WRI Publications Feed: People & Ecosystems

The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review: Guidelines for Identifying Business Risks & Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem Change

Suzanne Ozment — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:32:54 -0500

Summary

Ecosystems provide businesses with numerous benefits or “ecosystem services.” Forests supply timber and wood fiber, purify water, regulate climate, and yield genetic resources. River systems provide freshwater, power, and recreation. Coastal wetlands filter waste, mitigate floods, and serve as nurseries for commercial fisheries.

However, human activities are rapidly degrading these and other ecosystems. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment— the largest audit ever conducted of the condition and trends in the world’s ecosystems—found that ecosystems have declined more rapidly and extensively over the past 50 years than at any other comparable time in human history. In fact, 15 of the 24 ecosystem services evaluated have degraded over the past half century. The Assessment projected further declines over coming decades, particularly in light of population growth, economic expansion, and global climate change. Left unchecked, this degradation could jeopardize future economic well-being, creating new winners and losers within the business community.

Ecosystem degradation is highly relevant to business because companies not only impact ecosystems and the services they provide but also depend on them. Ecosystem degradation, therefore, can pose a number of risks to corporate performance as well as create new business opportunities. Types of risks and opportunities include:

Operational

Risks such as higher costs for freshwater due to scarcity, lower output for hydroelectric facilities due to siltation, or disruptions to coastal businesses due to flooding
Opportunities such as increasing water-use efficiency or building an on-site wetland to circumvent the need for new water treatment infrastructure

Regulatory and legal

Risks such as new fines, new user fees, government regulations, or lawsuits by local communities that lose ecosystem services due to corporate activities
Opportunities such as engaging governments to develop policies and incentives to protect or restore ecosystems that provide services a company needs

Reputational

Risks such as retail companies being targeted by nongovernmental organization campaigns for purchasing wood or paper from sensitive forests or banks facing similar protests due to investments that degrade pristine ecosystems
Opportunities such as implementing and communicating sustainable purchasing, operational, or investment practices in order to differentiate corporate brands

Market and product

Risks such as customers switching to suppliers that offer eco-certified products or governments implementing new sustainable procurement policies
Opportunities such as launching new products and services that reduce customer impacts on ecosystems, participating in emerging markets for carbon sequestration and watershed protection, capturing new revenue streams from company-owned natural assets, and offering eco-labeled wood, seafood, produce, and other products

Financing

Risks such as banks implementing more rigorous lending requirements for corporate loans
Opportunities such as banks offering more favorable loan terms or investors taking positions in companies supplying products and services that improve resourceuse efficiency or restore degraded ecosystems.

Unfortunately, companies often fail to make the connection between the health of ecosystems and the business bottom line. Many companies are not fully aware of the extent of their dependence and impact on ecosystems and the possible ramifications. Likewise, environmental management systems and environmental due diligence tools are often not fully attuned to the risks and opportunities arising from the degradation and use of ecosystem services. For instance, many tools are more suited to handle “traditional” issues of pollution and natural resource consumption. Most focus on environmental impacts, not dependence. Furthermore, they typically focus on risks, not business opportunities. As a result, companies may be caught unprepared or miss new sources of revenue associated with ecosystem change.

The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review (ESR) is designed to address these gaps. It consists of a structured methodology that helps managers proactively develop strategies to manage business risks and opportunities arising from their company’s dependence and impact on ecosystems. It is a tool for strategy development, not just for environmental assessment. Businesses can either conduct an Ecosystem Services Review as a stand-alone process or integrate it into their existing environmental management systems. In both cases, the methodology can complement and augment the environmental due diligence tools companies already use.

The Ecosystem Services Review can provide value to businesses in industries that directly interact with ecosystems such as agriculture, beverages, water services, forestry, electricity, oil, gas, mining, and tourism. It is also relevant to sectors such as general retail, healthcare, consulting, financial services, and others to the degree that their suppliers or customers interact directly with ecosystems. General retailers, for example, may face reputational or market risks if some of their suppliers are responsible for degrading ecosystems and the services they provide.

This publication describes the five steps for performing an Ecosystem Services Review. It provides an analytical framework, case examples, and helpful suggestions for each step. It concludes by highlighting a number of resources managers can use when conducting an ESR, including a “dependence and impact assessment” spreadsheet, scientific reports, economic valuation approaches, and other issue-specific tools.

As of 2012, an estimated 300 companies have used the Ecosystem Services Review. In addition, complementary tools and guidance now exist to help companies more fully assess business risks and opportunities emerging from ecosystem change. For example, in 2011 the World Business Council for Sustainable Development released the Guide to Corporate Ecosystem Valuation (CEV), which provides information on how to quantitatively, or in some cases monetarily, assess risks and opportunities related to ecosystem services. CEV can therefore be a logical next step after undertaking an ESR. The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (2010) highlighted new examples of the linkages between business and ecosystem services. The ESR remains a fundamental starting point for companies to assess business risks and opportunities related to ecosystem change.

Global degradation of ecosystems and the services they provide threatens to alter the landscape in which business operates. The Ecosystem Services Review is a proactive approach for companies to manage the risks and opportunities that are emerging. Furthermore, by helping companies make the connection between healthy ecosystems and the bottom line, it will encourage not only more sustainable business practices, but also business support for policies to protect and restore ecosystems.

WRI developed the ESR in collaboration with the Meridian Institute and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). Five WBCSD member companies—Akzo Nobel, BC Hydro, Mondi, Rio Tinto, and Syngenta—road-tested the methodology, providing feedback and case examples. Since 2008, an estimated 300 companies have used the Ecosystem Services Review. Yves Rocher, Lafarge, and CEMEX have also contributed ESR case studies to demonstrate the experience and results of the method.

2011 Eco-Audit of the Mesoamerican Reef Countries

Maggie Barron — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:59:57 -0500

The Mesoamerican Reef (MAR) provides a diverse array of goods and services to the people of Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. It is our shared heritage. Unfortunately, the health of the reef is declining, as documented by the 2008 and 2010 Report Cards published by the Healthy Reefs Initiative. The decline stems, at least in part, from inadequate management of threats to coral reefs. This Eco-Audit evaluates our efforts to protect and sustainably manage the region’s coral reefs; celebrates management success stories; and documents the extent to which recommended management actions have been implemented in Belize, Guatemala, Honduras, and Mexico. It seeks to catalyze faster, more effective management responses and to increase accountability within the public and private sectors and among nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

An Innovative, Rigorous Process

The Healthy Reefs Initiative (HRI), in collaboration with the World Resources Institute (WRI) and local partners, developed and implemented this first-ever multinational Eco-Audit of the Mesoamerican Reef Countries.

Evaluation criteria are comprehensive and inclusive.

Twenty-two standardized management indicators were developed across seven themes, such as fisheries management and coastal zone management.1 The Eco-Audit draws on input from a variety of NGOs, governmental agencies, and the private sector, and includes transparently verified and publicly available results. In September and October 2011, HRI and WRI convened four national workshops, whose purpose was for participants to collectively rank each indicator and to compile documents to verify the rankings.

Analysis is objective, science-based, and validated.

HRI and its regional partners are committed to maintaining audit standards that are unbiased, fact-based, transparent, and replicable. The financial and management auditing firm of PricewaterhouseCoopers Costa Rica (PwC)2 reviewed the methodology and provided feedback on the processes, indicators, and quality of the verification documentation.

Data quality will be enhanced over time.

This first Eco-Audit establishes a baseline regarding the status of reef ecosystem management efforts. The results are intended to guide data collection and compilation for future Eco-Audits, which will occur every two years. These biennial Eco-Audits and the biennial HRI Reef Report Cards will occur in alternating years, thereby providing a routine accounting of reef health and efforts to improve it. As data collection becomes more complete and the database grows, we anticipate that the Eco-Audit will evolve, becoming more quantitative and comprehensive in its evaluation of management efforts.

Slideshow

2011 Eco-Audit of Mesoamerica Reef Countries

View more presentations from World Resources Institute (WRI)

Insights from the Field: Forests for Climate and Timber

Maggie Barron — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:25:59 -0500

The Carbon Canopy is a novel partnership among companies, landowners, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) that seeks to leverage markets for ecosystem services to increase the area of southern U.S. forests certified as sustainably managed. The partnership aspires to sustain southern forests for their economic, climate, water, and other benefits.

The Carbon Canopy’s first focus has been on linking forest carbon offset generation and certified forest management, wherein carbon offset revenue is designed to compensate woodland owners for the cost of certification and provide an attractive new revenue stream.
The Carbon Canopy’s experience to date provides a number of insights for other organizations seeking to build and expand markets for forest carbon offsets linked with forest certification. These insights were gleaned from the authors’ observations as well as interviews with several members of the Carbon Canopy partnership, including landowners, buyers, and NGOs. These insights apply to building demand, ensuring supply, and creating the transactional infrastructure for forest carbon offsets and certified saw timber or wood fiber.
To build robust demand, companies, NGOs, and other organizations seeking to replicate the approach of combining forest carbon offsets and certification should—
- Actively recruit buyers; and
- Secure an anchor buyer early on.
- To ensure sufficient supply of offsets and certified timber, these organizations should—
- Invest in woodland owner education;
- Make the business case to woodland owners;
- Find upfront financing; and
- Be sure to engage all parties with claims on the land.
To create an efficient transactional infrastructure, these organizations should—
- Select forest management and carbon offset certification standards early on;
- Select standards that are high quality and that facilitate market participation; and
- Leverage existing resources and landowner networks.

Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment

Maggie Barron — Tue, 15 Nov 2011 15:30:06 -0500

Overview

Lending and government institutions, such as the International Finance Corporation and the US Council on Environmental Quality, now require the explicit consideration of ecosystem services in impact assessment.

Overview
Downloads
Get Involved
Timeline

More Information for Practitioners

Conceptual Framework
Why Use the Ecosystems Services Review for Impact Assessments?
Ecosystem Services Requirements in new IFC Performance Standards

However, according to a survey carried out by WRI, the guidance documents currently available for addressing ecosystem services in Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) are seen by practitioners as insufficiently detailed to move ESIA practices forward.

To fill this gap in practical guidance, the Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment (ESR for IA) provides: (1) A conceptual framework of how the project, ecosystem services and human well-being are linked and (2) step-by-step instructions (PDF, 1 page, 172 Kb) to systematically incorporate ecosystem services

Downloads

Working Paper 1 - Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment: Introduction and Guide to Scoping (PDF, 34 pages, 1.1 Mb)
Impact Scoping Tool (Excel, 5.7 Mb)
Dependence Scoping Tool (Excel, 2.1 Mb)
Seven Steps to Address Ecosystem Services in Impact Assessment (PDF, 1 page, 172 Kb)

Get Involved

We invite you to send us feedback and suggested improvements to the methodology.

Complete our survey. Practitioners are invited to share their feedback on the ESR for IA through this short online survey. The authors would like your opinion on the overall ESR for IA framework and your suggestions for improving the guidance.
Join our LinkedIn discussion. The authors are leading a guided discussion on the ESR for IA with the Business & Ecosystem Services Professionals group, which links managers, consultants, and thought leaders around pressing issues at the nexus of business and ecosystems. The forum allows members to share recent news and best practices, discuss important issues, and connect with peers.
Road-test the ESR for IA. From January to September 2012, the authors will work with selected project developers and impact assessment practitioners to road-test the ESR for IA on actual ESIA processes. This opportunity is ideal for environmental and social practitioners who work for companies that wish to identify more effective ways to mitigate negative impacts on ecosystem services, meet the new IFC Performance Standards, or establish themselves as leaders in addressing ecosystem services in environmental and social impact assessment. If you would like your project to be considered for road-testing, contact Florence Landsberg with a short description of the project and the planned ESIA timeline.
Contact us. You are also invited to share your general feedback on the ESR for IA directly with the authors.

Timeline

The ESR for IA will be presented in two successive working papers: Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment: Introduction and Guide to Scoping (available above) and Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment: a Guide to Impact Analysis and Mitigation (to be published early 2012) and will be road-tested between January and September 2012 before being finalized by the end of 2012.

Conceptual Framework

The ESR for IA’s conceptual framework builds on the elements and causal relations of the original Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) Framework (Figure 1). By explicitly recognizing the causal interactions between the project, human well-being and the indirect and direct drivers of ecosystem change, the ESR for IA framework supports an integrated assessment of elements commonly assessed separately in an ESIA.

Figure 1: Conceptual framework for assessing project impact and dependence on ecosystem services (Click to Enlarge)

Why Use the Ecosystems Services Review for Impact Assessments?

The ESR for IA helps social and environmental impact assessment practitioners deliver the following:

Systematic integration of environmental and socio-economic issues.
Assessment of project dependence on ecosystem services.
Consideration of multi-scale impacts and dependence.
Identification of indirect and cumulative impacts.
Identification, communication, and negotiation with stakeholders.
Comply with the new International Finance Corporation (IFC) performance standards.

Ecosystem Services Requirements in new IFC Performance Standards

Starting January 2012, IFC investments will be screened systematically for ecosystem service risks and impacts, which are mandated in multiple performance standards. These ecosystem service changes to the IFC standards are comprehensive and affect screening, mitigation, and compensation rules for future investments. They also include increased resources to strengthen IFC’s internal management capacity to assess ecosystem service risks and impacts. These additions to the performance standards complement existing requirements for safeguarding biodiversity and supporting sustainable natural resources management to reflect the importance of the environment for people’s health, culture and fundamental human rights.

The new standards include the following specific ecosystem services requirements:

Performance Standard 1-Assessment and Management of Environmental and Social Risks and Impacts – Identify all reasonably expected risks and impacts related to ecosystem services and use a broader definition of a project’s area of influence, which now includes indirect project impact on ecosystem services upon which Affected Communities’ livelihoods are dependent.
Performance Standard 4-Community Health, Safety, and Security – Assess and manage health, safety, and security risks to communities resulting from direct project impact on provisioning and regulating ecosystem services such as the loss of buffer areas (e.g., wetlands, mangroves, or upland forests.
Performance Standards 5-Land Acquisition and Involuntary Resettlement – Assess impacts on and compensate for loss of provisioning ecosystem services resulting from land acquisition and involuntary resettlement.
Performance Standard 6-Biodiversity Conservation and Sustainable Management of Living Natural Resources – Carry out a systematic review (including participation of Affected Communities) of all ecosystem services a project will impact or is dependent upon to identify priority ecosystem services, and avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on priority ecosystem services for which a client has direct management control or significant influence.
Performance Standard 7-Indigenous Peoples – Assess provisioning and cultural ecosystem services when examining projects affecting Indigenous Peoples.
Performance Standard 8-Cultural Heritage – Maintain or restore any ecosystem processes and ecosystem services when replicable cultural heritage is removed.

Gaining Ground: Increasing Conservation Easements in the U.S. South

Maggie Barron — Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:29:18 -0400

Summary

A “conservation easement” is a voluntary, legally enforceable land preservation agreement between two parties wherein a landowner sells or donates the development rights to a tract of land to a qualified holding organization, such as a land trust, effectively preventing forest conversion or other stipulated activities, usually in perpetuity.
Conservation easements are attractive to conservation organizations and funders because such agreements often offer a more cost-effective means of securing land under some form of conservation status. Easements typically cost at least 40 percent less per acre than outright land purchases.
Conservation easements have four major benefits to landowners: (1) they allow the retention of private ownership, (2) they provide a high degree of flexibility in terms of meeting landowner management and conservation objectives, (3) they allow active forest management, and (4) they offer financial benefits via income, estate and property tax reductions, and potential revenues from existing and emerging ecosystem service markets.
Conservation easements have become an increasingly popular land conservation approach in the United States. The amount of land nationwide under conservation easement has grown from approximately 500,000 acres in 1990 to more than 30 million acres in 2011.
However, the southern United States currently has a disproportionately low share of the nation’s private land under conservation easement. Although the South constitutes approximately 37 percent of the private land area in the United States, to date it has only 18 percent of the country’s total conservation easement acres. The south also has a disproportionately low share of the total number of easements in the U.S.; only approximately 9 percent of the total number of easements in the country are located in the South.
Key barriers to greater uptake of easements in the South and elsewhere include: (1) landowner misconceptions about what easements are and what easement agreements entail, (2) landowner perceptions that the financial costs of easements outweigh the benefits, (3) landowner concerns about the perpetual nature of most conservation easement agreements, and (4) limited financial and staffing resources by holding entities or land trusts to purchase easements, in addition to the small number of institutional buyers.
There are three main ways these barriers can be overcome: (1) increase resources and capabilities of land trusts, (2) increase financial benefits and contract length flexibility, and (3) strengthen landowner education in order to correct misconceptions.
This issue brief is intended to provide an overview for conservation professionals and conservation funders in the South of the current status of conservation easements in the region relative to the rest of the United States, and how easement use can be increased. It is also intended for landowners interested in exploring conservation easements for their own properties. Although this brief is part of a series dedicated to southern U.S. forests, the ideas presented here could be applied to a spectrum of ecosystems throughout the United States.

Forests for Carbon: Exploring Forest Carbon Offsets in the U.S. South

Maggie Barron — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 16:34:42 -0400

Southern U.S. forests remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in the form of carbon in leaves, roots, branches, trunks, soil, and woody debris and other plant litter through a process known as “carbon sequestration.” Through this process, southern forests and other woodlands play a role in regulating Earth’s climate and moderating the effects of global climate change.
Emerging voluntary and compliance markets often have provisions for greenhouse gas emission reductions or emissions avoided by preventing forest conversion or changing forest management practices. These reductions or avoided emissions are considered “forest carbon emission reductions.”
A “forest carbon offset” is a metric ton of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e), the emission of which is avoided or newly sequestered and is purchased by greenhouse gas emitters as a cost-control mechanism to compensate for emissions occurring elsewhere. Four types of forest carbon offset projects exist—reforestation, afforestation, forest conservation/avoided conversion, and improved forest management.
Forest carbon offsets can create an incentive for southern woodland owners to engage in land management practices that retain or restore forests and bolster forest carbon sequestration capacity.
Forest carbon offset projects must meet a number of quality criteria if they are to become credible, eligible for markets, and financially feasible for southern woodland owners. The main quality criteria include: assurance that the offset is real (including handling the issue of negative leakage), additionality/surplus, verifiability, permanence, and enforcement.
Recently, a number of carbon offset standards have emerged that adhere to these quality criteria. These standards provide a detailed list of offset project eligibility requirements, or “protocols,” as well as methods for quantifying and verifying a project’s net emissions impact. These standards seek to provide consistency in determining offset eligibility and quantification, improve offset credibility, and lower transaction costs for offset providers.
At present, from the financial standpoint of many southern woodland owners, income from forest carbon offsets alone is likely insufficient to outcompete real estate development. However, depending on landowner management goals and circumstances, income from forest carbon offsets might be sufficient in some instances to help pay incremental costs of sustaining forests, such as property taxes or sustainable forest management certification.
Forest carbon offset markets, like all other markets, require robust demand, adequate supply, and good transactional infrastructure. In light of these three conditions, southern woodland owners can take several initial steps to explore and prepare for existing and upcoming markets: (1) monitor market demand for forest carbon offsets, (2) conduct a solid forest inventory to assess the potential to supply forest carbon offsets, (3) engage in project development, and (4) enroll in a credible offset registry.

Sustainable Procurement of Wood and Paper-Based Products: Version 2

Ruth Nogueron — Fri, 22 Jul 2011 08:52:22 -0400

Find out more at http://www.sustainableforestprods.org

Version 2 contains updates to the sections on legality and useful resources, known as the "guide to the guides." The guide now describes 47 tools and resources (13 more than in the previous version) that aid sustainable procurement of forest products.

Decisions regarding the purchase and use of wood and paper-based products can have far-reaching, long-term impacts for the forests where they are harvested, the communities supported by wood-using industries, and the places where those products are purchased and used.

The information in this joint WRI/WBCSD publication is organized around ten key issues, posed as "essential questions" that procurement managers might address related to the sustainable procurement of wood and paper-based products:

Origin: Where do the products come from?
Information accuracy: Is information about the products credible?
Legality: Have the products been legally produced?
Sustainability: Have forests been sustainably managed?
Special places: Have special places, including sensitive ecosystems, been protected?
Climate change: Have climate issues been addressed?
Environmental protection: Have appropriate environmental controls been applied?
Recycled fiber: Has recycled fiber been used appropriately?
Other resources: Have other resources been used appropriately?
Local communities and indigenous peoples: Have the needs of local communities or indigenous peoples been addressed?

The publication is designed as an information tool to help customers develop their own sustainable procurement policies for wood and paper-based products. It is also a decision support tool providing simple and clear information on twenty-two existing approaches to the procurement of wood and paper-based products from legal and sustainable sources, as well as providing additional references and resource materials.

Coastal Capital: Jamaica

Maggie Barron — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 12:01:16 -0400

This analysis includes a valuation of coral reef-associated fisheries, potential losses to tourism due to beach erosion, and examines the role of coral reefs in reducing coastal flooding during storms. In addition, we provide a literature review of 16 coral reef valuations conducted in Jamaica.

Current Use Valuation Programs: Property Tax Incentives for Preserving Local Benefits of Forests

Kathy Doucette — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 10:59:07 -0400

Summary

This paper explores current use valuation programs as one tool for conserving and fostering sustainable management of southern U.S. forests under private ownership. The brief identifies key constraints on existing programs and suggests measures that could be implemented to enhance program effectiveness.
As a result of rising property taxes on lands under development pressure, nonindustrial private forestland owners in the South often resort to selling all or a portion of their properties to pay tax bills. Rising property taxes also reduce the profitability of timber production and induce corporate and industry landowners to engage in real estate sales as an alternative activity.
Current use valuation programs are one way that states and counties in the South are encouraging landowners to forgo unwanted development sales. Under these programs, enrolled forest and agricultural lands are assessed not at their fair market value but at their value for current uses. This lowers the tax bill for landowners, improves the profitability of timber production, and helps reduce development pressure.
Though current use valuation programs in one form or another are authorized by statute in all southern states, the programs’ general implementation and programmatic effectiveness is often limited by perceived negative fiscal impacts, minimal economic benefits to landowners relative to conversion, land speculation, and lack of promotion of sustainable forest management.
With respect to fiscal impacts, research shows that while current use valuation programs may cause a short-term loss of revenue, preserving these lands can actually result in positive, long-term fiscal benefits. This is because the cost of providing community services and public infrastructure on lands converted to residential use often exceeds the property tax revenues generated. Making counties more aware of this fact can help overcome reluctance to offer current use valuation.
Changes that can increase the overall implementation and programmatic effectiveness of current use valuation programs include state reimbursement funds for short-term reductions in tax revenues, longer covenant terms, allowances for ecosystem service management, and the inclusion of marginal or idle cropland transitioning into forest.
With these modifications, current use valuation programs can be a tool for not only keeping forest as forest but also stimulating a wide range of beneficial management activities, such as reforestation and management of ecosystem services.
This brief is designed to inform state, county, and municipal decisionmakers; land-use planners; and other stakeholders working to conserve and sustainably manage forests.

Comparison Tables of State Nutrient Trading Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

Maggie Barron — Wed, 18 May 2011 14:43:50 -0400

Over the last ten years, four Chesapeake Bay states—Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia—introduced nutrient trading programs to provide wastewater treatment plants with flexible options for meeting and maintaining permitted nutrient load limits. At least one other bay state, Delaware, also convened a work group to discuss developing such a program. Through these programs, wastewater treatment plants may purchase credits or offsets generated by other wastewater treatment plants or farms that reduce the nutrients they release to impaired water bodies. States are also exploring options for construction and urban stormwater programs to buy and sell credits and offsets.

To date, most credit transactions have occurred between buyers and sellers in the same state. Efforts to enact the recent Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), however, could provide more opportunities for interaction by trading partners from different states. For example, regulated entities could seek credits or offsets from other states when the supply in their own state has been exhausted. In addition, entities in states that do not have a trading program could seek credits or offsets from entities in states that do have such a program.

Although the elements of many of the trading programs are identical or very similar, such as calculation platforms, included pollutants, and allowable participants, there are several differences as well. Examples are the time period that defines the life of a credit or offset and the varying types and values of trading ratios. States may need to address these and other differences before permitting more cross-state transactions. Regardless of how these differences are resolved, government regulations require credit transactions to be documented in the public record.

The World Resources Institute (WRI) has compiled into comparison tables the key design elements of the four state trading programs. The tables comprise a reference document for policymakers and others addressing the programs’ differences. These design elements are grouped into twelve categories based on their common characteristics. All the information is current as of May 2011; was paraphrased directly from the statute, regulation, policy, or guidance documents; and has been reviewed by trading experts. Nonetheless, this information will undoubtedly change as the states refine their strategies for implementing the TMDLs.

List of Tables

Legal Authorities and Guidance Documents
Pollutants and General Eligibility Requirements
Point Source Participation Requirements
Market Functionality
Baseline Requirements
Trading Ratios
Credit or Offset Restrictions
Certification and Verification Processes
Septic Hookup Provisions
Compliance and Enforcement Provisions
Risk Management Provisions
Registry Vehicles and Oversight Agencies

WRI Publications Feed: People & Ecosystems

The Corporate Ecosystem Services Review: Guidelines for Identifying Business Risks & Opportunities Arising from Ecosystem Change

Summary

Operational

Regulatory and legal

Reputational

Market and product

Financing

2011 Eco-Audit of the Mesoamerican Reef Countries

An Innovative, Rigorous Process

Slideshow

Insights from the Field: Forests for Climate and Timber

Ecosystem Services Review for Impact Assessment

Overview

Table of Contents

Downloads

Get Involved

Timeline

Conceptual Framework

Why Use the Ecosystems Services Review for Impact Assessments?

Ecosystem Services Requirements in new IFC Performance Standards

Gaining Ground: Increasing Conservation Easements in the U.S. South

Summary

Forests for Carbon: Exploring Forest Carbon Offsets in the U.S. South

Sustainable Procurement of Wood and Paper-Based Products: Version 2

Coastal Capital: Jamaica

Current Use Valuation Programs: Property Tax Incentives for Preserving Local Benefits of Forests

Summary

Comparison Tables of State Nutrient Trading Programs in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed