With English law struggling to keep pace with mounting environmental challenges, ecosystem services (ESS) are often undervalued and under protected, leading to gaps in conservation and policy effectiveness. My dissertation explored how reimagining the role of ESS in English environmental law could help close these gaps. By examining Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) models in China and the USA, my research revealed how integrating ESS principles can better address environmental harm and improve policy action. Specifically, through evaluating the Direct Protection Authority and Circular Frameworks, it became clear that English law lacks effective performance metrics, robust environmentally focused approaches, and stronger regulatory authority over environmental protection.

Ecosystem Services: A Framework for Harmonizing Law and Ecology

Ecosystem services (ESS) are the vital link between human benefits from environmental health and the sustainable functioning of ecosystems. Utilising ESS as a principle in policy offers a means to establish a comprehensive framework for environmental valuation.

However, English law has yet to fully embrace these concepts and remains stagnated in an anthropocentric approach to valuing the environment, despite connections to early environmental valuation movements. This does not imply a lack of potential for integration; rather, the English Environmental Law system would significantly benefit from adopting more appropriate environmental valuation methodologies that harmonise more effectively with ecological principles.

Integrating ESS into English law offers several advantages: it enhances environmental protection by shifting focus to intrinsic ecological contributions, increases ecosystem resilience against stressors such as climate change, and incentivises sustainable practices through mechanisms akin to Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) models successfully implemented in China and the USA. These models establish robust systems that incorporate economic incentives, stakeholder involvement, and positive ecological outcomes, providing valuable insights for England. By examining how these countries have integrated and harmonised law and ecology, England can adopt similar techniques to strengthen its legal framework, thereby promoting community engagement, fostering a sense of stewardship, and creating a more sustainable economic relationship with the environment.

The USA: Direct Protection Authority and Ecosystem Services

The USA’s Clean Water Act (CWA) demonstrates how integrating ESS can strengthen environmental law, a model that could enhance English legal frameworks. In the USA, the CWA, particularly through watershed projects, identifies direct beneficiaries—landowners and communities—and provides financial incentives for maintaining critical natural features, all which English law has attempted to engage in, yet fallen short as my dissertation explored in the Environmental Land Management Scheme. The CWA’s section 404 ‘dredge and fill programme’ uses ESS as a standard for granting permits and mandating compensatory mitigation for effects on wetland areas.

The CWA showcases the effectiveness of using ESS as a performance metric, allowing agencies to evaluate whether the objectives of the statute are being fulfilled by looking at ecosystem services. This approach, as explored within my dissertation, demonstrates that ESS can be used as a benchmark for evaluating water quality standards and pollution control measures, offering a creative interpretation of statutes. Therefore, by incorporating ESS into the English legal system, ecosystems and their beneficiaries would benefit from heightened statutory protection.

China: Circular Framework and Ecosystem-Based Adaptation

China’s Grain to Green Program (GTGP) highlights the success of ecosystem-based approaches in environmental restoration and offers useful lessons for English law. Similarly, China’s approach to ESS, particularly through the Grain to Green Program(GTGP), offers another compelling model. The GTGP, a PES scheme, provides financial compensation to farmers for restoring ecosystem services within the Fanjingshan Forest. Unlike the voluntary nature of English schemes like the Environmental Land Management (ELM), the GTGP relies on regulatory measures and economic incentives provided by the government.

The GTGP’s success is evident, with over 27 million hectares of forest established since 2013, leading to significant reductions in water surface runoff and soil erosion. This demonstrates the potential of PES schemes to achieve substantial environmental and socioeconomic benefits. However, the program’s authoritative approach and minimal farmer participation highlight the importance of balancing regulatory measures with community engagement

Integrating ESS into English Environmental Law

Subsequently, integrating ESS into English environmental law necessitates a multifaceted approach:

1. Statutory recognition of ESS within existing legislation, such as the Environment Act 2021, is essential to ensure that ecosystem services are systematically considered in policy and decision-making processes. Expanding incentive-based programs, such as the ELM scheme, to encompass more comprehensive PES frameworks could provide financial incentives to landowners and farmers, thereby promoting the preservation and enhancement of ecosystem services.
2. Incorporating ESS valuation methodologies into environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and cost-benefit analyses for development projects would facilitate a more nuanced understanding of the trade-offs and benefits associated with various land-use decisions. Promoting public and private partnerships is also crucial; by encouraging collaborations between government agencies, private sector entities, and local communities, it is possible to secure funding and management for ecosystem service projects while ensuring diverse stakeholder involvement and equitable distribution of benefits.
3. Utilise ESS performance metrics to maximise environmental policies. the development of performance metrics based on ESS is vital for evaluating the effectiveness of environmental policies and programs, thereby ensuring that these initiatives deliver tangible ecological and societal benefits.

Thus, by integrating ecosystem services (ESS) into environmental law fosters holistic decision-making by considering ecological, social, and economic factors, which leads to better-informed policies that balance conservation with sustainable development. This approach enhances legal protections for critical ecosystems, mitigating degradation and encouraging restoration. Additionally, economic incentives like PES (Payment for Ecosystem Services) programs promote conservation practices, building a culture of environmental stewardship. Overall, integrating ESS bolsters ecosystem and community resilience, supporting adaptation to climate change and other environmental challenges.

Conclusion

My dissertation found that integrating ESS into English environmental law, inspired by the models of China and the USA, could enhance regulatory efficiency and effectiveness. By explicitly recognizing and valuing ESS, laws and regulations could better protect natural resources and mitigate environmental harm. This approach ensures that environmental policies and actions are based on sound scientific principles and societal values, promoting sustainability, social welfare, and environmental value.

Adopting a hybrid approach that combines the regulatory and economic incentives of China’s GTGP with the participatory elements of Western PES schemes could offer a comprehensive solution. This would involve integrating the ecosystem-based adaptation (EbA) circular framework to ensure both ecological and sociological elements are addressed, fostering a sense of ownership and long-term commitment among stakeholders.

Incorporating ESS into English environmental law represents a promising pathway towards a more sustainable and equitable approach to resource management. By learning from the successes and limitations of PES models in China and the USA, England can develop a legal framework that prioritizes ecological health alongside economic development, ensuring a more resilient and sustainable future.

Related Blogs

• 

  China’s Changing Wildlife Laws: What It Means for Conservation

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed by our bloggers and those providing comments are personal, and may not necessarily reflect the opinions of Lancaster University. Responsibility for the accuracy of any of the information contained within blog posts belongs to the blogger.