Article Summary: Ecosystem Services and Conservation Strategy: Beware the Silver Bullet

Becca Madsen on August 18, 2009 Comment

Bhaskar Vira, William M. Adams. Conservation Letters, Vol 2, issue 4, August 2009, p. 158-162. Accessed online in August 2009.

Authors Vira & Adams say there's a confusion of terms 'biodiversity', 'natural capital', and 'ecosystem services'.

'Biodiversity' = "a term associated with the full complexity of relations between genes, species, and ecosystems." 'Natural capital' isn't defined in the article, and the term 'stocks of biological diversity' is used more frequently. Flows of 'ecosystem services' (like climate regulation, nutrient cycling, fish, timber, and cultural values of biodiversity) are said to be created by the transformation of stocks of natural capital. OK... crystal clear what we're talking about.

The authors then proceed to lay out reasons why it's dangerous to rely on arguments of conservation for the sake of ecosystem services:

1. External factors/ human intervention not related to the ecosystem could muck up the argument for conservation. Example - hard to make a case for preserving a forest for water yield when dams and channelization are present in the watershed, even if the forest is doing a great job.


2. Complex relationships between natural capital and ecosystem services make it hard to make a case for conservation. Examples: while aggregate stocks of natural capital are important in 'regulating' and 'supporting' ecosystem services (climate regulation, nutrient cycling), technology is important for 'provisioning' services (fish & timber can be extracted easier with better technology), and marginal values are important for 'cultural' services (we like pandas because they're rare).


3. The "intrinsic merits of the stock of biological capital" won't necessarily be valued when considering ecosystem services that humans demand.

The authors conclude that it's better to "focus debate on the specific stocks of natural systems and processes that they are seeking to protect" instead of arguing based on ecosystem services.