National and international conservation models

Introduction
History & Background of Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)
Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)´s Approach
Ecosystem Services:
Payments for ecosystem services (PES)
Examples of PES
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)
Criticism of REDD
Success of REDD approach

Introduction

Many elements of nature are used by humans to meet their basic requirements. Natural resources make it possible to obtain food, water, and shelter. Since their full value is unknown, clean air, water, and soil are frequently wasted and taken for granted. It is believed that they are constantly abundant and are readily available in nature. However, the biodiversity and various and intricate ecological processes that enable access to clean water and clean air are almost ever acknowledged or even taken into account. Polluted water sources cause suffering for millions of people. Delhi, the capital of India, experiences smog every winter, which disrupts trains and traffic. People have respiratory issues and long-term health repercussions as a result of bad air. The delicately balancing natural mechanisms that support life are not widely known. Through the process of photosynthesis, millions of green plants produce oxygen. The hydrological cycle, which includes a number of physical and biological components, provides access to water. It is worth considerably more than the cost of a bottle of packaged water that one would buy from a store.

Nature supplies us with everything we need to survive. However, it largely avoids markets, avoids pricing, and defies valuation. It was believed that the misuse and neglect of nature by people, which resulted in the depletion of ecosystems and the loss of biodiversity, was caused by a lack of appreciation for the natural world. As they lose access to safe food and water, the world's poorest people suffer the most from biodiversity loss. However, as a result of the destruction of nature, human health, wellbeing, and way of life are also at danger. The notion spread among philosophers that decision-makers would be aware of the true costs of environmental harm if we could show the economic value of nature.

History & Background of Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)

The G8+5 countries' environment ministers gathered in Potsdam, Germany, in March 2007. They suggested beginning an analysis of the benefits of biological diversity for the global economy and contrasting the costs of biodiversity loss and the failure to take preventative action with the costs of effective conservation. In response to this request, the German Federal Ministry for the Environment (BMUB) and the European Commission jointly launched a global research that same year (EC). The study team's head, Pavan Sukhdev, is a global banker who had a significant role in the development of India's currency, interest rates, and derivatives markets in the middle of the 1990s. He completed a ground-breaking study titled "The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity" by bringing together many specialists and organisations in an inclusive manner (TEEB).

In terms of economics and human wellbeing, TEEB sized the issue of biodiversity loss and environmental degradation globally and recommended remedies aimed at policy-makers, administrators, corporations, and individuals. At the CBD COP-10 in Nagoya, Japan, in October 2010, the TEEB study was presented. It resulted in four significant publications that catered to distinct end users. The four papers discussed key challenges in the economic valuation of biodiversity, classified ecosystem services, and offered suggestions for incorporating valuation into decisions made by national and international authorities. The strategy has garnered support in a number of nations, including Brazil, India, Germany, Norway, the EU, and others.

TEEB´s Approach

The TEEB study followed three core principles:

All human societies and communities value ecosystems, landscapes, species, and other aspects of biodiversity, and this recognition might sometimes be enough to secure their preservation and sustainable use. For instance, the existence of sacred trees in several civilizations has aided in the preservation of the biodiversity seen in natural places.
Making decisions that take into account the full costs and benefits of an ecosystem rather than just those costs or values that enter the markets in the form of private goods is often aided by the ability to demonstrate value in economic terms for policy makers and other stakeholders, such as businesses. Calculating the costs and advantages of protecting the ecosystem services that wetlands provide in regulating floods in comparison to the cost of constructing flood defences is one example. Even though it doesn't lead to specific actions, the presentation of an economic value is a crucial tool for attaining effective resource usage.
By implementing mechanisms that use incentives and price signals to incorporate ecological values into decision-making, value can be captured. This can involve creating fiscal incentives for conservation, changing ecologically detrimental subsidies, or paying for ecosystem services.

Persistent poverty and the destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity are strongly correlated. The neglect and decline of biodiversity makes it impossible to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which vowed to end extreme poverty and hunger, enhance maternal health and women's status in society, lower child mortality, and promote economic development. According to TEEB, it is crucial to keep your attention on the lower rungs of the economic pyramid. Win-win solutions can help the world's impoverished while minimising ecosystem damage and biodiversity loss. It is essential to describe and talk about ecosystem services in order to comprehend the TEEB principles.

Ecosystem Services:

Whether or not these processes are beneficial to people, the phrase "ecosystem function" originally referred to the collection of ecosystem processes taking place within an ecological system. The phrase "ecosystem services" was first used by Paul and Anne Ehrlich in 1981 to describe the variety of ecosystem processes that are essential for people. The advantages that individuals derive from ecosystems in the form of commodities and services are referred to as "ecosystem services." There are immediate benefits like food, water, and medications. Additionally, there are unintended benefits like defence against flooding, reduced soil erosion, etc. Also serving as sinks for our pollutants, including carbon, are natural ecosystems.

The environment has also influenced human evolution, and this relationship is significant from a social, cultural, and aesthetic standpoint. Every human population in the world depends on ecosystem services in a fundamental and direct way for their well-being.

Ecosystem Services are broadly grouped into following categories:

Provisioning services: These are the direct advantages provided by nature, such as food for people and animals, water, medicine, etc.
Regulating services: The control of services. These are indirect advantages, typically in the form of ecosystems' labour creating environments that support humans and many other species. Carbon sequestration by vegetation controls climate regulation. Soil erosion is reduced by forests.
Supporting services: These results from natural processes are indirect advantages. Pollination happens naturally. It is necessary for horticulture and agriculture to flourish. Crop losses from pollinator loss are significant.
Cultural services: These indirect advantages are important for many facets of human cultures. Some environments and animals are important from a religious or cultural perspective. Many millions of people go on vacation every year.

The economic value approach for ecosystem services, which are frequently regarded as free public goods, was covered in the TEEB study. The approaches recommended by TEEB were widely employed in research to estimate the economic worth of ecological degradation and biodiversity loss.

Recent estimates place the annual loss of natural capital caused by tropical deforestation at between $2 trillion and $4.5 trillion, with the cost to global human welfare. Given that not all ecosystem services were taken into account in the calculation, this prediction is cautious.
In the next 40 years, the worldwide marine fishing industry, which nets a catch of about $100 billion year, faces collapse. Along with this, there is also a threat to the health of more than a billion people in the poor world who depend on fish as their primary or only source of animal protein, as well as an estimated 35 million employment, mostly in small-scale and artisanal fisheries.
Studies on coastal mangrove forests have revealed that during the 1999 supercyclone and the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, mangroves worked as bioshields, causing less damage to villages that were backed up to them than to those that were exposed to the coast. The mangroves prevented large-scale economic losses by protecting property and human lives. As a precaution against disasters, significant funding is currently set aside for the preservation and regeneration of mangrove forests along the coast. These estimated gains are in addition to the additional advantages for local populations' livelihoods.
According to one theory, "compliance markets" that assign tradable values to the supply or utilisation of these services may be encouraged if humans could establish policies that rewarded the preservation of the flow of these public goods. Payments for ecosystem services are one instance (PES).

Payments for ecosystem services (PES)

Incentives given to people or communities in exchange for their adoption of a specific type of management of natural resources, more frequently land or water, to deliver some sort of ecological service. Payments for ecosystem or environmental services or benefits. One of the programmes designed to encourage business entities or other market forces to invest in conservation is this one, which rewards communities for sustainable resource management with incentives (often financial). Examples of PES programmes include those where businesses or society pay for habitat preservation or restoration, tree planting or organic farming, preserving water and soil, managing river flow, etc. The recipients of payment are the "providers/suppliers" in this situation, while corporations or society operate as the "buyers" of ecosystem services.

Sven Wunder proposed a definition of PES that has gained widespread acceptance. He states that A payment for environmental services scheme” is: A voluntary transaction in which,

a well-defined ecosystem service (ES), or a form of land use likely to secure that service is bought by at least one ES buyer from a minimum of one ES provider
If and only if the provider continues to supply that service (conditionality)

Contracts between suppliers and customers of ecosystem services are a part of several PES projects. The majority of PES initiatives, however, are government-funded and involve middlemen like non-governmental organisations. The owner of an environmental good that offers a stream of benefits to the party making the demand in exchange for payment is often the party providing the environmental services. In private contracts, those who benefit from ecosystem services are willing to pay a price that is likely to be less than the welfare benefit they would receive from the services. It is reasonable to assume that the ecosystem service providers will be open to accepting a payment that exceeds the cost of providing the services. Many of these environmental services are now either undervalued or have no economic value. Markets for ecosystem services are forming in nations all over the world in response to growing concerns. There are now formal markets for greenhouse gases (carbon), water, and even biodiversity, some of which are voluntary and others which are required by law. PES primarily provide financial incentives to encourage more effective and long-term usage of ecosystem services and can be used to address concerns with poverty eradication.

Examples of PES

Bottled water is produced by the French business Perrier Vittel, which is currently owned by Nestlé. They found that maintaining the farms near their water sources would be more cost-effective than building a new filtration facility to address water quality issues detected in 1990. So they bought 600 acres of delicate habitat and entered into long-term conservation agreements with nearby farms. In order to embrace less intensive pasture-based dairy farming, enhance animal waste management, and reforest vulnerable filtration zones, farmers in the Rhine-Meuse watershed in northeastern France got compensation. One of the intriguing PES examples can be found in India. Kuhan is a Himalayan settlement that is downstream. Water for agriculture and drinking was sourced from the dam constructed at Kuhan. But because there was too much mud pouring from upstream, it had become silted up. The villagers identified the issue with assistance from the nonprofit Winrock International. The Ooch village's high up the hills grazing land supplied the most of the silt. The dam protection issues were discussed between the two villages, and a formal agreement was made. On its four-hectare common ground, Ooch forbade grazing for eight years and planted bamboo, elephant grass, fruit and fodder-bearing tree saplings. In exchange, Kuhan paid for the seedlings and even negotiated a deal to provide Ooch with irrigation water as needed. This arrangement functioned for a while, but the Public Works Department (PWD) road that connected Kuhan to the highway caused the dam to get silted once more. Kuhan had asked the PWD to cover the cost of cleaning the reservoir, but to no avail. The farmers decided to break the dam wall in 2007's pre-monsoon after deliberations in the village. Following that, they intended to put up iron gates to seal the breach and stop future issues of a similar nature. Kuhan and Ooch are still in harmony with one another. It serves as an illustration of how relationships between two communities that are centred on natural resources can be improved for both parties.

The TEEB report covered a number of methods for valuing ecological services economically, both locally and globally. Climate change-related topics were also included in the reports. Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), which can help fight climate change and also be a crucial anti-poverty and adaptation strategy, was mentioned as a significant investment in ecosystem-based strategies.

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD)

Approximately 14% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions are attributable to tropical deforestation, which is more than all of the transportation modes combined (planes, trucks, trains, etc.). Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation, or REDD, is a programme that was established in 2005 to encourage tropical countries to safeguard their forests and, in turn, the global climate and emissions.

The combined effort of the United Nations was this programme. By reducing net emissions of greenhouse gases and improving forest management in developing nations, the goal is to mitigate climate change. It proposed a system for funding similar initiatives globally. It encourages the informed and significant participation of all stakeholders in national and international implementation, including indigenous peoples and other groups reliant on the forest.

Because REDD is focused on creating financial incentives for those who take care of the forest, standing forests are worth more than removing them for the extraction of timber and charcoal. The ideal method to do this is to permit governments with tropical forests and forest communities to sell carbon credits after they can demonstrate that their deforestation rates have fallen below a predetermined baseline.

In essence, REDD serves as a means of compensating developing nations financially for their documented efforts to increase the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and lower emissions through various forms of forest management. The rulings outline five "eligible activities" that developing nations may carry out to lower emissions and increase removals of greenhouse gases:

Reducing emissions from deforestation.
Reducing emissions from forest degradation.
Conservation of forest carbon stocks.
Sustainable management of forests.
Enhancement of forest carbon stocks

Criticism of REDD

One critique of REDD is that people may try to increase their income by engaging in extensive, ecologically inappropriate forestry activities rather than caring for the existing vegetation if these eligible activities are misunderstood. The conversion of natural forests is prohibited, although developing nations are free to plantings of industrial tree species, agricultural tree crops, or even non-tree species like palms and bamboo.

It is believed that REDD will only define forests in terms of their tree cover, oblivious to the complex ecosystems they support and the livelihoods of the people who live there. Forest development has long been utilised as a cover for the establishment of large-scale industrial plantations, even in the past. Commercial interests typically take precedence over social and environmental goals in emerging nations. Beyond their inclusion in the safeguard, achieving various benefits, such as the preservation of biodiversity and ecological services (such as drainage basins), as well as social benefits (such as income and enhanced forest governance), is not yet addressed.

REDD has already been used improperly. It was discovered in 2012 that an Australian businessman working in Peru had negotiated 200-year contracts with the Yagua tribe of the Amazon, many of whose members are illiterate, granting him a 50% part of their carbon resources. He is now able to create and manage palm oil and timber operations in the Yagua jungle thanks to the contracts.

There is a chance that the locals and the people who reside in the forests will be ignored, that they won't be consulted, and that they won't get any money as a result. REDD can be harmful to the environment because, for instance, it might allow for the destruction of pristine forest while compensating for the emissions by establishing industrial tree plantations elsewhere. If significant amounts of money start to flow, especially for the unregulated trade in REDD carbon credits in countries with poor governance, there is a substantial risk that REDD may result in corruption. The potential of fraud and corruption is exacerbated in wealthy nations due to the complexity of the carbon markets and lax regulation.

The more recent REDD+ statement highlights the function of conservation, sustainable management of forests, and improvement of forest carbon reserves in addition to deforestation and forest degradation. Following the presentation of results, this cost-effective solution would be provided via transfer payments from the developed to the developing world. This new agreement on REDD+, the Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity, captures the shifts in thought and policy analysis in many ways.

Success of REDD approach

REDD has sparked market-driven efforts in the private sector that are advantageous to both local communities and larger agribusinesses. On the island of Borneo, there is one of the most seasoned reforestation programmes. Agroforester Willie Smits designed a restoration method on a 2,000 hectare plot that was formerly an old and stable tropical rainforest beginning in 2002. More than a thousand species can be found in the Smits model. Every phase of the reforestation and the economic advantages it brings has involved the local tribes. The indigenous population's main source of food security and economic sustainability is the sugar palm (Arenga pinnata). It is a part of a mixed plantation along with several other plant species. In order to increase employment creation and ecosystem integration, sugar palm syrup is harvested either through wild-forest gardening or in reforested regions. All throughout the world, many mechanisms that were previously outlined are being explored and tested. There are initiatives underway to connect these with neighbourhood growth and environmental preservation.