Balancing investments in ecosystem services for sustainable forest governance

被引:0
|
作者
Helseth, Elisabeth Veivag [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Vedeld, Pal [2 ]
Gomez-Baggethun, Erik [2 ,4 ]
机构
[1] Norwegian Inst Nat Res NINA, Vormstuguvegen 40, N-2624 Lillehammer, Norway
[2] Norwegian Univ Life Sci NMBU, Dept Int Environm & Dev Studies Noragr, POB 5003, NO-1432 As, Norway
[3] Norwegian Ctr Competence Rural Dev, Skolegata 22, N-7713 Steinkjer, Norway
[4] Norwegian Inst Nat Res NINA, Sognsveien 68, NO-0855 Oslo, Norway
关键词
Economic instruments; Forest ecosystem services; Tradeoffs; Sustainability pathways; Forest governance Norway; TRADE-OFFS; POLICY; CONSERVATION; INCENTIVES; MARKETS;
D O I
10.1016/j.forpol.2024.103364
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
Economic instruments like subsidies and tax reliefs are widely used to promote forest ecosystem services. However, such instruments typically target services traded in markets, whereas non-market services are declining worldwide. With Norway as a case, we map economic instruments used in Norwegian forest governance and examine how they promote or constrain forests' capacity to provide different ecosystem services. Data was collected from a review of policy documents and fiscal budgets, compared with data on trends and condition of ecosystem services from Norwegian forests. Three main results are highlighted. First, the main economic instruments are markets for forest products and amenities, forestry certification schemes, and government expenditures. Second, ecosystem services traded in markets like timber (578 mill <euro>/y) and hunting licenses (74.1 mill <euro>/y) attract the lion's share of forest investments, amounting to around 652.1 mill. Euros per year, whereas aggregated investments in non-market ecosystem services like habitat provision (43.44 mill <euro>/y) and carbon sequestration (2.53 mill <euro>/y) remain an order of magnitude smaller. Third, most instruments target services for which forests show increasing capacity, while some services in poor condition or declining supply, are underprioritized or undermined through investments in competing services. Moreover, our results suggest that the current use of economic instruments primarily aligns with the sustainability pathways of green economy/green growth or nature protection. We argue that sustainable forest governance in Norway will require major reallocations of investments to support a broader array of forest values, combined with policy attention to alternative sustainability pathways.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Forest use suitability: Towards decision-making-oriented sustainable management of forest ecosystem services
    Krsnik, Goran
    Reynolds, Keith M.
    Murphy, Philip
    Paplanus, Steve
    Garcia-Gonzalo, Jordi
    Olabarria, Jose Ramon Gonzalez
    GEOGRAPHY AND SUSTAINABILITY, 2023, 4 (04) : 414 - 427
  • [2] Identifying governance challenges in ecosystem services management - Conceptual considerations and comparison of global forest cases
    Falk, Thomas
    Spangenberg, Joachim H.
    Siegmund-Schultze, Marianna
    Kobbe, Susanne
    Feike, Til
    Kuebler, Daniel
    Settele, Josef
    Vorlaufer, Tobias
    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2018, 32 : 193 - 203
  • [3] UNDERSTANDING LOCAL BENEFICIARIES OF ECOSYSTEM SERVICES IN THE BIA-TANO FOREST RESERVE FOR SUSTAINABLE FOREST GOVERNANCE
    Kyere-Boateng, Richard
    Marek, Michal, V
    Huba, Mikulas
    GEOGRAFICKY CASOPIS-GEOGRAPHICAL JOURNAL, 2023, 75 (01): : 5 - 26
  • [4] Policies for Sustainable Governance of Global Ecosystem Services
    Patterson, Lynn M.
    PROFESSIONAL GEOGRAPHER, 2010, 62 (03): : 451 - 454
  • [5] Forest governance and economic values of forest ecosystem services in Vietnam
    Nguyen, Minh Duc
    Ancev, Tiho
    Randall, Alan
    LAND USE POLICY, 2020, 97
  • [6] Scanning the solutions for the sustainable supply of forest ecosystem services in Europe
    Hernandez-Morcillo, M.
    Torralba, M.
    Baiges, T.
    Bernasconi, A.
    Bottaro, G.
    Brogaard, S.
    Bussola, F.
    Diaz-Varela, E.
    Geneletti, D.
    Grossmann, C. M.
    Kister, J.
    Klingler, M.
    Loft, L.
    Lovric, M.
    Mann, C.
    Pipart, N.
    Roces-Diaz, J., V
    Sorge, S.
    Tiebel, M.
    Tyrvainen, L.
    Varela, E.
    Winkel, G.
    Plieninger, T.
    SUSTAINABILITY SCIENCE, 2022, 17 (05) : 2013 - 2029
  • [7] Are investments to promote biodiversity conservation and ecosystem services aligned?
    Polasky, Stephen
    Johnson, Kris
    Keeler, Bonnie
    Kovacs, Kent
    Nelson, Erik
    Pennington, Derric
    Plantinga, Andrew J.
    Withey, John
    OXFORD REVIEW OF ECONOMIC POLICY, 2012, 28 (01) : 139 - 163
  • [8] Integrating ecosystem services in power analysis in forest governance: A comparison across nine European countries
    Juerges, Nataly
    Arts, Bas
    Masiero, Mauro
    Baskent, Emin Z.
    Borges, Jose G.
    Brodrechtova, Yvonne
    Brukas, Vilis
    Canadas, Maria Joao
    Carvalho, Pedro Ochoa
    Corradini, Giulia
    Corrigan, Edwin
    Felton, Adam
    Hoogstra-Klein, Marjanke
    Krott, Max
    van Laar, Jim
    Lodin, Isak
    Lundholm, Anders
    Makrickiene, Ekaterina
    Marques, Marlene
    Mendes, Americo
    Mozgeris, Gintautas
    Novais, Ana
    Pettenella, Davide
    Pivoriunas, Nerijus
    FOREST POLICY AND ECONOMICS, 2020, 121
  • [9] Ecosystem services approach for sustainable governance in a brackish water lagoon used for aquaculture
    Gaglio, Mattias
    Lanzoni, Mattia
    Nobili, Giovanni
    Viviani, Diego
    Castaldelli, Giuseppe
    Fano, Elisa Anna
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT, 2019, 62 (09) : 1501 - 1524
  • [10] Ecosystem services and collective action: New commons, new governance challenges
    Barnaud, Cecile
    Muradian, Roldan
    ECOSYSTEM SERVICES, 2024, 70