ecosystem services - portland state university · · 2013-02-22but are also impacted by human...

The Wildlife Society Annual Conference Portland, Oregon

2012

Ecosystems provide a multitude of resources and processes that benefit humankind.

Society is becoming increasingly aware that these ecosystem services are not only limited,

but are also impacted by human activities. Assigning ecological, socio-cultural, and economic

values to these services is causing us to think differently about the environment and, in turn,

wildlife conservation. For example, quantifying ecosystem services as “natural capital” cre-

ates innovative financial incentives for conservation. These financial incentives can provide an

essential link between the people who are willing to pay for actions that improve the environ-

ment and the people who can put conservation actions on the ground, benefitting a host of

wildlife species.

In the United States, the Pacific Northwest is emerging as a leader in this field with several

innovative programs and partnerships. Oregon, for example, leads the nation in creating

market-based frameworks that aim to both protect and encourage ecological benefits while

contributing to the sustainability of local economies. Speakers at The Wildlife Society’s 2012

conference, Ecosystem Services: Leveraging Incentives for Wildlife Conservation, discussed a

variety of programs and initiatives from the region and described how these efforts are con-

tributing not only to improved outcomes in wildlife conservation but also shaping a new way

of thinking in the conservation world.

Ecosystem Services: Leveraging Incentives for Wildlife Conservation

PresentationsAn introduction to leveraging incentives for wildlife conservation using ecosystem services frameworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Speaker: Shauna Ginger, USFWS Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office

Portland State University: A hub for ecosystem services research, education, and practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Speaker: Fletcher Beaudoin, Portland State University’s Institute for Sustainable Solutions

The need for a national approach to biodiversity conservation: findings from a report to the USDA Office of Environmental Markets . . . . 7

Speaker: Nicole Maness, Willamette Partnership

Counting on the Environment: Accounting for the biodiversity benefits nature provides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Speaker: Bobby Cochran, Willamette Partnership

Incentives Trifecta: Using certifications and regulatory certainty to conserve endangered butterfly and prairie habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Speaker: Mandy Lawrence, U.S. Department of the Interior

Ecosystem services policy in Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Speaker: Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife

EWEB’s Voluntary Incentives Program as a model for public utility investments in watershed services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Speaker: Drew Bennett, Oregon State University

Putting ecosystem service strategies on the ground: communications tips and key considerations for conservation practitioners . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Speaker: Catherine Macdonald, The Nature Conservancy

Wildlife conservation using forest carbon markets and incentive programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Speaker: Brent Davies, Ecotrust

Incorporating ecosystem services into forest management on public lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Speaker: Robert L. Deal, USDA Forest Service, Pacific NW Research Station

3The Wildlife Society Annual Conference

An introduction to leveraging incentives for wildlife conservation using ecosystem services frameworks

Speaker: Shauna Ginger, USFWS Oregon Fish and Wildlife Office

Overview

Ecosystems provide a multitude of resources and

processes that benefit humankind. Society is

becoming increasingly aware that these ecosys-

tem services are not only limited, but impacted

by human activities. Assigning ecological, socio-

cultural, and economic values to these services

is causing us to think differently about the

environment and, in turn, wildlife conservation.

Common terminology used in the ecosystem

services and markets realm:

» Ecosystem Services (ES): The benefits peo-

ple obtain from ecosystems. ES represents the

flows of value to human societies as a result of

the condition of ecosystem function and natural

capital in the following areas: provisioning, regu-

lating, habitat and cultural services (as defined by

MEA, 2005).

» Natural Capital: The idea of natural capital

is closely related to that of ecosystem services.

Just as economic capital provides steady financial

return, natural capital provides steady environ-

mental returns in the form of ecosystem services.

Natural capital includes the core and crust of the

earth, the full complement of the world’s eco-

systems, and the upper layers of the atmosphere

(from Ecosystem Marketplace).

» Ecosystem Services Market: An organiza-

tional structure for buying and selling units of

environmental benefit typically called credits.

These markets provide an essential link be-

tween the people who are willing to pay for

actions that improve the environment and the

people who can put conservation actions on

the ground. Water quality, carbon, wetlands,

and protected species’ habitat are examples of

actively traded services.

» Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES):

An umbrella term often applied to any among

a wide variety of schemes in which the benefi-

ciaries, or users, of ecosystem services provide

payment to the stewards, or providers, of eco-

system services. While PES is increasingly used

as a catch all phrase, the term originated (and

is most often used) in the field of sustainable

development. In this context, PES frequently

acts as a descriptor for schemes that do not rely

upon a formal market, but rather rely upon a

continual series of payments to rural landowners

who agree to steward ecosystem services (from

Ecosystem Marketplace).

» Payment for Watershed Services (PWS):

Private or government-driven payments where

those paying are aiming to protect or improve

watershed services and those receiving payments

are engaged in activities to ensure continued

provisioning (from Ecosystem Marketplace, State

of Watershed Payments 2010).


» Green Infrastructure: Strategically planned

and managed networks of natural lands, working

landscapes and other open spaces that conserve

ecosystem values and functions and provide as-

sociated benefits to human populations (from The

Conservation Fund). Green infrastructure differs

from conventional approaches to open space plan-

ning because it looks at conservation values and

actions in concert with land development, growth

management, and built infrastructure planning.

» Wetland Mitigation: A mitigation bank is a

wetland, stream, or other aquatic resource area

that has been restored, established, enhanced, or

(in certain circumstances) preserved for the purpose

of providing compensation for unavoidable im-

pacts to aquatic resources permitted under Section

404 or a similar state or local wetland regulation.

A mitigation bank may be created when a govern-

ment agency, corporation, nonprofit organization,

or other entity undertakes these activities under a

formal agreement with a regulatory agency.

» Conservation Banking: Conservation banks

are permanently protected lands that contain

natural resource values. These lands are con-

served and permanently managed for species

that are endangered, threatened, candidates

for listing, or are otherwise species-at-risk.

Conservation banks function to offset adverse

impacts to these species that occurred elsewhere,

sometimes referred to as off-site mitigation.

Take away Messages: The notion of ecosystems providing services is not

new, however, if we can shift our view to all eco-

system services not only having ecological value

but also social and economic value, we can create

innovative financial incentives for conservation.

Valuing ecosystem services, contributing to

scientific research, participating in environmental

market development, refining current payment

for incentives and offset programs, and improv-

ing or developing policies that influence all of

these programs are examples of how wildlife

professionals can improve the effectiveness of

conservation at multiple scales using ecosystem

services frameworks.

FOr MOre inFOrMaTiOn:Contact: Shauna Ginger, Ecosystem Services

Biologist, USFWS Oregon Fish and Wildlife

Office, Portland, OR [email protected]

addiTiOnal resOurces: » Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA):

www.maweb.org

» Ecosystem Commons, an online

community for sharing resources on

ecosystem services:

www.ecosystemcommons.com

» Environmental Capital in the U.S.,

President’s Council of Advisors on Science

and Technology (PCAST 2011):

www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/

microsites/ostp/pcast_sustaining_environ-

mental_capital_report.pdf

» The Conservation Fund, Green

Infrastructure:

www.greeninfrastructure.net

» The Economics of Ecosystems and

Biodiversity (TEEB)

http://www.teebweb.org

» USFWS (Oregon) Ecosystem Services flyer:

www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/LandAndWater


Portland State University: A hub for ecosystem services research, education, and practice

Speaker: Fletcher Beaudoin, Portland State University’s Institute for Sustainable Solutions

SESAME (Spatial Ecosystem Services Analysis,

Modeling, and Evaluation), which investigates

land-use and climate change and how those vari-

ables shift ecosystem services stocks and flows;

and the ULTRA-Ex (Urban Long-term Research

Area) project is comparing and contrasting the

Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington ar-

eas, looking at how governance systems in these

different locations affect policy and management

outcomes for urban ecosystems.

The IGERT focuses on problem-based scholar-

ship, meaning that the research conducted by

the students is meant to connect directly to the

needs and demands in the practitioner com-

munity. As a result, the IGERT has a set of 10

cross sector partners that help identify opportu-

nities for students to link their research to on-

the-ground projects and needs. Many of these

partners are also participants in the Cascadia

Ecosystem Services Partnership (CaESP), which

has the goal of coordinating and linking many

of the organizations and activities focused on

ecosystem services management in the Pacific

Northwest region.

The CaESP is administered through PSU’s Institute

for Sustainable Solutions, which also houses the

IGERT. This partnership facilitates annual conven-

ings, maintains a strong web presence with an

Overview:Over the past several years, Portland State

University has emerged as a leader in research,

education, and community engagement in

ecosystem services. At the core of this work is a

continual effort to support and link with the prac-

titioner community that is working on deploying

payment systems and policy around ecosystem

services management. In addition, PSU and the

Institute for Sustainable Solutions have made a

continual effort to build mechanisms and con-

nections between the different ecosystem service

activities at PSU – with the overarching goal of

building more linkages and synergies.

In 2010 PSU received an Interdisciplinary

Education Research Traineeship (IGERT) grant

from the National Science Foundation. This is a

three million dollar grant to train over 30 PhD

students in the topic of ecosystem services for

urbanizing regions. The IGERT students must

be accepted to a home discipline as well as the

IGERT program, meaning that their PhD comes

from the home department (where they com-

plete their disciplinary courses) and then they

also take interdisciplinary classes focused on

ecosystem services. The IGERT is supported by

19 faculty members who have research expertise

in different elements of ecosystem services for

urbanizing regions. Two of the major ecosys-

tem services research projects at PSU include:


inventory of regional projects, manages a list

serve, facilitates the linkages between similar or

synergistic projects and develops best practice

case studies.

Take away Messages: » Research: PSU has built up a large (and

growing) group of faculty who are conducting

research in different areas of ecosystem services

management.

» Curriculum: PSU has been building its ca-

pacity to train and supply skilled professionals

(masters and PhDs) to the ecosystem services

management community.

» Engagement: PSU has taken a leadership

role in convening the Cascadia Ecosystem

Services Partnership to facilitate better linkages

and connections across the set of organizations

working on ecosystem services management in

the region.

» Cascadia: Much of the capacity being built

at the University around this topic is focused on

the Cascadia region, with the goal of making

this place a national and international model for

sustainable ecosystem services management.

FOr MOre inFOrMaTiOn:Contact: Fletcher Beaudoin, Partnerships

Director, PSU’s Institute for Sustainable Solutions,

[email protected], 503.784.5981

addiTiOnal resOurces: » Cascadia Ecosystem Services Partnership:

http://pdx.edu/sustainability/caesp

» Ecosystem Commons:

http://ecosystemcommons.org

» IGERT program:

http://www.pdx.edu/esur-igert

» SESAME research project:

http://pdx.edu/ecosystem-services

» ULTRA project:

http://www.fsl.orst.edu/eco-p/ultra


The need for a national approach to biodiversity conservation: findings from a report to the USDA Office of Environmental Markets

Speaker: Nicole Maness, Willamette Partnership

Overview:With the emergence of ecosystem service mar-

kets and an increasing focus on the outcomes

of conservation incentive programs, measure-

ment of the benefits produced by conservation

activity is fundamental. Throughout the U.S.,

measurement systems of biodiversity are being

designed and implemented in a somewhat ad

hoc manner. There has been little evaluation of

the science used in building biodiversity metrics

and, currently, there are no national standards

for developing or using them in voluntary or

regulated markets or in payment for ecosys-

tem services programs. A 2011 report prepared

for the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Office of Environmental Markets focuses on two

areas of action that could help improve effective

investments for biodiversity: 1) Standardizing

systems for measuring the outcomes of current

incentive programs, and 2) Providing options for

how federal agencies and others might support

biodiversity incentives, particularly markets for

biodiversity.

1. Standardizing systems for measuring out-

comes starts with a good biodiversity metric,

defined as one that:

§§ Incorporates the landscape context of

the project site (e.g. location in a priority

conservation area, potential threats, con-

nectivity, patch size);

§§ Is valid (i.e. repeatable, sensitive, accu-

rate, and transparent);

§§ Is practical, economical, and easy to use

by multiple incentive programs; and

§§ Can be applied at different scales (e.g.

can be used on 10,000 acres just as well

as one acre).

2. Options to support more effective biodiver-

sity incentives include the need to:

§§ Provide tools to local areas to assess in-

centive program readiness and feasibility;

§§ Clarify regulatory guidance on biodiver-

sity markets;

§§ Enable high quality biodiversity measure-

ment systems;

§§ Provide technical assistance to groups

developing measurement systems;

§§ Facilitate sound program design;

§§ Kick-start more real world examples of

biodiversity markets and incentives; and

§§ Engage public and private sectors to help

biodiversity incentive programs succeed.

Successful implementation of the ideas pre-

sented in this report would lead to more na-

tionally consistent measurement of biodiversity


outcomes across incentive programs, potentially

reduce start up costs and time for new pro-

grams, and help evaluate effectiveness of actions

in meeting conservation goals.

Take away Messages: » The actions taken on private lands by farmers,

ranchers, and foresters and on public lands by

government agencies have an enormous influ-

ence on America‘s biodiversity.

» Sound measurement systems, operating

in supportive environments, are necessary

to improve the effectiveness of conservation

investments.

» Federal, state, and private organizations

need to integrate planning processes and pool

resources in order to come up with a consistent

and standardized approach for measuring the

biodiversity benefits of conservation efforts in

the United States.

FOr MOre inFOrMaTiOn:Contact: Nicole Maness, Willamette Partnership,

[email protected]

addiTiOnal resOurces: » Measuring Up: Synchronizing Biodiversity

Measurement Systems for Markets and

Other Incentive Programs (report):

http://willamettepartnership.org/

measuring-up

» USDA Office of Environmental Markets:

http://www.usda.gov/oce/

environmental_markets


Counting on the Environment: Accounting for the biodiversity benefits nature provides

Speaker: Bobby Cochran, Willamette Partnership

Overview: Willamette Partnership is a nonprofit conserva-

tion coalition building the quantification tools to

connect landowners with new incentives for con-

servation. As incentive programs like ecosystem

markets emerge around the world, demand is

growing for consistent standards, methods, and

tools to ensure these markets achieve their en-

vironmental goals in a way that is both efficient

and credible. A broad group of public, private,

and non-profit stakeholders, led by Willamette

Partnership, have developed our Counting on

the Environment protocols and standards, a

rigorous and transparent system to account for

environmental benefits and impacts. Willamette

Partnership is now actively extending this process

to new geographic areas and new types of ben-

efits and impacts, leveraging success in Oregon

to provide the very standards and tools other

emerging markets need to succeed.

Willamette Partnership brings facilitation and a

deep understanding of ecosystem market pro-

grams, linking science, policy, and people to

guide creation of quantification tools, crediting

protocols, and multi-stakeholder agreements.

» Market Operations—The Partnership can help

verify, get agency sign-off, and track the water

and biodiversity benefits created as part of con-

servation incentive programs.

» Tools—Our Ecosystem Crediting Platform

makes managing an incentive program easy,

managing workflow and credit issuance. Markit

Environmental Registry registers and tracks cred-

its over time.

» Training and Verifier Accreditation—

The Partnership provides training on how to

build ecosystem markets and on quantifying

ecosystem services. We also accredit third

party verifiers.

The Partnership has created an accounting

system, which allows buyers and sellers to trade

in multiple types of ecosystem credits, including

wetlands, salmon habitat, upland prairie habitat,

and water temperature. Oak, floodplain, and

sagebrush/sage grouse metrics were completed

in 2012 and are currently being added to the sys-

tem. The Partnership is also working with Salmon

Safe and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on

certifying local vineyards for the conservation of

salmon and endangered prairie species.

Take away Message: Consistent standards are necessary to drive

quality, transparency, and credibility.


FOr MOre inFOrMaTiOn:Contact: Bobby Cochran, Executive Director,

Willamette Partnership,

[email protected],

503.681.4435

addiTiOnal resOurces: Willamette Partnership (sign up for newsletter,

information for Counting on the Environment

program and the multi-agency Joint Statement of

Agreement for an Ecosystem Credit Accounting

System): www.willamettepartnership.org


Incentives Trifecta: Using certifications and regulatory certainty to conserve endangered butterfly and prairie habitat

Speaker: Mandy Lawrence, U.S. Department of the Interior

Overview:Leveraging partnerships and incentives while

working with private landowners can provide an

innovative approach to protecting and encour-

aging habitat and wildlife conservation. With

threatened and endangered species habitat often

found on private land, conservation and recov-

ery of these species is increasingly dependent

on the relationships developed between regula-

tory agencies, such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS), and private landowners.

The USFWS, Oregon office, embraced this way

of thinking when brainstorming innovative ways

to encourage conservation of the endangered

Fender’s blue butterfly (FBB), Icaricia icarioides

fenderi, and Federally listed prairie plants by

partnering with Salmon-Safe and the Willamette

Partnership on the incentives trifecta. The incen-

tives trifecta consists of eco-certification pro-

grams, ecosystem markets, and regulatory assur-

ances. As a leading U.S. certifier of ecologically

sustainable viticulture, Salmon-Safe has certified

nearly half of the wine grape acreage in the

Willamette Valley. Home to the largest concen-

tration of vineyards and wineries in Oregon, the

Willamette Valley is also the location of much of

the FBB critical habitat.

Through this partnership, USFWS has the op-

portunity to interact with Salmon-Safe certified

vineyards and wineries in the Willamette Valley

and engage them in conservation efforts for

the FBB. By creating small patches of habitat on

parcels of land not being utilized for vineyard op-

erations, these efforts could provide the habitat

restoration and connectivity necessary for spe-

cies recovery. In return, vineyards and wineries

could receive a “butterfly-safe wine” certification

and market their wines to an environmentally

conscious public. In order to encourage a more

long term commitment for FBB recovery efforts,

the USFWS could offer landowners regulatory

assurances through a Safe Harbor Agreement or

Habitat Conservation Plan, both of which have

minimum periods of commitment.

Take away Messages: » Partnerships between private landowners

and regulatory agencies are necessary for the

conservation and recovery of threatened and

endangered species with habitat occurring on

private land.

» Embrace opportunities to provide incentives

to landowners for protecting and conserving

natural habitat.

» If successful, this model could be replicated

in other eco-regions for threatened and

endangered species.


FOr MOre inFOrMaTiOn:Contact: Mandy Lawrence, Regional

Environmental Protection Assistant, U.S.

Department of the Interior,


addiTiOnal resOurces

» 2010 Recovery Plan for the Prairie

Species of Western Oregon and

Southwestern Washington. U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

http://www.fws.gov/oregonfwo/

Species/PrairieSpecies/Documents/

PrairieSpeciesFinalRecoveryPlan.pdf

» Salmon-Safe

http://www.salmonsafe.org

» Willamette Partnership

http://willamettepartnership.org


Ecosystem services policy in Oregon

Speaker: Sara Vickerman, Defenders of Wildlife

Overview:Oregon has been a leader in addressing eco-

system services and market-based programs,

as one of the first to adopt policies guiding

these programs. The policy dialogue began in

2008 with a workshop and report sponsored

by the Willamette Partnership, Institute for

Natural Resources, and Defenders of Wildlife.

A report, called Policy Cornerstones and Action

Strategies, identified several policy issues to be

addressed by the legislature. In 2009, the leg-

islature passed SB 513 with bipartisan support,

based on the policy report. The bill:

» Established a policy protecting ecosystem ser-

vices on all land uses;

» Authorized the use of adaptive management,

previously called into question in lawsuits;

» Outlined a more strategic, landscape-scale ap-

proach to mitigation;

» Established a work group to address a range

of other issues.

The work group, composed of nearly 40 resource

agency and private sector stakeholders, met for

a year and submitted another policy report to

the 2011 legislature, outlining about 10 recom-

mendations deemed important by the group to

address ongoing policy and programmatic needs

relevant to ecosystem services. For example, the

report urged:

» Local governments to address ecosystem ser-

vices in local land use decisions;

» Agencies to consider natural infrastructure

in place of concrete and steel structures where

appropriate;

» The Institute for Natural Resources to help

develop more consistent metrics for ecosystem

services;

» The Governor’s office to help resource agen-

cies integrate various conservation plans.

Bills were introduced in 2011 and 2012 to imple-

ment some of the recommendations in the work

group report, but did not pass. A modified ver-

sion will be introduced in 2013.

Take away Message: » Desired long-term outcomes of this legislation:

§§ Expansion of programs that provide pay-

ments to private landowners who provide

tangible ecological benefits, including

clean water, fish and wildlife habitat, car-

bon sequestration, and other services.

§§ Improved integration of conservation pro-

grams across agency boundaries and own-

erships, leading to more strategic invest-

ments and improved ecological outcomes.

§§ Private sector opportunities to build

businesses and hire people to do

restoration work.


§§ A broader perspective on land manage-

ment and conservation issues that more

effectively addresses multiple values.

§§ More consistent measurement of ecologi-

cal outcomes, and savings to taxpayers

and ratepayers when natural infrastruc-

ture is used in place of expensive engi-

neered solutions.

» Sticking points going forward:

§§ Most payment programs and/or markets

for ecosystem services require additional-

ity and do not pay landowners for com-

plying with the law or doing what they

have always done. Setting a fair base line

is challenging. Paying for specific out-

comes can get around this problem.

§§ Some conservation interests inherently

object to trading, offsets, and mitigation,

generally preferring avoidance of the

adverse impacts. A policy of net conser-

vation benefit can address this problem.

§§ Regulations drive most ecosystem service

markets, and resources are not evenly

regulated. Market-based and payment

programs need to be applied along with

more traditional approaches.

FOr MOre inFOrMaTiOn:Contact: Sara Vickerman, Senior Director of

Biodiversity Partnerships, Defenders of Wildlife,

[email protected]

addiTiOnal resOurces » Policy Cornerstones and Action Strategies

for an Integrated Ecosystem Marketplace

in Oregon, 2008

http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xm-

lui/bitstream/handle/1957/9853/ES_

Cornerstones_July2008.pdf?sequence=1

» Oregon SB 513, 2008

http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/

sb513.pdf

» Senate Bill 513 Ecosystem Services

and Markets: Report from the Oregon

Sustainability Board to the 2011

Legislative Assembly, 2010

http://www.oregon.gov/OWEB/docs/

SB513_final_report.pdf

» Oregon HB 2239, 2011 Oregon

Legislature

http://gov.oregonlive.com/bill/2011/

HB2239/


EWEB’s Voluntary Incentives Program as a model for public utility investments in watershed services

Speaker: Drew Bennett, Oregon State University

Overview:The concept of ecosystem services provides a

way to communicate the importance and value

of nature to a broader segment of society than

has previously been engaged in environmental

issues. Ecosystem services related to water

quality, such as filtration and purification, have

an especially broad public appeal that presents

opportunities for utilities and municipalities to

develop programs to protect drinking water sup-

plies. Utilities are uniquely positioned to drive the

development of ecosystem services initia-

tives since they are ubiquitous, often publically

owned, and may be able to benefit financially

from the protection or enhancement of eco-

system services. This presents opportunities to

develop models for utilities to invest in their

source watersheds that can be scaled up and

implemented in new contexts.

The Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB),

the publically owned drinking water and electric

utility in Eugene, Oregon, is currently developing

a Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) program

with the overall goal of maintaining the exist-

ing high water quality in the McKenzie River

watershed, the sole source of drinking water for

roughly 200,000 residents in the Eugene area.

The program, known as the Voluntary Incentives

Program (VIP), would protect water quality by

providing an annual dividend payment to land-

owners that maintain the healthy riparian areas

that provide valuable ecosystem services that

benefit the utility and the residents of Eugene.

EWEB is working with a diverse group of local

partners, including the soil and water conserva-

tion district, land trust, watershed council, and

the U.S. Forest Service to design and implement

the program as well as develop a variety of fund-

ing sources to finance the initiative. Although the

VIP is not specifically designed for wildlife conser-

vation, the protection of riparian areas for water

quality purposes has the co-benefit of providing

habitat for a variety of species. Additionally, the

diverse group of partners, originally brought

together to develop the VIP, is expanding their

collaborative efforts by pursuing funding for

instream habitat restoration projects.

EWEB’s VIP is an innovative approach for invest-

ing in ecosystem services that can serve as a

model for other utilities interested in protect-

ing their own source watersheds. To examine

this potential, researchers with the Institute for

Natural Resources at Oregon State University

held two focus groups with utility representa-

tives from Oregon and Washington to solicit their

views on EWEB’s proposed VIP. Overall the par-

ticipants’ response to the program was positive

and many felt that the VIP has the potential to

serve as a model for the development of similar

programs. Participants, however, also identified

several potential obstacles for other utilities in


developing their own programs including fund-

ing constraints for start-up expenses and staff

time, lack of management buy-in, and customer

resistance to financing the program. As EWEB

moves forward with the VIP, the lessons learned

from this initiative will continue to inform other

utilities interested in a similar approach and may

help to address some of the identified obstacles.

Take away Messages: » Utilities are uniquely positioned to drive the

development of PES programs or other initiatives

to protect or enhance the provision of ecosystem

services since they are widespread, often publi-

cally owned, and can benefit financially from

investments in ecosystem services.

» The Eugene Water and Electric Board is

developing an innovative PES program that can

potentially serve as a model for the development

of similar programs by other utilities.

» Although utility investments in ecosystem ser-

vices may not target wildlife directly, there may

be co-benefits through the protection of habitat

and the increased capacity of partners to carry-

out other restoration and conservation activities.

FOr MOre inFOrMaTiOn:Contact: Drew Bennett, Doctoral Student,

College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric

Sciences, Oregon State University,

[email protected]

addiTiOnal resOurces: » EWEB website for the Voluntary Incentives

Program (VIP):

http://www.eweb.org/sourceprotection/vip

» Institute for Natural Resources (INR) report

outlining EWEB’s VIP:

http://www.eweb.org/public/documents/

water/EWEBEcosystemmarket.pdf

» Institute for Natural Resources (INR) report

examining the potential EWEB’s program

to serve as a model for other utilities:

http://ecosystemcommons.org/document/

local-ecosystem-services-marketplaces-

public-utilities-development-drivers

» Oregon Explorer feature on EWEB’s VIP:

http://oe.oregonexplorer.info/

ExternalContent/VIPRiparianStewardship/

index.html#page1.html

» Language of Conservation memo:

http://www.conservationgateway.org/Files/

Pages/language-conservation-mem.aspx


Putting ecosystem service strategies on the ground: communications tips and key considerations for conservation practitioners

Speaker: Catherine Macdonald, The Nature Conservancy

Overview:Conservation actions that protect wildlife habi-

tat often provide other benefits for people—

water quality protection, flood management,

and pollinators to increase crop yields to name a

few. Yet by all measures, the number of people

who support or participate in wildlife habitat

conservation is small. Ecosystem services pro-

vide a unique opportunity to build support for

conservation. To engage new constituencies, in-

fluence land and natural resource decisions, and

harness more public and private investments

for habitat conservation, we need to persuade

people, business, and governments that nature

is a value proposition.

The TNC communications team conducted a

study to understand how the term “ecosystem

services” resonates with various audiences, and

how people respond to the idea that nature

has value to people. The results are promising

but also telling. The idea that nature has value

makes sense to people but calling those benefits

“ecosystem services” means nothing to the vast

majority of those same people.

In putting ecosystem service strategies on the

ground, conservation practitioners need to con-

sider understanding and then engaging a broader

constituency in wildlife conservation. For example:

» Use the terms “nature’s benefits” or “nature’s

value” instead of “ecosystem services.”

» Encourage people to think broadly about

the benefits.

» Give examples—public health and safety, pro-

viding medicines.

» Acknowledge other ways of valuing the ben-

efits of nature.

» Use economic arguments with people who

don’t traditionally support environmental policies.

» Use farmers, hunters and anglers, scientists,

and natural resource agencies—in addition to

public health organizations—as messengers.

Take away Messages: » Ecosystem services provide a unique opportu-

nity to build support for conservation.

» We need to be able to quantify and explain

nature’s economic values in transparent, credible,

and consistent ways.

» We need to evaluate when and how to best

integrate ecosystem service strategies into our

conservation toolbox.


FOr MOre inFOrMaTiOn:Contact: Cathy Macdonald, Director of

Conservation Programs, The Nature Conservancy,

Oregon, [email protected], 503.802.8134

addiTiOnal resOurces: Key findings from national opinion research on

“Ecosystem Services”:

http://www.conservationgateway.org/Files/Pages/

key-findings-recent-natio.aspx


Wildlife conservation using forest carbon markets and incentive programs

Speaker: Brent Davies, Ecotrust

Overview:As ecosystem service markets and incentive

programs expand, there are new opportunities

to conserve wildlife habitat using these financial

incentives. There are recent examples of how

forest landowners in the Pacific Northwest are

using markets and incentive programs to protect

wildlife habitat and sequester carbon dioxide

from the atmosphere.

The financial profits from carbon markets and

incentive programs can help permanently protect

wildlife habitat but these markets are new, often

require a significant amount of investment in

project development costs, and include a number

of uncertainties. Landowners and natural re-

source managers can design habitat conservation

projects to take advantage of these new pay-

ment programs for ecosystem services.

This type of creative conservation planning and

financing is complex and will benefit from new

technical tools, policy changes, strong and di-

verse partnerships, and additional public support.

Ecotrust is developing an online Forest Planning

Tool that will help forest landowners and manag-

ers evaluate the ecological and economic trad-

eoffs between increasing wildlife habitat, carbon

sequestration, and timber production.

Take away Messages: » Forest carbon markets and other payments

for ecosystem services are often complicated

and costly but can result in funding permanent

wildlife conservation.

» There are a growing number of successful models

around the country and in the Pacific Northwest.

» New partnerships, technical tools, policy

changes, and additional public support will has-

ten the adoption of creative conservation financ-

ing strategies and result in a much broader range

of wildlife conservation financing.

FOr MOre inFOrMaTiOn:Contact: Brent Davies, Director of Forestry,

Ecotrust, [email protected], 503.453.9166

addiTiOnal resOurces: » A Landowner’s Guide to Carbon Offsets

http://www.ecotrust.org/forests/fco_intro.html

» Forestry Balances Profit and Conservation

in the Pacific Northwest http://www.the-

solutionsjournal.com/node/1016

» Healthy Forests Reserve Program

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/

main/national/programs/easements/forests

» Forest Carbon News

http://www.forest-trends.org/docu-

ments/newsletters/forest_carbon_new.

php?newsletterID=390


Incorporating ecosystem services into forest management on public lands

Speaker: Robert L. Deal, USDA Forest Service, Pacific NW Research Station

Overview:Ecosystem services has emerged as a way of

framing and describing the comprehensive set

of benefits that people receive from forests and

landscapes. The USDA Forest Service (USFS) has

been exploring use of the framework of ecosys-

tem services as a way to describe forest values

provided by federal lands and to attract and

build partnerships with stakeholders and non-

government organizations to implement needed

projects. More recently, the agency has sought

place-based applications of the ecosystem ser-

vices framework to national forest management

to better illustrate the concept for policymakers,

managers, and forest stakeholders. The USFS

is also working with a variety of private forest

landowners to develop an all-lands framework

to broadly conserve biodiversity, and integrate

management of private and public lands to

restore watersheds and enhance wildlife and

fisheries habitat across ownership boundaries.

This framework includes (1) describing the eco-

system services provided by forest landscapes; (2)

examining the potential tradeoffs among services

associated with proposed management activities;

and (3) attracting and building partnerships with

stakeholders who benefit from particular services

the forest provides.

In addition to developing this ecosystem services

framework, we are applying this concept on

some pilot projects using an all-lands concept to

integrate ecosystem services into forest manage-

ment. Two examples include:

» Big Marsh Project, Deschutes National Forest

in south central Oregon.

» Cool Soda Project on the Willamette National

Forest in western Oregon.

These projects apply the ecosystem services

frameworks in different ways. The Big Marsh

project incorporates the ecosystem services

concept in a high-elevation marsh planning area

with unique habitat characteristics and dispersed

recreation. The Cool Soda project uses an “all-

lands” approach with both private lands and

public lands and highlights the collaborative

effort needed to apply ecosystem services at a

landscape scale.

Take away Message: » The recent USFS planning rule directly includes

ecosystem services in forest planning, yet the

concept is not well understood by either the

agency or the public.

» An ecosystem services framework and the

use of an “all-lands” approach to forest man-

agement also has strong support from all three

USFS Deputy Areas including National Forest

Systems, State and Private Forestry, and Research

and Development.


» Other recent efforts to apply an ecosystem

services management framework are being ad-

opted in other national forests throughout

the country.

» The USFS is looking for examples to highlight

application of the ecosystem services concept at

the project and forest scale.

FOr MOre inFOrMaTiOn:Contact: Robert L. Deal, Research Forester and

Science Team Leader, USDA Forest Service, Pacific

Northwest Research Station, [email protected],

503.808.2015

or

Contact: Nikola Smith, Associate Ecologist and

Ecosystem Services Specialist, USDA Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station


addiTiOnal resOurces: » Pacific Northwest Research Stations:

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/about/

programs/gsv/es.shtml

» Incorporating ecosystem services into

forest management:

http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/about/pro-

grams/gsv/pdfs/new%20conceptual%20

framework_ecosystem%20services.pdf

» Ecosystem Services and Deschutes

National forest:

http://treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/38654

» Climate change and carbon sequestration

opportunities on national forests:

http://treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/36173