Trade-offs between Ecosystem Services

I was at a “Living with Environmental Change” workshop last Friday. To be honest I felt a bit unsure why I was there, surrounded by professors and researchers. There were a few other people from NGOs as well as Defra, NE and so on.

The workshop was bringing all these people together to try to identify the drivers behind environmental change, the challenges facing the environment, and therefore the research that is needed to provide the right sort of evidence to help inform the development of new policies to address the challenges. Indeed the sort of thing that has been done countless times before, and you would think the answers were all fairly clear now.

What struck me was how little consensus there was as to what the major drivers were – there seemed to be a strong contingent arguing that the size of the global population was the main driver, while an equally large contingent saw unsustainable resource consumption (and inequitable resource use) as the main factor behind environmental degradation. And while climate change was regarded as a huge problem by many, the coming of peak oil and an impending broader resource crisis was regarded with equal fear. It was all quite scary.

Everyone agreed though that biodiversity loss was a top priority for action, while ecosystem services, and the valuation of those services, was repeatedly proposed as a useful tool to help reverse biodiversity loss by placing a monetary value on the services biodiversity provides humanity. But one comment particularly struck home. When discussing ecosystem services, one participant argued that some ecosystem services were more important than others, and ultimately there would have to be a trade-off between the ecosystem services that were really vital, and the “fluffy” ecosystem services that were basically luxuries we would have to learn to live without.

No prizes for guessing, in this world view, which ecosystem services are vital (eg food and water production, climate regulation, pollination services) and which are expendable (cultural services, existence value of biodiversity). This after all is the logical end point of taking a utilitarian view of nature: we will take nature’s services because we need these to live, but anything that does not perform a useful (or indeed economically quantifiable) function for humanity is expendable.

And from there it’s quite easy to argue that we can actually replace many ecosystem services with technical solutions. We can grow food even more intensively using GMOs, more powerful chemicals and ever more efficient methods . We can build giant towers that scrub CO2 from the atmosphere (who needs trees?). We can bury biochar in the soil (easier than managing the soil so it naturally sequesters more carbon). Who knows we could create robotic insects that pollinate crops more effectively than bees (and aren’t susceptible to diseases).

If this is sounding like some sort of 1970s SF dystopia, that is because it is. But there is a real danger that the technofix approach will gain ground as environmental problems continue to build, because it is more difficult to fix environmental problems through environmental restoration than it is through engineering. But ultimately we cannot engineer our way out of the problems we have created, and we will have to move towards a more sustainable approach to managing our environment, an environment we share with the rest of nature.

More immediately, we need to continue to emphasise that, for all its advantages, Ecosystem Services is only one approach among many, it does not have all the answers, and it is as important, indeed more important, to conserve nature, because it is the right thing to do.


About grasslandstrust

The Grasslands Trust is the only national UK charity that focuses entirely on saving grasslands that are valuable because they are rich in wildlife, history, or for other reasons.
This entry was posted in Ecosystem services and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Trade-offs between Ecosystem Services

  1. Neil says:

    Since when has ‘cultural services’ been an ecosystem service? How on earth do you quantify it? Who decides what is cultural (and therefore important) or not (and therefore despensible).

    • milesking says:

      Hi Neil,

      cultural services are as much ecosystem services as provisioning, supporting or regulatory services.

      The term “cultural services” covers a wide range of different goods and services, from economic benefit derived from tourism to areas rich in natural beauty (underpinned by biodiversity) to the mental and physical benefits to human health and wellbeing derived from contact with nature; to less tangible but equally important aspects like inspiration from nature for the arts and literature, and finally to the value of biodiversity for scientific endeavour, such as research into ecology.

      Some of these “services” are easier to quantify than others, and one of the dangers of the ecosystem services model is that the services which are easier to quantify are given greater economic (and therefore social) value and more credence by economists.

      Because an economist can say “this landscape generates x millions of pounds a year from tourism”, without necessarily being able to say exactly which elements of the landscape contributed to that figure, the value of that landscape as a whole will be considered in an economic way. Whereas the value of seeing, say, a marsh fritillary butterfly on a walk in that landscape (which was only there because high quality wildlife habitat had survived) is much harder to quantify, and therefore less likely to be considered economically.

  2. celestial elf says:

    Great Post 😀
    thought you might like my machinima film the butterfly’s tale~

    Bright Blessings
    elf ~

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s