The money I see is in the form of ecosystem services: the economic benefits that people derive from the ecosystem structures. My battle plan is to start by quickly familiarizing you with the ecosystem services framework. Robert Costanza et al., The Value of the World's Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital, 387 NATURE.
In essence, the ecosystem services framework has gone from an idea to a dominant policy theme precisely because it is. Tundy was an example of someone who worked tirelessly in the NGO world to identify opportunities to use the ecosystem services framework. We need to find hooks in existing laws on which to hang framework hats for ecosystem services.
THE CURRENT STATE OF PLAY IN LAW AND POLICY
Also, Keith Hirokawa at Albany Law School is doing fantastic academic work on ecosystem services in a variety of promising contexts.30 So the word has really spread and now it's about digging deeper into it. It doesn't do justice to the way the ecosystem services web of players expanded like a nova in the 1990s and 2000s, but it gives you a sense of how one person got swept along along the way and, I think, made a number of contributions. . Second, the question of what to do about the first major obstacle is complicated by the lack of clear property rights.33 Who owns the pollination.
And if the regulations intervene to prevent property owners from making that choice, whether property rights have been taken without just compensation. We are working with laws that have not been significantly changed since 1990, before the concept of ecosystem services even came into play. That's why projects like the National Ecosystem Services Partnership's review of existing law are so important.
Some of my work is in that vein, testing the limits of the Chevron doctrine well to see how far agencies can integrate ecosystem services. So from here I'm going to give you an update on the law and then take us in a new direction. Despite the obstacles outlined above, we find that the ecosystem services framework continues to gain traction in law and policy in five key areas: government payment programs, regulatory programs, public lands programs, impact assessment programs, and common law and other judicial doctrine.
Jim's talk also focused on the private sector; specifically, where the private markets are in ecosystem services. Ruhi, Ecosystem Services and the Clean Water Act: Strategies for Fitting New Science into Old Law, 40 ENVTL.
Payment programs
As it turned out, shortly after my meeting with EPA's Palmer Hough at a seminar in Georgetown, the EPA and. In 2008, the Corps published its new Compensatory Wetlands Mitigation Rule.43 Importantly, it specifically requires the Corps to consider ecosystem service impacts on people from moving wetlands across the landscape through a compensatory mitigation program, particularly through buffer banks.44 It takes time. for the Corps to conduct this field assessment, but this is progress in terms of explicitly enacting the ecosystem services framework in the regulatory regime.
Public land management programs
Environmental impact assessment programs are probably where the ecosystem services framework is getting the most traction right now. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), for example, uses a service-based metric in their natural resource damage assessments.48 The Corps has developed a policy for integrating ecosystem service impacts into its project planning. infrastructure.49 Further, the National Research Council used an ecosystem service approach to assess the impacts of the Deep Horizon oil spill.50. A notable application of the ecosystem services framework in assessment programs occurred in 2013 in relation to national water resources.
In the Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Congress directed that the 1983 Principles and Guidelines, used by a variety of Federal agencies for water resources planning and development, be updated to reflect national priorities, including not only economic development, but also protection and recovery. of natural system functions that support economic sustainability.51 In 2013, the White House released the updated P&Gs, which state that project assessments “must be applied.” See Environmental Economics - Introduction, DAMAGE ASSESSMENT, REMEDIATION, & RESTORATION PROGRAM, http://www. darrp.noaa.gov/economics/ See DENISE REED ET AL., INSTITUTE OF WATER RESOURCES, USING INFORMATION ON ECOSYSTEM GOODS AND SERVICES IN CORPS PLANNING: AN EXAMINATION OF AUHORITIES, POLICIES, GUIDANCE, AND PRACTICES (2013), available at http: //www.darrp.noaa.gov/economics/. ://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/Portals/70/docs/iwrreports/EGS Policy Review 2013-R-07.pdf.
See NAT'L RESEARCH COUNCIL, AN ECOSYSTEM SERVICES APPROACH TO ASSESSING THE IMPACTS OF THE DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL IN THE GULF OF MEXICO (2013), available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record id-18387 . See Updated Principles and Guidelines for Implementation Studies of Water and Land-Related Resources, COUNCIL ON ENVTL. What about the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)?53 I would have liked to see the Council on Environmental Quality move more into this area and develop some sort of ecosystem service assessment guidance for NEPA.
Common law and other judicial doctrine
PUSHBACK
In his Kerlin lecture four years ago, Jim Salzman used the interesting metaphor of ideological travesty to make the point that both liberals and libertarians should like the ecosystem services framework because it speaks to both environmental and economic values.65 He reminded us that the Bush administration pushed the 2008 Farm Bill, which included provisions on markets for ecosystem services.66 Well, I agree that there is a bit of a strange dynamic behind the support for the ecosystem services framework, but guess what : some of them are seeking divorce. There is resistance from both those who prioritize environmental conservation and those who prioritize economic development.
Environmental Primacy Critique
Corporate culture, the group goes, will use ecosystem services as a cover for technology and development, as they will be able to develop ecosystems to limit resource development rather than preserve nature on site. In short, the ecosystem services framework, it is argued, is a cover for a more neoliberal capitalism.69. The other major pushback from environmental interests, especially in the Global South, comes from landowner advocates who argue that by commoditizing ecosystem services we open the door to greater state and corporate control over the environment, at the expense of poor and other marginalized populations. .70 The fear is that the powerful coordination of the state.
Another concern is that proponents of the ecosystem services framework obscure management trade-offs for certain Norgaard, Ecosystem Services: From Eye-Opening Metaphor to Complexity Blinder, 69 ECOLOGICAL ECON. For an extensive discussion of this topic, see Sharachchandra Lele, Environmentalisms, Justices and the Limits of Ecosystem Services Frameworks, in THE JUSTICES AND INJUSTICES OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES 119 (Thomas Sikor ed., 2013) [hereinafter JUSTICES AND INJUSTICES]. See Diana Suhardiman et al., Payments for Ecosystem Services in Vietnam: Market Incentives or State Control of Resources?, 6 ECOSYSTEM SERV.
See Unai Pascual et al., Exploring the Links Between Equity and Efficiency in Payments for Environmental Services: A Conceptual Approach, 69 ECOLOGICAL ECON. Do we want to develop specialized ecosystems to deliver our preferred flows of ecosystem services? There is also a social justice dimension to the specialization question of ecosystem services.74 If we are going to target specific ecosystem services, which services and for which beneficiaries?
Finally, there is the so-called stacking problem, which raises the concern that landowners and other market participants will game the ecosystem services framework.76 This concern presupposes a day when an owner of an estate, for example a wetland, could share the estate in its entirety. break apart. the individual services it provides and sells them on different credit markets run by public agencies and private interests.77 A credit for the habitat, a credit for groundwater recharge, a credit for this other service, and so on. Arkema et al., Coastal habitats protect people and property from sea level rise and storms, 3 NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE 913 (2013).
Economic Primacy Critique
PRINCIPLES FOR RESPONSIBLE USE OF THE ECOSYSTEM SERVICES FRAMEWORK
The ecosystem services framework is not a silver bullet, and there are legitimate concerns that some proponents are using it as a silver bullet. I am not surprised that there is resistance, and that there is some truth in some of these points. Stacking concerns me.84 We need to be careful how we split ecosystems and split credits and services, but I think credit systems can be implemented if they are designed responsibly.
Blame Justice Scalia - he planted the background principles of the Trojan Horse in Lucas's opinion - that they change over time with new knowledge. These make clear that the ecosystem services framework is neither a panacea nor a threat if implemented based on rigorous science, a keen eye for equity and competent and robust oversight.
Principle One: The Ecosystem Services Framework Is About Human Well-Being - Enforce a Strict
A wetland that provides groundwater recharge in the middle of nowhere is unlikely to provide the same ecosystem service values as one that does the same in an area where human communities depend on groundwater for water supply. It does bother some environmental conservation interests, but this idea does not work if you call all ecosystem structures and processes an ecosystem service.87 This would nullify any added value that the ecosystem services framework provides to environmental policy. It is certainly important to think about what benefits the wetland in the middle of nowhere can provide when land use moves in its direction, but that readiness must be made explicit in the analysis.
Because the ecosystem services framework is about people, it is important to define in advance just basic property rights and distributional impacts. In some cases they may have to deliver a base level, but they should expect compensation for delivering above that level. These issues must be addressed to make PES programs viable.88 The government must also regulate private ecosystem service markets, design public PES systems, and manage flows of ecosystem services on and off public lands to ensure distributive equity, just as it does for the distribution of environmental protection. and enforcement.
Get your property rights right, first, and we can really make use of ecosystem services to promote human well-being and address poverty.
Principle Three: Integrate the Ecosystem Services Framework with Other Environmental Policy Factors
Principle Four: Monetization Is the Ideal, But Is Not Usually Necessary
Principle Five: Make Tradeoffs Explicit
Principle Six: Include Ecosystem Services Impacts in All Environmental Impact Assessments
Principle Seven: Account for Ecosystem Services in Mitigation, Offset, and Other Environmental Trading
Principle Eight: Design Carefully and Monitor for Gaming
CONCLUSION
