Using information on ecosystem services in Nepal to inform biodiversity conservation and local to national decision-making

Abstract

Policy-makers are paying increasing attention to ecosystem services, given improved understanding that they underpin human well-being, and following their integration within the Aichi Targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity. Decision-makers need information on trends in biodiversity and ecosystem services but tools for assessing the latter are often expensive, technically demanding and ignore the local context. In this study we used a simple, replicable participatory assessment approach to gather information on ecosystem services at important sites for biodiversity conservation in Nepal, to feed into local and national decision-making. Through engaging knowledgeable stakeholders we assessed the services delivered by Nepal's 27 Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas, the pressures affecting services through impacts on land cover and land use, and the consequences of these for people. We found that these sites provide ecosystem services to beneficiaries at a range of scales but under current pressures the balance of services will change, with local communities incurring the greatest costs. The approach provided valuable information on the trade-offs between ecosystem services and between different people, developed the capacity of civil society to engage in decision-making at the local and national level, and provided digestible information for Nepal's government. We recommend this approach in other countries where there is a lack of information on the likely impacts of land-use change on ecosystem services and people.

Important Bird and Biodiversity Areas (IBAs): their impact on conservation policy, advocacy and action

“…International Finance Corporation 2012)Aichi Target 14 on restoring and safeguarding ecosystems providing essential services, since IBAs have been shown to be particularly important for also providing ecosystem services to people (e.g. Thapa et al 2014)Aichi Target 20, by guiding and catalysing conservation investments by donors; e.g. the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund uses KBAs (of which IBAs form the majority of sites) to direct their funding efforts (World Bank IEG 2007).A recent review (Beresford et al , 2016) provided evidence that the EU Natura 2000 network of protected areas, of which IBAs form a significant and guiding component (see below), also contributes directly to a number of Aichi Targets, such as 4, 11 and 12 (see below).…”

“…Aichi Target 14 on restoring and safeguarding ecosystems providing essential services, since IBAs have been shown to be particularly important for also providing ecosystem services to people (e.g. Thapa et al 2014)…”

The economic value of high nature value farming and the importance of the Common Agricultural Policy in sustaining income: The case study of the Natura 2000 Zarandul de Est (Romania)

“…A number of tools and methods have been developed to assess, quantify and value ecosystem services based on complex benefit transfer from global to local scale (Seppelt et al, 2011) or economic analysis integrated into GIS such as InVest (Tallis et al, 2013), or ARIES (Villa et al, 2009). However, notwithstanding successes achieved in engaging with policy makers and in driving decision-making (Ruckelshaus et al, 2013), these tools need a considerable amount of data and none enable site-scale data collection under limited technical knowledge and investment constraints (Birch et al, 2014;Thapa et al, 2016;Peh et al, 2014a). Conversely, TESSA provides inexpensive assessments by non-experts of the magnitude, monetary values, and distribution of ecosystem services by sites, with an understanding of the consequences for stakeholders of potential changes and implications in land use management (Birch et al, 2014;Thapa et al, 2016).…”

“…Considering the paucity of research exploring social impacts of agri-environment schemes (Mills, 2012), the contribution of this paper to the literature is to present an analysis of the economic value that agro-forestry ecosystems services provide to smallholders, along with implications for landscape connectivity and wildlife conservation. Results can be used to raise awareness of the value of agriculture, to illustrate how the implementation of an ecosystem services approach requiring limited human and financial resources can be used to inform the local decision-making system, as already proposed for other low-income countries (Birch et al 2014;Thapa et al 2016;Peh et al 2014a), and to elucidate the impact that Pillars I and II of the CAP have on income security and on making land use sustainable (economically viable).…”

Using biodiversity indicators for conservation

“…We applaud these efforts and encourage the proposed development of a complementary indicator on market value and size for wild commodities. The scientific community should also help fill other priority indicator gaps, such as measures relating to ecosystem services and benefits to human well-being (Thapa et al, 2014; Tittensor et al, 2014). However, key challenges to data collection and use must be addressed before indicators can function as intended.…”