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