Live by the Sword; Die by the Sword

This blog will focus on one particular problem of viewing the ecosystem services valuation (E.S.) approach as a conservation panacea and possible solutions to this problem.  Whilst the E.S. approach, which aims to express the value of nature to humans in monetary terms, has the possibility to increase the price we currently put on nature, this price will not always be sufficient.  Sometimes the economic benefits arising from degrading the environment will outweigh the economically explicit costs.  In such instances the degradation of the natural environment will be explicitly rationalised (as supposed to implicitly rationalised as is currently the case).  When this occurs scientists can ensure that their valuation explicitly includes known unknowns, the value of nature not yet quantified but expected to be important.  If this is not enough then there are two broad options: conservationists can fall back on the moral arguments which have been largely unsuccessful for the past hundred years: each species unique, irreplaceable and should be protected for its intrinsic value or they can hold up their handsand state that they cannot currently justify safeguarding the relevant natural resource on the basis of the economic costs.  Recently the ‘The State of Natural Capital Report’ opted for the first option, but I will argue that the explicit valuation of nature requires one to forego the moral argument.  Even so, I believe intelligent utilisation of the ecosystem services approach will do more harm than good.

Firstly, to get a few points out of the way.  Nature has always had a price-tag, this price tag has been an implicit one.  As long as people have been able to buy land or pollute their surroundings, nature has had a price.  As long as conservation has had a finite budget which has necessitated trade offs between different conservation actions, nature has had a price.  This price tag has rarely, if ever, reflected the value of nature to humans.  The ecosystem services valuation approach aims to make the value of nature explicit in a currency (money) which allows trade-offs to be made between alternative options, e.g. organic and intensive farming.  Lastly, some ecosystem services are easier to value than others.  Those which can be sold (e.g. the ability to produce crops) have been well valued, some such as the value of increased water quality are now being more accurately priced and others, such as the value of the emotional wellbeing gained from being in a natural environment are much harder to value.  The ecosystem services approach does not have to ensure that the price we put on nature perfectly reflects the nature’s value to us to be effective, it only has to ensure that the price we put on nature is more accurate and that this increased accuracy is enough to alter decisions.

The short term aim of the ecosystem services approach is not to perfectly measure the value of nature to us, it is to identify the biggest and easiest to measures sources of value such as pollination services, carbon storage and water quality enhancement.  Often including these values will be enough to alter decisions but sometimes it won’t.  When, in light of this valuation, environmental degradation is still economically rational then it is important that the existence of known unknowns, such as the cultural value or any other unmeasured value are acknowledged.  In some circumstances, where the benefits narrowly outweigh the quantified costs, this may result in decision makers erring on the side of caution.  Even if this is not the case, making the known unknowns explicit is a useful tool for directing future research.  This approach would also incentivise conservationists to create accounting methods which allow new information to be incorporated, methods which are transparent and useful to policy makers.

When an ecosystem services argument, which makes the known unknowns explicit is insufficient, should conservationists throw down the ecosystem services tool and redouble their efforts to prevent this extinction by reverting to the moral argument?  ‘The State of Natural Capital’ chose this option writing ‘when thinking about natural capital, wild species and habitats require special treatment that reflects their irreplaceability’ (authors’ emphasis).  It is my opinion that a change of tack of this manner would undermine the ecosystem services (E.S.) approach.  I believe that the use of the E.S. approach is a recognition, by conservationists, that in order to contribute to decisions they must be perceived as a consistent, reliable and impartial contributor to decisions.  In resorting to the moral argument, one chooses a personal rather than impartial valuation of nature.  Who would want to engage with a conservation organisation/scientist knowing that the conservationist, upon losing an argument, would react in this way? 

If conservation needs to have a constant presence at the decision making table but the moral argument still has some value then the opportunity exists to split the use of economic and moral arguments between different individuals/organisations.  Undoubtedly academics are not the most effective at rallying large scale public opposition to environmentally degrading activities.  Instead of individuals leaving the table to pick up their placards when an argument based upon ecosystem services valuation is insufficient, they could stay at the table whilst those organisations and individuals best at rallying public opinion take on the moral argument.

The ecosystem services approach is not perfect and most of those who champion it became involved in conservation for moral reasons.  Conservation must not lose sight of these reasons which drive some of their number to the decision making table.  I am a fan of the ecosystem services approach and I believe that one who fights for nature with the ecosystem services sword must be willing to see nature die by this sword.  Ultimately, conservation needs collaboration, whatever tools conservationists use, they must not lose sight of their ultimate motivation and aims.