Ecosystem Services Markets: Boom or Bust? Where to from here?
Institute for Natural Resources, in collaboration with Ecosystem Marketplace and Defenders for Wildlife is moderating a panel discussion during the Ecosystem Markets Conference (June 28-July1, 2011)
Panel Abstract: To judge by murmurings at recent conferences, from policy makers, funders and practitioners, Ecosystem Service markets are falling short of expectations. Were they oversold from the beginning? Or has not enough development time passed? Are there realistic expectations for the role they might play in conservation finance – perhaps a transitional one? What can we learn from market successes and failures to date? What has tool development taught us so far about creating a functioning system that will allow ecosystem services restoration and conservation to move forward productively? Is the concept fundamentally flawed as conceived: What are the dangers of separating whole systems into component parts, and trading credits for them? What happens to markets if existing regulations are not enforced, if agencies are reluctant to use market-based approaches to meet regulatory goals, and if policy makers are reluctant to impose new regulations? Please come participate in a friendly and lively debate tackling questions like these and the challenges they raise. We hope you will leave with some new perspectives and better ideas for moving forward in your own work.
Please comment here if you would like to get in on the debate before the conference. The debate will be summarized and will continue on EcosystemCommons.org.
- Moderator: Sally Duncan, Institute for Natural Resources
- Bobby Cochran, Willamette Partnership
- Tim Gieseke, Author of EcoCommerce 101: Adding an ecological dimension to the economy
- Dennis Canty, American Farmland Trust
- Nathaniel Carroll or Tracy Stanton, Ecosystem Marketplace
Latest discussions
-
5 Jun 2013 - 04:46 by Florence Landsberg
0 comment(s) -
4 Jun 2013 - 14:51 by smorford
0 comment(s)
- 1 of 13
- ››
Comments
The Panel (abstract above)
"Culture eats strategy for lunch." Are we really considering the backgrounds, values, and primary approaches (i.e. cultures) of those who are in a position to make changes (at the "street level") which move us towards green infrastructure when and where is it the more efficient path to solve a problem? For example, do we consider the primary problem solving approach of engineers is to use gray infrastructure? Have we even conveyed the message that green infrastructure may be a viable option and potentially in the interest of clients?
What's your take on these observations and the questions posed by the abstract? Or, if you attended, what interesting ideas did you hear?
A few other ideas from the
A few other ideas from the panel:
Where can we find cues about success and failure of market approaches? We have few, but very good, case studies in the U.S. There may be much to learn from approaches in other countries and by seeking those lessons we could identify some creative approaches that may not be immediately obvious with in the U.S. context?
What is the right scale? There needs to be local engagement and regional coordination in order to move closer the and Ecosystem Markets boom. One of the pillars of success in those few case studies in the engagement and use of local institutions.
What should we recognize as success? Some options beyond environmental outcomes were presented: happiness, new/better relationships among market actors, faster-better-more cost effective conservation. What else?
What's your take?
It does seem that there are
It does seem that there are some great examples of "market" implementation in the US -such as the project in Miami, Ohio, as well as the example of Clean Water Services in Oregon. However, it a major take-away from the conference was that these programs are few and far between and have yet to build the critical mass necessary for driving rapid expansion and proliferation. International examples, as you noted above, may be quite key in the development of ecosystem service markets, as well as other approaches to ecosystem services.
Time and time again I've heard that other countries are far ahead of the United States in this realm, and that we have a lot to learn. With a greater breadth of experience, international programs could provide on-the-ground examples (and tested processes) for how to design, implement and adapt ecosystem service programs, but also (and perhaps more importantly) these examples could provide some much needed information about how culture shifts were catalyzed (within agencies, the public, private industry) and how those shifts led to the acceptance and implementation of new approaches.
It has become evident that
It has become evident that markets for ecosystem services need regulatory drivers if there is any possibility of their reaching critical mass across a broad enough landscape to make a difference. Our current regulatory structure is broken into silos, unevenly applied across resources, outdated, designed for other purposes, and sometimes not enthusiastically enforced. Many regulators and regulated industries are understandably risk-averse and cautious about trying new approaches that seem untested. It is no surprise that in an economic recession with limited development pressure and reduced philanthropic resources, market activity is less active than some anticipated and hoped.
There are several ways to address the challenges. For example, Congress could authorize and provide matching funds to regions that commit to using creative, outcome-based strategies to meet or exceed the ecological goals associated with current regulatory programs. Better yet, Congress could offer a greater percentage of funding for regional programs with integrated conservation plans that address multiple values (water, biodiversity, carbon for example), efficient strategies for delivering payments to those undertaking projects leading to specific outcomes, and broad scale adaptive management systems to track overall effectiveness.
While it is understandable that ecosystem market advocates would attempt to use the current regulatory structure to drive market activity, it is clear that a new, streamlined, more holistic institutional arrangement would produce better results with less pain for all concerned. In the meantime, and for some time to come, markets will be a small piece of the action, and need to be well-coordinated with other conservation strategies to make a difference.
I think we also need to be
I think we also need to be asking "how would we know success or failure when we see it?" I'd love to see an evaluation framework set up for programs--something that looks at near term progress, but also makes sure we get teh data at the right scale and time to know whether we're on track for longer-term benefits.
Post new comment