For a comprehensive evaluation of such wetland mitigation projects in Washington, check out this weighty study. (PDF)

So I guess you can say that coal corporations do buy eco systems and then DESTROY THEM!

The eons of time and nature was good to us down here. It was not until we become civilized that destroying our habitat become fathomable or fashionable.

Hug them snags!

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

That's cause most of the American population have no idea 'bout what role fire plays in a natural ecosystem.  They just grew up learnin' from Smokey that fires are bad and should be avoided at all costs/

http://www.wrm.org.uy/bulletin/120/Emissions.html

- however, the program launched in 2005 ran into problems immediately and started to look like the wonky offset market that no one really seems to trust.

So a new proposal is in development now, run by the Global Canopy Programme, and it values entire ecosystems as 'funds' to be traded by long-term investors, with profits split between them and the communities who live there and manage the forest.

http://www.globalcanopy.org/main.php?m=4&sm=16

Sounds more hopeful, and has been endorsed by Jane Goodall and Wangari Maathai, so it's got some good cred so far.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

And that's just the effects on some wildlife.

Wildfire is NEVER good for the forests, or for our atmosphere. Yep, wildfires put out more pollution than cars do every year. A new study shows that wildfires produce from 54 to 76 tons of GHGs per acre. And that's a lot of acres!! MILLIONS of acres, every year, year after year!

Hug them snags!

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Of course we provide a good bit amount of information on carbon markets, particularly non-compliance/ voluntary carbon offsets, but we also cover the role of private finance and public policy regarding watershed protection, biodiversity habitats, species banking, wetlands protections, etc.

It does seem odd, the idea of private equity sweeping in to protect the ecosystems. Environmental degradation is often a byproduct--negative externality--of ventures intended to accrue private equity. However, as of the present, people worldwide--including corporations are starting to realize that not only do ecosystem services possess an "existence value" (something more intrinsic), but also that the the environment produces services that have real economic value. Alterations in land-use can affect watersheds that communities and businesses rely on to operate etc.

Insurance corporations are especially realizing the economic value of ecosystem services as they would among the hardest hit (financially) by the environmental disasters global warming may have in store for us.

How so?  We have been talking about bushco selling the national parks to saudi and chinese billionaires for years now.  Nothing surprising here, we knew it would come in the guise of environmentalism.

Great McMansion sites in Yosemite! They can commute by helicopter and avoid the roads.

That's real corporate kleptocracy in action!  Yer doin' a heckuva job duuuhby(a)!

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

Backcut, there are at least several native species of trees which rely on fire to spread their seeds.  They will drop their seeds when their lower portions are burned, as for their seeds to take advantage of the cleared vegetation and the nitrogen and other elements in the soil thanks to the fire.

Elimination of wilfire would thus lead to extinction of these tree species and alter the ecosystem of the forest.

As any fire ecologist will tell ya, fire can be good for forests.

Ecosystem markets are composed of ethical participants with good intentions, but as with most markets, there are some bad apples out there for sure. Market transparency will expose them.

But one shouldn't be so simplistic with the absolutist approach that all market mechanisms aimed at environmental protection are 'bad'.

Of course, prescribed fire is often a good thing. Those are performed under a great many conditional guidelines and the outcomes are often the goals of the burn.

Wildfires today burn at intensities MUCH hotter than when American Indians did their burning. We have it within our power and technology to greatly reduce wildfires and do much more prescribed burning than we do today. But that would mean increased logging of smaller trees (and the occasional medium-sized tree), more controlled fires that occasionally will get out of hand, and lots and lots of MONEY! (That won't happen in MY lifetime)

I will stand by my statement that "Wildfires are NEVER good for the forests." It's sad that many forests are doomed to catastrophic fire because we failed to manage the forest. I just got back from the Dixie National Forest, between Zion and Bryce Canyon, and found almost EVERY spruce at the high elevations dead from bugs. Another bites the dust!

PS Some new pics from that trip on my photo blog

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Ecosystem Marketplace has a great website that provides a lot of info on already functioning ecosystem markets.

"There is something fundamentally wrong in treating the earth as if it were a business in liquidation."
  -- Herman Daly, former World Bank economist

The lead post gives the impression (IMO) that mitigation banking is new.  It is not.  However, in many cases, mitigation banking fails because (a) we don't know how to quickly create diverse and resilient ecosystems that would otherwise take the spans of many human lifetimes to evolve and, (b) even when there is a promising plan in place, mitigation project monitoring and remediation is often inadequate in one of several ways, so key components of the project die before the whole ecosystem is well established.  In addition, there are problems with later industrial and development projects having unmitigated cumulative impacts on pre-existing mitigation banking projects, and unless the mitigation banking project takes place on a brownfield or reclaimed and abused land, it generally involves reducing one sort of ecosystem to replace it with another that is deemed more  valuable by certain government and business entities.

So, what is new, here?  My first impression is that the same rats who built a house of cards in the traditional financial markets, which are finally tumbling now that layers of lies and corruption have grown too large and wobbly to remain entirely concealed and ignored, are looking for another system to raid and wreck.  Whereas most regulated land developers who seek to mitigate the damage their projects will cause by paying for specific mitigation banking projects to offset that damage (if they go the mitigation banking route), we are looking at adding some layers of abstraction and aggregation to the scheme, then chopping it up and selling (and reselling?) the "assets" to those who want offsets and/or profits for destroying a bit of the biosphere--which we share with all humans and all living things as our natural and necessary heritage.  For a quick review of how wrong things can go when moving in this direction, please review the so-called sub-prime mortgage crisis, which is but one component of the global financial crisis.

It's all fine and well to speak up for the virtues of an open and accountable trading system, but experience has shown that there will be a great deal of pressure to do away with enforcement of sunshine laws, truth in advertising laws, common sense laws that allow even industry insiders to figure out who owns what and what, if any, value it is delivering, and anything else that corporate think tanks and lobbyists will condemn as "burdensome regulations."  Even if it gets off to a good start, there will be a tendency over time for the foxes to move into positions of guarding the hen house and the system will be quietly corrupted as they wish.  At a time when it is clear to many that much of the government is already completely subservient to its corporate overlords, we would do well to ponder the implications of opening the doors any wider to this sort of exploitation of the most basic life supporting systems on our one and only planet.  We have scant enough firm ground upon which to stand and defend our right to unspoiled and unsold nature and "natural services" as it is.

I agree, Tigahs, there is something that doesn't smell right about "private equity sweeping in to protect the ecosystems."  It's not unlike the owners and directors of industries that have poisoned our air, water, and food turning around and selling us (or even getting us to volunteer for R&D fundraisers) "treatments" for the myriad diseases they are causing (for a profit) elsewhere in our lives rather than being forced to stop making us sick or pay for the deaths and injuries when the do.

What's wrong with this picture, in my opinion, is that it is based on the notion that "ecosystem services" are not recognized as our common heritage and right.  Instead, the natural environment is treated as a low cost dumping ground and store of presumably wasting "assets" until (a) it is handed over to a private party to rent or sell back to us a bit at a time or (b) it is so severely damaged (in pursuit of private profits) that the once healthy functioning natural systems are deemed precious due to their scarcity and precariousness, conditions arising due to enormous damages to public "goods and services" for which there has been little accountability or compensation (i.e, negative externalities accumulating on a grand scale).

So, what do you suppose will happen if and when the workings of an ecosystems services financial market hits the big time?  My guess is that the same thing that happens in conventional industries will occur.  That is, there will be a focus on increasing "productivity" to gain a competitive advantage and spur ever greater "growth" and profits.  

Now, how does one manifest greater productivity in natural ecosystems without entailing ever greater costs that come with better protecting them and allowing them to flourish naturally?  Again, looking to other industries, a couple likely answers involve synthesizing and cutting corners in only a few key dimensions of natural systems, very likely with harmful and unintended consequences, and covering up and lying about the implications of those unintended consequences for as long as possible (then leaving the public holding the bag if at all possible).

This way of doing business has already turned our atmosphere into what should, by all rights, be recognized as the world's largest and potentially most deadly Superfund site--if only we had such a mechanism for getting the world's point and nonpoint polluters to chip in to undo the damage they have done.  Do we really want to accelerate this process?

See, I have a very different idea.  To the extent that we have not yet handed over what is left of nature to the gnomes of globalization, I don't think we should.  It's ours--all of ours--and it is very valuable to us just the way it is, even if we never put it on the auction block to see how much one of the very few holders of very great wealth might bid for it against a very limited field of competition.  In fact, these "environmental services" are so valuable that people (and other things) die when they are damaged.  I think that should be illegal and heavily penalized, just as it is illegal and heavily penalized (when it does not "shock the conscience of the court" to do so) damage privately held assets in such a way as to cause deaths.  We have already allowed far too much of these critical "environmental services" to be impaired or destroyed.  We need to allow them to rebuild instead of auctioning off what is left or exchange them for cheap imitations cobbled together by corporations and committees.

Yes, yes, I hear the din of those who will rightly point out that we have all had a hand in screwing things up, as well as those who note that some ecosystems are so badly destabilized that they require management in addition to protection to make their way back to more or less safe and self sustaining status.  Fine let's pay our share and do our best to do what we must for all of our sake.  Buy I am not in favor of giving up any more of our commons with ample and due compensation (what price health and life?) in the hopes that someone seeking to make a buck won't follow the course of business history by finding ways to enrich him or herself by cutting corners and leaving the rest of us to deal with the lingering negative externalities.

Mainstream Economic theory indicates that carbon-intense products are currently under-priced. That is because only the private costs are accounted for via market mechanisms. Emission of carbon dioxide (CO2) contributes to global warming--a social cost, hence the negative externality associated with CO2 consumption.  The government or similar authority must internalize this negative externality by adjusting the cost of carbon-intense goods and services to account for the social costs associated with its consumption. However, the social and political impetus for government induced artificial price inflation of carbon-intense goods is occurring at a time when global petroleum production is peaking. After peak, the historic patterns that determine petroleum price and demand cycles will cease.  Direct artificial price inflation of carbon products via public policy will inevitably clash with continuously rising oil prices. Public disapproval over unprecedented prices at the pump reduces the political feasibility of a carbon tax. A cap-and-trade system may still, in effect, pass the added costs to the consumer. However, it is more indirect and less transparent than a carbon tax and therefore is more politically feasible. This may explain why cap-and-trade systems represent the dominant policy mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions around the world. Cap-and-trade policies reflect the tenets of neo-Keynesianism, whereby public policy aims to utilize market mechanisms to fulfill its objectives.

Paul Hawken made us more aware of the value of "natural capital" and argued for preserving it as a commons for the benefit of all. The free marketeers want to bring "market efficiencies" to  bear on "ecosystem services" in the belief that this will provide us with wetlands (or flood control, clean water, clean air, and so on) at the correct cost (what's wrong with free?). To do that, the "ecosystem services" will be commodified, engineered, managed, parceled out and sold for a profit. It's not just free market theory but centuries of property law that are pushing us toward this result.

As a countervailing value, Bill McKibben (and many others) essentially ask what is nature worth and what is lost when no part of the planet is free from human influence? Assuming we can substitute engineered "ecosystem services" for natural capital, and obviously there are tremendous risks if we try and fail, is this really a good idea? Is the efficiency of the market a higher societal value than the preservation (restoration) of natural environments?

The idea behind markets for ecosystem services is that the establishment of property rights over these services encourages conservation of what already exists, restoration of function of damaged ecosystems, and the establishment of new ones.  The last objective is the most controversial, and questions about humans' abilities to mimic natural ecosystems are certainly important.  

Privatizing ecosystem services does not remove the positive externalities that the public derives from those services.  Whether a wetland is privately or publicly owned does not affect its ability to filter nutrients and sediments from water, provide flood hazard buffers, or to provide wildlife habitat.  Allowing private owners to profit from the public benefits provided by their land simply creates greater incentives to preserve and restore ecosystems.

People should be willing to pay for what they demand.  The problem with providing anything for free is the problem of common resources - overuse due to the lack of a mechanism that links supply with demand.  But think for a minute, are ecosystem services that wetlands provide really free right now?  No, we pay taxes to the government in exchange for public goods, which you and I believe should include ecosystem service.  There's no free lunch - the cost is just hidden and less transparent.  So does the government do a good job at using our tax money to protect ecosystem services?  

No.  Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  

Which makes more sense to you: paying taxes and then hoping that your elected officials are trustworthy enough to direct funds toward conservation (you can lobby but that's even more time and money), or directly paying for ecosystem services which will ensure the protection of ecosystems.

Another thing: there's no need to be so ideological about it.  The debate over ecosystem services isn't as black and white as the commons/public goods vs. the free market/privatization.  The issue is ripe for public-private partnerships.  For example, rather than expanding wastewater treatment plants, municipalities could pay landowners to protect and restore wetlands that can provide primary and secondary levels of treatment, thus reducing costs for the municipality.  Rather than taxes, which go into general funds, people would pay user fees for water treatment.  The distinction between taxes and user fees is not always apparent but it very significant because it directly links people's wallets to ecosystem services, encouraging them to become more aware of what their government is doing.

The reason why they are so much more intense is 'cause of the build-up of material due to natural wildfire supression by man.

As for logging, well, the Native Americans didn't need that for their fire prctices...so why would we?

Not a pretty future, by my standards, TP.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

and a lot of World Band and/or CDM projects basically equate to eco-colonialism. The social actors include not just the World Bank, but private-sector project developers, NGO project verifiers and certifiers, & local public authorities.

For example, the District Sao Jose do Buriti, Brazil has transformed dramatically from a World Bank funded eucalyptus monoculture plantation.

The eucalyptus monoculture has drastically altered the land, absorbing the water sources, which creates water scarcity. Fisherman can't fish, the medicinal plants traditionally used by the townspeople don't grow, and the lack of a water supply hinders the area's small and micro-industries, all of which are substantial negative externalities.

The buyer was a BP refinery in Scotland who wanted to 'offset' emissions that were not 'cost effective' to reduce. So they exported their problem to a nation where production inputs of balancing their CO2 emissions would be cheaper.

This BS to me since CO2 quantification of forestry projects is sketchy and monocultures have so many negative externalities.

The project developer was Plantar (for-profit). The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified the monoculture project with its "green label." And of course the local authorities were in bed w/ the project. Even the community was 'bought off' to some extent.

Plantar and to some extent FSC, addressed the communities complaints and provided most of them with minimum-wage jobs since the land was no longer viable. This is obviously an example of eco-colonialism, but it also reflects the power of bargaining externalities central to Coase's Theorem.

Although not everyone was 'bought off', a documentary exposed the World Bank's actions:
"The Carbon Connection" Documentary hosted by Carbon Trade Watch, it is also on google video.

So basically the social cost incurred is 4.5 billion euros. It is a wealth transfer to those industries.

A lot of policy formulation and implementation problems to tweak out before cap-and-trade systems can function as they are theoretically supposed to. Europe's emissions actually increased more rapidly than the US's since 2000. Does the US have a cap-and-trade system? no.

I support one, but think that the policy formation and implementation processes must account for problems extant in Kyoto & the EU ETS.

Prescribed fires are okay, but in order to be effective, they must occur at the same frequency, size, and distribution as natural wildfires did before suppression.  That's the only way to effectively bring it back to a natural setting.

GHG climate change, drought specifically has made fires much more severe.  Sure there is fuel buildup that was caused by fire suppresion, but this is at firestorm stage now thanks to climate change.

The old methods of simulating natural burns are no longer natural.  In a firestorm tornadic level winds suck fuel into the fire, it burns evertything.  Living trees too.

That's why dead material should be removed, but not with standard logging.  Fire prevention is necessary to stop exponential GHG release from firestorms.

Activation of seeds that need fire can be done artificially.  Chipping machinery can use waste heat to singe the ground safely after dead wood is collected.  The same with machines that mow fire breaks in grasslands.  Prairie seeds need heat too.

http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog

The American Indians were allowed to deal with their fuels buildups without litigation. Their forests didn't have decades of fuels buildups that are at the "tipping point".

OUR's DO!!

But, in the end, I think you'll win by burning down the rest of our old growth, TP. However the rest of the world will lose.

Scenic pics at http://Lhfotoware.blogspot.com

Provided on the site is a list of many of the benefits that mitigation banks provide, such as; the consolidation of smaller mitigation projects into larger more sustainable ecosystems, creation and or restoration of land prior to impacts, banks set up conservation easements with trust funds to maintain the property in perpetuity, something government agencies rarely have the funds to do.  

Mitigation banks are held to the highest standards of any other form of mitigation.  Many mitigation banks maintain the land in a more pristine state than conservation lands managed by the government.
Most mitigation which fails does so because the parcels set aside are not substantial enough to sustain significant diversity.  This is rarely the case in banking.

Intentions of the mitigation banking industry are to provide the highest quality of functional lands for replacement of degraded wildlife or unavoidable impacts.

Erik

The Orion Grassroots Network: 1,200+ grassroots groups working for conservation & more

rune: we don't know how to quickly create diverse and resilient ecosystems that would otherwise take the spans of many human lifetimes to evolve and, (b) even when there is a promising plan in place, mitigation project monitoring and remediation is often inadequate

This way of doing business has already turned our atmosphere into what should, by all rights, be recognized as the world's largest and potentially most deadly Superfund site

This way of doing business has already turned our atmosphere into what should, by all rights, be recognized as the world's largest and potentially most deadly Superfund site

Last time I looked, companies were lining up to make a buck from bulldozing a hole out in the middle of a cornfield to replace a wetland in a completely different geographic area of the state w/ vastly different flora/fauna and overall need for the mitigation that wetlands provide. Cheney and his canned-duck-hunting buddies love the new system from what I've heard.

(2) We shouldn't have to bribe someone to to the right thing. Air and water are part of the commons. A person simply should not be allowed to significantly alter natural drainage patterns -- above and below ground -- or significantly alter the chemical composition of air and water entering and leaving their property. It doesn't matter if that person thinks a little atrazine is safe; his neighbor should not have to remove it from the water if he happens to not think it is not safe.

(3) My limited reading about profiting from the described "financial instruments" suggests they relies very heavily on government grants and tax breaks. Which means, in my opinion, we're really talking about opportunities for middlemen to line their pockets with tax dollars. Really... give someone a tax break if they agree not to fill in a marsh???!!!  So their corporation can post higher earnings??!!! We'd be better off using tax dollars to purchase the marsh -- or forest or grassland or whatever -- once and for all, setting it aside in perpetuity. Then charge business entities a reasonable rate for extracting any resources from the land. Fund government by charging whatever the market will bear for lumber, minerals, water, or grazing.