Should Biodiversity be Useful? Scope and Limits of Ecosystem Services as an Argument for Biodiversity Conservation

Abstract

This article examines the argument that biodiversity is crucial for well-functioning ecosystems and that such ecosystems provide important goods and services to our human societies, in short the ecosystem services argument (ESA). While the ESA can be a powerful argument for nature preservation, we argue that its dominant functionalist interpretation is confronted with three significant problems. First, the ESA seems unable to preserve the nature it claims to preserve. Second, the ESA cannot explain why those caring about nature want to preserve it. Third, the ESA might undermine its own goal because it potentially decreases environmental motivations.

Searching for the place of biodiversity in the ecosystem services discourse

“…While the ES argument was initially quite successful in drawing attention to biodiversity conservation, many conservation-inclined scientists and stakeholders now fear that they may drift into the role of the sorcerer's apprentice who is no longer able to control the spirits (s)he has conjured. The fear here is that a utilitarian or strictly economic perspective on ecosystems might at some point prove to be counterproductive to preserving biodiversity (Vira and Adams, 2009;Skroch and López-Hoffman, 2010;Turnhout et al, 2013;Deliège and Neuteleers, 2015). To judge whether these concerns are justified, the assumptions underpinning the success of the strategic argument "biodiversity conservation by ecosystem service protection" (referred to in the following as the "surrogate strategy") need to be clarified.…”

“…A reference to specific sites and/or conflicts is not of interest for this purpose. Specific instances are used only as -albeit important -examples or "clues" (Deliège and Neuteleers, 2015) to support the argument without systematically generalizing them. The value of biodiversity is not differentiated further and is presumed to coincide largely with that of maintaining ES delivery.…”

The LEGATO cross-disciplinary integrated ecosystem service research framework: an example of integrating research results from the analysis of global change impacts and the social, cultural and economic system dynamics of irrigated rice production

“…The claim that ecosystem services preservation is necessarily supportive to biodiversity conservation (Daily 1997;Costanza and Farber 2002;Barkman et al 2008;Tallis et al 2014;Deliège and Neuteleers 2015) turns the biologically founded assumption "biodiversity supports ecosystem service provision" on its head (prominently for instance Daily et al 2009). Although reading a supposed causality in the opposite direction is of questionable logic, a positive correlation could be shown to exist in a number of cases for the specific situation of restoring degraded ecosystems (Polasky et al 2012;Rey Benayas et al 2009).…”

Linking potential biodiversity and three ecosystem services in silvopastoral managed forest landscapes of Tierra del Fuego, Argentina

“…The relations between biodiversity and ES are direct or inverse largely depending on the type of ES (Mace et al 2012), where direct relations are more often detected with pollination services or cultural services (Lucas et al 2014;Martínez Pastur et al 2016a). Beside this, species populations are the key unit in the supply of ES (Luck et al 2003) because biodiversity is the factor on which ecosystems run and sustain their functions with a consequent impact on human economy (Deliège & Neuteleers 2015). In our study area, livestock production (80% cattle, 20% sheep) is the main annual income from silvopastoral systems.…”