Valuing biodiversity and ecosystem services: a useful way to manage and conserve marine resources?

Abstract

Valuation of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES) is widely recognized as a useful, though often controversial, approach to conservation and management. However, its use in the marine environment, hence evidence of its efficacy, lags behind that in terrestrial ecosystems. This largely reflects key challenges to marine conservation and management such as the practical difficulties in studying the ocean, complex governance issues and the historically-rooted separation of biodiversity conservation and resource management. Given these challenges together with the accelerating loss of marine biodiversity (and threats to the ES that this biodiversity supports), we ask whether valuation efforts for marine ecosystems are appropriate and effective. We compare three contrasting systems: the tropical Pacific, Southern Ocean and UK coastal seas. In doing so, we reveal a diversity in valuation approaches with different rates of progress and success. We also find a tendency to focus on specific ES (often the harvested species) rather than biodiversity. In light of our findings, we present a new conceptual view of valuation that should ideally be considered in decision-making. Accounting for the critical relationships between biodiversity and ES, together with an understanding of ecosystem structure and functioning, will enable the wider implications of marine conservation and management decisions to be evaluated. We recommend embedding valuation within existing management structures, rather than treating it as an alternative or additional mechanism. However, we caution that its uptake and efficacy will be compromised without the ability to develop and share best practice across regions.

Marine protected areas enhance coral reef functioning by promoting fish biodiversity

“…Documented examples in which biodiversity conservation has enhanced ecosystem functioning are rare, and the feasibility of protecting biodiversity to preserve ecosystem functioning has been rightly questioned (Cavanagh et al., ; Dee et al., ). Yet our synthesis confirms that protection of biodiversity is indeed feasible via area closures, and shows, for the first time, that the increased diversity resulting from protection can enhance ecosystem functioning on coral reefs (i.e., macroalgal removal).…”

Understanding and bridging the conservation‐genetics gap in marine conservation

“…; Cavanagh et al. ; Pérez‐Espona & ConGRESS Consortium ), and many Baltic Sea species are especially sensitive to genetic degradation (Johannesson et al. ).…”

“…To address this gap, we previously examined Baltic Sea marine protected areas (MPSs) formed under the Helsinki Convention (HELCOM) (http://www.helcom.fi) as a case study. Genetic biodiversity is particularly neglected in marine conservation (Parsons et al 2014;Cavanagh et al 2016;Pérez-Espona & ConGRESS Consortium 2017), and many Baltic Sea species are especially sensitive to genetic degradation (Johannesson et al 2011). The Baltic Sea may offer a time machine through which future developments in other marine systems, including policy implementation, can be viewed (Reusch et al 2018).…”

Understanding the structure and functioning of polar pelagic ecosystems to predict the impacts of change

“…Consideration of the value of polar ocean ecosystem services, and the biodiversity supporting them, has a useful role in the development of sustainable management strategies for these increasingly threatened ecosystems [15]. Understanding the factors determining structure and functioning is fundamental to valuing these ecosystems, and crucial for analyses of the impact of future change on the services they provide [15]. …”