Neo-liberal Water

Blog 9-Counter-arguments and Neo-liberal Water

Although the usefulness of ES is more than apparent in the WfW PES scheme I discussed in my last blog, it is not always the case. As has already been mentioned in other blogs there are a range of cases where producing values is flawed, if not impossible.

Attempting valuations in abstract usages such as ‘cultural’ and ‘aesthetics’ are problematic, whilst the ideological issues for some remain, but I won’t revisit them. Of more relevance to water in Africa is that of complexities in valuations, limits in data and in flawed methodology.

For example, the work on wetlands I have discussed prior to this admits the flaws in its methodology, relying on simplistic outputs of resources extracted, taken to markets and the like. The true economic value, based on maximal sustainable yield (MSY) is unknown, but despite being estimates, the outcomes they provide are useful.

Likewise there are complex ways individual eco-system services can be commoditised, with water no exception. Although not directly comparable, a particularly novel way of looking at and assessing this is illustrated in the ‘Neo-liberal Elephant’, with elephants worth different things to different people, but are still commoditised even when tourist attractions and not harvested for ivory. Some similarities can be seen in water in Africa, due to the range of uses available. Water is not only used for direct human consumption, but for a whole host of activities, ranging from hygiene, agriculture, industry and fisheries. Thus it has competing values, and is worth different amounts to different people. This raises some issues for ES.

Firstly, values can not only be competing, but in some cases outright negative, which ES doesn’t account for. An example within the African water context is that of the impact of standing water from reservoirs acting as breeding grounds for mosquitoes and aiding in the spread of malaria. Should that, and how could it be, incorporated into valuations, as although these reservoirs provide drinking water or hydro-electric power, they also spread disease to nearby populations?

Secondly, even within urban environments utilisation could be seen to have varying values, such as in the impact of waiting times and levels of utilisation brought about not by the water itself, but the infrastructure. Having piped water inside homes, rather than having access through an exterior tap, has drastic consequences on levels of usage, and so could be seen as having varying levels of utilisation.

However despite these issues, it is important to recognise that ES can be useful in specific situations. Constanza deals with this to some extent by claiming that multiple classification systems are needed. This stance recognises that the huge range of applications that ES covers through its definition of ‘the benefits people obtain from ecosystems’ cannot be addressed through one valuation system. Thus a range of methods need to be used, even within the context of water, and as Turpie et al mention, the development of these methods must be based on well researched understandings of the ecology and geography surrounding each specific ecosystem service. 

Working for Water-South Afrca

Working for Water in South Africa

Following from my last blog, I intend to provide an example that supports my view of the importance of Ecosystem Services in supporting sustainable utilisation of water and of development. The Working for Water (WfW) programme is pertinent for this, as it intersects all issues discussed in my previous blog, directly influencing development, achieving biodiversity conservation and improving catchments provision of water (DEA-SA, 2015). Thus its success illustrates the strengths of ES, its underlying logics, and ability to deal with issues aforementioned critics outline regarding views of nature as a resource.

WfW is a Payment for Ecosystem Services (PES) programme that is a government funded poverty relief program in South Africa, that also contributes to the control of invasive plant species in waterways. It functions through charging landowners or catchment management agencies for removing invasive species from their waterways. The scheme is positioned foremost as a poverty alleviation scheme, with the PES provided not by landowners maintain specific habitats or resource as in most schemes, but from previously unemployed ‘roving service providers’ maintaining waterways (Turpie, et al., 2008).

However this poverty alleviation is only one portion of the schemes impact. Water scarcity is chronic in SA under Falkenmarks index, at only 500-1000 m³ per person per year, and is exaggerated by competing industrial demands for water and land usage. This has many similarities to my previous discussion on wetlands, with upland grasslands slowly releasing summer rainfall helping to even seasonal flow. This is threatened by overuse, grazing and afforestation, all of which interrupts flows.

Inter-linked to this are threats to biodiversity. This stems not only from damage and loss of the wetlands, but also invasive species. These threaten water supply through increasing interception levels, subsequently reducing the volume of water available for use.  This is a seriously problem in SA, affecting estimated 10 million hectares (Le Maitre, et al., 2000), using up to 3,300 million m³ of water per year, of which 695 million m³ usable, with potential to reach 2,720 million m³, which equate to 4% and 16% of total water use respectively (Cullis, et al., 2007). In development and scarcity context described above, integral to deal with and protect the water supply.

Thus the scheme has a threefold impact of ‘economic empowerment, social equity and ecological integrity’ (Turpie, et al., 2008), as the scheme helps in:

·         alleviating poverty through providing work and education

·         improving ecological integrity and biodiversity conservation by removing invasive species

·         Increasing water availability by reducing evapo-transpiration and interception in waterways

Under WfW the ES are paid for through a combination of mandatory and voluntary payment. Department for Water and Forestry adding tariff to water prices to cover cost of removal, calculated from estimates of use, affordability and equity. However doesn’t distinguish between rich/poor in price, but does have a steeped pricing system, increasing cost per m³ over certain thresholds. Currently used in 13 of 19 water maintenance areas, across which all users other than agricultural and forestry pay, leading to income ranging from R23-48 million per annum. Alongside this are some voluntary payments where municipalities use WfW to help alleviate shortages. Such as in Hermanus in Western Cape, where growing demand and invasive species required attention. Paid 5 million rand for 3387 Ha to be cleared from 1996-2001, providing 91 man-years of employment and saving 1.1-1.6 million m³ annually (Cullis, et al., 2007). Range of similar examples across South Africa, but particularly in Western Cape and Drakensberg areas. Even used in tandem with engineering projects, such as the Berg River Dam, with annual gains of 2 million m³ at cost of R11.6 million (Turpie, et al., 2008).

Scheme incredibly successful, with all sectors able to participate, and growing demand. Allows conservation across range of public and private land, rather than restraining it to private/community areas such as Protected Areas and Parks. Thus called ‘one of the most successful integrated land management programmes, impacting biodiversity, water and socio-economic development’ (Woodworth, 2006). Even described as ‘holistic and inspirational’ (Hobbs, 2004), in total having cleared 1 million Ha of invasive plants, increasing streamflow by estimated 46 million m3 per annum (Marais and Warrenburgh, 2007). However, perhaps more important is the ideological success of being able to pair this protection of environment and biodiversity with poverty alleviation, creating 24,000 jobs, 52% of which women in 2000 (DEA-SA, 2015).

Due to this success, PES seen as useful for achieving wider conservation initiatives, such as restoration, grazing rights, determining land-use amongst a wide range of applications. Turpie et al see a possibility for ‘umbrella rationale’, bringing range of service under WfW model for other resource management with concurrent poverty alleviation and biodiversity management. However, has to be context specific, where different benefits correlate, and cost of addressing these cover one another. The authors recognise this is easily achievable with water, but need further research as to whether this is applicable elsewhere. Need to recognise that ES has to be context specific, but in terms of Water and Development in Africa, very applicable, and the ‘Umbrella Rationale’ means it can also protect bio-diversity.

From this case study, I think it is obvious that under the right circumstances ecosystem service concepts can play a key role in conservation, as well as for development. In the case of water in South Africa it has been incredibly successful, and although the institutional context there was helpful there seems to be little reason why it couldn’t be expanded across Africa. However, it is harder to determine how successful such expansion could be beyond the resource of water, due to the close connection between water, development and ecology. Nonetheless, WfW provides a key example showing that incorporating nature into the ‘machinations of capitalism’ can be extremely successful in protecting diversity whilst achieving development, and the usefulness of ecological modernisation discourse.

Discourse Discussion of Society/Nature Relationship and Ecosystem Services

Discourse Discussion of Society/Nature Relationship and Ecosystem Services

Today I intend to develop on my discussion of George Monbiot’s talk. Although I was critical of George Monbiot rejecting ecosystem services ideologically despite recognising some of its useful applications, he does allude to the key issue in development and political ecology. The concern of maintaining growth whilst still allowing conservation. This central regarding Water and Development in Africa, and is closely tied into views of nature, or environmental discourses.

The debates over the extent that it is possible to maintain biodiversity and continue achieving conservation objectives alongside development are closely linked to levels of resource extraction. These concerns are far from new, and have a historical basis, evidenced by Malthusian dilemmas (Black, 1997) and the Tragedy of the Commons  (Hardin, 1968). Although they significantly predate the concept, both essentially link declining ecosystem service outputs to over-exploitation and environmental degradation. These theorisations, and responses to them, are reliant on specific understandings of nature, with multiple conflicting views leading to a plethora of such ‘environmental discourses’ (Dryzek, 2013).

Dryzek splits these discourses into four groupings, determined by how far they reject industrialism. Industrialism is defined as the ‘overarching commitment to growth in the quantity of goods and services produced and to the material wellbeing that growth brings  (Dryzek, 2013). Discourses are reformist/radical based on whether align with this view, and prosaic/imaginative based on whether accepting frameworks set by industrialisation. This leads to the table below:

	Reformist	Radical
Prosaic	Problem Solving  -administrative rationalism  -democratic rationalism  -economic rationalism	Survivalism
Imaginative	Sustainability     -Sustainable Development     -Ecological Modernisation	Green Radicalism  -Green Romanticism  -Green Rationalism

It’s not necessary to go into detailed discussion of all of these here. Of these, most pertinent to this blog are those of Sustainability, which aims to ‘dissolve the conflicts between environmental and economic values that energize the discourses of problem solving and limits’. This places it as reformist and imaginative, seeking to function within the guidelines of industrialism but producing environmentally benign growth. This is contrasting with Monbiot’s view, which can be seen as falling within Green Radicalism, based on his talk I discuss in the previous blog. He rejects industrialism entirely, taking an idealistic stance in his discussion of the issues of any engagement with the ‘machinations of capitalism’.

I feel Ecosystem Services appear to fit into the category of sustainability as they aim to function within the confines of industrial capitalism. Although the notion of nature as a resource is admittedly unsettling, particularly to environmentalists, through research for this blog I have increasingly come to find this to be a necessary and pragmatic view.

Through ecosystem services the very perception of nature as a resource can help protect it, but only where we can move away from view of nature as ‘a fixed indestructible asset’ (Dasgupta, 2008), and instead aim for ‘environmentally benign growth’. In contrast to Monbiot, I feel even this is an important move, with many economists still seeing nature as a fixed, limitless resource despite the work of those such as Constanza valuing the natural world as worth minimally $18 trillion per annum as early as 1997 (Constanza, 1997). Ecosystem Services are key in this shift, with nature still part of the ‘machinations of Capitalism’, but a more nuanced view that helps to protect specific areas, and eventually the wider natural world as a whole.

This focus on continued but environmentally benign growth is particularly important in the developing world. Continued growth is integral to maintain standards of living, due to rapid population growth predicting global populations of 9.6 to 12.3 billion by 2100 (Gerland, 2014).

This highlights the import of carefully managed, sustainable utilisation of all resources, even before accounting for improving standards of living and climate change. However beyond this, it is even more so the case for water, as it is vital not only for economic development, but also health and well-being regardless of levels of growth. It has ‘inelastic’ minimum usage amounts (Tucker, et al., 2014). which when not met damage health and hygiene, withpoor households  most likely to fall below these.

From this, I feel the integral role of development can’t be denied. Maybe the arguments of Monbiot are true in the more economically developed world, but his ideological rejection of ES, and supporting discourse seems far-fetched when looked at in the context of the developing world. His criticism of the ‘machinations of capitalism’, could be seen as criticism of ‘machinations of poverty relief’ in developing world. Continued development is undeniably necessary, but it needs to be managed to prevent overexploitation, pollution and over conversion to cultivated land. Ecosystem services, such as through cost benefit analysis and payment for ecosystem services can help to find an equilibrium between the two. If widely accepted as a mechanism could aid major shift to more environmentally conscious society which utilises less environmentally detrimental technologies.

Development vs Ideology?

Blog 6-Development vs Ideology?

Having stumbled across the above talk from George Monbiot on Ecosystem Services, his views raise a range of interesting insights into the concept of valuing nature, and its place within wider ideologies. Particularly he is critical of it as an aspect of neo-liberalism, and expresses disgust at how such a conception can be applied to protecting the environment. However, he highlights some useful aspects, which predominantly align with those utilised in regards to Water and Development in Africa, although his rejection of its underlying ideology raises questions over applications of ES.

First, he critiques the ‘gobbledygook’ of the ‘in-commensurable’ aspects of ecosystem valuation outlined in terms of social capital, solace values, and cultural and heritage impacts. He recognises the importance of such values, but sees the ‘fuzziness’ of the methods for their valuation as undermining the concept of ES making them difficult to value and compare. However, these criticisms are not necessarily relevant for water in terms of development, as although wetlands and rivers may hold cultural significance, they aren’t often discussed, with instead the focus of valuations being more upon resource outputs over their ‘aesthetics’ and cultural value. 

However, he then moves on to highlight that this is not an issue where aspects are able to be understandably and to some extent accurately valued, and so have ‘financial commensurability or financial measurement’. The examples he provides of measureable ES worth are wealth generated in an area from wildlife tourism, or particularly relevant in terms of Africa and Development, the valuation of watersheds. Although he uses the example of flooding in Gloucestershire being prevented through reforestation in the Cambrian mountains, it is evident that such thinking is relevant to Africa as well where commensurable values in ecosystem services being used to inform decisions. These are the aspects mostly used in ecosystem service valuations in the context of water and development in Africa, with protection of ecosystems and utilisation of resources focused on rather than the ‘softer aspects’ Monbiot, and others, widely criticise.

The aspects he focuses on next relate more closely to the ideological aspects of Ecosystem Services, that they are ‘pushing the natural world even further into the system that is eating it alive’. He criticises the idea expressed by Dieter Helm, the Chairman of the Natural Capital Committee that ‘the environment is part of the economy and needs to be properly integrated into it so that growth opportunities will not be missed.’, arguing that it illustrates the ‘government’s real agenda … not to protect the natural world from the depredations of the economy .. [but] harness the natural world to the economic growth that has been destroying it.’ This sets ups his stance of environmentalism as central to the fight against neo-liberalism, with ecosystem services part of attempts to protect the environment through appeasing capitalists, a stance supported by McCarthy and Prudham (2004) who argue ‘environmental concerns also represent the most powerful source of political opposition to neoliberalism’.

These issues lead Monbiot to the conclusion that in order to protect environments, we don’t need to appease political/environmental opponents, and in fact this leads to a slow and steady march away from environmental objectives. Instead he feels it best leave any attempts to appease and meet at a middle ground, and instead persuade those who can be entirely swayed to your views. As such he feels ES can be seen as attempt to appease capitalism and business aspects, and so Monbiot has an incredibly staunch view of ES as surrender, a shift towards the right wing, and see environmentalists as left wing protectors of environment.

This is something I disagree with, and see the stance of us vs them, and a clear cut right/left dichotomy simplistic and harmful. As I have previously discussed, and is illustrated in the work of Thomson and Barbieri, Ecosystem services can provide a helpful and useful tool in decision making. Although this can arguably be seen as a focus on economic growth, which can be seen as a harmful, neo-liberal desire, this isn’t necessarily the case in Africa. In fact, it highlights a difference between Africa and UK, perhaps much of developed world, as development in Africa is undeniably an important goal. It is vital for improving standard of living for large swathes of the population, and ES can be used as a tool to achieve this whilst working to safeguard areas for conservation.

Furthermore, where water is scarce, either spatially or temporally, to the extent that it is limiting quality of life it can be utilised to find the best ways us limited supplies. This is a very different usage to that of ES in the UK, and perhaps in this context is more useful and palatable, and even necessary and important for economic growth? Although this frames the issue incredibly simplistic and sensationally, surely not even the most ardent of environmentalists, would let the ideological roots of a policy tool prevent its use to answers questions that could help aid development, and alleviate poverty whilst also aiding conservation? Of course ES has it's flaws, isn't right for certain situations and won't always be successful in guaranteeing protection of environments, but to discount it entirely based on ideology seems somewhat short-sighted.

The Value of Water-An Assessment of a Direct Application of Ecosystem Service Conceptions

The Value of Water-An Assessment of a Direct Application of Ecosystem Service Conceptions

In this blog I will develop the discussion of Wetland Ecosystems in Africa, whilst more directly combining this with Ecosystem Service conceptions. This will be through looking at an academic paper which uses valuation techniques to discuss irrigation projects, showing how the concept can be applied in an African development context. Further, it highlights some of the limitations and counter-arguments discussed in an earlier blog.

In ‘The Value of Water’ Barbier and Thompson combine hydrological models and economic valuations to predict the likely opportunity cost of upstream damming and irrigation on the downstream net benefits, within the Hadejia-Jama'are River Basin in north-eastern Nigeria. This is particularly interesting in light of recognition of importance of wetlands, a stance which their results support.

Figure 1-Hadejia-Jama'are Basin

They find that the reduction in floodplain areas from many of these schemes lead to the loss of direct use values that local populations gain, crop production, fuelwood and fishing. They find that these often outweigh the benefits from planned or implemented irrigated agriculture upstream, with values both per hectare and per metre cubed of water significantly less in irrigated areas than in the floodplains they reduce. For example in the Hadejia-Jama'are wetlands net present values for above direct uses found to be around $34-51 per Ha and $10-15 per 10m³ of floodwater, whilst in the Kano River Irrigation Project the agricultural production benefits are only $20-31 per Ha, or $0.03-0.04 per 10m³. This means that many of the schemes overlook the importance of floodplain benefits, utilising the water in irrigation schemes without the economic output of floodplain areas. This can be seen as highlighting the usefulness of ecosystem services as a method of guiding development policy and techniques.

However, the flaws in the paper also highlight some of the issues in ecosystem services and their underlying logic. Firstly, its economic valuation methodology is somewhat limited, focusing solely on direct use values, both for the irrigation areas as well as the floodplains. This means that a huge range of other human economic uses are not included. In the floodplain areas aspects such as the seasonal role as pasture, scarcity mitigation and tourism, whilst the importance of the water for drinking, sanitation and industry are mentioned but not modeled for upstream usage. The importance of these sources is undeniably hard to quantify. For example the impacts of water on health are dependent on a range of factors beyond total volume provided, such as whether piped supplies are standing pumps or in-home, individuals levels of education and waiting times, and so perhaps can never be expect to be adequately quantified.

Beyond this, the focus is purely on human usages of the water resources, and overlooks the natural and environmental importance of the river. Again, although there are brief mentions of the floodplains importance to migratory birds, this isn’t factored into valuations, and shows the anthropocentric focus of the valuation, as is the case with many such valuations. Further, it also highlights the importance of complexity in these valuations, which are often hard to achieve.

Despite these criticisms, the paper offers an important stance in showing the need to recognise the downstream impacts of schemes. It illustrates many of the arguments made in Schroter et al on the role ES concepts are best placed to play, advising and guiding policy, with its limitations accepted but nonetheless utilised to help inform decisions. 

Contested Understandings of Ecosystem Services

Blog Four-Ecosystem Services Critique

I initially intended for my fourth blog to continue and expand on the discussion of wetlands and ecosystem services. However, having come across an interesting review paper which looks at Ecosystem Services more conceptually, this blog will step back from the wetlands focus. Instead it will centre on discussing conceptual critiques of ecosystem services, through assessment of some aspects relevant to Water and Development in the academic papers: ‘Ecosystems service as a Contested Concept’ (Schroter, et al., 2014), as well as mentioning several other relevant supporting literatures.

The Schroter paper outlines recurring critiques of the Ecosystem Services concepts, as well as counter-arguments to these, and an ‘envisioned way forward’ from this. The authors highlight seven points of criticism of ecosystem services, and split these into three categories of critique; ethical concerns, strategy flaws in conceptions of Ecosystem Services, and criticisms related to Ecosystem Services as sciences. These are shown in a reduced version of a table from the article.

Category	Point of Criticism	Argument
Ethical Concerns	Environmental Ethics	Excludes natures intrinsic value
	Human-Nature Relationship	Aids exploitative H-N relation
Strategy Flaws	Conflicts with concept of biodiversity	Could replace biodiversity aims
	Valuation	Often reliant on economic valuation
	Commodification	Based on payment protecting ES
Criticisms of ES as Science	Vagueness	Vaguely defined ‘catch-all’
	Optimistic Assumptions	Sees nature as always beneficial

This table illustrates that there are clear flaws with the ES concept. The main arguments from the paper which are of particular relevance to Water and Development in Africa are those linked to ethical concerns and strategy flaws. Predominantly, this is as ES revolves around perceiving nature as a resource, something to be manipulated for human benefit, with the only conceptions which can help to protect it being monetary valuations. ES becomes just a managerial interference with nature, whether that be in attempts to protect or safeguard nature, or in providing necessary usages. Of course it is important to meet needs for people, particularly in developing and water scarce areas such as much of Africa. However this should also be in a way that protects ‘the flora and fauna that we see around us in all their diversity are both priceless and worthless’ (Reid, 2012), with value far beyond these usage ones, and the ES focus on economic value and provision can conflict with the concept of biodiversity. This is deeply problematic in a market driven world where valuation is arguably pivotal in any attempt to integrate environmental protection into wider agendas.

However, despite outlining multiple criticisms of Ecosystem Services,  Schroter et al go on to offer both counter arguments to each, as well as ways forwards. Of particular relevance in an African context is the counter-arguments to environmental ethics and the human-nature relation. These focus on the understanding that ES contains valid anthropocentric arguments, and that recognition of need for biodiversity to support human ways of life can aid arguments to protect the environment and improve societal connections to nature. Relatedly, linked concerns to valuation and commodification can begin to be overcome, through recognition that they are simply tools to aid decision making, allowing informed development whilst maintaining ecosystem services and biodiversity. These don’t resolve the issues of ES, and still reduces nature to a resource in some regard. Nonetheless, it is important to recognise that they could be useful in some contexts and situations, and offer a novel and interesting technique, despite their flaws. Essentially, they are the necessary and pragmatic approach to nature conservation that we need.

In my next blog I intend to take these ideas and apply them more directly to Africa and Wetlands, as well as beginning to broach discussion between rural and urban ecosystem service utilisation.

Wetlands and Ecosystem Services

Wetlands Importance for providing Ecosystem Services in Africa

This third blog will move on from wider context of seasonal variability in climate and water availability to look at a specific example of Ecosystem Service in the context of Africa, floodplain wetlands. The importance of these areas is closely linked to the variability described in my previous blog.  Discussion of this will help to illustrate exactly what an ecosystem service is and how it works, and begin to look at a few of the consequences of such a conception.

Floodplain wetlands provide such useful insights as a case study of water as an ecosystem service in Africa as they impacted by several specific and unique aspects of African ecosystems and topography, whilst providing an array of complex services linked to this.

These wetlands can be found across Africa, although they are of particular significance in regions which experience high seasonal variability, areas which are made up predominantly of the Savanna eco-region and sub-tropical steppe, shown below in the diagram of Baileys Eco-Regions. This shows the distribution of Wetlands of International Significance, also known as Ramsar sites, within these various eco-regions (Rebelo, et al., 2010).

Fig. 2 Baileys ecoregions and the location of Ramsar wetland sites Source-Rebelo Article

Wetlands provide a host of ecosystem services, both in direct human usages of water, such as domestic, industrial and irrigation use, but also through helping provide ‘forage and hunting resources, wood resources, grazing, fish and agricultural produce’ (Adams, 1993). Furthermore, they also contribute to natural processes such as aquifer recharge, flood control and through nutrient transfer, aspects which are incredibly important but are harder to assess in terms of ecosystem services, and so may be overlooked.

It is within dryland Africa that the economic importance of wetlands is greatest, so much so that their impact is described as being ‘out of all proportion to their size’ (Adams, 1993). This is as they help to regulate the impacts of seasonal variability in precipitation in Africa, as topography, past sediment deposition and erosion lead to flooding of certain areas. The length of inundation varies massively, but regardless helps to regulate ecosystem service provision as they delay and lower the peak of flood flows, whilst helping to produce outputs that serve communities in differing ways throughout the year.

For example in several river basins in Nigeria, such as the Hadejia-Jama'are, at the peak of inundation crops like rice and sugar cane which can tolerate flood conditions are planted, whilst once the waters begin to recede other crops such as millet and sorghum are cultivated. Likewise, communities often integrate usage of wetland and dryland areas, utilising crops that require labour at different times of year, as is the case in Sierra Leone, where communities have 'one foots in the wetland and another in the dry'(Adams, 1993).

From this list of usages it is clear these wetland areas play a crucial role as an ecosystem service. This is supported with the outputs from this various ecosystems having been valued. For example in Kilombero Valley in south-western Tanzania, the areas wetlands were calculated to provide up to 66% of the average households US$ 518 income, accounting for a significantly larger portion in poor households. Furthermore, this is without even accounting for consumed staple crops. Similarly, the overall economic output from the Hadejia-Nguru wetlands in north-eastern Nigeria has been valued at US$37 million per annum, equating to $51 per hectare and $13,000 per metre cubed of water (Barbier, 1993). 

Although these values provide an insight into the incredible economic and developmental significance the wetlands play in Africa, they also demonstrate some issues. These valuations are based solely on agricultural, fuel-wood and fisheries benefits, and as alluded to earlier, many other important aspects for valuation are ignored. This suggests the flaws and limitations of these ecosystem service valuations, especially as they can have stark impacts on informing policy on sustainable utilisation of these resources. These are important issues, which can have telling impacts on wetlands management, and are something which I will come back to in my next blog!