Integrating ecosystem markets to co-ordinate landscape-scale public benefits from nature

PLoS One. 2022 Jan 12;17(1):e0258334. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0258334. eCollection 2022.

Abstract

Ecosystem markets are proliferating around the world in response to increasing demand for climate change mitigation and provision of other public goods. However, this may lead to perverse outcomes, for example where public funding crowds out private investment or different schemes create trade-offs between the ecosystem services they each target. The integration of ecosystem markets could address some of these issues but to date there have been few attempts to do this, and there is limited understanding of either the opportunities or barriers to such integration. This paper reports on a comparative analysis of eleven ecosystem markets in operation or close to market in Europe, based on qualitative analysis of 25 interviews, scheme documentation and two focus groups. Our results indicate three distinct types of markets operating from the regional to national scale, with different modes of operation, funding and outcomes: regional ecosystem markets, national carbon markets and green finance. The typology provides new insights into the operation of ecosystem markets in practice, which may challenge traditionally held notions of Payment for Ecosystem Services. Regional ecosystem markets, in particular, represent a departure from traditional models, by using a risk-based funding model and aggregating both supply and demand to overcome issues of free-riding, ecosystem service trade-offs and land manager engagement. Central to all types of market were trusted intermediaries, brokers and platforms to aggregate supply and demand, build trust and lower transaction costs. The paper outlines six options for blending public and private funding for the provision of ecosystem services and proposes a framework for integrating national carbon markets and green finance with regional ecosystem markets. Such integration may significantly increase funding for regenerative agriculture and conservation across multiple habitats and services, whilst addressing issues of additionality and ecosystem service trade-offs between multiple schemes.

MeSH terms

  • Carbon / economics
  • Conservation of Natural Resources / economics*
  • Ecosystem*
  • Europe
  • Focus Groups
  • Humans
  • Interviews as Topic

Substances

  • Carbon

Grants and funding

This research was funded by the Global Food Security’s ‘Resilience of the UK Food System Programme’ with support from BBSRC, ESRC, NERC and Scottish Government, as part of the Resilient Dairy Landscapes project (grant BB/R005680/1), the Integrated Catchment Solutions Programme (iCASP) funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council’s Regional Impact from Science of the Environment scheme (grant NE/P011160/1), European Commission’s Directorate-General for Climate Action (contract 340201/2018/789608/ETU/CLIMA.C.3), NatureScot (Project No. 117832) and the British Academy (grant KF5210311). Salary support was provided by 3Keel to TC, Forest Carbon Ltd to SP, Environment Bank Ltd to DH, Institute for European Environmental Policy to AG and SPA, Collingwood Investments Ltd to SA, Project Maya CIC to SA, Forest Stewardship Council to AO, Finance Earth to RF. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.