Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
tal way, in this case for their importance to the
ecological and evolutionary functioning of the global
ecosystem. Both types of ecosystem function can thus
be valued for decision making. Recently, Bullock
et al
.
(2011) explored whether anthropocentric and biocen-
tric positions - restoration of ecosystem services, and
restoration of biodiversity - can be achieved simulta-
neously (cf. Rey Benayas
et al
. 2009). We quote from
their study:
the fi eld shows that investing in the restoration of
renewable natural capital makes economic sense, in
terms of cost effectiveness and rates of return, once
the whole range of benefi ts provided by maintained or
augmented biodiversity and ecosystem services are
taken into account (de Groot
et al
. unpubl. MS; Elmqvist
et al
. unpubl. MS). But laws and economic incentives
will be required to give practical expression to these
insights into the real value of natural capital and eco-
system services provided by ecological economics. For
example, de Groot
et al
. (unpubl. MS) calculated benefi t-
cost ratios for 91 ecological restoration projects carried
out in 10 different biomes. They compared the results
using conservative and optimistic discount rates (see
Blignaut & Aronson 2008), the latter being one that
recognizes that restored ecosystems should lead to an
increase in the benefi ts people perceive and hence the
Total Economic Value, as compared to current, unre-
stored ecosystems at the same site. Their analysis
shows that even under a 'worst-case scenario' (using a
discount rate of 8% and 125% of average restoration
costs), investing in restoration 'pays' well for most
ecosystems, except coral reefs and some coastal and
freshwater systems. With a ' best - case scenario ' , the
results show even more compellingly that proactive
investment strategies in renewable natural capital are
fully justifi ed and need to be further developed and
implemented.
A meta-analysis of 89 restoration assess-
ments in a wide range of ecosystem types
across the globe indicates that ecological
restoration increased provision of biodi-
versity and ecosystem services by 44%
and 25% respectively. However, values of
both remained lower in restored than in
intact reference ecosystems. Increases in
biodiversity and ecosystem service meas-
ures following restoration were positively
correlated. Results indicate that restora-
tion actions focused on enhancing biodi-
versity should support increased provision
of ecosystem services, particularly in
tropical terrestrial biomes.
Such research vindicates public and private invest-
ment in restoration on both anthropocentric and bio-
centric grounds. In order to bring restoration into the
economic and political mainstream, however, new eco-
nomic concepts and levers are required. A key example
is the still somewhat controversial concept of 'pay-
ments for ecosystem services'. This concept is already
being usefully applied in the important negotiations
currently underway through the REDD+ mechanism
within the UNFCCC. REDD+ is an expansion, agreed at
the UN climate change discussions at Cancún, Mexico,
in December 2010, of a scheme for Reducing Emis-
sions from Deforestation and (Forest) Degradation,
through payments for services provided by conserva-
tion and restoration of forest biodiversity in developing
countries, with ancillary benefi ts for people indigenous
to such forests. Such initiatives are intended to improve
upon the Kyoto Protocol, which comes to an end in
2012 (see Alexander
et al
. 2011 ).
As noted before, we must recognize that ecological
restoration cannot and should not be approached in
isolation. Instead, it should be approached as part of a
global movement towards landscape-scale and biore-
gional sustainability. A growing body of evidence from
Decision and policy makers on all levels,
both in the private and public sector,
should be made aware that money spent
on ecosystem restoration should not
(only) be seen as a cost, but as an invest-
ment that brings multiple benefi ts and
can help them to achieve their policy
goals. This applies to sectors such as
urban development, water purifi cation
and waste water treatment, and regional
development, as well as improved systems
and policies for public health and adapta-
tion to climate change. (de Groot
et al
.
unpubl. MS)
From a policy maker's perspective, we note, there
are several other positive features that make restora-
tion attractive: ecological restoration programmes
can contribute to the range and quantity of job oppor-
tunities and livelihoods in rural areas, and they also
play a pivotal role in mitigating some of the effects of
