Ecosystem services for poverty alleviation: guiding principles and emerging generalisations for future 

research

Dr. Caroline HoweCentre for Biodiversity and Environment Research, UCL

ESPA Annual Science Conference 2015The Honourable Society of Grey’s Inn, London, UK

“To be able to ask a question clearly is two-thirds of the way to getting it

answered.”

John Ruskin

Ecosystem services: building on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

An assessment ofecosystem services in

the UK

Ecosystem processes, services and goods/benefits

Goods/benefitsPrimary & intermediate ecosystem processes

Ecosystem services

e.g. Nutrient cycling, primary production water cycle, etc.

e.g. Trees, etc. e.g. Timber, etc.

Other capitalinputs

Management and natural

capital inputs

ES contribution to well-being

Primary production

Decomposition

Soil formation

Nutrient cycling

Water cycling

Weathering

Climate regulation

Pollination

Evolutionary processes

Ecological interactions

Crops, livestock, fish

Water availability

Trees

Peat

Wild species diversity

Drinking water

Food

Fibre

Energy

Equable climate

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

£

Final ecosystem services Goods

Value of goods... ..of which ES value

Primary & intermediate ecosystem processes

Solar & other physical inputs Other capital

inputs

Natural enemies

Detoxification

Local climate

Waste breakdown

Purified water

Stabilising vegetation

Meaningful places

Wild species diversity

Flood control

Natural medicine

Pollution control

Disease control

Good health

Recreation

☺

☺

☺

☺

Regulating

Supporting

Provisioning

Cultural

Natural capitalinputs

Value of goods...

Ecosystem services, Benefits and Demand

“The biophysical processes of ecosystems that provide benefitsfor human well‐being” (UKNEA, 2011)

“Concept for the expression of values assigned by people tovarious functions of ecosystems” (Bennett et al, 2015)

Abiotic inputsEcosystem processes 

and functionsBenefits Well‐being

DEMAND= SERVICES

BIODIVERSITYBIODIVERSITY

“The benefits that people obtainfrom ecosystems” (MA, 2005)

ESPA Framework

People

&

Partners

hips

(Are

at the

heart

of E

SPA) Change

Enablers

(Users of ESPA research)

External drivers

of change

(Social, political & environmental)

Polit

ical

Eco

nom

y

(Inclu

ding

gov

erna

nce,

soc

ial

stru

ctur

es, m

arke

ts &

inst

itutio

ns)

Ecosystem structure & processes

Values

Goods

Ecosystem functions & capabilities

Services

Enabling Conditions

Ecosystems

Human well-being &

Poverty reduction

GlobalESPA Knowledge

(Global public goods)

Conflicts between different epistemic communities

Philosophical&

Conceptual

Methodological&

Empirical

Values

Definitions

Assumptions

Data collection

Defining the question -

frameworks

Definitions

Ecosystem Services Well‐Being (wealth)Value

PRICE

PRICE Vs. VALUE(Accountants) (Economists)

e.g. riverside walks: price = 0, value > 0

“What right have you to take the word wealth, which originally meant ''well-being,'' and degrade and narrow it by confining it to certain sorts of material objects measured by money.”

Poverty and human well-being

“ A lack of, or inability to, achieve a socially acceptable standard of living”

OR

“Possession of insufficient resources to meet basic needs”

Example metrics of human well-being

Food security and nutrition, Health, Income and assets, Fuel and energy, Socialcapital, Housing, Vulnerability and resilience, Water, Education and skills,Access to public goods, Employment, Property rights, Time

Assumptions

1. Protecting/delivering ecosystem services sustainably will alleviate poverty – ‘win-win’

2. There are simple and positive linkages between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-being.

Methodological and Empirical Conflicts

Disparate data collection

Multiple, complicated frameworks

Fisher et al (2013)

1. DEMAND - Ecosystem services are better defined by the people that derive benefits from them not the ecosystems that deliver them.

1. TRADE-OFFS - Ecosystem services are co-produced by people and thus there will always be competition for resources.

2. BIODIVERSITY - The relationship between biodiversity, ecosystem services, their benefits and human well-being is complicated and not well understood.

1. THRESHOLDS - both biological and social systems have tipping points and finite resources.

1. VALUATION - both in monetary and non-monetary terms us vital to ensure equitable distribution of benefits

(Howe et al, Submitted to Ambio)

• Knowledge is fragmented between disciplines. • Most research is largely conceptual. • Often studies only cover one aspect of the interactions

between ecosystems and people (Bennett et al, 2015).

Emerging generalisations

IPBES Conceptual Framework

Diaz et al., 2015

Yahdijian et al, 2015; Geijzendorffer et al, 2015

Ecosystem services and human well-being: a need for interdisciplinary approach

Processes/flows Ecosystem services Benefits Human well-being

Biodiversity

gEnvironmental change and

management

Processes/flows Ecosystem services Benefits Human well-being

Biodiversity

DEMANDgEnvironmental change and

management

Trade-offs are recorded three times more frequently than synergies. No empirical evidence fora link between the provision of ecosystem services and alleviation of poverty.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Yes No

% o

f cas

es re

sulti

ng in

a tr

ade-

off (

n=13

0)

Crops used as an ecosystem service

Private interest

No private interest

Winners and losers from ecosystem services

Winners and losers from ecosystem services

Provision of ecosystem

servicesAlleviation of poverty

POVERTY REDUCTIONsteadily improving household situation

POVERTY PREVENTION Maintenance of livelihood and/or prevention from falling further into poverty (Angelson & Wunder,

2003; Daw et al, 2011)

Trade-offs are more common when at least one beneficiary has a private interest and when provisioning services are involved.

Howe et al (2014), Suich et al (2015)

DIVERSITY

ABUNDANCE PRODUCTION

LAND COVER

Crops

Wood

Water

Species

ClimateHowe and Mace, in preparation

Crops

Wood

Species

Water

Climate

LAND COVER

Food

Timber

Aesthetic

Wildlife

Water

Climate

Crops

Wood

Species

Water

Climate

PRODUCTION

Food

Timber

Aesthetic

Wildlife

Water

Climate

Crops

Wood

Species

Water

DIVERSITY

Food

Timber

Aesthetic

Wildlife

Water

Crops

Wood

Species

Climate

Food

Timber

Climate

Aesthetic

Wildlife

ABUNDANCE

Howe and Mace, in preparation

Planetary Boundaries

Lade et al, 2013; Rockström et al, 2009; Raworth, 2012

Current Issues in Valuation

• Aggregated fashion:– No distinction between groups,

geographic areas, level of dependence

• Fails laugh test

• Excludes elements of wellbeing– Wellbeing has a value not a price

Freedom of choice & action

Provisioning

(e.g. crops, livestock, fish, trees, standing vegetation, water

supply)

Regulating (e.g. Climate regulation, disease & pest regulation, detoxification & purification, pollination, hazard

regulation, noise regulation)

Cultural

(e.g. Wild species diversity, environmental settings)

Resources & Resilience

(food, water, medicine, shelter)

Physiological

(stress, injuries, non-infectious diseases)

Psychological

(mental health diseases)

Disease exposure & regulation

(zoonotic, air and water-borne

diseases) D

irect effects

(e.g. floods, heat-w

ave

s,

wa

ter

sh

or

tag

es

, exposure)

Ecosystem-m

ediated effects

(e.g. disease

risk, under-

nutrition, medicine, m

ental health) and/or indirect effects (e.g. livelihood loss, conflict, adaptation & m

itigation)

Well-being value

Ecosystem services Health benefits

Supporting

(e.g. Primary production, water cycling, soil formation, nutrient

cycling)

People

Material needs

Social relations

Security

Health

Disability Adjusted Life Years (DALYs)

Other capital inputs, socio-economic, institutional and developmental factors

McGrath, Howe & Carrasco, In Submission

A New Framework?

People (1) Include people and their needs (2) Explicitly consider trade-offs

and distribution of benefits from ecosystem services

(2) Explicitly c o n s i d e r t r a d e - o f f s a n d distribution of benefits from e c o s y s t e m services

(3 ) S imp le relationships b e t w e e n e c o s y s t e m services and b iodiversi ty c a n n o t b e assumed

(5) Improved decision-making about ecosystem benefits and their distribution and measuring benefits as a mechanism of support for governance.

(4) There are thresholds and limits that cannot be ignored

Direct

Drive

rs

Indirect

Drivers

3) Simple relationships be tween ecosys tem services and biodiversity cannot be assumed (4) There are thresholds and limits that cannot be ignored

3) Simple relationships be tween ecosys tem services and biodiversity cannot be assumed (4) There are thresholds and limits that cannot be ignored

“What we think or what we know or what we believe is in the end of little

consequence. The only thing of consequence is what we do”

John Ruskin

Thank You!c.howe.01@cantab.net

@CarolineHowe