Reply to Bridgewater and Babin: Need for a new protected area category for ecosystem services.

We thank Bridgewater and Babin (1) for their perspective. We are aware of, and appreciate, the consideration of ecosystem services in the management of Biosphere Reserves. However, we see a strong imperative for establishing a protected area (PA) category focused specifically on protecting ecosystem services, for several key reasons articulated in our paper (2) and below. First, although China has indeed 33 Biosphere Reserves, all of them were established for biodiversity conservation, excepting one for geological heritage (Table 1). Ecosystem services were not considered in the delineation or establishment of any of China’s Biosphere Reserves, as indicated in the protection targets shown here and in more extensive descriptions available elsewhere. Second, according to the criteria for Biosphere Reserve nomination, there are three key considerations, including conservation, development, and logistic support (Table 2)—and none of these prioritizes ecosystem services. Conservation refers to “the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic variation.” It stresses “the importance of the site for conservation of biological and cultural diversity at regional or global scales.” Although there is mention of “protecting cultural diversity and biodiversity, including genetic variation, species, ecosystems and landscapes and securing services provided by such diversity,” ecosystem services do not constitute key criteria in nomination of Biosphere Reserves. Development refers to fostering “economic and human development which is socio-culturally and ecologically sustainable.” It is required to “indicate current activities and the potential of the proposed biosphere reserve in fulfilling the objective of fostering sustainable economic and socio-cultural development, including by securing flows of ecosystem services from the biosphere reserve.” Thus, although securing ecosystem services is one of the objectives for biosphere management, it is not a criterion for establishing a Biosphere Reserve. Third, our suggestion to establish PAs explicitly for sustaining the provision of ecosystem services is based on three considerations vital in China and across much of the world today. The first consideration is that, currently, China’s nature reserves do not secure key regulating ecosystem services (2), including water retention (e.g., for flood control, irrigation and drinking water security, and hydropower production efficiency); soil retention (for landscape stability and sustainability, underpinning food and livelihood security); sandstorm prevention (for air quality downwind and livelihood security in source regions); and carbon sequestration (for global climate security). Because key areas for biodiversity conservation do not always match well with those for ecosystem services, the current nature reserves systems cannot meet the requirements for sustainable development in China. The second consideration is that, although there are six categories in the International Union for Conservation of Nature PA system, none is oriented around securing ecosystem services. The third consideration is that, to our knowledge, there are no PA types oriented around securing ecosystem services in the PA system of many countries, including for example Austria, Canada, Germany, Russia, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Thus, we see an urgent need to establish a PA category for ecosystem services, for the purpose of securing ecosystem services in China and across the world. Given the ever-intensifying human pressures on land, this approach is vital for realizing the necessary local and national support for, effectiveness of, and durability of investments in conservation (2).