Climate Change and Ecosystem Services

In this post, we will delve into the inevitable relationships between provision/delivery of ecosystem services and future environmental change.  

Climate Change in Southern Africa

The most direct impact of future climate change in the continent would be changes to the water balance of lakes, wetlands and rivers. More intense, less frequent extreme precipitation events and more frequent dry episodes would fundamentally alter the regime of rivers and generally reduce annual discharge. Climate change will also impact storage capacity of dams and encourages greater evaporative losses (Magadza 1994). Loss of perennial drainage sustaining surface water due to the non-linear response of drainage to changes in rainfall would also mean loss of perennial surface water and increased water scarcity (Wit and Stankiewicz 2006). This will be much more prevalent for rural areas where technology are not readily available . Ironically, these rural areas are,  the most dependent on ecosystem services provided by freshwater systems.

Climate Change and freshwater resources in Africa

Changes in the presence, timing and distribution of surface water would no doubt have significant impacts on productivity and thus the ecosystem's capacity to provide and deliver ecosystem services. Modelled increases in dry season flow and increased hydrological variability in Africa will also mean increased importance of irrigation to sustain food production which no doubt will involve dams and river regulations that will have substantial impacts to ecosystem services themselves (Hollis and Thompson 1995). On a cultural and supporting services, the timing and presence of water would dictate recreational activities, navigational routes and eco-tourism. On regulating and provisioning services, knock-on effects to food supply, water supply and aquatic productivity will have immense societal impacts. 

In Lake Tanganyika in East Africa, it was found that regional warming and increased surface water temperature reduced water column mixing, nutrient upwelling and entrainment, resulting in decreased aquatic productivity. The lake historically produced up to 40% of animal protein food supply for surrounding countries, but fisheries yield declined by up to 30% since the beginning of the 20th century (O'Reilly et.al. 2003).

Having said that, climate change is by no means the single threatening element to freshwater ES. Lake Chad is probably the most famous case study in the coupling between anthropogenic actions and climate change in driving the collapse of ecosystem services (Salman and Martinez 2015). Rice and cotton irrigation, river diversion/substantial irrigation schemes and declining water quantity/quality from increased use of agro-chemicals all contributed to a dramatic decline in surface area and lake levels alongside climatic changes to inter-annual hydrological variability (Coe and Foley 2001). Food/export production were therefore boosted at the expense of dramatic decline in an entire suite of other ecosystem services:

Ecosystem services at risk after coupled impacts from agricultural development and climate change at Lake Chad

Wetlands and Lakes IIII - Impact Assessments

In this post, I will address the use hydrological modelling to better carry out scenario planning and safeguard the sustainable delivery and integrity of the entire suite of freshwater 'umbrella' services.

Impact assessments

Modelling potential impacts  have been an important part of contemporary hydrological research. Studies may use models built for climate scenarios to simulate changes in river/flood regimes. Other studies may model potential changes by different irrigation development. I will assess both through modelling studies at the Inner Niger Delta and the Pongola basin.

Inner Niger Delta

Ecosystem Services

The largest floodplain wetland in West Africa, the Inner Niger Delta is located downstream of the Upper Niger river basin which covers an area of >100,000 km2. The Inner Niger Delta is one of the most productive region in West Africa, supporting over 1 million people across the Sahel in 'river-dependent economies'. Ecosystem services include:

1. Agriculture (dams, irrigation schemes) - mainly for rice cultivation
2. Fisheries
3. Grazing (sheep, cow and goats)
4. Hydroelectric power
5. Wetlands regulating services (one of the world's largest RAMSAR site)

Future climate change is most likely to inflict substantial changes to the duration, timing, quantity and quality of river flow which will impact the integrity of these ES. 

Modelled changes to inflow
discharge into Inner Delta

Hydrological Modelling

Using a semi-distributed conceptual model , river discharge were projected to decrease by 0.8% to >50% and flood extent can reduce by up to 50% by 2100 under a 2 degrees rise in temperature according to different GCM output (Thompson et.al. 2016). Projected changes to the river/flood regime through modelling therefore sheds light on the potential detrimental effects to ecosystem services within the basin. Reductions to peak flow would lead to a significant decline in available agricultural areas and may impact food security alongside increasing population pressures (Liersch et.al. 2013). Environmental flows analyses on ecosystem integrity using results from hydrological modelling would further provide information on the impacts climate change exert on ecosystem integrity and capability to provide and supply ES.

Pongola Floodplain

Ecosystem Services

The Pongola River basin occupies an area of >7000 km2 in South Africa. Controlled releases of the Pongolapoort dam regulates inflow into floodplains, significantly impacting downstream provision and access to ecosystem services which were dependent on the natural peak/low flow regimes. Ecosystem services include: grazing, building, fuel wood, food production, biodiversity, flood attenuation, water quality control and cultural activities.

Hydrological Modelling

In order to adequately plan for future development scenarios to safeguard both ecosystem services and economic livelihoods, Lankford et.al. 2011 undertook hydrological modelling of 3 different flow releases scenarios to examine possible socioeconomic and ecological impacts.

1. Unstructured releases - poorly controlled releases 
2. Regulated releases with diversified economy - coordinated releases of water for both agricultural development and ecosystem services
3. Regulated releases with single sector (agriculture) - full releases to support chosen agricultural development

Impacts to ES from Scenario (2)

Modelled findings indicate that scenario 1 would favour elites/powerful who are most likely to dictate flow releases, leading to decline in all identified ecosystem services. Scenario 2 contributes to poverty alleviation with minimal impacts to ecosystem services while encouraging diversification and sustainability. Scenario 3 contributes in the short term significantly to poverty alleviation and economic growth but causes decline in ecosystem services comparable to scenario 1 which may have substantial impacts in the long run (As seen in Lake Victoria). 

Hydrological modelling, although inevitably carrying a degree of uncertainty, allows for informed decisions regarding future management and justification for an alteration to current management strategies. Simulating hydrological processes under climate change or development scenarios, models are useful in assessing future changes to hydrological and ecosystem functioning which will have knock-on impacts to the provision of ecosystem services.

Wetlands and Lakes III - GaMampa Wetlands

In this post, I will address the economic valuation of freshwater ecosystem services in terms of policy and decision making with a specific example at the GaMampa wetland in South Africa.

GaMampa Wetlands

20% of the South African landscape is covered by inland wetlands. The GaMampa wetland is an example of such small inland wetlands. Located within the Mohlapetsi river catchment, the GaMampa wetland covers an area of >120 ha and is crucial to the livelihoods of surrounding local communities. 

Ecosystem Services provision:

Although the wetlands merely covers around 1% of the entire catchment of the Mohlapetsi River basin, it contributes significantly to dry season flows through a natural springs, comprising >15% of the dry season flow of the Olifants River (Mohlapetsi trib.).

Source

Provisioning services include the provision of natural resources (grass for grazing, reed for handicrafts), water supply provision, fuel wood and fisheries. Regulatory services include carbon storage and cultural/recreational services include the ever-expanding eco-tourism. 5 villages are located within the vicinity of the wetlands and almost all households were found to be actively engaging with at least one or more of the wetland services (Adekola 2007). However, while there is no doubt of the wide range of ecosystem services the wetlands provides, it does not imply equal access. ES usage across households often reveals underlying social conditions (class, wealth, power relations). Poorer households were found to be less frequently engaged with ecosystem services than medium to high wealth groups which tends to actively exploit wetlands services, most notably through high soil fertility and wetland conversions (McCartney et.al. 2011). This also reveals the inherent traits of trade-offs within the usage of ecosystem services where agricultural productivity and food provision may be prioritised at the expense of hidden services, eventually and ironically leading to the collapse/decline of the initially prioritised services.

Economic valuation:

McCartney et.al. 2011 concluded that the net value of $USD 80,000 significantly exceeds the annual cash income of households within the area, suggesting a major contribution of ES delivery/provision to local livelihoods. Total wetland benefits if shared among households of surrounding villages was found to be able to contribute >$400 per household (Adekola 2007).

However, while these economic values may look encouraging for poverty alleviation, it masks the fact that wetland conversions has been dramatic in recent years with the wetlands halving in size between 1996 and 2002, illustrating the reality of trade-offs within different ecosystem services. 

Management and decision-making:

There is no doubt the GaMampa wetlands plays an important role in sustaining local livelihoods, survival and water/food security through both direct benefits (cropping, fuel wood, water) and indirect benefits (streamflow generation, water quality regulation, eco-tourism). Economic valuation, although may risk neglecting hidden services, is ultimately useful tool for decision-making and future management of wetlands if used with the wide appreciation of the ES concept. Within the Gamampa wetlands, the economic valuation of the wetlands and the increased scientific research within the area did increase local environmental awareness and agricultural land conversion has been markedly reduced since 2004. Combing biophysical (wetland hydrology) research with economic valuation can help reach agreement and decisions over future governance of the area and may stimulate government/NGO involvement to optimize benefits and limit degradation. Ultimately, I do think that the economic valuation of ecosystem services, if  used among an entire suite of other ways of valuation, is a powerful tool in stimulating action and sustainable management. This was shown through Sylvie et.al. 2010, where a modelling study using STELLA modelling language was used to assess trade-offs within the GaMampa wetlands, including not only the value of natural services, but also the hydrology, community well-being, population dynamics, future environmental change and future management scenarios. Descending into a theoretical/ethical debate over valuing/commodifying nature may therefore not be helpful.

In the next post, we will look at environmental change on future provision of ecosystem services.

Payments for Ecosystem Services II - WfW Programme, South Africa

In this post, I will blog in detail about the largest payment for ecosystem service scheme in the African continent.

Working for Water Programme

The WfW programme in South Africa launched in 1995 aims to address the spread of invasive species and the safeguard of freshwater resources and at the same time alleviate poverty through financial incentives. The programme identifies invasive species as a major threat to freshwater resources with the colonization of riparian zones by invasive trees, resulting in a loss of usable water comparable to >4% of total water use in South Africa (Cullis et.al. 2007). Anoxic conditions are also induced by invasions, leading to reduction in fish yields and reduced delivery of cultural and regulating services. It is the largest single natural resource based poverty alleviation scheme in the country and the largest PES scheme in the African continent. Among representative catchments investigated in SA by Mairtre et.al. 2012, it was identified that invasive species reduced natural river flows by 6-22%. Strategically managed to bring together hydrologists, ecologists, engineers and rural populations, the WfW scheme offers the following with an annual budget of USD $50 million (Van Wilgen and Maitre 2008):

1. Employment and training for previously unemployed South Africans to eliminate spread of high water consuming invasive alien plants

2. Sustainable funding and investment in research on invasive species and its impacts 

3. Improvement in international cooperation and reorganization of water management personnel

Benefits

Water is a clear constraint to economic growth, particularly in a chronically water stressed country. There are thus understandably increasing pressure for more efficient and sustainable delivery and use of freshwater. PES schemes should inherently be socially progressive as the sustainable delivery of ecosystem services are societally beneficial and that financial incentives attached to ES delivery are capable of empowerment (Suich et.al. 2015). The WfW scheme aims to simultaneously tackle the spread of invasive plants, the efficient delivery of water resources and the empowerment of marginalized communities (Gorgens and van Wilgen 2004). It is the only widespread PES scheme in the continent and is widely regarded as one of the most successful natural resources investment plan in the African continent. Some of the major benefits are listed below:

Benefits of the WfW Scheme
Red boxes indicate potential benefits 
(Underlying graphic indicates general ecosystem services benefits from
water resource management taken from Suich et.al. 2015)

Environmental

- Encourages biodiversity conservation

- Limit spread of invasive alien plants detrimental to ecosystem and water supply

- >1 million ha of invasive plants cleared - release of >40 million ha cubic meters of water per annum

Social

- Provision of >30,000 temporary jobs over 300 projects across all provinces of S.Africa

- Promote gender quality and empowerment - 52% of those employed were women

- Encourages small business entrepreneurs to bid and compete in WfW contracts in locations where invasive plants are significantly detrimental ecologically and hydrologically 

Economic

- Revenue from poverty relief funding 

- Creation of secondary industries in communities (eg. furniture making)

- Restoration of agriculturally productive land

Trade-offs

No scheme of this size can be carried out without criticism. There has been some major criticisms to its legislation, management and potential trade-offs. These criticisms also reveal some general pitfalls and concerns of PES schemes.

There are pretty obvious conflicts of interests which the scheme does not address sufficiently. Invasive alien plants, although detrimental to the environment and water provision, are provisioning ecosystem services themselves. Local rural communities often use them as fuel wood, fencing materials and participate in agro-forestry industries. Furthermore, the agro-forestry plantation industry employs over 100,000 people and covers 1.4 million ha.  This complicates the successful implementation of the scheme as plantations occupy 10% of land which yields 60% of  surface water (Hope 2006). 

Socially, as the scheme is dependent on poverty relief funding and is targeted mainly as a poverty alleviation scheme,  the scheme risks over reliance on relief funding and may find itself unable to compete with alternative poverty relief programmes in the future (Turpie et.al. 2008).  There were also criticisms due to the top-down approach of implementation. Poor communication channels, insufficient information and lack of local community participation led to assertion by some that the government led scheme fails to understand the true nature of work and reality of local life (Buch and Dixon 2008). The scheme merely provides a temporary solution to chronic problems in which participation of laborers are limited to only 2 years after which citizens are required to secure alternative permanent employment. However, the scheme failed to properly address the fact that comparable employment may not be available. Even if they are available, some may not be qualified as the scheme merely trains them in specialist subjects (invasive plant removal) rather than general training (Hope 2006). Income constraints dictated by the climate and erratic working patterns exacerbates the problem. This has led to the WfW scheme being the only secure employer, creating a situation where long-lasting poverty alleviation may be at odds with the top down management of the scheme.

Concluding Thoughts

There is no doubt that this is the largest natural resources based poverty relief scheme in the country and the continent. The practical application of economically valuing ecosystem services (water supply) and impacts (invasive plants) has also proven to be largely successful. There are obvious drawbacks and major trade-offs, particularly problems associated with a managerial, top down approach is applicable across many PES and water supply schemes. More local participation would certainty improve the scheme as success rates of a conservation or development scheme is highest when local people are involved in the decision making process. Nonetheless, the implementation of this scheme in a country where conservation are largely reserved for the rich does effectively integrates sustainability with equity and economic growth and have had significant success.  

Payments for Ecosystem Services I

In this short post, I will introduce the concept of payments for ecosystem services. 

Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)

PES is a market-based mechanism to translate external values of ecosystem functioning by financial incentives to the provision of ES by local actors. The basis of PES lies within the economic theory of market failure when public goods and services are not delivered or provided in sufficient quantity/quality/efficiency (Derissen and Lohmann 2013). PES schemes are often voluntary with financial transactions for the services provided by a well-defined, often singular ecosystem function. The central economic theory behind PES schemes are one of non-rivalry, that the benefit and consumption by one user does not affect benefts and consumption by another (Engel et.al. 2008). This, obviously, is not true in reality and may often lead to complex power dynamics as seen from the commodification of water in the last post and will be discussed further in the WfW programme in South Africa.  

Characteristics of PES:

1. Presence of buyers - users of ES or governments/NGOs, either user-financed or government-financed through central organizations
2. Sellers - stakeholders in position to protect, maintain and assist ES delivery, often land owners or government
3. Payments offered to sellers (ecosystem managers) must exceed benefits they would otherwise receive from land conversion or alternative use 

Disadvantages:

1. Inefficient if ES are spatially dispersed and distributed with widespread impact areas
2. Non-rivalry often not realistic - eg. Commodification of water (see previous post) - water rights holder hold power to prioritize beneficiaries 
3. Payments may be insufficient to cover costs and leads to continued undesirable land uses
4. Inefficient if payments are made to convert land use but land conversion would have been adopted without payments anyways

In the next post, I will discuss in detail the WfW programme.