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.