Economic valuation can also benefit biodiversity conservation

A recent article by Adams in Science debates the usefulness of ecosystem services approaches (ESAs) for biodiversity conservation. In this (constructive?) critique, Adams argues that ecosystem service and monetary valuation thinking are not a ‘silver bullet’. The paper posits that a monetary valuation of nature should be accepted only where it improves environmental [and] socioeconomic conditions.

Read that sentence again and replace ‘monetary valuation of nature’ by ‘evidence’… Rejecting (monetary valuation) evidence for negative environmental or socioeconomic effects ex post may bias results and has no theoretical foundation. The paper refers to Kallis et al. (2013), which acknowledges that this reflects a particular set of value judgments (in this case, from a Marxist and egalitarian tradition), and in turn refers to Spash (2012). I tried following this up, but there is no explanation in either of these articles why you should reject economic evidence ex post if outcomes are negative.

In fact, at best Adams’s position may militate against the scientific and practical need for the investigation of trade-offs between equity, efficiency and biodiversity for sustainable management. At worst, it seems to argue for strategic selection from a wide academic evidence base for arguments that support your cause.

Adams makes a number of points about the importance of justice and equity that affect ESAs. But access, power and wealth inequalities that affect justice and effectiveness are relevant in the context of conservation and ecosystem management alike. There is nothing special about ESAs here.

But supporters of ESAs have never claimed it was a panacea which would guarantee maximum biodiversity conservation. It is rather one component available when formulating an ecosystem management strategy with the added advantage that it can have political traction and therefore real conservation benefit. At the same time, I would agree that there are important limitations to the validity of economic arguments in ‘managing ecosystems’.

Equating ESAs to an economic endeavour and therefore rejecting such approaches altogether overstates the importance of valuation in ESAs and disregards the usefulness of ecosystem science for conservation. Supporters of ESAs may use monetary valuation (but I bet a considerable proportion are reluctantly doing so) and use different approaches to include values of ecosystem services that don’t lend itself to monetary valuation. ESAs don’t preclude other valuation methods.

Finally, although our knowledge about ecosystem services is far from complete, I believe there are definitely ecosystem service contexts in which there is an urgent need to take action, where we know sufficient to take action with the necessary precaution, and where there may even be co-benefits for conservation.