This month’s special edition of the journal Ecological Economics focuses on Payments for Environmental Services: Reconciling Theory and Practice. Of particular interest in this edition is an article reporting on a study which developed a framework for deciding when payments are a suitable tool for delivering ecosystem services.
Ecosystems provide vital services to humans, which are public goods, but private landowners often own the physical structures of ecosystems; so policies are needed to encourage landowners to provide the desired ecosystem services. The study identifies five types of policy tools for providing ecosystem services on private land: prescription (regulations), penalties (taxation), property rights (alteration to protect ecosystems), public information (used to change landowner behaviour) and payments for ecosystem services (PES), which compensate landowners who supply ecosystem services on their property.
The study focuses on PES, proposing a framework for deciding when payments are a suitable policy option for delivering ecosystem services; this framework takes into account the attributes of the ecosystem services provided by a particular area of land, including the concepts of rivalry, excludability and the extent of the distribution of the service.
The study also suggests that creating a ‘monopsony’ (a market with only one buyer) can provide an effective way of delivering ecosystem services, because it is relatively easy to calculate the willingness of a buyer to pay by measuring the benefit of the service to an organisation or individual’s well-being. For example, a hydroelectric company could pay upstream landowners to manage their land in order to reduce the amount of silt downstream. The authors also suggest that bundling of ecosystem services could be a useful approach for implementing PES for complex ecosystems which provide many services: the services can be bundled together and multiple sources of funding can be found to support them.
Source: Science for Environmental Policy Issue 193
Original Article: Kemkes, R.J., Farley, J., Koliba, C.J. (2009). Determining when payments are an effective policy approach to ecosystem service provision. Ecological Economics. Doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.11.032.
A problem for Earth’s ecology that is posed by large-scale, corporate production of too much food.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/05/population-overshoot-is-determined-by-food-overproduction/
Population Overshoot Is Determined by Food Overproduction
Even after more than ten years of trying to raise awareness about certain overlooked research, my focus remains riveted on the skyrocketing growth of absolute global human population and scientific evidence from Hopfenberg and Pimentel that the size of the human population on Earth is a function of food availability. More food for human consumption equals more people; less food for human existence equals less people; and no food, no people. This is to say, the population dynamics of the human species is essentially common to, not different from, the population dynamics of other living things.
UN Secretary-General Mr. Kofi Annan noted in 1997, “The world has enough food. What it lacks is the political will to ensure that all people have access to this bounty, that all people enjoy food security.”
Please examine the probability that humans are producing too much, not too little food; that the global predicament humanity faces is the way increasing the global food supply leads to increasing absolute global human population numbers. It is the super-abundance of unsustainable agribusiness harvests that are driving population numbers of the human species to overshoot, or explode beyond, the natural limitations imposed by a relatively small, evidently finite, noticeably damaged planet with the size, composition and ecology of Earth.
The spectacular success of the Green Revolution over the past 40 years has “produced” an unintended and completely unanticipated global challenge, I suppose: the rapidly increasing supply of food for human consumption has given birth to a human population bomb, which is exploding worldwide before our eyes. The most formidable threat to future human well being and environmental health appears to be caused by the unbridled, corporate overproduction of food on the one hand and the abject failure of the leaders of the human community to insist upon more fair and equitable redistribution of the world’s food supply so that “all people enjoy food security”.
We need to share (not overconsume and hoard) as well as to build sustainable, human-scale farming practices (not corporate leviathans), I believe.
For a moment let us reflect upon words from the speech that Norman Bourlaug delivered in 1970 on the occasion of winning the Nobel Prize. He reported, ” Man also has acquired the means to reduce the rate of human reproduction effectively and humanely. He is using his powers for increasing the rate and amount of food production. But he is not yet using adequately his potential for decreasing the rate of human reproduction. The result is that the rate of population increase exceeds the rate of increase in food production in some areas.”
Plainly, Norman Bourlaug states that humanity has the means to decrease the rate of human reproduction, but is choosing not to adequately employ this capability to sensibly limit human population numbers. He also notes that the rate of human population growth surpasses the rate of increase in food production IN SOME AREAS {my caps}. Dr. Bourlaug is specifically not saying the growth of global human population numbers exceeds global production of food.
According to recent research, population numbers of the human species could be a function of the global growth of the food supply for human consumption. This would mean that the global food supply is the independent variable and absolute global human population numbers is the dependent variable; that human population dynamics is most similar to the population dynamics of other species. Perhaps the human species is not being threatened in our time by a lack of food. To the contrary, humanity and life as we know it could be inadvertently put at risk by the determination to continue the dramatic, large-scale overproduction of food, such as we have seen occur in the past 40 years.
Recall Dr. Bourlaug’s prize winning accomplishment. It gave rise to the “Green Revolution” and to the extraordinary increases in the world’s supply of food. Please consider that the sensational increases in humanity’s food supply occasioned by Dr. Bourlaug’s great work gave rise to an unintended and completely unanticipated effect: the recent skyrocketing growth of absolute global human population numbers.
We have to examine what appear to be potentially disastrous effects of increasing large-scale food production capabilities (as opposed to small-scale farming practices) on human population numbers worldwide between now and 2050. If we keep doing the “big-business as usual” things we are doing now by maximally increasing the world’s food supply, and the human community keeps getting what we are getting now, then a colossal ecological wreckage of some unimaginable sort could be expected to occur in the fairly near future.
It may be neither necessary nor sustainable to continue increasing food production to feed a growing population. As an alternative, we could carefully review ways for limiting increases in the large-scale corporate production of food; for providing broad support of small-scale farming practices; for redistributing more equitably the present overly abundant world supply of food among the members of the human community; and for immediately, universally and safely following Dr. Bourlaug’s recommendation to “reduce the rate of human reproduction effectively and humanely.”
Steve Salmony is a self-proclaimed global citizen, a psychologist and father of three grown children. Married 38 years ago. In 2001 Steve founded the AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population to raise consciousness of the colossal threat that the unbridled, near exponential growth of absolute global human population numbers poses for all great and small living things on Earth in our time. His quixotic campaign focuses upon the best available science of human population dynamics in order to save the planet as a place fit for habitation by children everywhere.