Application: restoration and ecosystem benefits

2.7.1 Overview

In the previous section, it was ascertained that the restoration of natural capital is consistent with an integrated approach viewed from an anthropocentric perspective.

However, the focus of this study is on different landuse categories, as well as different types of restoration methods. How can these different dimensions be reconciled within an anthropocentric perspective? This section demonstrates the limitations of the ecocentric approach to addressing this problem and considers an application of the anthropocentric perspective to restoration.

2.7.2 Ecosystem benefits

Restoring natural capital has an impact on ecosystem structure and process, which in turn affects ecosystem functions such as regulating, habitat, production and information, which in turn affects the production of ecosystem goods and services (De Groot et al., 2002). Ecosystem goods and services (EGS) are the annual interest arising from the stocks of natural capital that yield a flow of benefits useful to humans and other living beings (Harris et al., 2006). The ecocentric approach to restoration is primarily concerned with impacts on ecosystem structure and process, while the anthropocentric perspective is concerned with impacts on ecosystem goods and services (EGS).

Apart from De Groot et al.’s (2002) classification, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA, 2005) distinguishes four types of ecosystem services:

 Provisioning services relate to the products derived from ecosystems, including food, fiber and fuel, genetic resources, medicines and pharmaceuticals.

 Regulating services involve the benefits derived from the regulation of ecosystem processes, such as air quality, climate, water, erosion, disease, pest and natural hazard regulation.

 Cultural services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems such as reflection, recreation, inspiration and aesthetic enjoyment, and include cultural diversity and educational values.

 Supporting services are those necessary for the production of all other ecosystem services, such as soil formation, photosynthesis, primary production, nutrient cycling and water cycling.

A World Bank study (Pagiola et al., 2004) adopts many of the ecosystem services of the MA, but further categorises them by 10 ecosystem types, ranging from island habitats to forest ecosystems. Table 13, based on this categorisation, indicates that urban environments contribute the least in terms of ecosystem services, followed by

agricultural systems. The highest contributors are the natural systems such as grassland, fynbos and forest ecosystems.

Table 13 Main ecosystem types and their services

Ecosystem service Cult-ivated

Dry-land

Forest Urban Inland Water

Grassland Fynbos &

Karoo

Freshwater • • • •

Food • • • • • • •

Timber, fuel and fiber

• • • •

Novel products • • • • •

Biodiversity regulation

• • • • • • •

Nutrient cycling • • • • • •

Air quality and climate

• • • • • • •

Human health • • • • • •

Detoxification • • • • • •

Natural hazard regulation

• • • •

Cultural and amenity

• • • • • • •

Total no. of EGS 7 8 11 6 10 10 11

Source: Based on Pagiola et al. (2004).

Christensen et al. (1996) categorise ecosystem types into three categories (Table 14), namely: 1) intensive landuses that are significantly impacted by economic and development activity; 2) semi-natural landuses characterised by mixed systems with both agricultural activity and natural ecosystems; and 3) natural landuses that are characterised by wilderness areas and reserves.

Following from Table 13 and Table 14, intensive landuses can be categorised as characteristic of containing moderate to low contributors to ecosystem services, seminatural landuses as high contributors to EGS, and natural landuses as very high contributors to EGS.

Table 14 A conceptual framework for ecosystem management goals, outputs and benefits

Category Ecosystem type and human use

Intensity and goals of management

Ecosystem benefits Intensive Urban; Intensive

agriculture; Aquaculture and suburban; Plantation forestry; Managed pasture

Intensive management to provide food and shelter for human use

Moderate

Semi-natural Managed forestry, grazing, wildlife, and natural resources and for maintenance of ecosystem processes

High

Natural All kinds;

Reserves and wild areas

Minimal management to maintain biological and habitat diversity,

integrity of natural ecosystem processes and aesthetic values

Very High

Source: Christensen et al. (1996) and own analysis

2.7.3 Ecosystem types and restoration

Restoration can be either active or passive (e.g. Visser et al., 2004). Passive restoration advocates the removal of the original cause of degradation, such as overgrazing. Succession is then allowed to proceed naturally. Active restoration, on the other hand, implies the application of a number of restoration techniques, such as the propagation of plants, soil cultivation, improving soil moisture and application of mulches and fertiliser.

Swart et al. (2001) have linked the ecosystem categories of Christensen et al. (1996) to a number of ‘valuation’ perspectives: functional, arcadian and wilderness views (Table 15). The functional view argues that ecosystems should have an economic value. The arcadian view is prevalent in transformed landscapes and emphasises co-operation between people and nature for the preservation and restoration of man-made ecosystems. The wilderness view argues that ecosystems are self-regulating and that there should be very little human influence in their development and management.

Table 15 Ecosystem perspectives

Ecosystem category Valuation approach Ecosystem perspective

Intensive Functional approach Strong anthropocentric

Semi-natural Arcadian approach Weak anthropocentric,

stewardship

Natural Wilderness approach Ecocentric

Source: Swart et al. (2001)

The method of Swart et al. (2001) partitions ecosystem categories into anthropocentric versus ecocentric approaches; with anthropocentric views for the first two ecosystem categories and ecocentric views for the third ecosystem category (Table 16). Although this is a useful approach for linking ecosystem perspectives to different landscape categories, it is problematic since it presupposes that those with an anthropocentric view do not make a contribution to natural ecosystems. In reality, total economic value (TEV) is applicable to all types of ecosystem categories.

In this study an alternative classification is adopted by linking ecosystem categories to the capital theory approach (Stern, 1997). This is an anthropocentric approach (Wackernagel and Rees, 1997). Results are summarised in Table 16.

Table 16 Restoration methods and CTA approaches

Ecosystem

Natural Minimal Recreational and educational use, ecosystem services

Strong sustainability

Passive

* Inputs are energy, matter (soil, water), labour, etc.

Source: Own analysis based on Christensen et al.’s (1996) ecosystem categories.

For intensively managed areas it is assumed that natural areas are virtually non-existent. The management approach is to mitigate against externalities. A weak sustainability approach is relevant with substitution possible between natural and man-made capital. Natural capital comprises primarily agricultural systems with very little, if any, natural vegetation. For areas that have been earmarked for restoration, active restoration would be required as passive restoration is unlikely to be sufficient. Semi-natural systems include a combination of natural and artificial landscapes and therefore a critical natural capital (CNC) approach to sustainability

would be suitable. The CNC approach partitions natural capital into components that need to be maintained and those for which substitution is possible. An example of critical natural capital is the Renosterveld patches in farmland systems in the Fynbos biome. The restoration approach for this ecosystem type is mixed: some would be active and other passive.

For natural landscapes such as wilderness and protected areas, a strong sustainability approach is adopted, with no net loss of natural capital allowed.

Restoration in this context is likely to be passive, since the ecosystem is still intact and is assumed capable of recovering fairly quickly.

2.7.4 Summary

The argument that the restoration of natural capital is primarily an ecocentric approach is based on a (narrow) view of anthropocentrism that focuses on exploitation of natural resources rather than conservation. In the sections above, it is argued that that problem revolves around the definition of anthropocentrism. In order to eliminate confusion, two categories of anthropocentrism are distinguished:

i) technocentrism and ii) (accommodating) anthropocentrism. The latter is the view adopted by the majority of economists working in the environmental field, and is highly compatible with restoration science.