SurveyA conservation industry for sustaining natural capital and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes
Introduction
Ecosystems can be considered as a fund of natural capital stocks generating flows of intermediate and final ecosystem goods and services through time (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, Fisher et al., 2008, Fisher et al., 2009, Lant et al., 2008). Natural capital stocks include renewable and non-renewable resources such as biotic, geologic, water, atmosphere, and land resources. Flows of ecosystem services are classified as supporting (e.g. nutrient cycling, primary production), regulating (e.g. natural hazard mitigation, water quality), cultural (e.g. spiritual values, recreation), and provisioning (e.g. food, fresh water) services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005). Stocks and flows are highly interdependent. Depreciating stocks jeopardizes the future yields of flows, which, if beyond replacement rates, in turn degrade the viability of the natural capital stocks (Lant et al., 2008). In agricultural landscapes, development has generated significant economic and social benefits but these benefits have often come at high costs associated with deterioration of natural capital and ecosystem services through processes such as soil erosion, reduced quantity and quality of fresh water, salinity, and biodiversity depletion (Tilman, 1999). From one economic perspective, degradation of natural capital and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes is primarily a result of missing markets (i.e. the presence of externalities). Hanley et al., 1997, Bromley, 1991 argue that missing ecosystem service markets are pervasive due to a lack of fully articulated property rights assigned to common pool resources, and costly or incomplete information.
As a corollary, environmental markets have not evolved to a scale sufficient to achieve levels of natural capital and production of ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes corresponding to prevailing social values (Kroeger and Casey, 2007). Efficient markets require the absence of public goods, low transactions costs relative to benefits, and adherence to the conditions of rationality, price taking, complete information, and a complete set of markets (Ciriacy-Wantrup, 1971, Ciriacy-Wantrup and Bishop, 1975, Common, 1995). Violation of these conditions may occur due to a range of legal, cultural, and institutional factors. Markets for many natural capital and ecosystem services have not fully evolved because they breach a number of the conditions described above.
In agricultural landscapes, many provisioning services are harvested or extracted as discrete goods, meeting the excludability and rival criteria of private goods (e.g. fish, timber, water, food crops). The values of these marketed services are revealed through the process of mercantile exchange and the price signals of market transfer. In contrast, flows of other non-market ecosystem services are generally non-excludable (or costly to exclude relative to benefits) and rival in consumption, which are attributes of common pool resources (Fisher et al., 2009). Due to the difficulty in assigning a private right to common pool resources, the price signals of markets do not accurately reveal the value of the management or production of these non-market goods and services. Ready access to market exchange results in managers of privately owned natural capital stocks preferentially producing marketed ecosystem services at the expense of non-market services. Over time, this results in the under-supply of the latter and the long term deterioration of the natural capital stocks and ecosystem service flows (Lant et al., 2008).
Widespread conservation measures are required to achieve socially optimal levels of natural capital and ecosystem services and hence, the sustainability of agricultural landscapes. In this study, we define conservation in agricultural landscapes as the stewardship and enhancement of privately owned natural capital stocks through management actions such as land management, weed removal, fire management, erosion control, restoration, and water quality management. Natural capital stocks enhanced through conservation can increase flows of ecosystem services. However, in many agricultural landscapes there has been an under-investment in conservation by owners of private natural capital stocks due to the high cost and loss of long term revenue from foregone extractive and production opportunities (Bryan et al., 2008). The private on-site benefits of conservation are generally regarded as insufficient compensation. The reality has been that, whilst the private owner generally incurs the costs of conservation, many of the benefits are often uncertain, realized over long time periods, and accrue predominately off site to the wider community who do not share the costs.
Measures to correct this imbalance have relied on investment by both government and non-government organizations (NGOs) as a source of compensation for private conservation actions and/or a change to property rights stipulating obligations of duty of care and stewardship. Existing conservation programs in agricultural landscapes remain largely an adjunct component of government, reliant on discriminatory administrative allocation as the dominant mechanism for conservation investment. Governments have established large-scale agricultural stewardship programs to provide financial incentives to farmers for implementing conservation practices (Heimlich and Claassen, 1998, Dobbs and Pretty, 2004, Baylis et al., 2008, Claassen et al., 2008, Hajkowicz, 2009). In parallel, NGOs have made considerable conservation investments in agricultural landscapes (Edwards and Sharp, 1990, Jepson, 2005). Market-based approaches such as auctions, tenders, taxes and subsidies, cap and trading schemes, and industry barrier removal have been increasingly used to enhance the cost-effectiveness of investment in conservation (Di Leva, 2002, Grafton, 2005, Connor et al., 2008). The primary motivation of market-based approaches is to encourage conservation through the price signals of markets rather than through explicit directives associated with regulatory control (Stavins, 2002). In theory, if environmentally appropriate behavior can be made more rewarding to land managers, then land management behavior will better align with more socially desirable alternatives.
In the absence of effective markets, achievement of socially optimal levels of natural capital and ecosystem services would require large investment of scarce public funds which are subject to competing demands. Despite advances in the design and implementation of conservation investment through market-based approaches, the scale and stability of public funding is not likely to be sufficient to achieve sustainability in agricultural landscapes (McNeely and Weatherly, 1996, Ellison and Daily, 2003, Martin, 2007). Hence, new thinking is required on the development of institutions with the potential to substantially increase investment in conservation of natural capital and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes (Turner and Daily, 2008, Daily et al., 2009).
In this paper, we suggest an alternative approach to prime and facilitate the further development of markets and complementary institutions towards a conservation industry. A conservation industry relies on market institutions to both stimulate substantially increased and persistent conservation in agricultural landscapes and sufficiently compensate the owners of private natural capital (Dietz et al., 2003, Lant et al., 2008). Existing conservation markets are largely ad hoc, periodic, and of limited scale and participation. The next crucial step for decision makers in governments is to establish broad-based, ongoing market institutions for the large-scale production and exchange of conservation products for enhancing natural capital and ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes.
We review the evolution of conservation investment in agricultural landscapes and establish the need for an alternative approach. A conceptual framework describing the operational elements of a conservation industry is then developed. We envisage a mature conservation industry comprising many investors, producers, and service providers. These agents exchange conservation products (e.g. hectares of habitat restored, units of water quality improvement) and services (e.g. brokerage, information provision, contractors) produced in response to price signals that conserve the functional integrity of natural capital and the production of ecosystem services. A number of requirements for the evolution of a conservation industry are then outlined. Specifically, there will need to be, institutional infrastructure including market institutions and regulatory systems; information provision including the clear quantification of environmental and social benefits and costs, development of business models, and accounting and auditing standards; and stimuli to promote entrepreneurial incubation. The lack of a naturally evolved market implies that a conservation industry is likely to require careful design and planning in order to operate effectively to minimize perverse outcomes, market distortions and degrees of market failure (Edwards, 1995, Di Leva, 2002, Gatzweiler, 2006). Extending the co-development theories of Rosenstein-Rodan, 1943, Scitovsky, 1954 to missing conservation markets provides some insight into the role of governments in developing the rules of exchange, information provision and regulations to foster the development of a conservation industry. Finally, key challenges and cautions associated with a conservation industry are identified and discussed.
Section snippets
Government Investment
Government programs including agricultural stewardship schemes and payments for ecosystem services aim to motivate conservation actions on private land generating substantial public benefits, often occurring off-farm or downstream. In the United States, government conservation programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program focus on soil conservation, water and air quality improvement, and wildlife habitat management (Claassen et al., 2008). In the European Union, agri-environmental schemes
Elements of a Conservation Industry
A conservation industry (outside box in Fig. 1) would include corporate enterprises, private landholders, NGOs, government, and the general public. As shown in Fig. 1, these agents can take on different roles including investors, producers, and service providers (internal boxes in Fig. 1). Agents are connected through markets where exchanges of conservation products and services, information, and money occur (arrows in Fig. 1).
Market Institutions
Institutional rules need to be defined for conservation markets to operate effectively. This includes establishing trading rules, a regime of clearly defined property rights specific to natural capital and ecosystem services, and mechanisms to enforce contracts and settle ownership disputes (Di Leva, 2002, Jenkins et al., 2004). Institutional rules also determine the transaction costs of conservation (Boyd and Simpson, 1999). Past government conservation programs have been characterized by high
Cautionary Notes
Much existing conservation is voluntary and undertaken irrespective of economic incentives. Typically labor is the major volunteering contribution, compared to other potential inputs such as materials and equipment. Caution is required to ensure a conservation industry does not crowd out, discourage or jeopardize the voluntary conservation efforts of many private landholders in agricultural landscapes (Reeson and Tisdell, 2008). For example, over 4,000 community groups involving over 120,000
Conclusion
Government investment in conservation in agricultural landscapes has evolved to incorporate market-based approaches that when well designed and implemented, have the potential to increase scheme cost-effectiveness. The air of confrontation and conflict that characterized previous attitudes of environmental and non-government groups towards markets has begun to recede. In parallel with private enterprises, many involved in environmental activities have come to realize that markets can be
References (111)
Regional Delivery Model for the Natural Heritage Trust and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality
- et al.
Cost sharing for biodiversity conservation: a conceptual framework
- et al.
The economics of a public fund for environmental amenities
American Journal of Agricultural Economics
(1996) A duty of care for the protection of biodiversity on land
- et al.
Agri-environmental policies in the EU and United States: a comparison
Ecological Economics
(2008) - et al.
Building Biodiversity Business
(2008) - et al.
Environmental labeling and consumer choice — an empirical analysis of the effect of the Nordic Swan
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
(2004) Farmer participation in markets for temporary and permanent water in southeastern Australia
Agricultural Water Management
(2003)Is accounting a value-adding function? Examining financial reporting and auditing with respect to capital markets
Journal of Accounting Education
(1998)- et al.
Economics and biodiversity conservation options: an argument for continued experimentation and measured expectations
The Science of the Total Environment
(1999)
What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units
Ecological Economics
Environment and Economy: Property Rights and Public Policy
The conservation approach and its relevance for protected landscapes
The George Wright Forum
Systematic regional planning for multiple objective natural resource management
Journal of Environmental Management
An assessment of the economic and environmental potential of biomass production in an agricultural region
Land Use Policy
Accounting for biological assets — the experience of an Australian conservation company
Asian Review of Accounting
Maintaining volunteer commitment to local watershed initiatives
Environmental Management
Exploring burnout in Australia's Landcare program: a case study in the Shepparton Region
Society and Natural Resources
Science for Managing Ecosystem Services, Beyond the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Economic returns from the bio-sphere
Nature
Auditing conservation in an age of accountability
Conservation in Practice
The economics of environmental policy
Land Economics
Common property as a concept in natural resources
Natural Resources Journal
Cost-effective design of agri-environmental payment programs: U.S. experience in theory and practice
Ecological Economics
Sustainability and Policy: Limits to Economics
Exploring the cost effectiveness of land conservation auctions and payment policies
Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics
Building capacity for watershed stewardship
Identifying cost-effective hotspots for restoring natural capital and enhancing landscape multi-functionality
Ecological Economics
Landcare participation in Australia: the volunteer perspective
Sustainable Development
Market based instruments for environmental policymaking in Latin America and the Caribbean: lessons from eleven countries
Environment and Development Economics
Ecosystem services in decision making: time to deliver
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
Damodaran on Valuation: Security Analysis for Investment and Corporate Finance
The conservation of nature and natural resources through legal and market-based instruments
Review of European Community and International Environment
Environmental auditing: a tool in ecotourism development
Eco-Management and Auditing
The struggle to govern the commons
Science
Agri-environmental conservation schemes and multifunctionality
Review of Agricultural Economics
Dealing in Diversity: America's Market for Nature Conservation
Institutional arrangements for conservation on private land in New Zealand
Journal of Environmental Management
Making conservation profitable
Conservation in Practice
Ecosystem services and economic theory, integration for policy-relevant research
Ecological Applications
Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making
Ecological Economics
The incubator for social entrepreneurship: creating partnership for second order social change
Natural Values: The Importance of Wetlands and Upland Conservation Practices in Watershed Management
Agricultural Conservation: State Advisory Committee Views on How USDA Programs Could Better Address Environmental Concerns
USDA Should Improve Its Process for Allocating Funds to States for the Environmental Quality Incentive Program
Organizing a public ecosystem service economy for sustaining biodiversity
Ecological Economics
Business strategies for conservation on private lands: Koa forestry as a case study
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
Evaluation of Round One of Market Based Instrument Pilot Program
Cited by (30)
Conservation entrepreneurship: A new frontier in conservation science
2023, Biological ConservationThe Australian experience in using tenders for conservation
2017, Land Use PolicyCitation Excerpt :One issue identified with tender mechanisms is the potential for crowding-out effects, where the process of paying for environmental improvements could reduce incentives for landholders to provide the services voluntarily (Hajkowicz, 2009). Critics have argued that the free market or competitive forces in a tender process are more likely to stimulate crowding-out behavior than flat-rate grants (Reeson and Tisdell, 2008; Yang et al., 2010). However, it is difficult to distinguish why incentive mechanisms allocated through an auction process will generate different crowding out effects to those allocated through a grants program, or to measure changes in additionality.
Framing the private land conservation conversation: Strategic framing of the benefits of conservation participation could increase landholder engagement
2016, Environmental Science and PolicyLand-use and sustainability under intersecting global change and domestic policy scenarios: Trajectories for Australia to 2050
2016, Global Environmental ChangeCitation Excerpt :Confidence in long-term institutional settings (e.g. via long-term contractual arrangements) is also central to achieving policy objectives that require long-term private investments, reducing risk, and increasing adoption rates. Government partnerships with the private sector in large scale reforestation capacity and the establishment of processing facilities may be needed to reduce capacity constraints on land-use change and increase policy efficiency (Yang et al., 2010). We have described a bottom-up, comprehensive, integrated, continental-scale land systems scenario analysis of potential future land-use responses and the impacts for economic and environmental sustainability which makes several significant land science advances.
Supply of carbon sequestration and biodiversity services from Australia's agricultural land under global change
2014, Global Environmental ChangeLand science contributions to ecosystem services
2013, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability