Pricing Ecosystem Services: can conservation be achieved through economic values?

Came across an interesting article in UK's The Guardian, What's Wrong With Putting a Price on Nature?, that addressed the concept of placing a price or economic value on the ecosystem services that nature provides.  What is a forest's ability to sequester carbon worth?  How much would it cost to secure land and maintain it's undeveloped state if that helps provide a local source of fresh water?

Trying to place a monetary value on ecology has been around for a while as a concept.  It is often referred to as valuating ecosystem services, and it has been applied in several circumstances that have proved to be successful.  Determining a value of a live shark in related tourism dollars, as opposed to the revenue gained from a caught shark, has been used as a supporting argument for marine protected areas or shark sanctuaries.  And as shark conservation becomes more and more and international regulatory issue, economics plays a greater role in moving policy than does the emotional reaction to shark finning.

The Guardian reported, "Stuart H. M. Butchart, a researcher at BirdLife International, replies that embracing the ecosystem services idea doesn't necessarily mean abandoning the argument that species and habitats have intrinsic value. But making the economic case often 'has more resonance' for decision-makers."

However, pricing ecosystem services has plenty of critics.  There is concern that when economics forces get involved in determining the pluses and minuses of any ecological areas, you can find many of the same abuses that occur in the financial arena.  Undervaluing property, making environmental changes to cut costs that can then have serious environmental consequences, and just the idea that the environment could be turned over to the same free market forces - big corporations, etc. - that caused some of our ecological challenges in the first place.

I don't see it as a concept that can be applied broadly, like some silver bullet to all of the environment's problems.  If it were to be considered at all, it must be on a case-by-case basis.  However, in the realm of international environmental policy, economics can often play just as influential a role as scientific data and intrinsic value.

The article in the Guardian, written by Richard Conniff, is quite in-depth and I would recommend that you take a few minutes and read it.  You might find yourself to be in support of the concept or completely opposed, but at the very least, it must be considered as a strategic tool in some situations for selling conservation to those who may feel threatened by environmental policymaking that is done without a thorough concern for all that have a vested interest - the environment, threatened species, mankind itself and . . . business. 

Source: The Guardian

Pacific Oceanscape: a tremendous step for conservation in the Pacific

When governments and policymakers listen to the scientists and listen to the voices of the people, every once in a while they get it right and something of value is truly accomplished. That would be the case with the recent announcement by a consortium of Pacific nations with the formation of the Pacific Oceanscape - a proposal to form a cooperative stewardship involving an enormous area of the Pacific Ocean equal to that of Canada, the U.S., and Mexico combined.

A result of the Pacific Islands Leadership Forum and heavily supported by the conservation and scientific research efforts of Conservation International, the Pacific Oceanscape, according to a recent press release, "aims to address all ocean issues from governance to climate change, as well as design policies and implement practices that will improve ocean health, increase resources and expertise, and encourage governments to factor ocean issues into decisions about economic and sustainable development. It represents perhaps the largest marine conservation management initiative in history, as measured by countries and area, and a new united Pacific voice on ocean conservation and management."

First introduced in 2009 by the president of Kiribati (read original proposal in PDF), the Pacific Oceanscape agreement includes the participation of nations from Australia and New Zealand to the Marshall and Solomon Islands, Palau, the Federated States of Micronesia, and many other Pacific island nations.

Commented Dr. Greg Stone, Chief Ocean Scientist and Senior Vice President for Marine Conservation with Conservation International, “It is, without doubt, the most ambitious, most innovative, and most well-grounded marine initiative I have seen in my 32 years as a marine biologist and conservationist. What we are seeing here is the dawning of a new era for marine management at such a massive, multi-national scale, and the kind of leadership that brings about real, positive change.”

With so many issues facing ocean ecosystems, particularly those fragile tropical environments that not only offer such beauty but are the backbone of survival for many island communities, this is certainly a major step in the right direction. To see this many nations in cooperation over a common goal and prepared to set policies and take steps to conserve precious marine resources, well, it certainly provides a welcome uplift and a measure of hope. The rest of the world needs to take notice.

Read press release about the Pacific Oceanscape.
Read the original proposal from Kiribati.

The World Is Blue: review of Dr. Sylvia Earle's new book

THE WORLD IS BLUE

How Our Fate and the Ocean’s Are One

Dr. Sylvia Earle’s new book declares that conservation is promoting the wrong color

In her latest book, The World Is Blue, famed oceanographer Dr. Sylvia Earle makes a passionate and methodical argument for conserving the world’s oceans – not as one more item to be added to an ecological wish list, but as an issue that needs to be at the top of that list. The oceans need our undivided attention as it is these life-giving bodies of water that impact, regulate, and govern the environmental processes on land and in the air on which we depend.

“Even if you never have a chance to see or touch the ocean, the ocean touches you with every breath you take, every drop of water you drink, every bite you consume. Everyone, everywhere is inextricably connected to and utterly dependent upon the existence of the sea.”

At a time when going “green” is both necessary and trendy, Earle takes nothing away from our current terrestrial focus, but makes the strong case that the health of the oceans – the “blue” that makes up over 80% of the earth’s surface – must be of equal, if not primary, concern. Using facts gleamed from recognized scientific research and anecdotes from personal experience and those of other oceanographers, scientists and conservationists, she weaves a complex tapestry of interdependent marine processes that give us the majority of our air, the source of our weather, and the greatest diversity of life on the planet. But it is a fabric that is being torn to shreds through our historically misplaced belief that the ocean is ours for the taking.

Earle takes you through the current state of the ocean step by step. First, she examines the taking of ocean wildlife, from mammals to fish to shellfish, and our belief in the ocean’s limitless bounty as personified in the concept of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) – which drove much of our fishery management policies since the 1930s by assuming that a sealife population, when heavily fished, will respond with maximum reproductive efficiency, thereby producing a surplus that will sustain the population. Great plan, but no one remembered to tell the fish, and so, by the mid-70’s, MSY was unsustainable as were many commercial fisheries as a result.

From there the book takes the reader through the other major issues threatening the seas today. Plastics and their consequences on sealife and fundamental chemical processes in the ocean; the loss of biodiversity – from minute phytoplankton to some of the ocean’s largest animals; drilling, mining, and shipping; and the controversial topic of today: climate change.

“It has taken about four billion years for living systems, mostly in the sea, to transform the lifeless ingredients of early Earth into the Eden that makes our lives possible, and less than a century for us to destabilize those ancient rhythms. Present climate change policies focus on the atmosphere, largely neglecting the ocean, despite ample evidence that the ocean drives and regulates planetary climate, weather, temperature, and chemistry.”

Policies. This is a key word as the book moves into an overview of the opportunities and solutions that can make a difference. Whether discussing the need for ocean exploration, reviewing the potentials and pitfalls of commercial aquaculture, or promoting the importance of Marine Protected Areas (a proven idea which currently only covers less than one percent of the total area of the sea), Earle’s experience in the federal and international arena comes through.

As a former chief scientist for the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and, currently, explorer-in-residence at the National Geographic Society, leader of the Sustainable Seas Expeditions, and active participant in a long list of policy-making organizations and marine think tanks, Earle brings a subtle political perspective that you do not find in many other books on the subject. Personal involvement is important and she has plenty of suggestions for each of us to consider. But the book is peppered with indications as to what is being done in the decision-making circles, which kept reminding me of the need for making our elected officials accountable.

“Knowing is the key to caring, and with caring there is hope that people will be motivated to take positive actions. They might not care even if they know, but they can’t care if they are unaware.”

The World Is Blue is an extremely accessible book, one that would provide a conservationist with logical arguments and reassurance while providing enlightenment and a new way of thinking for the yet unconverted. This is not a tome to doom and gloom. Yes, it pulls no punches and lays out the consequences if we choose not to act, but what makes this book an uplifting call to arms rather than a scolding is Earle’s enthusiasm and sense of wonder with the ocean. It’s obvious to the ear at her many speaking engagements and when I have been fortunate to chat with her one-on-one – and it comes through loud and clear in The World Is Blue. This is someone who truly loves the sea and loves life and knows how they are forever intertwined. A must read.

Richard Theiss
RTSea Productions
RTSea Blog: keeping an eye on Nature
Copyright 2009 RTSea

Science Debate 2008: pushing scientific research to the forefront

Science Debate 2008, a coalition of scientists, journalists, and concerned citizens, has formed an initiative to promote scientific research in the determination of public policy in the United States. It's an excellent forum for voicing opinions and concerns and for hearing the positions of politicians regarding policies for which science can or should play a key role.

As an example, here are portions of the responses from the U.S. presidential candidates to a question on ocean health, submitted by Science Debate 2008 (#9 of 14 questions of a scientific nature were submitted):

McCain: Ocean health and policy requires better management focus; however, we also need a better scientific understanding of the oceans. In no area is this truer than in obtaining a better understanding of the interaction of climate change and the oceans . . . Ocean science and engineering deserves greater attention and focus. (Click here to read entire response.)

Obama: The oceans are a global resource and a global responsibility for which the U.S. can and should take a more active role. I will work actively to ensure that the U.S. ratifies the Law of the Sea Convention - an agreement supported by more than 150 countries that will protect our economic and security interests while providing an important international collaboration to protect the oceans and its resources. (Click here to read entire response.)

All sounds very nice but, as the candidates are fond of saying, they have to "walk the talk." Personally, I have found that there is a considerable amount of scientific data regarding a host of ecological, environmental, and marine issues that unfortunately gets buried in the academic world and does not get sufficiently communicated to the general public in easily understandable terms - issues, implications and solutions. The more the public is "in the know" - the more pressure these constituents can put on their political leaders.