Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
-
underinvestment in the development and diffusion of technologies that could
increase the efficiency of use of ecosystem services and could drive ecosystem
change, such as renewable energy; and
-
insufficient knowledge (as well as the poor use of existing knowledge)
concerning ecosystem services and management, policy, and technological,
behavioural and institutional responses that could enhance benefits from
these services while conserving resources.
The MEA (2005: 33-4) states clearly that the value of ecosystem services has
implications for policy formation and decision-making:
Current decision-making processes often ignore or underestimate the value of
ecosystem services. Decision-making concerning ecosystems and their services can
be particularly challenging because different discipline schools of thought assess
the value of ecosystems differently. One paradigm of value, known as the utilitarian
(anthropocentric) concept, is based on the principle of humans' preference
satisfaction (welfare). In this case, ecosystems and the services they provide have
value to human societies because people derive utility from their use, either directly
or indirectly (use values). Within this utilitarian concept of value, people also give
value to ecosystem services that they are not currently using (non-use values).
Non-use values, usually known as existence value, involve the case where humans
ascribe value to knowing that a resource exists, even if they never use that
resource directly. These often involve the deeply held historical, national, ethical,
religious and spiritual values people ascribe to ecosystems - the values that the
MEA recognizes as cultural services of ecosystems. A different, non-utilitarian
value paradigm holds that something can have intrinsic value - that is, it can be
of value in and for itself, irrespective of its utility for someone else. From the
perspective of many ethical, religious and cultural points of view, ecosystems may
have intrinsic value, independent of their contribution to human wellbeing.
This report, together with
The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity
(TEEB,
2010a) reports published a few years later, argue clearly that the best way for
governments and societies to perceive the value of nature is to calculate what it is
worth in dollars or euros. Essentially, this commodification of nature is about applying
market criteria and economic instruments to those services 'nature currently provides
for us'. If we account for them in a set of balance sheets measuring costs and benefits,
financial value, depreciation, discounts, and so on we will consequently recognize
that conservation is both economically valuable and economically essential. TEEB
aims to accelerate the development of a new economy where the value of natural
capital and ecosystems services is fully integrated into the mainstream of private and
public accounting. One example cited (TEEB, 2010b: 8) is that on average 'Swiss
bee colonies ensured a yearly agricultural production worth about US$213 million
by providing pollination, about five times the value of the production of honey'
while the '
total economic value
of insect pollination worldwide is estimated at
153
billion, representing 9.5 per cent of world agricultural output in 2005'. It is therefore
important to invest in the Earth's 'ecological infrastructure' to ensure that we get
value for money which we will invariably do. Thus (TEEB, 2010b: 28), 'while it is
usually cheaper to avoid degradation than to pay for ecological restoration, there
€
