ECOSYSTEM SERVICES/NATURE’S CONTRIBUTIONS TO PEOPLE
Mateo Aguado, Violeta Hevia, José A. González, Pedro L. Lomas y Blanca Rodríguez-Chaves
Despite the fact that the term has been in use since at least the 1980s, it still lacks a single, consensual definition to date (Gómez-Baggethun et al., 2010). The most widely used definition refers to the benefits that people obtain from ecosystems; other definitions emphasize different aspects of those benefits, understanding them as the direct and indirect contributions that ecosystems provide to the various components of human well-being and that make human life possible and worthwhile. Although they are obviously not sufficient on their own to provide the full range of aspects that constitute human well-being (Butler & Oluoch-Kosura, 2006), some authors consider them to be an essential component of it (Daily, 1997).
Since its origins, different terms have been used to evoke the same concept, ranging from early meanings centred on the notion of environmental functions of nature for humans (De Groot, 1992), to the idea of nature’s contributions to people (Díaz et al., 2015), including notions such as nature’s services, environmental goods, environmental goods and services, or ecosystem services for human well-being (Pearce & Turner, 1989; Daily, 1997; MA, 2005).
The notion of ecosystem services originates in the idea that the conflict between economic growth and the environment is due to the fact that a large share of the benefits (services) generated by ecosystems (natural capital, environmental assets) (Costanza & Daly, 1992) are not taken into account by the economic system, as they are not expressed in the way that system understands them, namely in monetary terms. In this sense, they would constitute an example of a so-called market “failure”, commonly referred to as an (environmental) externality. Thus, the market would not function as an efficient allocation mechanism (in the Pareto sense), that is, a situation in which all market actors would obtain the maximum possible benefit from natural capital and ecosystem services through the price signal (here, value), since these would not be correctly calculated, as environmental costs and benefits would not be taken into account. This would lead the economic actors involved to act (produce or consume) without correctly understanding the benefits and costs associated with the flow of ecosystem services (Costanza & Daly, 1992).
Considering ecosystems as natural capital that provides services would therefore serve precisely to internalise those externalities within economic decision-making tools, such as cost–benefit analysis. Indeed, it is assumed that this process of taking into account the values of natural capital and ecosystem services would reflect people’s preferences, both present and future, and thus the utility they assign to a given resource, which in aggregated form would serve to characterise changes in human well-being.
Although many different classifications of ecosystem services have been proposed, since 2013 the European Environment Agency has made efforts to achieve standardisation. These efforts culminated in the Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) (Haines-Young & Potschin, 2018). As a result, most authors currently work with three categories: (1) provisioning services (products obtained directly from ecosystems, such as food, water, natural medicines or timber); (2) regulating services (derived from ecosystem processes, such as air and water quality, flood control or climate regulation); and (3) cultural services (non-material benefits) obtained through direct contact with ecosystems, including spiritual enrichment, aesthetic enjoyment, cognitive development or recreational activities.
This notion is presented as a bridge between natural systems and society, highlighting that our well-being and that of future generations depend on the services provided by ecosystems and biodiversity (MA, 2005). This perspective has encouraged a paradigm shift in conservation motivations, supporting conservation not only on the basis of the intrinsic values of nature (grounded in emotional and ethical arguments), but also on instrumental values, given that ecosystems are linked to human well-being.
Over the last decade, this concept has moved beyond the academic sphere and gained political relevance (TEEB, 2010; UN/EC/FAO/IMF/OECD/WB, 2021; Dasgupta, 2021), particularly following the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and the subsequent establishment of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). During this period, the ecosystem services framework has been used to facilitate understanding of the links between nature and society, helping to explain how anthropogenic alterations associated with global change are having negative impacts on human well-being, as the services provided by ecosystems are affected.
A wide range of criticisms have been directed at this concept and its framework, which can be grouped into the following categories (Lomas et al., 2017): (1) methodological criticisms, which question the most appropriate ways to assess ecosystem services; (2) ethical criticisms, which challenge the instrumental, anthropocentric and utilitarian view of nature that is promoted; (3) socio-political criticisms, which question its implications in terms of power and inequality; (4) economic criticisms, which denounce the excessive use of economic metaphors and the associated commodity fetishism; and (5) formal criticisms, which question its meaning and practical relevance as a concept.
More recently, IPBES has opted for the use of the term nature’s contributions to people (NCP), which is based on the concept of ecosystem services but seeks to distance itself from it in several aspects. First, it places culture at the centre of the definition of the links between people and nature. Second, it seeks to elevate, emphasise and operationalise the role of indigenous and local knowledge in understanding nature’s contributions to human well-being (Díaz et al., 2015). In addition, this new framework aims to mediate the debate between intrinsic and instrumental values for conservation by focusing on so-called relational values (Chan et al., 2018). It also highlights the importance of so-called “anthropogenic assets” in the co-generation of ecosystem services (Díaz et al., 2015). These assets refer to built infrastructure, technologies (physical objects and procedures), knowledge (local ecological knowledge as well as technical or scientific knowledge, including formal and non-formal education), and financial assets, among others. Likewise, institutions and governance systems also affect the interactions and balance between nature and these anthropogenic assets in the co-production of services (Díaz et al., 2015).
However, an extensive critical debate has emerged, which can be broadly summarised into two main lines of argument: (1) the lack of relevance of this new term, as no significant differences would exist with that of ecosystem services; and (2) the persistence of a dualistic, instrumental, utilitarian and anthropocentric view of nature (Muradian & Gómez-Baggethun, 2021).
The incorporation of these concepts into law dates back to the 1970s in the field of international law (Ramsar Convention) (García García, 2022). In the European Union (1998), and later in Spanish domestic law (1999), their recognition first appeared in forestry legislation, with the recognition of the so-called multifunctionality of forests. The concept subsequently spread to other sectors, such as maritime spatial planning, which pioneered the explicit establishment of an ecosystem-based approach in the EU (2014, Marine Strategies). It later became embedded in the field of environmental liability, where it is understood not only as a protected environmental element, but also as an essential component in the theory of damage to nature. At present, the concept is gaining relevance in the management of spaces and green infrastructure. In Spanish domestic law, the terminology of “externality” is preferentially used in the two provisions that define the legal concept (Articles 4 and 6 of Law 43/2003 of 21 November on Forests, and Article 3(17) of Law 42/2007 of 13 December on Natural Heritage and Biodiversity: “any effect produced by an action that was not sought among its objectives”). Nevertheless, it remains largely overlooked within the legal system, both at the supranational level of the European Union and within the legal frameworks of the Member States.
Bibliography:
Butler, Colin D. & Oluoch-Kosura, W. (2006). Linking future ecosystem services and future human well-being. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 30.
Chan, K. M. A., Gould, R. K. & Pascual, U. (2018). Editorial overview: relational values: what are they, and what’s the fuss about? Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 35, A1-A7.
Costanza, R. & Daly, H. (1992). Natural capital and sustainable development. Conservation Biology, 6(1), 37-46.
Daily, G. C. (1997). Nature’s services: societal dependence on natural ecosystems. Island Press.
Dasgupta, P. (2021). The Economics of Biodiversity: The Dasgupta Review. HM Treasury.
De Groot, R. S. (1992). Functions of nature: Evaluation of nature in environmental planning, management and decision making. Wolters-Nordhoff BV.
Díaz, S., Demissew, S., Carabias, J., Joly, C., Lonsdale, M., Ash, N., Larigauderie, A., Adhikari, J. R., Arico, S., Báldi, A., Bartuska, A., Baste, I. A., Bilgin, A., Brondizio, E., Chan, K. M. A., Figueroa, V. E., Duraiappah, A., Fischer, M., Hill, R., . . . Zlatanova, D. (2015). The IPBES Conceptual Framework—connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 14, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.
García García, S. (2022). Los servicios ambientales en el derecho español. Tirant lo Blanch.
Gómez-Bagghetun, E., De Groot, R. S., Lomas, P. & Montes, C. (2010). The history of ecosystem services in economic theory and practice: From early notions to markets and payment schemes. Ecological Economics, 69 (6), 1209-1218.
Haines-Young, R. & Potschin, M. B. (2018). Common International Classification of Ecosystem Services (CICES) V5.1 and Guidance on the Application of the Revised Structure. University of Nottingham. Available from: https://cices.eu/content/uploads/sites/8/2018/01/Guidance-V51-01012018.pdf
Lomas, P., Carpintero, Ó., Ramos-Martín, J. & Giampietro, M. (2017). El granfalloon de la valoración de los servicios de los ecosistemas. Tiempo de transiciones. Foro de Transiciones.
MA (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. World Resources Institute.
Muradian, R. & Gómez-Bagghetun, E. (2021). Beyond ecosystem services and nature’s contributions: Is it time to leave utilitarian environmentalism behind? Ecological Economics, 185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107038
Pearce, D. & Turner, R. K. (1989). Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment. Johns Hopkins University Press.
TEEB (2010) The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity: Mainstreaming the Economics of Nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB.
UN/EC/FAO/IMF/OECD/WB. (2021). System of Environmental-Economic Accounting— Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA). White cover publication, pre-edited text subject to official editing.