Losses of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning due to rainforest destruction and agricultural intensification are prime concerns for science and society alike. Potentially, ecosystems show nonlinear responses to land-use intensification that would open management options with limited ecological losses but satisfying economic gains. However, multidisciplinary studies to quantify ecological losses and socioeconomic tradeoffs under different management options are rare. Here, we evaluate opposing land use strategies in cacao agroforestry in Sulawesi, Indonesia, by using data on species richness of nine plant and animal taxa, six related ecosystem functions, and on socioeconomic drivers of agroforestry expansion. Expansion of cacao cultivation by 230% in the last two decades was triggered not only by economic market mechanisms, but also by rarely considered cultural factors. Transformation from near-primary forest to agroforestry had little effect on overall species richness, but reduced plant biomass and carbon storage by Ϸ75% and species richness of forest-using species by Ϸ60%. In contrast, increased land use intensity in cacao agroforestry, coupled with a reduction in shade tree cover from 80% to 40%, caused only minor quantitative changes in biodiversity and maintained high levels of ecosystem functioning while doubling farmers' net income. However, unshaded systems further increased income by Ϸ40%, implying that current economic incentives and cultural preferences for new intensification practices put shaded systems at risk. We conclude that low-shade agroforestry provides the best available compromise between economic forces and ecological needs. Certification schemes for shade-grown crops may provide a market-based mechanism to slow down current intensification trends.agricultural economics ͉ agroforestry management ͉ land use change ͉ plant-animal interactions ͉ ecosystem goods and services G lobal-scale conversion of tropical rainforests and agricultural intensification are major causes of biodiversity loss, and threaten ecosystem functioning, sustainable land use and local economies depending on natural resources (1-3). Developing strategies to reconcile human needs with the integrity of our environment is a major task for ecologists and socio-economists alike (4), but multitaxa studies are rare (5-6) and too little is known about the human dimension of land use changes (4, 7-11) and consequences for ecosystem functioning (1,2,(12)(13)(14). Furthermore, most ecological and economic studies on ecosystem services are carried out separately so that information cannot be brought together (15). Particularly, quantitative data on potential tradeoffs between biodiversity loss and agricultural intensification including natural habitat conversion is missing. Two competing solutions propose either wildlife-friendly farming on the cost of agricultural yields or land sparing by agricultural intensification to minimize the demand for natural habitat (16). The evaluation of such opposing land use options depends on t...

No abstract

. 2014. Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes.Contact CEH NORA team at noraceh@ceh.ac.ukThe NERC and CEH trademarks and logos ('the Trademarks') are registered trademarks of NERC in the UK and other countries, and may not be used without the prior written consent of the Trademark owner.Improving the link between payments and the provision of ecosystem services in agri-environment schemes in UK peatlands AbstractThis paper considers how agri-environment schemes under the Common Agricultural Policy could be adapted to derive a higher return of ecosystem services from agricultural land, through deliberation with members of the public, land owners, managers and other stakeholders: i) paying for the ecosystem services that are valued most by society; ii) spatially targeting payments to locations where ecosystem services can most efficiently be provided; and iii) providing incentives for cross-boundary collaboration over the provision of ecosystem services that need to be managed at catchment or wider spatial scales. Using UK upland peatlands as a case study, and drawing on experience tackling these issues in the new Glastir agri-environment scheme in Wales, the paper attempts to find a balance between current input-based schemes that pay for land management activities on the basis of income foregone and output-based schemes that pay by results. The paper reviews evidence that spatially targeted, output-based payments may be more economically efficient than current approaches, but identifies a number of challenges, including: scientific uncertainty; pricing of ecosystem services; timing of payments; increased risk to land managers; compliance with World Trade Organisation regulations; and barriers to cross-boundary collaboration in the management of ecosystem services at habitat, catchment or landscape scales. A number of options are reviewed to overcome these challenges, including: the use of process-based models, pressureresponse functions and expert knowledge to establish causal links between management and ecosystem service delivery and reduce the costs of monitoring; the use of competitive bidding or non-market valuation techniques to set prices for ecosystem service delivery; insurance schemes; combining agri-environment schemes with funding from private Payment for Ecosystem Service schemes; and independent facilitation of groups of potential applicants across property boundaries in scheme options that are co-designed with the land management community. Drawing on examples from UK peatlands and experience designing the Glastir scheme, the paper 2 proposes a number of ways in which agri-environment schemes around the world that make payments on the basis of management inputs can better link payments to the provision of ecosystem services.

No abstract

No abstract