In 2012, an unusual alliance took the stage at the Earth Summit in Brazil. Richard Branson, Jane Goodall, and Edward Norton, figures from disparate fields, stood together advocating for a seemingly stark proposition: placing a monetary value on nature was the only pragmatic path to its preservation. Jane Goodall, recalling her decades of chimpanzee research in Tanzania, expressed a palpable unease. “It’s a bit shocking to me that we have to do that,” she admitted, though acknowledging the logic. “But we mustn’t forget… to keep alive that reverence for the natural world.”
This sentiment, an undercurrent of ambivalence towards quantifying the intrinsic worth of coral reefs, tundra, and rainforests in financial terms, resonated with many biologists. As environmental scientist and anthropologist Daniel Suarez of Middlebury College observes, the hope was that by adopting the language of financial markets and boardroom executives, a crucial shift could occur, leading to the recovery of declining wildlife populations. However, the reality proved less optimistic. The widespread adoption of the “ecosystem services” framework has largely failed to achieve its ambitious goals, prompting many conservationists to question the “what now?”
Suarez, in his new book, “Biologists Unite,” chronicles the rapid ascent and subsequent decline of this pragmatic yet ultimately flawed conservation strategy. He discussed with New Scientist the reasons behind the significant investment in monetizing nature, the inadequate embrace by governmental and corporate sectors, and the current efforts by biologists to address the root causes of environmental degradation to salvage global biodiversity.
Understanding Ecosystem Services
Thomas Lewton: Could you explain what ecosystem services are?
Daniel Suarez: At its core, ecosystem services are the benefits that humans derive from natural environments. Consider the forests of my youth on Canada’s west coast. The debate often centered on logging for timber versus conservation. The ecosystem services framework allowed for a broader consideration of the forest’s value: the harvesting of non-timber forest products like mushrooms, the purification of water, carbon sequestration by the land, and recreational opportunities. The value extended beyond mere timber production. This approach aimed to tip the cost-benefit analysis of decisions, potentially favoring conservation, by demonstrating that the quantifiable value of these diverse services could far outweigh the benefits of destructive practices.
When aggregated globally, these values become substantial. A landmark 1997 study attempted to assign a total monetary value to the world’s ecosystems, arriving at an astonishing $33 trillion—roughly double the global economic output at the time. While controversial, this figure undeniably brought the concept of ecosystem services into public discourse.
The Popularization of an Economic Framework for Nature
The notion that societies rely on environmental processes is ancient. However, the term “ecosystem services” gained prominence in the late 1990s. This period saw dedicated efforts to systematically measure these services and translate this knowledge for decision-makers. Scientific publications on the subject surged, and the concept permeated various domains, from national policy-making and large conservation organizations to major corporations and international environmental agreements.
For a time, biologists worldwide seemed to rally behind this idea. It was ubiquitous at international summits and conferences, with even monarchs, heads of state, Fortune 500 executives, and celebrities discussing this once-obscure topic. Key figures in global biodiversity policy coalesced around the concept, presenting it as the future of conservation. One scientist even humorously suggested ecosystem services had surpassed Michael Jackson in popularity when measured by citation counts in books.
The Rationale Behind Monetization
The underlying logic was that in the absence of such valuations, decision-makers would continue to assign nature a default economic value of zero. A comprehensive understanding of the stakes, it was believed, would compel those in power to make responsible, intelligent, and sustainable choices.
Suarez highlights a pivotal moment at the 2016 World Conservation Congress. Inger Andersen, then Director-General of the International Union for Conservation of Nature, stated that conservationists urgently needed to learn how to “better resonate in the halls of power.” This sentiment reflected a widespread belief that addressing catastrophic biodiversity loss required appealing to influential decision-makers and equipping them with better-informed, rational choices. This trajectory coincided with the rise of neoliberalism, an ideology that favored market-driven solutions for societal issues, including environmental policy. Deeply concerned by environmental destruction, biologists agreed to adapt their work, hoping to appeal to these powerful interests and their economic outlook.
Underlying Hesitations and Doubts
Despite the widespread adoption, Suarez observed significant internal reservations among ecosystem services scientists. These hesitations, present from the outset, intensified over time, centering on the reduction of the natural world to human-centric, monetary terms. The challenge of placing a dollar value on tigers or any other living organism raised fundamental questions.
Biologists often expressed that they adopted these ideas not out of preference but because they perceived no viable alternative. They were, in essence, attempting pragmatism within the entrenched political and economic structures of the neoliberal era. This dynamic—where individuals endorse solutions they recognize as insufficient, or even problematic—appears to be a recurring theme in many aspects of life.
The Unfulfilled Promises of Ecosystem Services
The approach failed to revolutionize conservation, especially when measured against its bold promises. Biodiversity loss has continued largely unabated. A recent WWF report indicated a 73% average decline in global wildlife populations between 1970 and 2020. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) warns that a million species face extinction. The anticipated influx of private investment and new environmental markets, which ecosystem service valuations were meant to unlock, has not materialized at scale, leaving a persistent funding deficit in conservation. Furthermore, international community targets for halting biodiversity loss have been missed for two consecutive decades.
Why Market Forces Remained Elusive
The reasons for the ecosystem services concept’s failure to harness market forces are intricate and context-specific, but Suarez emphasizes the crucial role of power dynamics. He uses the example of a mangrove forest, where short-term economic gains from shrimp farms might be weighed against the mangroves’ broader values, such as supporting local livelihoods or providing storm protection. Even with meticulously calculated benefits favoring conservation, the ultimate fate of the mangroves often hinges less on precise arithmetic and more on power relations: who stands to profit from land use decisions and who controls the decision-making process.
A deeper analysis of these underlying power structures, which drive environmental degradation, has often been absent in ecosystem services approaches.
Intrinsic Value Versus Instrumental Value
When asked about prioritizing nature’s intrinsic value, Suarez suggests that focusing on the dichotomy between “intrinsic” and “instrumental” (ecosystem service) values might not be the most productive path. While acknowledging the validity of ethical commitments to nature and advocating for inherent rights, he posits that a more critical examination of power and political economy is essential. This approach, he believes, is more critical for addressing the pressing environmental challenges.
Challenging Power Structures: A Biodiversity Justice Approach
Suarez proposes that biologists can adopt a “biodiversity justice” approach, forging alliances with social movements, critical scholars, Indigenous peoples, rural communities, farmers, and workers. This strategy moves beyond aligning solely with conventionally powerful actors in business or government.
During his research for the book, Suarez observed a shift in mainstream environmental scientists engaging with critical scholars who offered more radical analyses of the drivers of the global biodiversity crisis. Concurrently, biologists began to grasp the broader historical contexts and social struggles intertwined with their research. These critical analyses started to gain traction in forums such as IPBES.
He recounts a significant example from British Columbia, where environmental groups, initially relying on market-based language for forest protection, eventually abandoned ecosystem services. They pivoted their strategies to a “climate justice” framing, forming alliances with groups like First Nations. Instead of mere lobbying, they actively challenged large energy infrastructure projects, notably proposed oil pipelines. This approach, centered on power, movement building, and popular mobilization, proved effective. While these battles remain ongoing, the environmental groups successfully thwarted the pipeline projects as they moved away from the ecosystem services framework.
The core distinction, Suarez notes, lies between requesting change from powerful decision-makers and building alliances sufficiently strong to compel that change.
Reflections on Ecosystem Services
Suarez concludes that numerous traditions beyond mainstream conservation offer alternative perspectives on the means, objectives, and future of conservation, including who should be involved. He asserts that biologists are not inherently prevented from leveraging their expertise, including insights from ecosystem services, and realigning their work with broader interests and more transformative plans to confront the global biodiversity crisis. The potential exists, but it requires biologists to actively pursue it.
Supporting Biodiversity Justice
Stepping back from complex academic debates, Suarez was struck by the many biologists he encountered who, despite acknowledging the limitations and ultimate ineffectiveness of current strategies, still adhered to the ecosystem services framework. These decades of limited success, however disappointing, can serve as a powerful impetus to break free from routine and self-defeating political assumptions. This offers an urgent invitation to pursue more convincing, realistic, and pragmatic alternatives.