By Kyoko Yamafuji and Madeleine Woods
Since its introduction, the term “ecosystem services” has come to play a central role in environmental management, becoming somewhat of a catch-phrase when people discuss nature whether it be in the context of exploitation or restoration. The concept simplifies nature into a form that can be better understood by communicating it as something that benefits people and thus something to be protected (Cornell, 2011). Putting economic value on ecosystem and biodiversity furthers this effect as money is a concept everyone understands.
The seaweed farm case study
The case study of a seaweed farm in Sweden below is one example where the ecosystem services concept has resulted in nature being viewed as a dynamic, complex system.
Seaweed cultivation is a rapidly growing field, garnering popularity as a potential alternative to conventional terrestrial biomass production. The primary benefit of seaweed farming for people is material production which has a wide variety of uses including food packaging, pharmaceuticals and biofuel. However, by applying the ecosystem services concept to conduct cost-benefit analysis, it becomes apparent that the impacts of seaweed farming are far more widespread and complex than mere material gain. For example, under regulating services, seaweed farming has been found to improve carbon sequestration and mitigate ocean acidification. It also provides habitat for marine species and thus supporting a range of biodiversity. On the flip side, ecosystem services analysis was able to show that seaweed farming might cost in cultural services such as the loss of aesthetics and “natural-ness”.
Therefore, ecosystem services as a concept offers a framework that enables management of the environment in a holistic manner, valuing the ecosystem beyond what it can provide people materialistically. This offers its decision-makers, whether that be the local community, scientists or politicians, the chance to minimise future trade-offs and to enhance the existing services for the benefit of both nature and humans. However, there are also ample cases where the ecosystem services concept has proven inadequate, drawing widespread criticism. These critiques can be clearly illustrated in some carbon offsetting schemes currently popular with businesses (e.g. British Airways).
Critiques to the Ecosystem Services concept
Carbon offsetting schemes which utilise afforestation are based on the principle that trees absorb carbon through photosynthesis, releasing oxygen back into the atmosphere and sequester the carbon dioxide. It is important to note that, although not strictly relevant to the topic in question here, that carbon offsetting is not a solution to the environmental crisis and are a prime example of greenwashing amongst TNCs.
Dai et al (2017)’s study evaluated the ecosystem services of a traditional plantation region in China. They found that there is a trade-off – carbon sequestration is prioritised over a healthy hydrological system. In addition, the biodiversity in the monoculture pine plantation forests (chosen because it begins to sequester carbon in a relatively short period of time) was lower than in the native bamboo forests of the areas. This illustrates that, due to its anthropocentric nature, the ecosystem services management approach only prioritises services which are of benefit to humans while others, which are more supportive or intrinsic in nature, are neglected. The value of biodiversity is in its existence rather than anything tangible and so many (e.g. Schroter et al., 2014) have argued that viewing environmental management through an ecosystem services lens can hinder conservation rather than help it.
Other critiques of the ecosystem services concept include that it oversimplifies complex and dynamic systems which have a multitude of processes and feedbacks occurring at once. For example, 50% of studies that focus on ecosystem services only investigate one sole service without considering other services or the interactions between them. This lack of understanding of ecosystems may result in ineffective management or some unforeseen costs.
In addition, the Ecosystem Services approach has a purely economic focus and its aim is to provide a value, normally in monetary terms, which can them be communicated in decision making. This potentially allows for the commodification of nature, the entrenchment of neoliberal values and legitimisation of destructive economic mechanisms/practices.
When ecosystem services were first introduced it was used by scientists and geographers to view and manage ecosystems as a whole. However, as this concept has become embedded in policy and an economic value was attached, it has resulted in an oversimplification of the concept. This has allowed the concept to be highly misused and exploited in order to further certain gains at the expense of other services and players. Nonetheless, when applied as intended, the concept is a good way of sustainably capitalising on the services provided by nature without abusing it. Finally, it is important to question ecosystem services as a concept – it is fundamentally flawed as it misses the intrinsic value of nature. Isn’t nature too great to be measured only against human benefits?
Useful links used on this article
- The rise and rise of ecosystem services: is value the best bridging concept between society and the natural world? – Read here.
- The impact of seaweed cultivation on ecosystem services – a case study from the west coast of Sweden. Read here.
- How much is nature worth? $125 trillion according to this report. World Economic Forum. Read here.
- The IPBE’s 2019 Global Assessment Report. Download here.
- Understanding Spatiotemporal Lags in Ecosystem Services to Improve Incentives. Read here.
- Measuring Ecosystem Services. Guidance on developing Ecosystem services indicators. Read here.
The post Ecosystem Services: applying the concept to the environmental crisis (Part II) appeared first on Green Element.