The whole concept of ecosystem services has become much-chattered about in policy circles over the last decade even though the person on the Clapham omnibus would probably glaze over at the mention of it.
Ecosystem services are those useful things that are provided by the natural world that benefit us and that therefore have a value even if that value is often not taken into account in our financial transacations. At one extreme, the pleasure you get from seeing a blue tit come to your bird feeder is an ecosystem service but we are more often talking about things like carbon storage in peat bogs or ordinary soils, water being cleansed as it passes through a reedbed or flood alleviation provided by wetlands.
So a peat bog on top of a Welsh hill may be a poor place to practise agriculture, only good for a few sheep to graze, but it may be storing significant amounts of carbon (which, if released, would slightly worsen climate change all over the world) and it may act as a slow-release sponge thus reducing the flood risk for someone living in far-away Shrewsbury. The Welsh hill farmer gets paid for the sheep but gains no reward from the world for storing carbon, nor from the inhabitants of Shrewsbury for helping to keep their living rooms flood-free. And that means that if he (or she) were able to drain that peat bog they might increase their income from lamb sales even if it reduced those non-market, non-paid for, ecosystem services. You can see that the 'free' services that might be lost may be greater than the finacial gain to the sheep farmer but that won't 'count' in the way that individual economic decisions are made unless we put some sort of a value on the services. That might mean paying the hill farmer for the carbon benefits and flood-reduction benefits so that 'we' don't lose them.
If that peat bog is the home to Wales's last breeding dunlin then we could see that taking account of the carbon storage and water services would be a good way to save some wildlife too. If we valued the carbon and water then we don't need to persuade people to value the dunlin too - the dunlin get a free ride. So that's what makes this way of thinking attractive to nature conservationists, on a good day. Because, many natural habitats provide significant ecosystem services to humanity that we don't currently value properly we treat destroying nature as being without cost. If only we valued it better then we would have less destruction. It's absolutely true, and on a good day, well worth promoting.
On a bad day, this approach doesn't necessarily deliver quite what we would like. The Welsh hill farmer may find that he (or she) could drain the peatbog (bye, bye dunlin), plant it with conifers (replacing the carbon storage elements lost from the peat) and have a lake and a dam downstream to control water flows (thus replacing the flood mitigation services of the peat too). Stock the lake with fish and open the forest up to a car rally every year and you may be in clover even if not in peat.
I think that the ecosystem services approach is a good one - but best if I am in charge of it. In the wrong hands it can lead to almost as much ecological damage as not taking these services into account. Well, maybe that is overstating things, but I hope you can see that whilst there is great overlap between nature conservation and ecosystem service conservation, the overlap is not total.
Many of the species we love - and I use that word deliberately - are just the icing on the ecosystem services cake and therefore may not count for much even when ecosystem services do. You can save the rainforest without saving the tiger and the disappearance of the corncrake, and now the drastic reduction of many other farmland birds, insects and plants, is not prejudicing food production.
The ecosystem services weapon is a two-edged sword. In the right hands, valuing carbon may help to protect ancient woodlands, in the wrong hands it may lead to the planting of wildlife deserts of conifers in the wrong places.
Clearly, the right hands would be mine, or yours, or other right-thinking people's hands. But when we get into putting a price on things we are potentially walking into HM Treasury's territory. Just as focussing on money can lead to a poorer world, so in the wrong hands might focussing on the value of ecosystem services. Beware the blunt policy instrument.
Having said that, I see there being big potential advantages for nature if we value it more. So rather than shrink away, nature conservationists must get involved in the discussions. There are opportunities to save a bit more of the natural world around us by valuing it properly.
A love of the natural world demonstrates that a person is a cultured inhabitant of planet Earth.
In Trimbush's little fantasy the UK gets out of the EU "to save British Wildlife" but this really is a fantasy. Whatever one's views about the faults and merits of the EU it is our major trading partner and even if we are not a member its decisions will continue to affect our agriculture, industry, fishing and all the rest. If we are a member at least we have a say.
If we were outside the EU and British farming was to operate without subsidy or constraint from government (as a true blue tory would presumably wish) it is most unlikely that farmers and landowners will all do the right thing by Nature as Trimbush suggests. Rather, small farms will be swallowed up by big ones and the whole industry will march to the tune of John Deere, Monsanto et al. Eco-system services will definitely not be part of the package and hedgerow birds will count for nothing.
By all means reform the EU - we don't have to accept its faults - but I am not convinced that life outside of it is the solution. As Trimbush said, farmers will naturally follow the money - the EU has the possibility at least of ensuring that in doing so they can operate in a wildlife friendly way that also provides the other ecosystem services that Mark refers to.
Jonathan Wallace
Knock - knock!
Behold!
"RSPB launches 4 years, £50 Millions per annum Campaign to leave Europe to save British Wildlife"
I have never met a farmer / landowner that that doesn’t understand that he / she has been dropped onto this planet “Earth” for but a short time and that this Earth with all its natural systems has been around for some time before they were dropped and will be for sometime after they “pass on”.
And so it is that most responsible farmers / landowners tend do the right thing by Nature and tend their bit as best they can – adding value – if they can!
But the framework in which farmers find themselves dictates otherwise and has done so since time immoral!
SO – “Follow the money”
For example - LibDem Alan Beattie (remember I’m a Tory) wrote in 2008 (FT)
“People pushing for reform of the CAP say more pressure from inside the EU is needed. But the first problem is finding detailed information. For much of its history, the CAP has largely operated in the dark. Figures on how much each farmer receives have had to be painfully extracted from EU member governments by sustained campaigning and repeated requests under various national freedom of information acts. ………. Little wonder many governments are reluctant to give up the data: they show that, far from most of the money going to preserve the lavender fields of Provence and the traditional hill farmers of the Welsh mountains, it is largely hoovered up by rich landowners and big agribusinesses.”
The long and the short of it is that ‘Europe’ is both corrupt and corrupting – the only chance for “England & Wales” and its “Ecosystems” at large is for it to get out of the EU – stand up for itself, row its own boat, etc etc
Targeting farmers – as the RSPB does continually one way or the other - (“it loves farmers” – No it doesn’t!) - is a waste of everyone’s time and money time. It should refocus on the Supermarkets!
It’s time for the RSPB to re-think, refocus, rebel and revolt!
What does it want to achieve? What's stopping it? Where and whar are the strategic tipping points?
RSPB’s net effect to date? On the scale of all things "ecosystems" -Sadly - a Big fat Zilch!
But don't worry your heads - keep talking - you have nothing to lose but your planet.
'Lecture' over RSPB - Back on your heads!
Now where's that fence?
redkite, Nightjar, Nyati - good points all. Maybe there will be lots of comments on this subject. I beleive that it is an important one.
I think you miss a vital aspect of the discussion and that is how do we convince the provider of that 'Ecosystem Service' that it is his/her responsiblity to provide it; that he/she can provide it and in providing it, normal business can continue [Welsh hill example]. Many providers understand how to produce sheep in an effective way, they do not understand biodiversity or environmental jargonese.
In addition do you really think that you or I administering this system will be trusted?
However, the discussion must start why not start in public now.
Its interesting that you chose an upland example. Conservation, access and landscape are allowed to do things in the uplands - but not in the lowlands. They belong to seriuos farming. A more provocative application would have been restoring the Severn flood plain by reversing drainage and using low-intensity grassland and new native woodland to slow the water flow. A great place for birds, and for people, and for the carbon lost when the conifers were removed from the heathland - and heating a large number of homes sustainably.
What this is about is, once again, two different approaches: uising technology to supress nature - planting the conifers, concrete dams - against using the same technology to flex with nature, cutting costs and effort. And, in contrast to the dam, the money is already there - we're already paying for land management and for the collateral damage from poulltion, accelerated runoff etc.
Had you looked at the lowlands you'd also have been able to have a go at far more pernicious problems than poor old persecuted conifers - like biofuels, both here and in the tropical rainforest zone.
But will the Treasury get it ? A really big question - conventional economics is struggling to keep up with the urgent demands for intelligent action on climate change. It would be ironic if conceptual thinking is now preventing rather than fuelling progress.