Literature DB >> 35020743

Integrating ecosystem markets to co-ordinate landscape-scale public benefits from nature.

Mark S Reed1,2, Tom Curtis3, Arjan Gosal4, Helen Kendall1, Sarah Pyndt Andersen4, Guy Ziv5, Anais Attlee6, Richard G Fitton7, Matthew Hay8, Alicia C Gibson7, Alex C Hume7, David Hill9, Jamie L Mansfield7, Simone Martino10, Asger Strange Olesen11, Stephen Prior10, Christopher Rodgers12, Hannah Rudman1, Franziska Tanneberger13.   

Abstract

Ecosystem markets are proliferating around the world in response to increasing demand for climate change mitigation and provision of other public goods. However, this may lead to perverse outcomes, for example where public funding crowds out private investment or different schemes create trade-offs between the ecosystem services they each target. The integration of ecosystem markets could address some of these issues but to date there have been few attempts to do this, and there is limited understanding of either the opportunities or barriers to such integration. This paper reports on a comparative analysis of eleven ecosystem markets in operation or close to market in Europe, based on qualitative analysis of 25 interviews, scheme documentation and two focus groups. Our results indicate three distinct types of markets operating from the regional to national scale, with different modes of operation, funding and outcomes: regional ecosystem markets, national carbon markets and green finance. The typology provides new insights into the operation of ecosystem markets in practice, which may challenge traditionally held notions of Payment for Ecosystem Services. Regional ecosystem markets, in particular, represent a departure from traditional models, by using a risk-based funding model and aggregating both supply and demand to overcome issues of free-riding, ecosystem service trade-offs and land manager engagement. Central to all types of market were trusted intermediaries, brokers and platforms to aggregate supply and demand, build trust and lower transaction costs. The paper outlines six options for blending public and private funding for the provision of ecosystem services and proposes a framework for integrating national carbon markets and green finance with regional ecosystem markets. Such integration may significantly increase funding for regenerative agriculture and conservation across multiple habitats and services, whilst addressing issues of additionality and ecosystem service trade-offs between multiple schemes.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35020743      PMCID: PMC8754326          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258334

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


  4 in total

Review 1.  The efficiency of payments for environmental services in tropical conservation.

Authors:  Sven Wunder
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 6.560

Review 2.  The alignment of agricultural and nature conservation policies in the European Union.

Authors:  Ian Hodge; Jennifer Hauck; Aletta Bonn
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2015-05-21       Impact factor: 6.560

3.  Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?

Authors:  Trisha Greenhalgh; Sally Thorne; Kirsti Malterud
Journal:  Eur J Clin Invest       Date:  2018-04-16       Impact factor: 4.686

4.  A global meta-analysis on the ecological drivers of forest restoration success.

Authors:  Renato Crouzeilles; Michael Curran; Mariana S Ferreira; David B Lindenmayer; Carlos E V Grelle; José M Rey Benayas
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 14.919

  4 in total
  1 in total

1.  Soil carbon sequestration potential of planting hedgerows in agricultural landscapes.

Authors:  Sofia Biffi; Pippa J Chapman; Richard P Grayson; Guy Ziv
Journal:  J Environ Manage       Date:  2022-01-22       Impact factor: 6.789

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.