Safeguarding Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in the Little Karoo,South Africa |
| |
Authors: | BENIS N. EGOH BELINDA REYERS JOSIE CARWARDINE MICHAEL BODE PATRICK J. O'FARRELL KERRIE A. WILSON HUGH P. POSSINGHAM MATHIEU ROUGET WILLEM De LANGE DAVID M. RICHARDSON RICHARD M. COWLING |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Centre for Invasion Biology, Department of Botany and Zoology, Stellenbosch University, Private Bag X1, Matieland 7602, South Africa;2. Natural Resources and the Environment, Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, P. O. Box 320, Stellenbosch, 7599, South Africa;3. Department of Botany, Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, P. O. Box 77000, Port Elizabeth 6031, South Africa;4. The University of Queensland, The Applied Environmental Decision Analysis Centre, The Ecology Centre, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia;5. Applied Environmental Decision Analysis Group, School of Botany, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, 3010, Australia;6. South African National Biodiversity Institute, Private Bag x101, Pretoria 0001, South Africa |
| |
Abstract: | Abstract: Global declines in biodiversity and the widespread degradation of ecosystem services have led to urgent calls to safeguard both. Responses to this urgency include calls to integrate the needs of ecosystem services and biodiversity into the design of conservation interventions. The benefits of such integration are purported to include improvements in the justification and resources available for these interventions. Nevertheless, additional costs and potential trade‐offs remain poorly understood in the design of interventions that seek to conserve biodiversity and ecosystem services. We sought to investigate the synergies and trade‐offs in safeguarding ecosystem services and biodiversity in South Africa's Little Karoo. We used data on three ecosystem services—carbon storage, water recharge, and fodder provision—and data on biodiversity to examine several conservation planning scenarios. First, we investigated the amount of each ecosystem service captured incidentally by a conservation plan to meet targets for biodiversity only while minimizing opportunity costs. We then examined the costs of adding targets for ecosystem services into this conservation plan. Finally, we explored trade‐offs between biodiversity and ecosystem service targets at a fixed cost. At least 30% of each ecosystem service was captured incidentally when all of biodiversity targets were met. By including data on ecosystem services, we increased the amount of services captured by at least 20% for all three services without additional costs. When biodiversity targets were reduced by 8%, an extra 40% of fodder provision and water recharge were obtained and 58% of carbon could be captured for the same cost. The opportunity cost (in terms of forgone production) of safeguarding 100% of the biodiversity targets was about US$500 million. Our results showed that with a small decrease in biodiversity target achievement, substantial gains for the conservation of ecosystem services can be achieved within our biodiversity priority areas for no extra cost. |
| |
Keywords: | biodiversity assessments carbon storage conservation planning fodder provision opportunity cost payments for ecosystem services water recharge almacenamiento de carbono costos de oportunidad evaluaciones de biodiversidad pago de servicios del ecosistema planificació n de la conservació n provisió n de forraje recarga de agua |
|
|