Advertisement

Value of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in South Asia and India: Past, Present and Future

  • Anil Markandya
Chapter
Part of the India Studies in Business and Economics book series (ISBE)

Abstract

South Asia (SASIA) is endowed with a number of biomes that contain valuable biodiversity and provide ecosystem services of special significance to poor rural communities. The paper looks at trends in mean species abundance adjusted estimates of land areas under different biomes: ice and tundra, grassland and steppe, scrubland and savannah and three types of forests: boreal, temperate and tropical. Changes in these areas from 1900 to 2000 are assessed and valued and projections are made to 2050. Finally the current values and future values of services provided by forests, grasslands, wetlands, mangroves and coral reefs are presented for India alone.

Keywords

Ecosystem Service Coral Reef Tropical Forest Carbon Sequestration Carbon Stock 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Aline Chiabai for joint work that has been used in the first part of this paper and to Muktukumara Mani and Elena Strukova  (Mani et al. 2012) for the work that is discussed in the second part. All errors and omissions are of course my own.

References

  1. Alkemade R, Blackens M, Bobbin R, Miles L, Nellermann C, Simons H, Mecklenburg T (2006) GLOBIO 3: Framework for the assessment of global biodiversity. In: Integrated modeling of environmental change. An overview of IMAGE 2.4. NEAA/MNP, Bilthoven, pp 171–186Google Scholar
  2. Bakkes JA, Bosch PR (eds) (2008) Background report to the OECD environmental outlook to 2030: overviews, details, and methodology of model-based analysis. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP) Report 50011300, Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  3. Bolt K, Matete M, Clemens M (2002) Manual for calculating adjusted net savings. Environ Depart World BankGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouwman AF, Kram T, Klein Goldewijk K (eds) (2006) Integrated modelling of global environmental change. An overview of IMAGE 2.4. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (MNP), Bilthoven, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  5. Chiabai A, Travisi C, Markandya A, Ding, Nunes PALD (2011) Economic assessment of forest ecosystem services losses: cost of policy inaction. Environ Res Econ. doi: 10.1007/s10640-011-9478-6
  6. Downing M, Ozuna T (1996) Testing the reliability of the benefit function transfer approach. J Environ Econ Manage 30:316–322Google Scholar
  7. FAO (1999) State of the world’s forests, 3rd edn. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. http://www.fao.org/forestry/FO/SOFO/SOFO99/sofo99-e.stm
  8. FAO/ForesSTAT is available online at: http://faostat.fao.org/site/526/default.aspxjavascript:void(window.open(‘http://www.fao.org/fi/website/FIRetrieveAction.do?dom=topic&fid=16000’,‘FishSTAT’,”))http://faostat.fao.org/site/381/default.aspxGoogle Scholar
  9. FAO/FRA (2005) Global forest resources assessment 2005: progress towards sustainable forest management. FAO Forestry Paper No. 147, available on website. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/A0400E/A0400E00.pdf
  10. Gibbs HK, Brown S, Niles JO, Foley JA (2007) Monitoring and estimating tropical forest carbon stocks: making REDD a reality. Environ Res Lett 2Google Scholar
  11. Gundimeda H, Sanyal S, Sinha R, Sukhdev P (2006) The value of biodiversity in India’s forests. Monograph 4 Green Accounting for Indian States and Union Territories Project (GAISP)Google Scholar
  12. Haines-Young R, Potschin M (2010) The links between biodiversity, ecosystem services and human well-bing. In: Raffaelli D, Frid C (eds) Ecosystem ecology: a new synthesis. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Hussain SS, McVittie A, Brander L, Vardakoulias O, Wagtendonk A, Verburg P, Tinch R, Fofana A, Baulcomb C, Mathieu L (2011) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity: the quantitative assessment. Draft Final Report to the United Nations Environment ProgrammeGoogle Scholar
  14. Kirchhoff S (1998) Benefit function transfer vs. meta-analysis as policy-making tools: a comparison. In: Proceedings of workshop on meta-analysis and benefit transfer: state-of-the-art and prospects. Tinbergen Institute, Amsterdam, 6–7 April 1998Google Scholar
  15. Kishwan J et al (2009) India’s forest and tree cover: contribution as a carbon sink. Technical Paper No. 130 ICFRE Bl-23Google Scholar
  16. Mace GM, Gittleman JL, Purvis A (2003) Preserving the tree of life. Science 300:1707–1709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mani M, Markandya A, Sagar S, Strukova E (2012) An analysis of physical and monetary losses of environmental health and natural resources in India. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6219, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Markandya A, Chiabai A (2014) Economic loss of ecosystem services from 1900 to 2050. In: Lomborg B (ed) Economics of human challenges. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. McCann KS (2000) The diversity-stability debate. Nature 405:228–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. MEA (2005) Millennium ecosystem assessment ecosystems and human wellbeing: current state and trends. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. MOEF (2009) India’s forest and tree cover: contribution as a carbon sink. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  22. Myneni RB, Dong J, Tucker CJ, Kaufmann RK, Kauppi PE, Liski J, Zhou L, Alexeyev V, Hughes MK (2001) A large carbon sink in the woody biomass of northern forests. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 98(26):14784–14789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Newman DJ, Cragg GM (2007) Natural products as sources of new drugs over the last 25 years. J Nat Prod 70:461–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olson JS, Watts JA, Allison LJ (1983) Carbon in live vegetation of major world ecosystems. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL-5862, Oak Ridge TNGoogle Scholar
  25. PBL (2010) Rethinking global biodiversity strategies: exploring structural changes in production and consumption to reduce biodiversity loss. Netherlands Environmental Agency. http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/2010/Rethinking_Global_Biodiversity_Strategies.html
  26. Pimm SL, Russel GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM (1995) The future of biodiversity. Science 269:347–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Purvis A, Hector A (2000) Getting the measure of biodiversity. Nature 405: 212–219Google Scholar
  28. Ready R, Navrud S (2006) International benefits transfer: methods and validity tests. Ecol Econ 60:429–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reichle DE (ed) (1981) Dynamic properties of forest ecosystems. International Biological Programme 23, Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  30. Rosenberger RS, Johnston RJ (2009) Selection effects in meta-analysis and benefit transfer: avoiding unintended consequences. Land Econ 85:410–428Google Scholar
  31. Rosenberger RS, Stanley TD (2006) Measurement, generalization, and publication: sources of error in benefit transfers and their management. Ecol Econ 60:372–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ten Brink P (ed) (2011) The economics of ecosystems and biodiversity in national and international policy making. Earthscan, London, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Tilman D, Downing JA (1994) Biodiversity and stability in grasslands. Nature 367:363–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of BathEnglandUK
  2. 2.Basque Centre for Climate ChangeBilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations