Dataset Information

Financing conservation by valuing carbon services produced by wild animals.

ABSTRACT: Filling the global biodiversity financing gap will require significant investments from financial markets, which demand credible valuations of ecosystem services and natural capital. However, current valuation approaches discourage investment in conservation because their results cannot be verified using market-determined prices. Here, we bridge the gap between finance and conservation by valuing only wild animals’ carbon services for which market prices exist. By projecting the future path of carbon service production using a spatially explicit demographic model, we place a credible value on the carbon capture services produced by African forest elephants. If elephants were protected, their services would be worth $20.8 billion ($10.3 to $29.7 billion) and $25.9 billion ($12.8 to $37.6 billion) for the next 10 and 30 y, respectively, and could finance antipoaching and conservation programs. Elephant population growth would generate a carbon sink of 109 MtC (64 to 153) across tropical Africa in the next 30 y. Avoided elephant extinction would also prevent the loss of 93 MtC (46 to 130), which is the contribution of the remaining populations. Uncertainties in our projections are controlled mainly by forest regeneration rates and poaching intensity, which indicate that conservation can actively reduce uncertainty for increased financial and biodiversity benefits. Our methodology can also place lower bounds on the social cost of nature degradation. Poaching would result in $2 to $7 billion of lost carbon services within the next 10 to 30 y, suggesting that the benefits of protecting elephants far outweigh the costs. Our methodology enables the integration of animal services into global financial markets with major implications for conservation, local socioeconomies, and conservation.

SUBMITTER: Berzaghi F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9295732 | biostudies-literature | 2022 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Financing conservation by valuing carbon services produced by wild animals.

Berzaghi Fabio F Chami Ralph R Cosimano Thomas T Fullenkamp Connel C

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 20220525 22

Filling the global biodiversity financing gap will require significant investments from financial markets, which demand credible valuations of ecosystem services and natural capital. However, current valuation approaches discourage investment in conservation because their results cannot be verified using market-determined prices. Here, we bridge the gap between finance and conservation by valuing only wild animals’ carbon services for which market prices exist. By projecting the future path of c ...[more]

PMID: 35613052

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Bench-Sheko zone, parts of the Eastern Afromontane Biodiversity Hotspot, is characterized by its rich biodiversity. However, recent reductions in vegetation cover have drawn concern, highlighting the critical role of remote sensing in monitoring these alterations is critical. Furthermore, this study evaluates the economic value of the ecosystem services rendered by the diverse types of vegetation cover class in the area. The classification of vegetation types and measuring their ecosystem benefits are crucial for monitoring vegetation and analyzing land cover changes. estimating the value of ecosystem services is vital for environmental impact assessments, cost-benefit analyses, and creating payment schemes for these natural services. For the vegetation cover map, it uses Sentinel-2 satellite data and a Random Forest classifier using Google Earth Engine. Based on a properly chosen reference, ecosystem service assessment approaches include benefit transfer, direct market value, and the social cost of carbon. The results highlight the vegetation classes' enormous value and the services they offer. The largest value for Supporting Services (2829.3 USD ha⁻1yr⁻1) is found in the Remnant Forest, which makes up 30.98% of the total area. With the highest value for both cultural services (2847.7 USD ha⁻1yr⁻1) and regulatory services (5063.9 USD ha⁻1yr⁻1), the wetlands, which make up 4.35% of the total area, stand out. The total annual value of all ecosystem services provided by all vegetation classes is estimated to be 2.089 billion USD. When paired with methods for tracking and assessing changes in vegetation cover over time, high-resolution satellite images and precise classification algorithms can offer insightful information on the condition of the environment and support informed decision-making. In order to evaluate and convey to society and policymakers the advantages of vegetation cover, the value of ecosystem services is essential.

Project description:Despite increasing attention to the human dimension of conservation projects, a rigorous, systematic methodology for planning for ecosystem services has not been developed. This is in part because flows of ecosystem services remain poorly characterized at local-to-regional scales, and their protection has not generally been made a priority. We used a spatially explicit conservation planning framework to explore the trade-offs and opportunities for aligning conservation goals for biodiversity with six ecosystem services (carbon storage, flood control, forage production, outdoor recreation, crop pollination, and water provision) in the Central Coast ecoregion of California, United States. We found weak positive and some weak negative associations between the priority areas for biodiversity conservation and the flows of the six ecosystem services across the ecoregion. Excluding the two agriculture-focused services-crop pollination and forage production-eliminates all negative correlations. We compared the degree to which four contrasting conservation network designs protect biodiversity and the flow of the six services. We found that biodiversity conservation protects substantial collateral flows of services. Targeting ecosystem services directly can meet the multiple ecosystem services and biodiversity goals more efficiently but cannot substitute for targeted biodiversity protection (biodiversity losses of 44% relative to targeting biodiversity alone). Strategically targeting only biodiversity plus the four positively associated services offers much promise (relative biodiversity losses of 7%). Here we present an initial analytical framework for integrating biodiversity and ecosystem services in conservation planning and illustrate its application. We found that although there are important potential trade-offs between conservation for biodiversity and for ecosystem services, a systematic planning framework offers scope for identifying valuable synergies.

Dataset Information

Financing conservation by valuing carbon services produced by wild animals.

Publications

Financing conservation by valuing carbon services produced by wild animals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets