Entry Points for Considering Ecosystem Services within Infrastructure Planning: How to Integrate Conservation with Development in Order to Aid Them Both

• Published in: Conservation letters Vol. 9; no. 3; pp. 221 - 227
• Main Authors: Mandle, Lisa, Benjamin P. Bryant, Mary Ruckelshaus, Davide Geneletti, Joseph M. Kiesecker, Alexander Pfaff
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Washington John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 01.05.2016; John Wiley & Sons, Inc
• Subjects: Development banks; Economic development; Ecosystem services; Ecosystems; Environmental economics; Environmental impact assessment; Financial institutions; Funding; Highway construction; humans; Infrastructure; infrastructure investments; landscape‐scale development planning; multilateral development bank; natural capital; planning; road development strategic environmental assessment; Roads & highways; Society; Strategic planning
• ISSN: 1755-263X; 1755-263X
• DOI: 10.1111/conl.12201

New infrastructure is needed globally to support economic development and improve human well‐being. Investments that do not consider ecosystem services (ES) can eliminate these important societal benefits from nature, undermining the development benefits infrastructure is intended to provide. Such tradeoffs are acknowledged conceptually but in practice have rarely been considered in infrastructure planning. Taking road investments as one important case, here we examine where and what forms of ES information have the potential to meaningfully influence decisions by multilateral development banks (MDBs). Across the stages of a typical road development process, we identify where and how ES information could be integrated, likely barriers to the use of available ES information, and key opportunities to shift incentives and thereby practice. We believe inclusion of ES information is likely to provide the greatest development benefit in early stages of infrastructure decisions. Those strategic planning stages are typically guided by in‐country processes, with MDBs playing a supporting role, making it critical to express the ES consequences of infrastructure development using metrics relevant to government decision makers. This approach requires additional evidence of the in‐country benefits of cross‐sector strategic planning and more tools to lower barriers to quantifying these benefits and facilitating ES inclusion.