Advertisement

Governance Risks in Designing Policy Responses to Manage Ecosystem Services

  • Christoph Schröter-SchlaackEmail author
  • Bernd Hansjürgens
Chapter

Abstract

Biodiversity and many ecosystem services possess the attributes of public goods; private markets, therefore, cannot fully recognize their value and will thus fail to ensure their sustainable management (market failure). Public policies therefore have an essential role to play in safeguarding biodiversity and managing ecosystem service risks. This chapter highlights the complex challenges inherent in the choice and design of policy responses that may cause governance failures or governance risks which themselves pose risks to ecosystem services.

Keywords

Policy instruments Biodiversity conservation Ecosystem services Governance risks Disruptive effects 

References

  1. 1.
    TEEB. The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity for national and international policy makers. Summary: responding to the value of nature. 2009.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tietenberg TH. Emissions trading: an exercise in reforming pollution policy. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 1985.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Maestre AS, Calvet ML, van den Bergh JCJM, Ring I, Verburg PH. Ineffective biodiversity policy due to five rebound effects. Ecosyst Serv. 2012;1:101–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, et al. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature. 2012;486:59–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mace GM, Norris K, Fitter AH. Biodiversity and ecosystem services: a multilayered relationship. Trends Ecol Evol. 2012;27:19–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bartkowski B, Lienhoop N, Hansjürgens B. Capturing the complexity of biodiversity: a critical review of economic valuation studies of biological diversity. Ecol Econ. 2015;113:1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pereira HM, Navarro LM, Martins IS. Global biodiversity change: the bad, the good, and the unknown. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2012;37:25–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Foley JA, Defries R, Asner GP, Barford C, Bonan G, Carpenter SR, et al. Global consequences of land use. Science. 2005;309:570–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bundesministerium für Ernährung und Landwirtschaft. Statistisches Jahrbuch über Ernährung, Landwirtschaft und Forsten 2014. Münster-Hiltrup: Landwirtschaftsverlag; 2015.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Natural Capital Germany – TEEB DE. Ecosystem services in rural areas: basis for human wellbeing and sustainable economic development – summary for decision-makers. Leipzig: Leibniz University Hanover, Hanover, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research; 2016.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schramek J, Osterburg B, Kasperczyk N, Nitsch H, Wolff A, Weis M, et al. Vorschläge zur Ausgestaltung von Instrumenten für einen effektiven Schutz von Dauergrünland. Bonn: Bundesamt für Naturschutz, BfN; 2012.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nuissl H, Schroeter-Schlaack C. On the economic approach to the containment of land consumption. Environ Sci Pol. 2009;12:270–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sterner T. Policy instruments for environmental and natural resource management. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future; 2003.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barbier EB, Burgess JC, Folke C. Paradise lost? The ecological economics of biodiversity. London: Earthscan; 1994.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schröter-Schlaack C, Ring I. Towards a framework for assessing instruments in policy mixes for biodiversity and ecosystem governance. In: Ring I, Schröter-Schlaack C, editors. Instrument mixes for biodiversity policies. Leipzig: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research—UFZ; 2011.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pe’er G, Dicks LV, Visconti P, Arlettaz R, Báldi A, Benton TG, et al. EU agricultural reform fails on biodiversity. Science. 2014;344:1090–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wunder S, Engel S, Pagiola S. Taking stock: a comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries. Ecol Econ. 2008;65:834–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rode J, Gómez-Baggethun E, Krause T. Motivation crowding by economic incentives in conservation policy: a review of the empirical evidence. Ecol Econ. 2015;117:270–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lienhoop N, Brouwer R. Agri-environmental policy valuation: farmers’ contract design preferences for afforestation schemes. Land Use Policy. 2015;42:568–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tietz A, Bathke M, Osterburg B. Art und Ausmaß der Inanspruchnahme landwirtschaftlicher Flächen für außerlandwirtschaftliche Zwecke und Ausgleichsmaßnahmen. Braunschweig: Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institut (vTI) für Ländliche Räume; 2012.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christoph Schröter-Schlaack
    • 1
    Email author
  • Bernd Hansjürgens
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations