Day 10: Nature’s booty

I wish I remembered which science conference that was. There was a small presentation room, with a handful of speakers who projected their slides onto a big screen, as usual. But hardly anyone was in the audience; the sessions in rooms down the hall were much more crowded.  The title, something about quantifying nature’s value to the human race, had intrigued me. But I remember being unimpressed. As presented, the idea seemed desperate and sad.

This idea of putting a price tag on nature burst onto the scene in 1997, when Robert Costanza, an ecological economist at the University of Vermont, published a paper in the journal Nature.

The study put the value of the world’s ecosystems at a combined $33 trillion. The figure garnered much attention and dismay, especially because it exceeded the combined gross national products of all the world’s countries. Work on the concept has progressed since then, but at times it has seemed clumsy — like the talk I attended. Now, the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment has published a February issue that’s fully dedicated to the new catch phrase of the nature-as-commodity movement: ecosystem services. Six studies in the issue offer ways to attach value to nature’s unsung products: the swamps that filter impurities from water, the mangroves that protect shores from tsunamis, the forests that provide recreation and the insects that pollinate our food. The authors readily admit they still haven’t nailed the numbers game, but they’re getting ever-closer to defining the goods.

While this scientific evolution has been taking place, I’ve learned I’m a member of a rare breed. Nature uplifts my soul; the very sight of trees calms and refreshes me. I value other forms of life as much as I value human life. I’ll watch a tiny bug with wonder and affection, and then try to set it out of harm’s way. I once thought these were common sentiments, but it turns out they’re only common among environmentalists and a subset of the ecologists who attend the science conferences. I see an inherent value in nature; I don’t need a price tag. So when environmental economics came into the spotlight, I was sort of horrified. Some of the initial efforts in environmental economics, I have come to see, were made awkward by the same resistance. Even its advocates conveyed the uncomfortable impression that they were becoming nature’s pimps. They hated the work. Their presentations were terrible. But they were willing to sell their own souls to protect their beloved nature.

Now, thankfully, the shock has worn off. Ecologists — even the bleeding heart variety – seem to appreciate the considerable overlap between healthy ecosystems and a healthy human race. And if the best way to protect nature, and therefore ourselves, is to agree on a common language about its values, then so be it — even if that language borrows words from the business world.

In a podcast related to the new Frontiers special issue, guest editor Peter Kareiva, chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy, says it doesn’t have to be all about dollars, anyway.

“We could simply say something like, ‘This forested watershed provides one half the clean water to the city of Bogota, or New York City.’ It’s useful for policy makers and it’s useful for the public. If they know that, they’ll protect the forest,” he said. And there are trade-offs, he added. Replanting a slope will reduce erosion and slow the progress of mud into a nearby stream, thereby enhancing two roles of nature that are generally regarded as positive. But the new trees could eventually suck up some of the rainfall that would otherwise reach that same stream. In both examples, Kareiva says, the basic science needed to understand the implications of such decisions should be a first priority.

The six papers are diverse in their approaches to the problem of quantifying nature’s values. But they are unanimous on one point: this is not going to be easy. Two of the studies point out that Robert Costanza’s broad, $33 trillion brush isn’t nearly nuanced enough to provide solutions. The task is rife with complexities. Each of nature’s roles will be changed with location and season, for example, and by its interconnectedness with other valuable functions. In each case where a value is assigned and ranked, myriad stakeholders will want a final say.

But as several of the study authors point out, it’s worth doing.  And their papers offer a tangible and heartening start.