes in flood hydrographs on fisheries within these floodplains lakes. Fisheries within these lakes are critical to the livelihoods of locals living within the floodplains - 50% of households in the floodplain practice some form of fishery as an income-generating activity and is a key source of protein for all households living there. However floodplains and lakes are subjected to highly variable and often bi-annual flood peaks, which are critical to connecting the lakes with the rest of the floodplains and river system. These episodes of connection (when flood peak exceeds the altitude of the threshold that separates the lake from the river) are essential for the maintaining of the ecosystems of these lakes because it allows for the exchange of water, suspended matter and biological material, all highly beneficial for improving fisheries productivity. 

Here are some key reflections I had:

1) Flood hydrographs => Episodes of connection => Ecosystem of lakes => Fisheries productivity

• Data of drought years have shown that lack of peak flooding can affect the episodes of connection and hence ecosystem of lakes (biodiversity health and fish quality)
• Productivity of the fisheries reduced
• Findings thus warn against further flood control and dam constructions along Rufiji River
• Proper cost-benefit analysis should be considered; benefits of hydropower and irrigation vs. bundle of associated flood-dependent ecosystem services (water provision, food provision in terms of agriculture, fisheries, wild harvest etc.

> Importance of proper considerations of the values of ecosystem services is repeated here again. More often than not the variability of flood hydrographs affect beyond just water provision but food provision as well. Food provision within Africa should especially be considered carefully, given the vulnerabilities of individuals living within the continent.

2) Important to also consider strategies of coping adopted by locals

• Data showed that a fairly constant Income per Hour of Fishing sustained despite droughts and changes within fisheries
• User strategies generally revolve around increasing effort by altering gears used
• Represents trade-off between fishing and agricultural activities as well, typically fishing activities undertaken as a side income during agriculturally inactive periods but given drought period and increased effort, agriculture activities affected
• Reactions by the authorities with regards to the drought situations should thus also consider such coping strategies instead of prevent them (misdirected approach of preventing people from adapting fishing strategies)

> Authors have poignantly highlighted the effects of flood hydrograph changes from the perspective of locals who are most dependent on the ecosystem services. While clearly these coping strategies may not be healthy for the lakes in the long term as well, nonetheless management strategies need to start from understanding the perspectives of the locals to be most effective.

CHEERS to surviving through this moderately long post again. Hope these reflections have helped :)

~Till Next Time~

National Geographic Society Photo by ORF/ Science Vision/ Rita Schlambergr

2nd Drop: Trade-offs between Ecosystem Services?

South's Africa Working for Water Programme

Hi everyone! The first part of this post is just to briefly highlight South Africa's Working for Water programme that was covered in last week's article. 'Ecosystem services, efficiency, sustainability and equity: South Africa's Working for Water programme' by Van Wilgen et al. 1998 provide a very good summary of the impetus, costs, funding and challenges of the programme. 

Overall I do agree with the authors' that the 'Working for Water' programme in South Africa serve as a good example of how the valuation of the ecosystem service of water provision, can serve as a more viable option as compared to conventional approaches in increasing water supply - especially given the cash-strapped economy and poverty situation in South Africa. However I do feel that such valuations of ecosystem services should not neglect the fact that there are trade-offs involved and such payments-for-ecosystem-services systems must be able to justify themselves from a cost-benefit-analysis perspective.

Trade-offs between Ecosystem Services

Which brings me to this second portion of this week's post that highlights the trade-offs that we should take into consideration when we choose particular ecosystem services over others. 'Trade-offs between ecosystem services: Water and Carbon in a biodiversity hotspot', by Chisholm 2010 investigates the potential benefits of afforestation (carbon sequestration and timber production) against the losses to water supply (land-use changes increasing water usage and affecting catchment flow) through a dynamic ecological-economic model applied to Jonkershoek Valley in South Africa. 

Results of the model show that afforestation only appears viable to the forestry industry because the true cost of water used by the plantation are not accounted for by the industry. More importantly the results show largely that afforestation is more commonly associated with overall losses - costs of water supply lost outweigh benefits of C accumulation. The author ends off by discussing the huge amount of variability and uncertainty that still affects the model - given uncertainty in future economic conditions - and thus highlights the need for further research into the development of guidelines as to the conditions under which afforestation of native vegetation will be adopted for carbon sequestration as a viable climate mitigation strategy despite possible trade-offs on water supply.

Here are some reflections that I had:

1) Trade-offs between water and carbon, a choice that is not easily made?

• Payment for ecosystem services systems are not necessarily always synergised harmoniously like Working for Water
• Afforestation scenario described here is a clear eg. - carbon sequestration through plantations measured against lost in water supply
• Where land-use changes are involved, trade-offs will be present and hence choices to sacrifice particular ecosystem services must be made
• But such sacrifices are complicated given socio-economic context of African nations? Ecosystem service of water provision through protection of catchment areas may inhibit land-use changes for economic development purposes (eg. mining, forestry and agriculutre)
• Even with South Africa's payment-for-ecosystem-services scheme of water tariffs for funding may not be sufficient - understate the true value of water that industries pay
• Competing interests from different sectors, eg. forestry industry resisted raising of water-use fees

> Ecosystem services approach may not always be synergised/ complimentary with development and other environmental goals. Identification of clear objectives and considerations of potential trade-offs given socio-economic context must be made for approaches to be effective.

2) Uncertainty with regards to future values of Water and Carbon...

• Demand of water to increase - population increase + per capita consumption increase - and supply to fall...but extent of effect on economic value unclear
• Carbon prices also likely to increase but extent of increase also uncertain...
• Author himself highlight that model is limited given difficulty in incorporating some costs; (1) negative feedbacks due to afforestation raising the value of water; and (2) carbon credits value may be overestimated (afforestation may be ineffective for climate change mitigation because of the lower albedo?)
• there are clearly various other socio-economic and ecological factors that affect the monetary values of ecosystem services

> Ecosystem services approach is closely tied to monetary valuations. But such valuations are complicated by various factors and bogged down by uncertainty! However this does not mean that monetary valuations should be avoided, but instead more research and considerations should be made to ensure valuations are more accurate and representative. This is especially because such monetary valuations of ecosystem services have great potential in motivating policy makers through economic rationality (eg. Working for Water).

THANKS for reading and the comments made! Again, will try to keep my bullet points shorter :X

~Till Next Time~

Jonkershoek Valley, photo by Wimpielmmelman

Introduction & the 1st Drop

Intro

HELLO to whoever is reading this humble blog of mine! Well firstly just a little background on the blog. I am not ashamed to say that this is very much part of my Geography Module on "Water & Development in Africa" (and not my own initiative), so naturally a lot of the articles and my comments will focus on water resources in the African context. Regardless I have chosen to zoom in specifically on ECOSYSTEM SERVICES as the theme. This is ultimately because I believe that water, be it for domestic consumption or for food provision through agricultural and fisheries practices, should very much be understood as a service and resource provided as a result of various ecological and hydrological processes within the ecosystems. Hopefully through this blog I will be able to conscientiously apply insights and perspectives that I have learnt from the module on this theme that I am focusing on. Like the title of the blog, I do believe that my opinions are just like tiny droplets of water that make up an entire ocean (but hopefully not as insignificant as how the metaphor sounds) and I sincerely welcome any comments that any readers might have :)

1st Drop: Payments for Ecosystem Services? "Working for Water" in South Africa

The first post is a reflection on an article by Turpie et al, 2008: The Working for water programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa.

In summary the article talks about the effectiveness of the "Working for Water" (WfW) programme, a form of payment for ecosystem services system. In simplified terms water users are charged a water tariff which serve as a form of payment to preserve the key grassland ecosystems - through active restoration processes of clearing and controlling the spread of invasive alien plants - within catchment areas that capture and store much of the summer precipitation . The result of which is not just an improvement in water supply but also biodiversity conservation of the ecosystems and greater employment opportunities to help alleviate poverty. The authors thus highlight the potential to develop such a model where "water has the potential to be an 'umbrella service' to other ecosystem services" achieving both conservation and socio-economical objectives. 

Some reflections I had after reading:

1) Understanding of issues surrounding water resources from ecosystem services perspective...

• Identified as a water scarcity issue given threats to water supply ;grassland wetlands which capture summer precipitation and maintains baseflows during dry seasons threatened by invasive species
• But lack of mention of accessibility? article mentioned that water scarcity is closely linked to the prevalence of poverty, hunger and disease...but at the same time problems surrounding water resources is very much about having access to safe water in the first place. In this case the link between water and socio-economic factors such as poverty can very much be seen as bi-directional (i.e. lack of access to safe water due to inability to afford safe water => further exacerbating poverty situation through diseases and/or lack of water for subsistence food production)
• Issue of accessibility can be potentially addressed through poverty alleviation but ultimately depending on context of situation in South Africa, i.e. what is the key problem? with regards to affordability or with regards to lack of infrastructure?

> Ecosystem services perspective on water resources seems to directly address the issue of water supply and scarcity but is only indirectly linked to the issue of accessibility and distribution.

2) Potential of water as an 'umbrella service' to other ecosystem services!

• WfW has met both physical and socio-economic objectives, but most importantly the model is sustainable and productive over the long term.
• Largely because ecosystem service of water provision is inherently more marketable than other services; tangibility and measurability!
• Beyond water's marketability as a commodity it also has the greatest potential for application of payment for ecosystem services approaches (Pagiola and Platais, 2007) because it is (a) easily identifiable; (b) clear, well-defined benefits for users; and (c) existing financing mechanism.
• More importantly positive spillover effect on other ecosystem services such as biodiversity conservation!!
• As highlighted by the authors, there is a need then to clearly identify how benefits in terms of ecosystem services (inclusive of water supply as well as other services such as biodiversity conservation) compare with the costs and actions needed. This will help in the linking of payments to service delivery to ensure overall sustainability!

> Ecosystem services are clearly interlinked with one another and there is the potential of harnessing such interconnections to address a wide-range of issues, eg. water resource, food provision and even climate change

KUDOS on enduring such a long first post. I will try to keep it more readable the next time round :P

~Till next time~

National Geographic Society stock photo by James P. Blair