Putting a price on aspects of a particular ecosystem – natural functions which are perceived to provide a service to humans for free – is now thought by many to be an avenue leading to the development of greener policies. These benefits include the provision of food and clean water, erosion control and carbon storage.

image expired

Earlier this year it was noted by Baroness Miller, chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Agroecology, that the concepts underpinning market-based models such as 'ecosystem services' have been widely accepted in the "Westminster village." Quantifying the value of nature in these ways is meant to allow policymakers to consider the potential economic and social impacts of altering a particular habitat.

However, though the concept has been welcomed as one that ties in with the dominant world view, and has been generally backed by decision makers, some environmentalists continue to criticise it as potentially damaging.

Writing in the journal Science on Thursday, Prof Bill Adams, from Cambridge University's Department of Geography, lent weight to those urging caution, warning as he did that assigning a quantitative value to nature does not automatically lead to the conservation of biodiversity, and may in fact contribute to species loss and conflict.

Echoing other critics of the financialisation of natural functions, including environment writer and campaigner George Monbiot, Prof Adams cautioned that power relations are not addressed in these approaches.

So, while assigning a monetary value to the benefits of an ecosystem can be a tool in the environmental planning process, unequal access to those benefits (particularly where there are differences in wealth and power) can lead to poor trade-offs being made, both for the ecosystem itself and those who rely on it.

Professor: Pricing nature can lead to win-wins scenario

Prof Adams used as an example the US state of Maryland, where streams were re-engineered to provide a means of natural flood control. This ended up causing the loss of trees which had been growing next to the water and were unable to adapt to their new, drier environment.

"Putting a price on what nature provides is not in itself a conservation measure," explained Adams. "There is a risk that traditional conservation strategies oriented toward biodiversity may not be effective at protecting the economic benefits of an ecosystem, and vice-versa."

Even so, the Cambridge professor did not condemn the pricing of system outright. He said the approach can sometimes lead to win-win scenarios where the value of ecosystem services is dependent upon a high level of biodiversity. One example is in the coffee plantations of Costa Rica, where the retention of forest habitat in areas around the plantations doubled the amount of pest control of coffee berry borer beetle provided by birds, which benefitted the coffee farmers while protecting biodiversity.

However, consideration of ecosystem services when making decisions does not automatically lead to retention of biodiversity. "In many cases, trade-offs are made," said Adams.

Three problems with pricing nature

There can sometimes be tensions between biodiversity conservation and 'ecosystem services'. In some cases, the biological and physical processes that underpin certain ecosystem services may be different from those that support valued species. In other words, an ecosystem that is managed to deliver particular services may not support plants or animals.

Also, there are no markets for certain vital services, such as soil formation and nutrient cycling – though payment schemes could be created or legislation introduced to protect these functions – the value assigned to them as ecosystem services depends on market prices, Prof Adams said, and these are subject to change.

A third problem is linked to institutional and political processes. "In a world run according to economic arguments, the survival of biotic diversity will depend on its price," said Adams. "Sometimes economics will favour conservation and sometimes it won't. But conservationists need to plan for both outcomes."

The professor continued, "It's not enough to identify the net benefits of ecosystem services; it also matters who gets them."

He said that in Nepal, research has shown that forests managed by the local community, (rather than by the state) provided the benefits of clean water, tourism and harvested wild goods. However, these forests restricted poorer people's access to forest-derived products, creating hardship and illegal use of the forest, which can be self-defeating.

Speaking to Farming Online in July, Aniol Esteban, of the New Economics Foundation warned that the approach of commodifying ecosystem services could lead policy makers to overstep the useful boundaries of economic valuation, and violate certain social contracts. He said, "By embracing ecosystem valuation without recognising the moral aspects, businesses or decision makers could assess things that they shouldn't. One danger is that by valuing some natural services, people will see them as commodities not a valuation with outside benefits."

Esteban also noted, "We shouldn't believe that information will lead to change within a context where there's a very cosy relationship between big corporations and decision makers."