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