Best Bet: Ecosystems Improved ecosystem services and resilience · 2016. 10. 6. · Best Bet: Ecosystems Improved ecosystem services and resilience 122 Best Bet: Ecosystems Improved

Best Bet: Ecosystems Improved ecosystem services and resilience

122

Best Bet: Ecosystems

Improved ecosystem services and resilience

Vision Natural resource management for agricultural mainstreams the maintenance, enhancement

and creation of regulating and supporting ecosystem services to ensure productivity,

stability, and reduced variability in the production systems of small scale agricultural

producers.

Justification Increases in agricultural productivity over the last 100 years have failed to maintain and

account for the important role that ecosystem services play (Millennium Ecosystem

Assessment, 2005). Unsustainable agricultural practices have profound, damaging side-

effects on livelihoods, ecosystem functioning, and in the long-term could depress or reverse

productivity gains and increase poverty. Many water use practices for agriculture have been

shown to be unsustainable at the global scale, and the availability of other natural resources

(land, phosphorous, and energy) is predicted to start running out by the end of this century

(IAASTD, 2009).

The magnitude of the problem is immense. The reduction of the Aral Sea Basin by 75% from

unsustainable agricultural water management practices caused winds to pick up 100

millions tons of dust containing a mix of toxic chemicals and salt, and led to a loss of 20 to

24 fish species, and 60000 job (Postel, 1996). Trend analysis of 145 major rivers indicates

that discharge has declined in one fifth of all cases due to regulation of rivers, including

irrigation. It is estimated that over 50% of applied nitrogen fertilizer and 40 percent of

phosphorus fertilizer is lost from agricultural fields, causing pollution of groundwater,

exhaustion of soils, loss of the services provided by below ground biodiversity, and

contributes to eutrophication of lakes reservoirs and ponds (Smil, 1999; 2000).

Much of the 30% of global harvests lost to pests and disease occurs in developing countries

(Oerke et al., 1994). The resulting economic and food resource costs are, to a significant

extent, a consequence of the continuing evolution of tolerant species of pests and

pathogens that are able to overcome resistance genes introduced by modern breeding. This

contributes to cycles of boom and bust and encourages increased use of pesticides.

The production value of crops that depend on insect pollination is four times the value of

those that do not (Gallai et al., 2008). The global economic valuation of the pollination

service provided by insect pollinators, mainly bees, for the main crops that feed the world

has been estimated at USD 208 billion, or 9.5 percent of the total value of the world’s

agricultural food production. Worldwide there is evidence that insect pollination services

are in decline. Losses in diversity and numbers are particularly strong under intensive


123

agricultural management. Together with the habitat loss associated with the intensification

of agriculture the use of pesticides (Aizen and Harder 2009). Production systems with less

dependence on external inputs and wiser management of resources are needed if

agricultural production is to increase and be sustainable (FAO, 2010; Rosegrant et al., 2002;

CA, 2007).

A fundamental research question emerges, therefore, on how to ensure that continued

agricultural intensification and productivity increases can be achieved in ways that use and

enhance ecosystems services more effectively, as measured by increased stability and

reduced variability in the agricultural production systems of small scale farmers (Foley et al.,

2005). This includes increasing the adaptability of agricultural ecosystems such that the

communities and agro-ecosystems are able to respond to changing conditions without

debilitating losses in livelihoods, productivity or ecosystem functions.

Not all ecosystem services directly benefit the poor. This Best Bet prioritizes selected

ecosystem services. Earlier work has shown their potential to reduce vulnerability in the

agro-ecosystems of small scale farmers (see section on Lessons learned). This Best Bet

further targets the spatial connectivity of ecosystems in accounting for the benefits of

ecosystem services at different scales from farm to river basins to landscapes.

This Best Bet concentrates on regulating services and supporting services. Other services

such as provisioning services (food, fuelwood, fiber and timber) are more fully taken up in

CRP1, CRP3 and CRP6) and cultural services (spiritual, recreational, aesthetic) in CRP1 and

CRP2. In particular, the regulating ecosystem services targeted here are concerned with loss

of water quality and quantity and pollination efficiency, and increased vulnerability to

disease and arthropod pests and natural hazards (floods, droughts). The supporting

ecosystem services targeted are hydrological cycling, soil nutrient cycling and soil formation.

In a nutshell

Fundamental agricultural production challenges

• Destruction of ecosystem regulating services (water quality and pollination efficiency, and the increased vulnerability to disease and arthropod pests and natural hazards (floods, droughts)

• Destruction of ecosystem supporting services – (hydrological cycling, soil nutrient cycling and soil formation)

A paradigm shift

• Move away from single solutions: reducing risk by creating ‘insurance’ portfolios comprised of multiple ways to better use soil, water, and biotic resources that enhance ecosystem services.

• Enhance the capacity of natural resource managers to support and create partnerships with small scale farmers who use water, soil and biotic management methods that reduce vulnerability in the production system while at the same time maintaining productivity.

• Change consumer and retailer norms that support agricultural production systems that reduce vulnerability with continued productivity through enhanced ecosystem services

• Policies, legal measures and incentives that support production systems with less dependence on external inputs, and wiser management.


124

Ecosystem linkages with other Best Bets

Cross cutting questions across Best Bets include

How do we measure ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes and understand if

interventions increase overall benefits are?

When and how do ecosystem services benefit the poor?

Multifunctional agricultural landscapes: do they provide increased resilience, and how do

we measure it?

Sustainable intensification – an oxymoron or real potential, and where? Does it include

creating and sustaining multiple ecosystem services?

Rainfed: Ecosystem benefits from upgrading rainfed areas can include improved water

productivity by converting unproductive evaporation to biomass production, increasing

habitat for beneficial insects and birds, regulating water flows, reducing erosion, and

increasing carbon sequestration, agro- and natural biodiversity. Research in Ecosystems will

contribute to enhancing a range of ecosystem services when upgrading rainfed landscapes,

such as below ground biodiversity, carbon sequestration, promoting multifunctional

landscapes, maintaining habitat niches, and reversing trends of nutrient depletion and

erosion.

Irrigated: Surface water irrigation and reservoirs in dry areas create new ecosystems with

areas of open water, wetlands, and riparian zones that did not exist naturally and have the

ability to support increased biodiversity. Biodiversity can increase over time in irrigated

areas as people include more perennials, and create more habitat niches. Research will aim

at developing and managing irrigation systems to create and promote ecosystem services

including biodiversity and fisheries, limiting externalities caused by abstraction of water

such as loss of downstream aquatic ecosystems, or water quality degradation.

Groundwater: Groundwater use can draw water out of rivers and wetlands degrading above

ground aquatic ecosystems and result in reduced capacity of aquifers to store water.

Groundwater is also a natural storage system that can help buffer against climate shocks by

absorbing excessive runoff in flood periods and supplying water on demand, thereby

reducing the need for above ground storage that disrupts natural ecosystems. Ecosystems

research will consider the links between groundwater, wetlands and rivers and associated

impacts.

Basins: Managing land use and water means managing landscapes and water flows to

support agriculture and other ecosystems, and managing tradeoffs between multiple

objectives and uses of water at scales large enough to include urban and industry

requirements, hydropower, and transboundary concerns. It means managing for resilience

at larger scales. Research in Ecosystems will support understanding and enhancing overall

ecosystem services at larger scales.

Pastoral: Out of balance drylands are clear ‘tipping points’ in ecosystem ecology. Examples

include large tracts of land in Australia and overgrazed lands on many continents. Drylands

also offer possibilities for environmental provisioning services, such as carbon sequestration


125

and various water related benefits and revenue generated from biodiversity conservation.

This potential has been poorly assessed and trade-offs with traditional income from

livestock production is an area that remains to be explored. Research will aim to enhance

ecosystem services in drylands, balance it with livelihood concerns, and mitigate land

degradation.

Wastewater: Wastewater use in agriculture immediately raises water quality concerns.

Using wastewater for irrigation over time can significantly degrade soils, creating massive

nutrient imbalances and limiting productive use. However treatment of water by agriculture

is an important ecosystem service Ecosystem research considers the impacts of various

waste stream recovery systems.

Lessons learned This section offers examples of how prioritized ecosystem components and the services they

provide ensure stability and reduce variability in production systems employed by the rural

poor.

Lesson: Wetlands and peatlands regulate flooding, mitigate droughts and dry spells and

provide water treatment services

Peatlands in Sarawak, East Malaysia, play a major role in providing freshwater supplies. The

peatlands are an important contributor to the base flow of the numerous streams that

originate within them. It is estimated that throughout Sarawak, 3,000 megalitres are

abstracted annually from these streams (Mailvaganam, 1994). Similarly, the Hadejia-Nguru

wetlands in northern Nigeria play a major role in recharging aquifers which provide

domestic water supplies to approximately one million people as well as supplying water for

agriculture (Hollis et al., 1993).

Flood mitigation is an important ecosystem regulating service. The Muthurajawela marsh in

Sri Lanka is estimated to have a water storage capacity of 11 million cubic meters and a

retention period of more than 10 days. The flood attenuation value of the wetland is

estimated to be USD 5.4 million per year (USD 1,758 per hectare) (Emerton, 2005). Finally,

wetlands improve water quality through processes of sedimentation, filtration, physical and

chemical immobilization, microbial interactions and uptake by vegetation many (Kadlec and

Knight, 1996). As an example, sewage from 40% of the residents of the city of Kampala (ca

500,000 people) is discharged into the 5.3 km2 Nakivubo wetland.

Wetlands significantly improve the quality of water entering Lake Victoria, approximately 3

km from the city’s main supply intake. The water purification services of the wetland are

estimated to be worth about USD 1 million per year (Emerton, 2005).

Lesson: Below-ground diversity and agroforestry improve soil health and nutrient cycling

Significant work in the analysis of below ground diversity has proven that marked

differences in the functional composition of particular functional groups can serve as


126

indicator taxa for soil health. For example, within the nematode group we see a marked

increase in plant parasitic nematodes with increasing land use intensity. Clear trends of

decreasing diversity and abundance are observed in the group of ‘ecosystem engineers’ that

consist of macrofauna species like earthworms and termites that have a major impact on

soil through soil transport, building aggregate structures and forming pores and that provide

micro-niches for other soil organisms.

Earthworm management (vermiculture) used on rice, maize and banana crops increases

tolerance to plant parasitic nematodes by a systemic action on stress genes and expression

of other genes (Blouin et al., 2005). The technique allows the maintenance of high

earthworm activity in the root zone while offering an alternative transition from

conventional to partly or fully organic agriculture. This method should allow some control of

nematodes and possibly other pests and diseases in tree plantations. Earthworms are

known to enhance plant growth in most cases through a variety of direct or indirect effects.

Identifying and implementing sustainable and replicable management practices for below-

ground biodiversity conservation have demonstrated the use of various types of inoculums

as a substitute for fertilizers. Farmers in Ugandan have started growing soybean using

rhizobia inoculums, and the extension service is now expanding to communities outside the

project’s benchmark areas. In Mexico, inoculums have been developed with material

sourced from the benchmark areas and used in experiments with maize and palma

comedor, an ornamental plant.

Lesson: Biotic diversity helps regulate pests and diseases and reduces vulnerability

Both farmers and plant breeders have selected for and used genotypes that are resistant to

the pests and pathogens of their crops (Frankel et al., 1995; Finckh and Wolfe 2006; Thinlay

et al., 2000), and have developed farming systems that use crop biodiversity to reduce the

damage they cause as a substitute for pesticides. Farmers have local preferences for

growing mixtures of cultivars that provide resistance to local pest and diseases and enhance

yield stability (Trutmann et al., 1993; Karamura et al., 2004; Trutmann et al., 1993; Jarvis et

al., 2007).

High levels of diversity of traditional rice varieties in Bhutan have high functional diversity

against rice blast (Thinlay et al., 2000; Finckh, 2003). High wheat diversity in Italy has been

shown to provide yield stability in conditions of low pesticide application (Di Falco and

Chavas, 2007).

In progress in many parts of the world is the development of varietal mixtures, or sets of

varieties with non-uniform resistance and with lower new pathogens migration or mutation

probability of existing pathogens, (Finckh et al., 2000; Finckh and Wolfe, 2006; Jarvis et al.,

2007). Multilines are mixtures of genetically similar lines or varieties that mainly differ only


127

in their resistances to different pathotypes. They are in use in cereals in the USA (Finckh and

Wolfe 2006) and in coffee (Coffea arabica) in Colombia. There the variety Colombia is a

multiline of coffee lines differentially resistant to rust (caused by Hemilera vastatrix) and

grown on more than 360,000 ha (Moreno-Ruiz and Castillo-Zapata 1990; Browning 1997).

Natural enemies of pests depend on resources such as food for adults, alternative prey or

hosts, hibernation sites and shelter from adverse conditions (Landis et al., 2000). Habitat

management designed to meet the needs of natural enemies of crop pests can attract

species that offer the ecosystem service of natural biocontrol. In particular, relatively

undisturbed non-crop habitats, such as hedgerows, woodlots and termite mounds in

agricultural landscapes, typically support a higher degree of biodiversity providing natural

pest control than do crop systems (Bianchi et al., 2006). Zhang et al., (2010) develop a

spatial optimization model to explore economically optimal spatial configuration of natural

enemy habitats in agricultural landscapes. Results indicate that non-crop habitat

management can be a promising pest management option for organic cropping systems.

Under current prices, however, habitat management tends to reduce net returns for

conventional farms. Both area and configuration of non-crop habitats affect economic

performance, with the greatest value coming from small, scattered areas of habitat.

Lesson: Enhancing pollinator services improves production

Horticulture, including fruit production, has been the fastest growing food sector worldwide

with an annual average rate of growth of 3.6% during 1970-2004. 92% of this increase has

come from developing countries, indicating how important this sector of agriculture is for

rural livelihoods. The role of pollinators in horticultural crop production in countries such as

Kenya, South Africa and Brazil has been well established (Allsop et al., 2008, Bispo dos

Santos et al., De Marco and Coelho 2004, Gemmill-Herren and Ochieng 2008, Kasina et al.,

2009a, b, Martins and Johnson 2009, Ndiritu et al., 2008). Considerable work is required to

identify the specific agricultural management practices that can increase the amount of

pollination and thus yield of pollinator dependent crops.

Lesson: Conservation tillage improves carbon and water cycling

Conservation tillage has been shown to enhance carbon sequestration by increasing carbon

content and mitigating Greenhouse Gas emissions (Quintero, 2009; Uri et al., 1999, Denef et

al., 2004; Bossyut et al., 2002; Kong et al., 2005; Kuo et al., 1997; Rasmussen et al., 1980;

Cole et al., 1993) and facilitate better drainage and water holding capacity. It can limit the

potential for water logging or drought (Holland 2004; Govaerts et al., 2007; Zibilske and

Bradford 2007; Lichter et al., 2008) and soil loss (FAO 2001). In addition, net revenues can

be increased when adopting these practices (Quintero, 2009; Sandretto, 2001; and Jeong

and Forster; 2003). Quintero (2009) found that by improving the provision of soil related

ecosystem services by implementing conservation farming practices, the resilience of the


128

production system is improved as soil returns almost to its original condition after being

disturbed, and small farmers benefit from greater returns.

Lesson: Gender plays a key role in the management of ecosystem services.

Women are often left out of leadership roles and decision making processes, even when the

may be the main custodians.

Lesson: Lack of collective action and property rights can be a serious constraint to

adoption of practices that support ecosystem services.

Ecosystem services operate above the level of an individual farm. At this level, some form of

coordination is needed by the state, markets, or by collective action. Similarly, if the time

horizon is longer than a season, people without property rights are unlikely to have the

incentives or the authority to make investments.

Lesson: Markets currently capture only a small part of the value of ecosystem services

that support the livelihoods of poor farmers and the benefits they may or may not be

providing to others.

When included in better valuation processes, many ecosystem services can deliver

exceedingly high financial values (or costs arising from their absence). Examples include

regulation of water quantity and quality, flood and erosion. Values of ecosystem services

have been realized by improving public awareness about socio-cultural values of the

importance of local crop varieties and animal breeds and the associated biodiversity that

surrounds them (Birol et al., 2007) by providing information on the substitution value of

agricultural biodiversity for fertilizer and pesticides (Di Falco and Perrings, 2005); by moral

suasion, regulation and planning; by preventing specific land management practices such as

low input zones (Pascual and Perrings, 2007; Ruiz, 2009; Ramirez, 2001; Ceroni, et al.,

2007); and advocating that local and national governments integrate ecosystem services,

into their legislation on environmental impact assessment programs (Slootweg et al., 2006;

Wale, in press).

Lesson: Some market interventions can work.

Payment for Environmental Services (PES) schemes provide market incentives for farmers

who provide environmental services by compensating farmers for their conservation

practices through payment for environmental services (FAO, 2007; Brussaard et al., 2010;

van Noordwijk, 2005; 2007; Wunder et al., 2008). Environmental payment systems often

include initiatives to link upstream and downstream users of natural resources (Pradhan et

al., 2010).

Lesson: Ecosystem services have socio-cultural, insurance and option values that will be

under-estimated if left to the market.

Leaving ecosystem services to the market, as it is presently constructed, leads to choices

that are biased against the maintenance of optimal levels of ecosystem services (Thies,


129

2000; Heal et al., 2004; Pearce and Moran, 1994; Drucker, 2007; Pascual and Perrings, 2007;

Smale, 2006)6. There are few institutional and policy incentive structures that promote the

enhancement of farmers’ customary practices that support ecosystem services.

Lesson: Current legal systems make it difficult to adequately recognize the contributions

of farmers and farming communities in generating and enhancing ecosystem services.

National and local governments have not yet “bought into” the concept of benefit sharing

with farming communities with practical measures that support farmers who protect

ecosystem resilience and services.

Lesson: The long-term impact on sustainable poverty reduction of interventions that

support the maintenance of ecosystem services has not been monitored and remains

largely unknown.

Successful interventions come from supporting local institutions, enhancing collective action

and property rights, and enabling farmers to participate and lead the decision making

process and implementation (Kesavan and Swaminathan, 2008; Renard, 2003).

Resilience: the ability to absorb disturbances (www.resalliance.org).

Functional diversity: the value and range of species traits rather than just species numbers is

important to short-term ecosystem resource dynamics and long-term ecosystem stability, as it

increases positive interactions or complementary functions (Diaz and Cabido, 2001; Wilby and

Thomas, 2007).

Vulnerability: The degree to which a system is susceptible to, or unable to cope with, adverse

effects of change.

The ‘insurance hypothesis’: individual traits may be useful at a later time. Having a variety of

species and greater genetic diversity ensures an ecosystem against declines in its functioning in the

face of a range of environmental upsets (Mulder et al., 2001; (Norberg et al., 2001; Yachi and Loreau,

1999).

Theory of change Many of the actions now being taken by individuals and groups are necessary and ‘right’ in

terms of keeping productivity and maintaining ecosystem services, but will take a long

time to get results. These include actions designed to facilitate collective action that

strengthens existing groups (farmer groups, CSOs, NGO coalitions, etc.) or helping to set

them up and giving them the tools they need to support and advocate their cause. It must

be noted that not all collective action leads to good outcomes for environmental services.

For example, associations of organic farmers are likely to promote good stewardship, but a

6 In a comprehensive SGRP/CGIAR review of the applied genetic resource economics valuation literature,

covering over 170 publications (Zambrano et al., 2005[i]), Smale and Drucker (2007) concluded that recent

advances in the analysis of the value and determinants of individual components of agrobiodiversity have

provided a useful framework of knowledge on the ways in which improved valuation can contribute to optimal

investment allocations and policy decisions.

http://www.resalliance.org/


130

groundwater user group may be interested only in pumping more water to intensify crop

production. Nor do we see any of these levers as simple quick fixes.

For example, there are non-market actions used in natural resource management that have

worked. Many are not mainstreamed because of agricultural production subsidies7, tax

breaks and price controls (Tilman et al., 2002; Kontoleon et al., 2007; Kitti el., al, 2009),

and because of the skewed investment of multi-national companies in research for high

technology and patentable solutions that may be contrary to the public goods that

ecosystem services provide. These difficulties aside, we have to keep pulling these levers of

change because there is a shift in the wider society towards a demand for healthier food

and environments, which leads to people understanding the real value of

sustainable agricultural production systems.

Creative incentive schemes. In Taiwan, the government pays farmers to maintain paddy

fields because they comprise an effective form of flood control and mitigation. If we can

position wastewater irrigation as a form of treatment, city governors could be persuaded to

pay for this service in the form of supporting legislation or campaigning for safe use, which

would encourage consumption which would put money in the farmers’ pockets.

The private sector and fair trade. Fair trade is an organized social movement and market-based approach that aims to help producers in developing countries obtain better trading conditions and promote sustainability. The movement advocates the payment of a higher price to producers as well as social and environmental standards. It focuses in particular on exports from developing countries to developed countries, most notably handicrafts, coffee, cocoa, sugar, tea, bananas, honey, cotton, wine, fresh fruit, chocolate, flowers and gold. The interests of fair trade programs, business associations like the World Business Council for Sustainable Development, the Alliance for Water Stewardship, and corporate CSR programs are very much in line with our goals and objectives. There are enough genuinely successful initiatives that we can ignore the green washing, empty rhetoric and exaggerated claims that are, unfortunately, also common practice.

Using the social capital of our partnership networks. Harness the collective social capital of

our partnership networks in soil, water, crops, livestock and fisheries to ‘get in the door’ of

ministries that have traditionally been unsympathetic to environmental concerns and offer

options they can accept.

Influence policy to support production systems that replace external inputs with biotic

components of the ecosystem. The heart of the matter here is how to persuade decision

makers to make decisions to include the full costs of using non-biotic inputs such as

chemical fertilizers and patented GMO seed varieties. In mainstream economics these costs

7 OEDC countries spend approximately US225$ billion annually on agricultural subsidies for their own

producers, between one forth and one third the global value of agricultural production.


131

are treated as ‘externalities’ and completely ignored. Advocacy, consumer power and policy

remain the best tools we have at present.

Identify custodians of ecosystem services and engineer the policy environment to support

them. One of the main problems with environmental services is that in many cases there

simply is no custodian. An individual farmer depends on bees to pollinate her fruit trees, but

who is the custodian of the bees? What legal and intuitional frameworks support

custodianship for the wider ecosystem beyond the fence of an individual farmer’s field?

Community management models are one model that has been shown to work, but only if

the policy and institutional environment support it.

Research questions This Best Bet revolves around the hypothesis that through the creation, maintenance and

enhancement of ecosystem services, natural resource management for agriculture will not

only improve productivity but also ensure stability and reduce variability in the production

systems of small scale farmers.

The research needed to make this change is organized to understand: 1) which components

of ecosystems are providing the ecosystem services that help reduce poverty in agricultural

ecosystems, and how do they do this? 2) What management practices can create and

enhance these services under changing production and environmental conditions? 3) Who

are the custodians of these services? 4) Why are these ecosystem services not appropriately

valued? 5) What appropriate actions or interventions can provide benefits to stakeholders

who maintain or enhance ecosystem services?

Question 1: At what levels and scales do the components of ecosystems provide the

ecosystem services that help reduce poverty in agricultural ecosystems? Answering this

question will require:

• Assessing the amount and distribution of ecosystem components and their role in

providing ecosystems services

• Understanding the continuum of ecosystem services in different farming systems

that are critical for local populations

• Assessing local, basin level and regional water cycles and the role of ecosystems

services that underpin water security and vulnerability to flooding and drought

• Measuring how these ecosystem services support rural livelihoods

• Addressing the spatial connectivity of ecosystems in accounting for the benefits of

ecosystem services

• Determining the role of field-water outflows in regulating hydrology and supporting

the environment


132

Question 2: What management practices enhance or create ecosystem services for

current and future use to reduce poverty? Answering this question will require:

• Identifying which ecosystem services are most at risk through unsustainable

agricultural practices and the magnitude of impact of these management practices

• Understanding how drivers such as population growth, resource scarcity, changes in

land and water use, high input development interventions and degradation affect

the delivery of these ecosystem services

• Identifying when degradation to ecosystem services are reversible and services can

be recovered or if there are tipping points that permanently alter the environment.

Question 3: How can the custodians of ecosystem services and providers be better

identified and supported to continue practices that support and maintain ecosystem

services? This will require:

• Identifying custodians of ecosystem services and their inter-dependence within the

larger landscape and watershed

• Assessing how custodians and other stakeholders view themselves in their role

• Understanding what changes are needed for decision makers to implement

management practices that are sensitive to ecosystem services

• Identifying actions that will permit benefits to flow back to service custodians

• Identifying governance platforms in natural resources management that are

ecosystem service oriented

Question 4: How can an enabling environment be created that can remove disincentives

and create incentives to support the maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem

services and resilience for poverty reduction? Answering this question will require:

• Identifying and addressing local, national and regional institutional and policy-

related disincentives

• Quantifying the monetary and non-monetary values of ecosystem services, in

particular their value to the poor

• Identifying, quantifying and using private and public values of ecosystem services to

inform the prioritization of development interventions

• Measuring the value of the services they provide. Measurement does not have to be

in monetary terms. For example, for water services, a value index like ‘population

served per upstream hectare’ or ‘electricity generated per upstream hectare’ would ‘

be useful for prioritizing interventions

• Attributing the positive impacts of ecosystem services on livelihoods, while

minimizing tendencies towards levels of homogenization and oversimplification of

production systems that are not socially optimal


133

Question 5: How can we test, monitor and evaluate the impact of alternative

interventions aimed at promoting the use, maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem

services in support of the rural poor? Answering this question will require:

• Identifying which types of interventions should be prioritized for testing, monitoring

and evaluation (e.g. involving inter alia market [including PES] and non-market

mechanisms; and policy, legal and institutional options) and with which stakeholders

• Testing of a range of interventions

• Developing appropriate tools and methods with which to monitor and evaluate

livelihood and ecosystem impacts of interventions across a range of representative

environments

Research outputs

In six years:

Identification of the biotic components to improve soil health through the use of below

ground diversity and reduced need for external inputs.

New insights into the relationships between agricultural practices and ecosystem services

and resilience.

A portfolio of management practices that can be used to enhance or create ecosystem

services for current and future use to reduce poverty.

Identification of and support to custodians of ecosystem services and providers to continue

practices that support and maintain ecosystem services given the above drivers of change

Systems to test, monitor and evaluate the impact of alternative interventions aimed at

promoting the use, maintenance and enhancement of ecosystem services in support of the

rural poor.

Better tools:

for sustainable management practices of peat lands, pastures and aquatic systems

that support ecosystem services

for better identification and prioritization of areas where specific actions or

interventions can be used to improve natural resource management as well as

reduce poverty

for water delivery by ecosystems at the local through to landscape and basin scales

to measure vulnerability that allows decisions on selecting biotic components within

agro-ecosystem to better regulate pests and disease and reduce current and future

crop loss

to increase production through improved pollinator efficiency


134

to remove disincentives and create incentives to support the maintenance and

enhancement of ecosystem services and resilience for poverty reduction

In the next three years:

Outputs delivered in three years are based mainly on existing projects aligned with this Best

Bet. Partners currently responsible for these projects have commitments to donors that

must be fulfilled. During the transition phase we will conduct a detailed analysis of all

project outputs in terms of how they contribute to this Best Bet and formulate more specific

output descriptions.

Tools and practices needed to manage local crop (intra-specific) genetic diversity developed

for farmers and NARS researchers. (China, Equador, Morocco, Uganda, Uzbekistan,

Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan)

Improved production practices in agriculture obtained through community based

conservation models and tools that support indigenous and local communities and the

scientific and development communities to conserve and use local crop biodiversity in areas

of high environmental instability and variability (Nepal Himalayas).

Support for those agrobiodiversity rich practices that are already part of the livelihood

strategies of the target communities (Sri Lanka).

Wild and cultivated materials identified that currently are being used or have the potential

to be used by local communities to managing pests and diseases and to cope with biotic

stress; Expanded biodiversity rich corridors within the agricultural production systems that

provide refuges and increase population size of pollinators and seed dispersers. (Cuba)

Demonstrated and used the functional benefits of the genetic diversity (crops, livestock,

associated diversity) in oases of Algeria and Tunisia to support and improve the specific

ecosystem services that these systems provides. (Algeria and Tunisia)

A multifunctional agricultural landscape with bio-corridors and stepping-stones identified;

land-use dynamics for each stepping stone assessed; scenarios and models for multipurpose

landscapes with local tradeoffs between livelihood options and conservation tested; carbon

assets and opportunities determined; ecosystem services and their rewards supported;

negotiation processes initiated; and improvement in national capacities for integrated

research in the Mekong region.

A reliable standardized protocol for the quantification and assessment of C and greenhouse

gas (GHG) benefits in all GEF and other projects involving natural resource management.


135

Implement examples of good practice in Paramo management; support governmental and

non- governmental levels to adopt key policies for Paramo conservation; increase the

technical capacity of Paramo inhabitants and field practitioners to manage Paramo;

replicate best lessons of the project to other areas and scales at Andean level.

Outcomes

In 6 years in 10 areas:

Farmers and resource managers are moving towards ‘insurance portfolios’ comprised of

multiple ways to better use soil, water and biotic resources that enhance ecosystem

services. This will be demonstrated in 6 areas.

Natural resource managers will support and create partnerships with small scale farmers

who use water, soil and biotic management methods that reduce vulnerability in the

production system while at the same time maintaining productivity.

Consumer and retailer norms and behaviors are supporting agricultural production systems

that reduce vulnerability with continued productivity through enhanced ecosystem services.

Policies, legal measures and incentives that support production systems with less

dependence on external inputs.

The discourse of ecosystem services and resilience is more prevalent and more prominent

within communities of resource managers at ministries of agriculture, land development

and water resources and their associated departments at county and provincial levels.

Insights and tools are found in the training and professional development curricula of

resource managers such as hydrologists and irrigation engineers.

Increased human capital of small scale male and female agricultural producers to take

advantage of new information and communication technology and providing internet

connections.

Impacts

Agricultural producers have reduced vulnerability to disease and arthropod pests through

better use of crop biodiversity and associated below ground biodiversity.

Increasing evidence that crop productivity is improved through better pollinator efficiency

and below ground efficiency.


136

Representative partnerships among ecosystem service providers and consumers to create

decision making platforms.

Potential impact areas

Table 1 at the end of this Best Bet shows a list of on-going projects and their locations and

the strategic research area being addressed. Countries with more than one CG center

working in that country are listed by geographical region below:

East Africa:

West Africa:

SE Asia:

South Asia:

East Asia:

Himalayas:

Andes:

Neotropics:

Kenya Tanzania, Uganda

Burkina Faso, Mail

Indonesia, Lao PDF, Thailand

Bangladesh, India

China (low land)

China, Nepal

Columbia, Ecuador, Peru

Mexico

Data generated in participation with the Best Bet on Spatial Information and Surveillance

systems will provide a platform for generating empirical data and meta-analysis on

ecosystem services and associated risk factors, and evaluation of intervention impacts. This

will be at two levels: 1) through regional information systems based on available

remote sensing and GIS data, and 2) through a network of long-term sentinel sites

located within CG benchmark basins where standardized ground sampling protocols will

be applied to collect ecological and socio-economic data at nested spatial scales and over

time.

Impact Pathway

CG researchers collaborate with national agricultural and environmental research and

education institutes, extension services, NGOs and selected farmer and pastoral

communities. Research activities include disaggregated information by gender and age

to develop and test practices that improve provisioning and regulating ecosystem services.

These services include: resilience to water stress from better ecosystem management;

improved soil health and soil-forming processes from below ground diversity and

agroforesty; regulation of pest and diseases through crop biodiversity; enhanced pollination

services; and improved carbon and water cycling from wetlands, peatlands and sustainable

pasture and aquatic systems management.

National resource managers train local and provincial staff to enable them to measuring

regulating and supporting services. Local (county, provincial) and national research and

education institutes (technical schools and local colleges) in water, soils, and agriculture


137

have the skills to evaluate the impact of different management practices on regulating and

supporting ecosystem service, and regard farmers as partners with legitimate knowledge

and the ability to set research agendas.

Leadership capacity is built for male and female custodians of ecosystem services to enable

them to access and use information. Knowledge empowerment for small scale farmers is

created by taking advantage of the new information and communication technology and

providing internet connections, using solar power where electricity is not continuous or

available, cell phone connections, and wire-wireless hybrid technology.

Capacity for poor and vulnerable groups to access and use information is improved through

links with NGOs and national extension services with the mandate to improve literacy.

Campaigns are carried out to change norms towards understating the full costs of different

soil and water practices. Retailer and private sector companies incorporate ecosystem

services into retail standards, which establish gateways for getting ecosystem supportive

products into their retail systems, while promoting diversity in lieu of uniformity among

products. Changed standards provide a market for technologies (processing, millers, water

technologies, soil technologies) to be adapted to handle diversity of management methods.

Natural resource management and agricultural policy makers advocate local and national

governments to integrate ecosystem services, into their legislation allowing benefits to flow

back to ecosystem providers.

Implementation plan

This Best Bet envisions technical coordinating teams with national partners in different

geographical areas who will build on the knowledge gained from local partnerships and

national and international research and educational institutes and organizations through

participatory and adaptive management methods. This Best Bet has a strong gender focus

that emphasizes the need for disaggregated collection of data by gender and age and the

importance of supporting through leadership and capacity building the role of women in

natural resources management education, research and decision making positions.

Links to others MPs

Major link with MP1. Here MP5 is providing the knowledge and tools that might be used in

MP1

Major link with MP2 (2.3 collective action and property rights)


138

Partners The following list is indicative of the types of partners we are currently working or plan to

work with. More detailed partnership arrangements by country and region will be

developed during the transition phase of the program. Refer to our section on Partners and

Partner Networks.

CGIAR Organisations Participatory Research and Gender Initiative – CIAT; All CGIAR centers except CIMMYT International Organisations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), Rome, Italy; Convention of Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat, Montreal Canada; United National Environmental Programme (UNEP), Nairobi Kenya; UNESCO; IFAD; The Platform for Agrobiodiversity Research, Rome, Italy, Bioversity International, Rome, Italy; African Ecosystem Research Network (CAS-UNEP); The Mountain Institute Universities & Academia University of Los Andes, Columbia; University of Florida, USA; University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna; Washington State University, Pullman, USA; Cornell University, USA; University of California, Davis, USA; Lewis and Clark College Law School; IAV Hassan II University, Rabat, Morocco; Yunnan Agricultural University, Kunming, China; Maccarere University, Kampala, Uganda; University of Kassel, Germany; Chinese Academy of Sciences, and their provincial Academies; Chinese Agricultural Academy of Sciences (CAAS), and their provincial academies (i.e., Yunnan Academy of Agricultural Sciences YAAS); Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU); IRD, Montpellier, France; Uzbek Research Institute of Genetics and Experimental Plant Biology, Uzbekistan; Kyrgyz Agrarian University, Kyrgyzstan; Academy of Sciences and National Institutes of Deserts, Turkmenistan Statal & Para-Statal Bodies Ministries of the Environment, of Agriculture, and of Education and their provincial and regional departments; Ministry of Planning (in relevant countries); National Agricultural, Environmental and Water Research Institutes and centers (NARS) and their regional and local research centers; CAR and CORPOGUAVIO (Environmental authorities in Colombia); Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRAA), Algeria ; Institution of Research and Agriculture's High Education (IRESA), Tunisia; Instituto de Investigaciones Fundamentales en Agricultura Tropical (INIFAT), Cuba;Centro Nacional de Areas Protegidas (CNAP), Cuba; Ministry of Nature Protection; 5 national institutes that feed data into the inventory, Armenia; Viceministerio de Biodiversidad, Biodiversidad y Cambios Climaticos, Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Agua; and 9 linked institutes, Bolivia; Centre National de la Recherche Appliquée au Développement Rural (FOFIFA); L’Office national pour l’Environment (ONE), le portail dynamique du Réseau de la Biodiversité de Madagascar (REBIOMA), Madagascar ; Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources; Royal Botanic Gardens, Peradeniya; PGRC, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka; Institute of Genetics and Plant Experimental Biology (IGPEB), Academy of Sciences; Uzbek Research Institute of Plant Industry of Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources; other 4 related scientific institutes, Uzbekistan; Nepal Agricultural Research Council, Hill Crop Research Programme, Nepal; Instituto Nacional Autónomo de


139

Investigaciones Agropecurarias (INIAP), Ecuador; Institut Agronomique et Vétérinaire Hassan II Département d’Agronomie et d’Amélioration des Plantes, Morocco ; National Agricultural Research Organisation (NARO-Uganda), Uganda; Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Dushanbe, Tajikistan ; The Ministry of Environment and natural Resources, Sri Lanka; The Department of Agriculture, Sri Lanka NGOs Ecociencia, Ecuador; The Latin American Center for Rural Development (RIMISP), Chile; Foundation for Sustainable Development- Colombia (FUNDESOT); PROIMPA, Bolivia; Local Initiatives for Biodiversity Research and Development, Nepal; ECOAGRICULTURE Partners, WA. DC., USA; Numerous other national NGOs throughout partner countries Regional Research Institutes Alexander Von Humbolt Institute, Colombia; Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation (EMBRAPA), Brazil Donor Programmes GTZ – GESOREN, Ecuador; Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) Bern Switzerland; Christensen Fund, California USA; IFAD; IDRC, Montreal Canada; JICA, Japan; NEDA, the Netherlands; Ford Foundation


140

Table 2.2 On-going projects, locations and strategic research

Research Q1: Research Q2: Research Q3: Research Q4 : Research Q5:

Identifying levels and scales

where ecosystem components

produce ecosystem services and

resilience that help reduce

poverty in agricultural

ecosystems

Understanding management

practices can create and enhance

these services under changing

conditions

Identifying are the

custodians of ecosystem

services and their

perceptions and needs

Economic evaluation and

policy and legal

Constraints to the

enhancement and creation

of ecosystem services

Monitoring actions or

interventions that provide

benefits to stakeholders who

maintain or enhance ecosystem

services

ILRI

BMZ Carbon sequestration in

African rangelands (Burkina

Faso; Ethiopia)

BMZ 2010 proposal Carbon

sequestration in African

rangelands (Burkina Faso;

Ethiopia)

Three PhD studies on PES for

wildlife conservation in

rangelands

ASARECA USAID Total

economic value of Kenya,

Tanzania, Ethiopia

rangelands;

WRI DANIDA - GIS spatial

planning economic value

AWF- USAID Kitengela pastoral -

land lease programs (Kenya)

NERC+DFID ESPA Biodiversity,

ecosystem services, social

sustainability and tipping points in

African drylands

ICRAF

Develop land health surveillance

methods

Soil Micronutrient deficiencies

(Sub-Saharan Africa)

Integrated Himalayan Transect

scales and socio-ecological

zones

Carbon inventory (Kenya)

UNDP/GEF Reduce sediment

discharge (Tanzania)

CPWP – Nile basin ecosystem

services and rainwater

management

Reducing degraded lands in

highlands of Kilimanjaro

Building functional

Landscape Institutions in

West and East Africa (Mali,

Sierra Leone)

Development of carbon market

for bio corridors (China, Yunnan

Province, Laos, Myanmar and

Thailand)

IRRI

Concept note: relationship

between agriculture and

wetlands in Ningxia, China

Integrating agriculture, fisheries

and environment in the Ganges

Delta (Bangladesh)











141

World Fish

Aquatic resources for poverty

elimination in the Lower

Mekong

Identifying the poor and

their dependence upon

aquatic resources

(Bangladesh, Cambodia, Lao

PDR, Vietnam)

Wetlands Alliance

Programme, support to

building local capacity for

sustainable mgt. Of

wetlands and aquatic

resources (Cambodia, Lao

PDR, Thailand, Vietnam)

Legal and institutional

framework and economic

value (Mekong River

wetlands)

Valuing the role of living

aquatic resources to rural

livelihoods in multiple-use

seasonally inundated

wetlands in China.

IITA

Identify indigenous

nematophagous fungi

associated with vegetables and

test the potential of these

indigenous fungi and AMF for

nematode biological control

(Benin)

Identify indigenous

nematophagous fungi associated

with vegetables and test the

potential of these indigenous

fungi and AMF for nematode

biological control (Benin)

CIAT-TSBF

Conservation and Sustainable

management of below ground

biodiversity (CSM-BGBD)

Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, India,

Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico,

Uganda, Western Ghats)

AfSIS – Africa Soil Information

Services Mali, Malawi, Nigeria,

Tanzania, Kenya

The Amazon project AMAZ

(Reconstruction of eco-efficient

landscape in Amazonia) (Brazil,

Colombia)

Quesungual Slash & Mulch

Agroforestry System

(QSMAS project) Honduras,

Nicaragua, Guatemala

Conservation Agriculture as

alternative system to

conventional system Kenya,

Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique,

Zambia)




Zimbabwe, Malawi,

Mozambique, Zambia)

Quesungual Slash & Mulch

Agroforestry System

(QSMAS project) Honduras,

Nicaragua, Guatemala

Conservation and

Sustainable management of

below ground biodiversity

(CSM-BGBD)

Brazil, Côte d’Ivoire, India,

Indonesia, Kenya, Mexico,

Uganda, Western Ghats)

The Amazon project AMAZ

(Reconstruction of eco-

efficient landscape in

Amazonia) (Brazil,

Colombia)




Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique,


142

CIP

Develop reliable new methods

for field analysis of soil carbon

contents and recalcitrance

(Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and

Venezuela)

Carbon, water and biodiversity

stewardship in Andean

smallholder farming communities


Venezuela)

Reduce the encroachment of

agriculture in soil-carbon

rich peatlands to increase

productivity and

compensate steward

farmers

Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and

Venezuela)

Carbon fluxes and

opportunity cost in different

land uses and a scheme for

incentives for

environmental payments

(Colombia, Ecuador, Peru

and Venezuela)

Carbon, water and biodiversity

stewardship in Andean

smallholder farming communities


Venezuela)

Bioversity

UNEP/GEF Use of local crop

genetic diversity to regulate

pest and disease and reduce

vulnerability in the production

system China, Morocco,

Ecuador, Uganda, Central Asia

Crop genetic diversity to

maintain high mountain

ecosystem services for

sustainable agriculture (Nepal)

Status and Trends in loss of

Ecosystem Services and

ecosystem resilience from loss

of agrobiodiversity (Boliva,

Indonesia, Brazil, Tanzania,

Malaysia, Morocco, Mexico)

Home gardens, small tank

systems, and dry land

management and ecosystem

resilience in Sri Lanka

Impact of Oasis agricultural

biodiversity on soil and water

management. (Tunisia, Algeria)

Bridging managed and natural

landscapes Cuba

Role custodians of

temperate fruit trees in

regulating ecosystem

services (pollinators and

pest and disease) in Central

Asia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan,

Turkmenistan and Tajikistan

Economic value of crop

genetic diversity as an

abatement factor to

regulate pest and diseases

(Uganda, Ecuador)

Evaluating willingness to

pay (Choice models) for

ecosystem services (China,

Morocco)

Policy incentives and

disincentive to maintain

ecosystem services and

benefit sharing (Nepal,

China, Ecuador, Morocco,

Uganda, Central Asia)

Economic methods, decision

support tools and policy

intervention strategies for pro-

poor agricultural biodiversity use

and ecosystems services

maintenance (India, Peru, Bolivia)


143

IFPRI

Linking landscape diversity/land

use choices with ecosystem

services (natural pest control

and pollination) and poverty

reduction (China)

Linking landscape diversity/land

use choices with ecosystem

services (natural pest control and

pollination) and poverty

reduction (China)

Linking landscape

diversity/land use choices

with ecosystem services

(natural pest control and

pollination) and poverty

reduction (China)

Valuing the effect of genetic

choice on farmers’

vulnerability to pest and

diseases (Ecuador and

Uganda)

IWMI

Rainwater Management in

Landscapes Ethiopia

Enhancing Water for Food, ESPA

- SSA

WETwin - Southern Africa

WETWin - Southern Africa


Landscapes, Ethiopia

Wetlands and poverty - Asia

PES in uplands - Laos

Enhancing Water for Food, ESPA -

SSA

Built structures, ecosystem

services and poverty - ESPA

PES in uplands - Laos PES in uplands - Laos


Landscapes, N2 - Ethiopia

highlands

Integrated Rainwater

Management - Governance

- Volta, Ghana, Burkina

Faso

PES in uplands - Laos


Landscapes, Ethiopia highlands

WETWin - Southern Africa

Mekong 1 – SE Asia

Wetlands and Poverty - Asia

Built structures, ecosystem

services and poverty - ESPA

CPWF

A1 - Water allocation Andes

(Columbia, Peru Ecuador)

A3 – Affects of global change on

to reduce water-related conflict

through benefit sharing

A4- Coordination of multi-

stakeholder platform

(CODESAN) Andes

(Columbia, Peru Ecuador)

A3 - On designing and

implementing benefit-

sharing mechanisms –

Andes (Columbia, Peru

Ecuador)

Evaluating willingness to

pay (Choice models) in the

Nile basin, Laos, Vietnam,

Thailand

A2 - Assessing and anticipating

the consequences of introducing

benefit sharing mechanisms

Andes (Columbia, Peru Ecuador)

Laotian Highlands PES


144

FAO

Expanding the knowledge of

pollination services (Brazil,

Ghana, Nepal, India, Kenya,

Pakistan

MASSMUS methodology based

on the application of Ecosystem

Services to water management in

the irrigated command area. A

shift from watering crop s to

ecosystem service providers

(India, Vietnam and China,

Pakistan)

Enhanced conservation and

sustainable use of pollinators

(Brazil, Ghana, Nepal, India,

Kenya, Pakistan).

MASSMUS methodology

based on the application of

Ecosystem Services to water

management in the irrigated

command area. A shift from

watering crop s to



Pakistan)

MASSMUS methodology

based on the application of

Ecosystem Services to water

management in the

irrigated command area. A

shift from watering crop s to



Pakistan)

Socio-economic valuation of

pollinator-friendly practices

(Brazil, Ghana, Nepal, India,

Kenya, Pakistan).

sfernando

Text Box

Note: please see the full proposal for the references.

Best Bet: Ecosystems Improved ecosystem services and resilience · 2016. 10. 6. · Best Bet: Ecosystems Improved ecosystem services and resilience 122 Best Bet: Ecosystems Improved

Documents