The Wetland Book pp 1427-1436 | Cite as

Supporting Services for Wetlands: An Overview

  • Mark Everard
Reference work entry


Supporting services comprise ecosystem services necessary for maintenance of ecosystem integrity, functioning, and resilience and for the production of all other ecosystem services. They differ from provisioning, regulating, and cultural services in that their impacts on people are often indirect or occur over a very long time. Although not directly exploited by people, supporting services nevertheless have vital direct and indirect impacts on human wellbeing. However, because this category of services is currently largely excluded from markets, supporting services and the ecosystems that provide them are vulnerable to degradation in favor of other, more narrowly framed, services such as production of food and fiber.

Degradation of ecosystem resilience and functioning inevitably degrades not only the wetland resource but also the many services that wetlands provide and the interests of their many beneficiaries. It is then essential that supporting services are fully recognized and included into the positive management of wetlands and other habitats, consistent with the Ramsar Convention’s “wise use” concept recognizing the needs to balance the supporting benefits provided by wetland systems with the production of provisioning, regulatory, and supporting services.


Support services Legislation Common law Subsidies Benefits Conservation Natural capital 


  1. Asamblea Legislativa de la República de El Salvador. Ley de Medio Ambiente del 04 de Mayo de 1998. 1998. Available at:
  2. Bennett TM. Markets for ecosystem services in China: an exploration of China’s “eco-compensation” and other market-based environmental policies. Forest Trends. 2009. Available at:
  3. Carty P, Payne S. Angling and the law. Ludlow: Merlin Unwin Books; 1998. p. 330.Google Scholar
  4. Department of Communities and Local Government. National planning policy framework. London: Department of communities and local government; 2012.Google Scholar
  5. Diederichs N, Markewicz T, Mander M, Martens A, Zama Ngubane S. eThekwini catchments: a strategic tool for management. eThekwini Municipality, South Africa. 2002.Google Scholar
  6. Everard M, Appleby T. Ecosystem services and the common law: evaluating the full scale of damages. Environ Law Manag. 2008;20:325–39.Google Scholar
  7. Hardin G. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science. 1968;162:1243–8.Google Scholar
  8. Le President du Faso. Décret n° 2001-342/PRES/PM/MEE portant champ d’application, contenu et procédure de l’étude et de la notice d’impact sur l’environnement. 2001. Available at:;DIDPFDSIjsessionid=4925026C2A933BDEDB43ADE957B6AB18?id=LEX-FAOC030790&index=documents
  9. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems & human well-being: synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press; 2005a.Google Scholar
  10. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Ecosystems and human well-being: wetlands and water synthesis. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute; 2005b.Google Scholar
  11. Queensland Government Department of Environment & Resource Management. Policy for vegetation management offsets, version 3. 2011. Available at:
  12. Ramsar Convention on Wetlands. Avoiding, mitigating, and compensating for loss and degradation of wetlands in national laws and policies, Scientific and technical review panel no.3. Gland: Ramsar Convention on Wetlands;

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.International Water Security NetworkUniversity of the West of EnglandBristolUK

Personalised recommendations