Letter pubs.acs.org/est
Paying for Tibet’s Environmental-Ecosystem Services Wang Chen Yang Wang
R
ecently Yu et al, 1 expressed the viewpoint that some key challenges of environmental-ecological system (EES) faced by the Tibetan plateau, which is known as “the third pole of the world” with unique EES, and “water tower” of approximately 40% of the world’s population. The authors argued that nowhere is better exemplified than in the Tibetan plateau in terms of the change of temperature, permafrost soil, wetland, desertification, and biodiversity, which were caused by direct and indirect human activities. The authors future identified the limitations of fenced grazing, the most commonly approach to protect Tibetan EES. Given that the international community2 and the Chinese government3 have managed to recover the Tibetan EES, the views expressed by Yu et al.,1 are very timely and important. We readily echo the author’s views, and want to add that opportunities of recovery the Tibetan EES exist for payment for ecosystem services (PES). The EES is an asset. The Tibetan plateau’s annual ecological values are estimated as 936 billion Yuan (148 billion US$), constituting 17.68% of China’s annual ecological value and 0.61% of this planet.4 However, Tibetan EES has remained a free lunch until now. About 2/5 of the world’s population directly enjoy the Tibetan EES, but no one pay for its EES. Naturally, Tibet’s EES be poorly managed and undergone degradation. The global warming and local economic development have added new pressures on the Tibetan EES degradation as reported by Yu et al.1 There is growing support for using PES to recover EES in the world.5 PES promises much in China.6 China’s Natural Forest Conservation Program (NFCP) and Grain to Green Program (GTGP) are two of the biggest programs of PES worldwide. The NFCP conserves natural forests through logging bans and afforestation with incentives to forest enterprises, whereas the GTGP converts cropland on steep slopes to forest and grassland by providing farmers with grain and cash subsidies. Government investment for those PES program is over 700 billion Yuan (111 billion US $). These programs have marked the end of an era of China’s forest dominated by timber production, and contributed to the China’s forest coverage rate rise from 16.55% in 1998 to 20.36% in 2010.6 Creating market-based mechanisms for PES that already exist for free (even if those services are deteriorating) is not an easy task. Among four main instrument of PES (i. Regulation and Penalty, ii. Cap and Trade, iii. Direct Payments, iv. SelfRegulation),7 we recommended the direct payment. Learningfrom the examples of the NFCP and GTGP,6 direct payments allow governments and nongovernmental organizations to pay for the Tibetan EES public goods. We agree with Yu et al., that this planet can not afford ecological and environmental damage of Tibet, which substantially influences water and food security for about 2/5 of the world’s population. Although the market is not a panacea, we contend that the environmental market is a costeffective approach to address EES challenges faced by the Tibetan plateau. © 2012 American Chemical Society
■
Qiang†,* Xi†,* Degang† Changjian†,‡
† State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Sino-US International Center of Ecology in Arid Land, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Urumqi 830011, China; ‡ Graduate University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, P.R. China, 100049
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
*Phone/Fax: 899-917-885420; E-mail: qiangwang7@gmail. com (Q. W.);
[email protected] (X. C.). Notes
The authors declare no competing financial interest.
■ ■
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The currently work is supported by NSFC (No. 41001384) REFERENCES
(1) Yu, C.; Zhang, Y.; Claus, H.; Zeng, R.; Zhang, X.; Wang, J. Ecological and environmental issues faced by a developing Tibet. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46 (4), 1979−1980. (2) Bawa, K. S.; Koh, L. P.; Lee, T. M.; Liu, J.; Ramakrishnan, P. S; et al. China, India, and the Environment. Science 2010, 327 (5972), 1457−1459. (3) NDRC. Plan For Ecology Safety Barrier Protection And Construction In Tibet(2008−2030); National Development And Reform Commission Of P.R. China: Beijing, 2009; in Chinese. (4) Xie, G. D.; lu, C. X.; leng, Y. F.; Zheng, D.; Li, S. C. Ecological assets valuation of the Tibetan plateau. J. Nat. Resour. 2003, 18 (2), 189−196. (5) Kinzig, A. P.; Perrings, C.; Chapin, F. S.; Polasky, S.; Smith, V. K.; et al. Paying For ecosystem servicesPromise and peril. Science 2011, 334 (6056), 603−604. (6) Liu, j.; Li, S.; Ouyang, A.; Tam, C.; Chen, X., Ecological And socioeconomic effects Of china’s policies for ecosystem services. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2008, 105 (28), 9477. (7) StavinsR. N.Experience with market-based environmental policy instruments. In Handbook Of Environmental Economics; North Holland: New York, 2003; Vol. 1, pp 355−435.
Received: April 21, 2012 Accepted: April 25, 2012 Published: May 4, 2012 5264
dx.doi.org/10.1021/es3016028 | Environ. Sci. Technol. 2012, 46, 5264−5264
