Traditionally, the only market economic values Protected Areas recognised are tourism revenues and income from extractive activities.The difficulty in quantifying many of the economic, social, environmental and cultural values of protected areas lead to their undervaluation in land and resource use decisions It is often perceived to be more profitable to convert a natural ecosystem than to leave it intact. A study of Corbett National Park shows indirect benefits like carbon storage and direct benefits like tourism.

1. Ecosystem services for Biodiversity
Conservation
Ruchi Badola

2. Introduction
 The global ecosystem’s source and sink
functions have limited capacity to support the
economic subsystem.
 The economic subsystem has already reached/
exceeded important source and sink limits.
 Source limits are more open to substitution,
private ownership and therefore to market and
price controls.
 Sink limits involve common property where
markets fail.

3. 60% of Ecosystem Services degraded which “…contributed to a
significant rise in the number of floods and major wild fires on all
continents since the 1940s”. (MEA 2005)

4. • Global warming is
occurring, and
humans are
contributing to this,
agree major (NASA
and NOAA).
• 2000 to 2010
warmest decade and
2010 & 2005 warmest
years on record.
• Worst bleaching of
coral reefs ever
recorded in 1998.
• The first completely
ice-free summer in
arctic region may
occur by 2040 or
earlier-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1860 1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

5. One-fifth of species are classified as
‘Threatened’ and 52 species of mammals, birds
and amphibians move one category closer to
extinction each year’.
In the absence of conservation actions
extinction risk for vertebrates classes would
have further 16% .......... (Hoffmann et al,
Science, October 2010).
The world has failed to meet the 2010 target
to halt the loss of biodiversity ………10th CBD,
COP, Nagoya, Japan

6.  Ecosystem function is the outcome or product of
collective interaction between organisms and their
physical environment
 Ecosystem services are the processes and conditions
of natural ecosystems that support human activity
and sustain human life (Daily,1997)
 The type, quality and quantity of services provided
by an ecosystem are affected by the resource use
decisions of individuals and communities
Ecosystem functions and ecosystem services

7. Functions performed by natural ecosystems
INFORMATION FUNCTIONS
Aesthetic information
Spiritual and religious information
Historic information (heritage value)
Cultural and artistic inspiration
Scientific and educational information
PRODUCTION FUNCTIONS
Oxygen
Water storage and supply
Food and nutritious drinks
Genetic resources
Medicinal resources
Raw materials for construction
Fuel and energy
Biochemical
Fodder and fertilizer
Ornamental resources
FUNCTIONS OFTHE
NATURAL
ENVIRONMENT
REGULATION FUNCTIONS
Local and global energy balance
Chemical composition of the oceans
Local and global climate
Runoff and flood-prevention
Groundwater recharge
Prevention of soil erosion
Topsoil formation
Solar energy fixation, biomass production
Storage/recycling of organic matter
Storage/recycling of nutrients
Storage/recycling of wastes
Biological (and genetic) diversity
HABITAT FUNCTIONS
(providing space and suitable substrate for)
Human habitation, (indigenous) settlements
Cultivation (e.g. of crops, cattle, fish)
Energy conversion, Recreation and tourism
Nature protection
Migration and nursery habitats

8. Consequences of natural ecosystem loss on
human well-being
The degradation of ecosystem services often causes significant harm
to human well-being and is a loss of a natural asset or wealth of a
country

9.  Crops
 Livestock
 Aquaculture
 Carbon
sequestration
 Capture fisheries
 Wild foods
 Wood fuel
 Genetic resources
 Biochemicals
 Fresh Water
 Air quality regulation
 Regional & local climate
regulation
 Erosion regulation
 Water purification
 Pest regulation
 Pollination
 Natural Hazard
regulation
 Spiritual & religious
 Aesthetic values
 Timber
 Fiber
 Water regulation
 Disease
regulation
 Recreation &
ecotourism
Enhanced
Degraded
Mixed
Bottom Line: 60% of Ecosystem Services are Degraded

10.  Increasing biodiversity in forests has a
positive effect on their resilience capacity
and often on their productivity including
carbon storage (Thompson et al. 2009,
Strassberg et al. 2010).
 A third (33 of 105) cities of the world obtain
a significant proportion of their drinking
water directly from PAs, 1.1 billion people
(1/6) depend on PAs for their livelihoods,
store almost half the terrestrial carbon
 More than 2000 group of indigenous people
live in forests, More than 3% global trade in
forest products
Contribution of Natural
environment to human wellbeing

11. Protected Areas (PAs)
 PAs are cornerstones of ecosystem conservation
and critical to achievement of 2020 biodiversity
target and the MDG
 There are >1,40,000 PAs worldwide, covering over
15.4% of earth’s land surface (IUCN-WCMC 2014)
 Underlying goal of PAs is to maintain ability of
ecosystems to perform ecosystem services, to
maintain iconic landscapes and places for
recreation.
 PAs act as life’s buffers while serving as
sanctuaries and strongholds of species in the face
of climate change.

12. Protected Areas
 1.1 b people (1/6) depend on PAs for livelihoods, traditional
destination for global tourism industry.
 PAs cover 19.6% of tropical forests, 15% of terrestrial carbon
stores are within PAs (Scharlemann 2010).
 Greatest loss in carbon stocks from PAs was in Tropical Asia
and Oceania.

13. Pollinators and Ecosystem Services
 In temperate ecosystems 78.5 % of flowering plants require an
animal pollinator to successfully reproduce.
 Three-quarters of our global food crops depend on pollination
services from wild and domestic pollinators.

14. Value of pest control services has been estimated at
$4.5 b/yr (Losey & Vaughan 2006).
 Data from 200 countries indicated that 75% crop
species of global significance for food production rely
on insect pollination (Klein et al. 2007).
 PAs help to conserve the wild relatives of crops,
providing vital genetic material for crop breeding
 Water for agriculture – Madagascar, Periyar, Corbett
 Soil structure and fertility
PAs and Agro-ecosystems

15.  Supply ecosystem services for disaster reduction.
 Mangrove PAs of India
 The Whangamarino wetland PA in New Zealand was originally
protected for its biodiversity but has been valued at
U.S.$601,037/ on account of its flood control utility.
 Forested slopes are better able to withstand avalanches and
landslides, (e.g Pakistan )
 Countries like Kuwait are planning PA systems to maintain desert
vegetation and stop dune formation and dust storms
Protected Areas

16. Biodiversity and Human Health
“Conserving forest biodiversity by valuing & harnessing it as
medicine is consistent with poverty reduction and local public
health prevention efforts.”
~ Bodeker, 2005
“In India approximately two million traditional health
practitioners use over 7500 species of medicinal plants.”
~ Foundation for Revitalization of Local Health Traditions, 2002
“The World Health Organization has recorded over 36 new
emerging infectious diseases since 1976, many of which,
particularly malaria and dengue, are the direct result of the
influence of landscape [changes] on the ecology of disease.”
~ Bodeker, 2005

17. Underlying causes of degradation
Information failure: Lack of awareness about the
values of conserved ecosystems
Market failure: Failure of markets to reflect the
full or true cost of services provided by conserved
ecosystems
Intervention failure: Absence of appropriate
integrated resource management policies and
inter-sectoral policy inconsistencies

18. Information Failure
 The value of PAs poorly understood and greatly under-valued by
markets, politicians and the general public.
 Traditionally, the only market economic values PAs recognized are
tourism revenues and income from extractive activities.
 The difficulty in quantifying many of the
economic, social, environmental and
cultural values of PAs lead to their
undervaluation in land and resource use
decisions
 It is often perceived to be more
profitable to convert a natural
ecosystem than to leave it intact

19. Market Failure
 Local communities paying the costs of conservation
 90% hh in & around PAs suffer losses due to Wildlife
(Karanth and Nepal 2011)
 Every year 400 people & 100 elephant killed and
400,000 families affected in conflict related instances
(MoEF 2010)

20. Total Economic Cost
Direct cost Indirect cost Opportunity cost
Non-use value
Indirect value Option valueDirect value Existence Bequest
Timber, wood,
food Ecological services
Future direct &
indirect value Intrinsic value Future generation
Total Economic Benefit
Use value
Management Cost Wildlife Damage Alternate use forgone

21. FDA
MoEFCC NBA
BMC
Forest
Departments
EDC JFM Knowledge
Centre
Community
participation
Landscape Level
Authority
MoPR
PRI
Elected body
statutory
financial power
Where is the integration…?

22. Language
“Come let us go down there and
confuse their language, that
they may not understand one
another’s speech” so said the
Lord upon visiting the tower of
Babel created by the sons of
men
 Genesis II
Economics talks and votes count

23. MODEL 1
Individual
Utility/welfare
Economic
Process
Goods
& Services
Cultural
Norms &
Policy
Manufactured
Capital
Labor
Land
PublicPrivate
GNP
Consumption
(based on
fixed
preferences)
Investment
(decisions about
taxes,
government
spending,
education,
science and
technology
policy, etc. based
on existing
property rights
regimes)
Property rights
Building
Education, Training,
Research
Improvement
PerfectSubstitutability
BetweenFactors
Conventional economic view of wealth and utility

24. Natural Capital
Human Capital
Organizational
Capital
Manufactured
Capital
LimitedSubstitutability
BetweenCapitalForms
Restoration,
Conservation
Education, training,
research
Building
Solar
Energy
Individual Common Public
Complex property
rights regimes
Ecological
Services
amenities
Economic
Process
Wastes
Goods
&
Services
GNP
Well Being
(Individual &
Community)
Being, doing, relating
Being, doing, relating
Doing, relating
- having
- being
Negative impacts on all forms of capital
Positive impacts on human capital capacity
Evolving
Cultural
Norms and
Policy
Investment
(decisions of,
taxes
community
spending,
education,
science,
technology
policy, etc.,
based on
complex
property rights
regimes)
Consumption
(based on
changing,
adapting
preferences)
- having
Alternative ecological economics models of economic
activity
MODEL 2

25. Why value benefits of Ecosystem
Services
• Valuation is an attempt to assign quantitative values to the
goods and services provided by such natural resources
where market prices are not available
• It can:
• indicate the overall economic efficiency of
various competing use of natural resources
and thereby contribute to informed decision-
making
• identify marginalized stakeholders who may
threaten natural resources due to
unsustainable use

26. Case studies

27. The Indian Himalayas
 Cover approximately 5,91,000 km2 or
18% of India's land
 Source of 9 major river systems
 Lie at junction of three Biogeographic
realms viz. Palaearctic, Afro-Tropical and
Indo-Malayan, 1/3 forest cover of India
 Biodiversity hotspots (26% endemic)
 Asylum value for species migrating
under the influence of climate change
 Spectacular, diverse landscape, rich
cultural heritage
 Provide important ecosystem services
for human well being

28. Climate change and development impacts
in Himalayas
 Global warming and climate change is impacting IHR at a
much higher rate than other mountain regions
 Loss of natural ecosystems due to development projects,
urbanization, forest dependence…
 Extreme rainfalls as well as drought events are likely to
increase
 Uttarakhand, rainfed re-charge decreased 25% – 75% past
50yrs (Report of the Task Force, 2010), drying up of springs,
abandoned villages, hardship for women
 Increase in incidences of pests and insects at high altitudes

29. Rapid retreat of greater Himalayan glaciers in comparison to the global
average (Dyurgerov and Meier 2005

30.  The main source of energy for local people is biomass,
mostly provided by fuel wood, sourced from forests
 Shortage of fuel wood and the high price of imported
conventional fuels result in high energy vulnerability
 Poor communities more vulnerable, in particular those
concentrated in high-risk areas as they have more limited
adaptive capacities, and are more dependent on climate-
sensitive resources such as local water and food supplies
 Threat to ecological security
Key challenges…

31.  Studies from Himalayas indicate that
about 30% of snow leopard habitat
may be lost due to a shifting treeline
and consequent shrinking of the alpine
zone (Forrest et al. 2012).
 Loss of several species
Himalayan monal
Tibetan wolf
Key challenges…

32. Corbett Tiger Reserve

33. Cost of (US$) maintenance of the
Corbett Tiger Reserve
YEAR MAINTENANCE
COST
SALARY TOTAL
2006-7 1378,571 1050,000 2428,571
2005-6 1176,190 1007,143 2183,333
2004-5 857,143 990,476 1847,619
Direct costs

34. Indirect costs – Adverse impacts
Parameters Kunkhet Chukam Mohan Teda Ringora Dhela
Agricultural area (ha) 5.1 5.9 3.6 10.2 0.8 23
Losses /ha (US$) 1,776 1,737 1,477 1,527 834 1,146
Total loss (US$) 23,396 10,249 5,376 15,601 663 26,325
Economic loss due to crop damaged by wildlife around
Corbett Tiger Reserve (2000-2004)
Economic loss (US$) due to livestock depredation around Corbett
Tiger Reserve (2000-2004)
Parameters Kunkhet Chukam Mohan Teda Ringora Dhela
Total loss 1143 976 2,310 1,417 1,476 13,238
Compensation paid 36 373 282 307 269 1,605
Net loss 1107 603 2,028 1,110 1,745 11,633

35. Lost access to forest resources around Corbett
Tiger Reserve (2000-2004)
• 73% villagers depend on the Reserve for
fuel wood (cost US$ 7346/day)
• 88% of fodder used extracted from
buffer area of the Reserve
• 22,000 cattle/day grazed in the Reserve
• Seasonal grass ‘bhabhar’ (Eulalopsis
binata) extracted-sold at US$ 12/100 kg
Opportunity costs

36. • 3.842 mt carbon stored in forests of CTR
• Offsetting a ton of CO2 in India- US $19 (Tvinnereim et al. 2009)
• The total cost of CO2 mitigation by the forests of CTR- US $63.6
million
• Annual flow -US $65.0 ha-1 year-1
Corbett TR-Indirect benefits
YEAR Number of
tourists
Revenue
(US$)
2006-7 1,44,000 564,286
2005-6 1,32,000 461,905
2004-5 1,10,000 432,541
Direct tourism revenue
The recreational value of CTR was
estimated as US $167,619 /yr
Watershed benefits resulting in USD 41
million through generation of electricity
since 1972

37. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
A B C D E F G H I
Percent
Tourists
Villagers
A- Purification of air (CO2 capture), B - Watershed protection, C - Recreation, D - Soil fertility, E- Fuel
and fodder, F - Biodiversity conservation, G - Education, H Aesthetics, I - Employment
Responses of tourists and local
communities

39. 39
Total area
5860.69
km2
No. of
villages in
Transition
zone
33
No. of
villages in
Buffer zone
47

40. 40
FUNCTIONAL OUTPUTS OF DIFFERENT LULC
Forest types/LU LC
Carbon
(t/ha)
NPK (t/ha)
Soil
moisture
(hm)
Water yield
(m3/day)
Conifer mixed 4683.2±566.7 34.9 ± 12.1 17.0±5.1 230.2±50.8
Oak-pine 3279.1±434.6 NE 13.6±4.3 109.5±24.6
Oak forest 2624.9±450.8 21.4 ± 9.5 19.6±7.8 44.4±11.5
Blue pine 1351.6±345.7 31.4 ±8.9 12.6±2.9 NE
Birch 1276.1±237.6 19.1 ± 6.6 8.2±1.5 NE
Deodar 1152.4±234.8 34.3 ± 11.7 13.8±3.8 NE
Chir pine 705.4±123.7 34.8 ± 14.9 1.6±0.4 NE
Alpine meadows 134.9±87.0 26.5 ± 12.5 17.3±9.7 NE
Temperate grassland 113.4±73.6 16.9 ± 7.9 6.8±1.7 NE
Juniper 80.4±43.6 24.3±10.5 5.8±1.9 NE
Agriculture 115.2±76.2 16.3± 8.3 9.5± 2.6 NE

41. 41
ECONOMIC VALUE (US$/ha) OF DIFFERENT LULC
LULC
Carbon
stock
Nutrients
Soil
Moisture
Biomass
used
Water
yield
Conifer Mixed 302000 9000 35 1000 11000
Oak-pine 211000 0 29 1000 5000
Oak 169000 5000 42 1000 2000
Blue Pine 86000 6000 26 NA NA
Birch 82000 5000 17 NA NA
Deodar 74000 9000 29 1000 NA
Chirpine 45000 9000 3 NA NA
Alpine
meadows 9000 6000 37
NA NA
Temprate
grassland 8000 5000 14
NA NA
Juniper 5000 6000 12 NA NA
Agriculture 8000 5000 20 NA NA

42. Soil nutrient contentCarbon stock
Soil moisture content

43. 43
Provisioning of freshwater

44. Provisioning services used by local community of NDBR
Natural resource
% of hh
(n=764)
Amount extracted
(kg/hh/year)
Direct earning US$
/hh/year)
Fodder* 87.8 3648.73 ±67.04 112.27 ±2.06
Fuelwood* 95.7 2510.29 ±67.36 57.93 ±1.55
Leaf litter* 84.8 2321.07 ±41.31 53.56 ±0.95
Thatching 5.4 75.5 ±9.21 232.31 ±28.37
Vegetables 38 2.87 ±0.08 0.89 ±0.08
Fruits 16.1 7.07±0.31 5.91 ±0.55
Medicinal plant 4.5 0.25 ±0.01 32.69 ±1.92
C. sinensis 1 0.38 ±0.9 903.85 ±447.06

45. Spatial distribution of the direct benefits

46. 46
AGGREGATE VALUE OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
LULC US$/ha
Conifer Mixed 320000
Oak-pine 220000
Oak 180000
Blue Pine 90000
Birch 90000
Deodar 80000
Chir pine 60000
Alpine meadows 10000
Temperate
grassland 10000
Juniper 10000
Agriculture 10000

47. 47
RECREATION VALUE
Net recreational demand curve
• Recreation value –US$ 255000 /yr
• Consumer surplus/visit million – US$ 0.65
Hypothetical travel cost
NumberofVisits

48. 48
NET PRESENT ECONOMIC VALUE OF
ECOSYSTEM SERVICES
*Excluding standing biomass value in terms of NTFP, timber, medicinal plants
Ecosystem Service Billion US$
Carbon stock 5.11
Soil nutrient 0.53
Soil moisture 0.001
Biomass used 0.02
Water yield 0.07
Recreation value 0.001

49. 49

50. 50
SUMMARY
 Carbon stock contributed most towards net ecosystem service
value and was highest for conifer mixed forests (4683 tons/ha).
 Oak and conifer mixed forests contributed the most towards
provisioning services.
 Recreational value of NDBR high.
 Significant difference between level of overall wellbeing among
hh close to and away from forests
 Access to forest resources for food, livelihood, economic and
health security
 US States Climate Change Program (CCSP, 2008) establishes
that human wellbeing is positively associated with availability
of forest resources
 Challenge to maintain sustained flow of these ecosystem
services in the face of growing developmental pressures.

55. • Contributions of ES to
livelihoods of vulnerable groups
• Conservation of highly
threatened and irreplaceable
services such as biodiversity
• Distribution of benefits and
costs
• Identification of policy for
conserving ES and for
optimizing tradeoffs for socially
desirable outcomes
Key considerations for ES approach in Himalayas

56. 0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100Publications
Ecosystem services
Published
Working paper
Policy
Types of ecosystem services studied
n= 315

57. 3
10 27 36
1 5
6
16 19
4
3 4 9
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%Publication
Year
Stable
Increasing
Decline
Trends in ecosystem services

58. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Percentofpublication
Ecosystem services studied
Decline Increasing Stable
Trends in ecosystem services

59. 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Percentofpublication
Country
Decline Increasing Stable
Trend in ecosystem services

60.  Protecting biodiversity and securing ecosystem services is a
smart investment option,
 Restoration a far more costly and complicated option
 Replacing ecosystem services through other means is
prohibitively costly.
 Brand conservation
Dudley et al 2011

61.  Virtually all PAs include sacred sites, with managers
often working with local communities and faith groups
to maintain both sacred cultural and ecological values.
 Sacred natural sites have richer biodiversity than
surrounding habitat.
 PAs provide forum for synergies to be explored and
developed among a wide range of disciplines.
Protected Areas
The gross national product does not allow for the health of our
children, the quality of their education, or the joy of their play. It
does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our
marriages; the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of
our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage;
neither our wisdom nor our learning; neither our compassion nor
our devotion to our country; it measures everything, in short,
except that which makes life worthwhile.
Robert F. Kennedy, 1968

62. Thank You…
ruchi@wii.gov.in