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