Sustainable Land Management Issues - Essay Example

Running Header: Ecosystem services and decision-making: Sustainable Land management Your name: Course name: Professors’ name: Date Introduction Ecosystem services refer to benefits that people get from ecosystems. This is a term coined from two symbolic definitions, ecosystem goods and ecosystem services. To start with, ecosystem goods including food and services such as the production of atmospheric oxygen demonstrate the benefits that human beings achieve either directly or in other forms from ecosystem activities (Pertsova, 2007). Secondly, ecosystem provisions entail the processes and conditions via which normal ecosystems, and their essential species, fulfill and endure human life (Pertsova, 2007). They uphold biodiversity and the ecosystem goods production. Services are largely categorized into functional groupings where they are classified into regulating, provisioning, cultural, and supporting services (The SEQ, 2013). Ecosystem services affect human well-being. It assumed to have many constituents, which include essential materials to enhance quality of life, such as, adequate and secure livelihoods, shelter, ample food and clothing; health including good physical environment; suitable social relations including mutual respect, social cohesion, and assistance to others; security such as access to safe resources, personal security, and protection against human-induced and natural disasters; freedom of action and choice (Kline, 2013). Sustainable management of land implies managing land without destroying ecological processes or minimizing its biological diversity. It needs the maintenance of the following major environmental components, ecological integrity, which is the general resilience and health of natural life-support systems (Schrenk et al, 2011). This includes the system’s potential to assimilate wastes and tolerate stresses including ozone depletion and climate change. The second component required is biodiversity, which entails various populations, species, ecosystems, and habitats. Sustainable land management also requires natural capital. This comprises of the presence of productive soil, forests, fresh water, clean air, ocean, and other renewable resources that reinforce the health, survival, and wealth of human communities (McGinty, 1995). Land is usually managed for several benefits including biodiversity conservation, agricultural production, soil health, as well as human life support. To facilitate lasting sustainability, land managers should consider social, economic, and environmental factors (Kline, 2013). Thus, this paper intends to explore some of the issues that may arise by adopting the ecosystems service approach as a way of measuring sustainable land management. It also seeks to outline some of the benefits and limitations regarding the use of this approach (Brown, & Nancy, 2013). Lastly, the paper aims at offering a number of recommendations based on the limitations and benefits of employing the approach. Literature review As McGinty (1995) asserts, an ecosystem refers to an interrelated group of living things that include physical environment and humans with which they relate. Thus, ecosystems create a basis of long lasting economies. The main aim of ecosystem is the restoration and maintenance of health, biological diversity, and sustainability of ecosystems at the same time aiding communities and economies (Canadell & Pataki, 2007). Founded on a jointly enhanced idea of required upcoming situation, the advancement considers ecological, economic, and social variables that influence a management unit demarcated by ecological rather than political limits (Peine & Samab Foundation, 2008). Since ecosystems may not adhere to administrative limits, such as, borders of forests and national parks, working to restore or uphold flora and fauna sustainability entails a view that surpasses those man-made borders (Chopra, 2005). Just as partnership is vital, finding means to enhance voluntary collaboration with state, local, and tribal governments, and the non-governmental organizations and the community, is crucial to a successful ecosystem method (Roman, 2009). Principles of the ecosystem services approach As McGinty (1995) points out, the interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force has established common principles to be used by the federal regulatory agencies and resource management in order to participate in the implementation of the ecosystem. Some of these principles include, common vision, coordinated method and baseline requirements. First, it is imperative to establish a common vision of the needed ecosystem condition, considering the present economic and social circumstances and identifying means of involving all parties in order to achieve shared ecosystem goals. Second, it is necessary to put in place coordinated methods among federal bureaus to attain ecosystem aims, and cooperate with state, local, and tribal partners on the basis of appreciation of mutual matters (Macfadyen et al., 2012). Using ecological approaches, which restore and uphold environmental health, biological diversity, and productivity is of essence. Besides, it is important to aid actions that integrate socio-cultural, economic, and community goals in line with the vision (Kline, 2013). In order to achieve common goals, there is a need to respect personal belongings and rights and for partnerships with individual land owners (UNEP, 2011). It also underpins the significance of recognizing that ecologies and institutions are complex, heterogeneous, and dynamic across time and space, and are always changing. Adaptive method in can be used in maintaining both management to modern perception of ecosystems and desired goals. Further, the task force states the necessity to integrate the best knowledge and science available to inform resolution making procedure as well as undertaking scientific studies to enhance the knowledge foundation. Lastly, establishing baseline requirements for ecosystem sustainability and functioning against which change may be measured is highly indispensable (Global Environment Facility, 2012). As well, monitoring and evaluating actions and their results to establish if aims and goals are being accomplished is critical (Kline, 2013). Limitations According to McGinty (1995), several factors, such as mismatched data bases, interagency conflicts, inadequate comprehension of ecosystem functioning, unsteady budgetary and planning cycles, and varying agency organizational systems, have greatly interfered with the development of coordinated method of actively restoring and maintaining the ecosystems’ health. Dedicted team, acting via its functioning group, explored main issue areas that affect the effectiveness of the approach and provided certain suggestions for improvement (World Bank, 2008). The issues include budget, institution public participation, legal authorities, as well as information and science management. Budget issues Some of the budgetary success measures taken by federal agencies in implementation of ecosystem approach consist of flexible spending needs and interagency budget harmonization in ecosystems across the country. Additionally, federal institutions are establishing ecosystem accounts within their budgets and offering more elasticity to budget arrangements. Hindrances to interagency collaboration comprise of varying opinions among committees, which permit and allocate funds for different federal agencies, this is an advantage because it encourages conservation of the ecosystem and provides financial assistance for propelling environmental goals (Dominati, Patterson & Mackay, 2010). Another limitation that hinders interagency partnerships is the absence of future financing certainty which hinders long term projects. There are also restrictions on the types of projects that the institutions undertake, this is a disadvantage because new approaches are declined and some important projects dismissed. Variance in agency budget arrangements and challenges in transferring and pooling funds heavily hamper interagency partnership (McGinty, 1995; Global Environment Facility, 2011). What is more, Macfadyen et al. (2012) says that some institutions might have insufficient experience in collaborating with non-federal partners, and organization staff could be unwilling to partner with other institutions. Hindrances to interagency change consist of conventional budget priorities that could obstruct efforts to finance the ecosystem approach. Time constraints by congress on utilization of funds, narrow financing regulations and obstacles on revision of funds could hinder initiatives from being executed that may otherwise support the approach (Mallawaarachchi & Green, 2012). Institutional issues Institutions structures to advance the ecosystem method depend on adaptive management, a suitable organizational structure, information accessibility, common vision for ecology in conjunction with stakeholders, accountability and performance measures, usability, appropriate education and training, and communication (Nair & Garrity, 2012). The agency issues group established that federal institutions make considerable progress in enforcing approach in certain ecosystems countrywide. The group discovered that in certain cases, agency mandates and missions prevent advancement of ecosystems’ common visions (Roman, 2009). Highly functional institution approaches could hamper a wide ecosystem approach, as do jurisdiction limits that seldom match with ecosystems (Hester & Harrison, 2005). Generally, information needed for the ecosystem method is hard to obtain and use, and could be subtle or exclusive. Lastly, agency employees could lack sufficient training in the collection, analysis, usage, and communication of ecosystem data, especially when it is uncertain what information to be gathered (Haines-Young et al., 2012). Science and information management This is crucial in that it contributes to the ecosystem approach in various ways, such as, development of new management strategies of ecosystems; enhancement of credibility of information used in decision making; and facilitation of interagency collaboration. Nevertheless, there are numerous science-related obstacles to the approach (World Bank, 2006). Research experiences political and budgetary constraints partially because of poor relations of scientists with the public and managers (Burkhard et al., 2012; Global Environment Facility, 2011). Gaps in knowledge regarding the way functioning of ecosystems still exists partly due to conventional emphasis on limited disciplines and narrow topics. Reporting of research information must be standardized, and availability of the data needs to be structured so as to enhance proper synthesis and incorporation for resource stewards and to offer feedback on the gaps. Lastly, federal agencies fail to adequately focus on lasting monitoring and evaluation upon completion of projects (Blum, 2009; Calkins, 2011). Public participation Successful execution of this undertaking relies on the involvement of all stakeholders in preparation, decision-making, and enforcement. It has been established that federal agencies provide public accessibility to data on the technical and planning documents, creating educational programs about environmental issues, and involving the people on debate at different phases of the projects, both prior to and in execution (Zdruli, 2010). Apparently, there is need for improvement through early and constant public contribution in decision-making; enabling the public to be privy to technical information; integrating human aspects in environmental concerns; ensuring that planned efforts are aligned with public interests; and providing continuous feedback throughout the project process (Kniivilä, 2003). Legal authorities Federal agencies could leverage on main legal authorities to enforce the approach. Some of the authorities including Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and National Environmental Policy were set to enhance partnership among stakeholders in the protection of habitats and prevention of pollution in ecosystems all over the country (Hein, 2010). Even though such regulations exists, they main be understood in ways that may hinder such efforts. For example, with reference Endangered Species Act, institutions could set programs and regulations that emphasize basically on individual species instead of the wider ecosystem context. These statutes seem to prompt action whenever serious measures are required or recovery of habitat or species (McGinty, 1995). Benefits The millennium ecosystem assessment, which is study sponsored by the UN at an international scale, identified the impacts that human activities have had on the globe’s ecosystems and on the public advantages that ecologies provide. A recent worldwide report on ecosystems and biodiversity asserted that ecosystems do not rely on economies but n ecosystems (Behnassi, Draggan & Yaya, 2011). Describing the possible impacts of decisions or plans on ecosystem services and their socioeconomic outcomes helps in integrating and aligning economic, environmental, and social policies. It can also allow the public to take part in decision-making by reflecting the way their good perception of places and explaining the effects of environmental issues (Eppink et al., 2012). Additionally, WRI (2008) argues that ecosystem services approach enhances community health and human well-being. They have actual economic value directly and indirectly via the economic activities they protect or underpin. Taking into consideration the effect of decisions that may inadvertently affect these services enables people to ascertain their maintenance. It also permits individuals to enhance the way through which natural globe benefits humans and minimize the degree to which they require to take action to prevent deterioration or avoid possible negative change (Waterways Forward, 2012). In decision making, Kniivilä (2003) posits that the use of the ecosystems approach may help in ensuring that any decision with an ability to have numerous effects on the natural ecology, for example on water quality, biodiversity, and crop yields, is implemented with knowledge of direct and indirect impacts. It is applicable in any situation where natural environment is managed or affected, and is useful in local, regional, national, and international scales. Limitations of the ecosystem service approach Federal authorities will consistently adjust budget preparation and enforcement procedures to enhance the ecosystem approach. Nonetheless, these efforts experience two kinds of challenges, hindrances to interagency reform, and constraints to interagency collaboration (Eppink et al., 2012). One of the limitations entails constraints to interagency collaboration. Effective ecosystem advancement will be aided by the establishment of interagency budgets founded on an ecosystem idea created through agreement among interest groups. Many ways exist for accomplishing this. Yet, even where particular elevated precedence ecosystems have been elected by the authority agencies undergo vital institutional, organizational, and legal constraints to interagency cooperation, several of which connect to the realism of challenging objectives and interests throughout the country (Schulte, et al., 2013). What is more, congressional committee variances, future financing uncertainty, restrictions caused by institutional mandates, and staff reluctance are some of the limitations to agency changes. Besides, inadequate experience with non-federal parties, as well as issues in the transfer and pooling of funds pose a great challenge to the implementation of the ecosystem approach (Gupta, 2005). This approach is also hindered by the differences in institution budget systems. Provide examples of how this approach might compare against other approaches, where the ecosystem services have been used successfully and unsuccessfully (FAOUN, 2013). Conclusion As per the aforementioned issues, there is need for improvement in order to enjoy the benefits of using the ecosystem approach. One of the ways to fix is developing ecosystem budgets. Agencies need to create mechanisms to enhance interagency ecological budgeting. They should also set priorities for budgeting that are well-defined. Secondly, it is crucial to assess and revise institutional cultures and structures. It is vital for institutions to work hard to achieve flexibility in carrying out their missions, develop shared ecosystem indicators, and enhance regional coordination. Fostering interagency employee exchanges is as critical as coordinating activities and plans with local and state jurisdiction. Thirdly, it is essential to increase federal obligation to public participation, and offer technical and educational assistance so as to boost stakeholders’ perception of the ecosystem and its functioning. That is, agencies need to create harmonized interagency public involvement programs to enable two-way contact with the public and motivate public participation from contribution from the projects’ initial stages. There is also need to develop imaginative techniques and tools inform the public and to engage all stakeholders in the implementation of ecosystem approach. What is more, integrating applied and basic ecological, economic, and social research and promoting easy access to federal financing aid and information for ecological management is of essence. An integrated study program should incorporate more flexible and adaptive management systems; wider base of public aid; enhanced information for better decision-making; ways to connect social, ecological, and economic goals at various scales of decision making and planning; methodologies for foreseeing ecosystem reactions to management activities; as well as approaches to integrated management and planning across landscape, site, and regional levels. Lastly, it is imperative to employ legal authorities in order to boost the ecosystem approach. Agencies need to leverage on legal authorities to advance ecosystem-oriented methods and to safeguard ecological values. They also need to harmonize their activities at the ecological level and enforce environmental regulations in ways designed to improve ecosystem integrity. Agencies also need to partner with private landowners and involve all stakeholders, creating onestop authority, and striving to overcome all hindrances. This implies that is resources are adequate, it is imperative to create one-step information places in remote areas in order to enable the locals to conveniently obtain and offer information relating to ecosystems. It is recommended that federal agencies harmonize in the creation of these centers; staffing them with trained personnel that can react to various relevant issues that may affect landowners. Employees also need to transfer technology and explain ecological publications. References Behnassi, M., Draggan, Si., & Yaya, H.S.(2011). Global Food Insecurity: Rethinking Agricultural and Rural Development Paradigm and Policy. New York, NY: Springer. Blum, W.E.H. (2009). Indicators for Sustainable Land Management – Sharing Knowledge between Science, Stake Holders and Politics. University of Natural Resources and Applied Life Sciences, Vienna; Department of Forest- and Soil Sciences. Pp. 1-10. http://www.plantnutrition.ethz.ch/research/Conf_pres/1_4_Blum.pdf Brown, D.G., & Nancy, R.T.(2013). Land Use and the Carbon Cycle: Advances in Integrated Science, Management, and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Burkhard, B. et al. (2012). Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21(2), pp. 17–29. Calkins, M. (2011). The Sustainable Sites Handbook: A Complete Guide to the Principles, Strategies, and Best Practices for Sustainable Landscapes. New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Canadell, J.G., & Pataki, D.E. (2007). Terrestrial Ecosystems in a Changing World. New York, NY: Springer. Chopra, K.R.(2005). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Policy Responses: Findings of the Responses Working Group. New York, NY: Island Press. development in Finland. Maj and Tor Nessling Foundation “Connecting people and nature-The promise of ecosystem services? 3.-4. December 2013, Espoo, Finland. Pp. 1- 26 Dominati, E., Patterson, M., & Mackay, A. (2010). A framework for classifying and quantifying the natural capital and ecosystem services of soils. Ecological Economics, 69(9), pp. 1858–1868. Eppink, F.V. et al. (2012). Land management and ecosystem services. How collaborative research programs can support better policies. CAIA, 21(1), pp. 55-63. http://www.stephanmaes.de/publications/GAIA-1-2012-Eppink.pdf Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, FAOUN (2013). Sustainable Land Management. Accessed from http://www.fao.org/nr/land/sustainable-land- management/en/ on 2nd May, 2014. Global Environment Facility.(2011). Investing in Land Stewardship: GEF's Efforts to Combat Land Degradation and Desertification Globally. Sydney: Global Environment Facility. Global Environment Facility.(2011). Payment for Ecosystem Services. Sydney: Global Environment Facility. Global Environment Facility.(2012). Payment for Ecosystem Services. Sydney: Global Environment Facility.  Gupta, E.R.(2005). Environment : Global Warming(encyclopaedia Of Environment). New York, NY: Atlantic Publishers & Dist. Haines-Young, R. et al. (2012). Indicators of ecosystem service potential at European scales: mapping marginal changes and trade-offs. Ecological Indicators, 21(3), pp. 39–53. Hein, L.(2010). Economics and Ecosystems: Efficiency, Sustainability and Equity in Ecosystem Management. New York, NY: Edward Elgar Publishing. Hester R.E., & Harrison, R.M. (2005).Sustainability in Agriculture. New York, NY: Royal Society of Chemistry. http://www.nessling.fi/en/news/kniivila_matleena_how_to_measure_ecosystem_services _current_indicators_and_their_further_development_in_finland.pdf Kline, J. (2013). Applying the ecosystem services concept to public land management. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 42(1), pp. 139-158. Kniivilä, M. (2003). How to measure ecosystem services: current indicators and their further Macfadyen, S. et al. (2012). Managing ecosystems services and biodiversity conservation in Agricultural landscape: Are the solutions the same? Journal of Applied Ecology, 49(2). Pp. 690-694. Mallawaarachchi, T., & Green, R. (2012). Economic evaluation of sustainable land management interventions. Framework to assess the Caring for our Country sustainable farm practices component. Sydney: Research by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. Pp. 1-30. http://www.daff.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/abares/publications/clientreports/econo mic-evaluation-of-sustainable-land-management-interventions.pdf McGinty, K. (1995). The ecosystem approach: Healthy Ecosystems and Sustainable Economies, Volume II Implementation Issues. Report of the Interagency Ecosystem Management Task Force. Accessed from http://www.denix.osd.mil/nr/upload/ecosystem2.htm on 2nd May, 2014. Nair, P.K. R., & Garrity, D. (2012). Agroforestry - The Future of Global Land Use. New York, NY: Springer. Peine J., &  Samab Foundation.(2008). Ecosystem Management for Sustainability: Principles and Practices Illustrated by a Regional Biosphere Reserve Cooperative. New York, NY: CRC Press. Pertsova, C.C.(2007). Ecological Economics Research Trends. New Jersey, NJ: Nova Publishers. Roman, G. (2009). Ecosystem goods and services Southern Alberta: A framework For Assessing Natural asset condition. Pp. 3-300. http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/8374.pdf Schrenk, M., Popovich, V. V., &  Zeile, P.(2011). CORP 2011 Proceedings/Tagungsband. New York, NY: Lulu.com. Schulte, R.P.O. et al. (2013). Functional land management: A framework for managing soil- based ecosystem services for sustainable intensification of agriculture. Elsevier Ltd. Pp. 1-15. The SEQ (2013). Ecosystem Services Framework. Accessed from http://www.ecosystemservicesseq.com.au/ecosystem-services.html on 2nd May, 2014. Unep.(2011). Ecosystems for water and food security. New York, NY: United Nations Environment Programme. Waterways Forward (2012). Ecosystems Services Approach. British Waterways. http://www.waterways-forward.eu/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Ecosystems- services_May12.pdf World Bank.(2006). Sustainable Land Management: Challenges, Opportunities, and Trade-offs. New York, NY: World Bank Publications. World Bank.(2008). Sustainable Land Management Sourcebook. New York, NY: World Bank Publications. World Resources Institute, WRI (2008). Ecosystem services: A guide for decision makers. Washington, D. C.: WRI Zdruli, P.(2010). Land Degradation and Desertification: Assessment, Mitigation and Remediation: Assessment, Mitigation and Remediation. New York, NY: Springer. Read More