- Email: [email protected]
Ecosystem services expand the biodiversity conservation toolbox – A response to Deliège and Neuteleers
Biological Conservation 172 (2014) 219–220
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
Letter to the Editor Ecosystem services expand the biodiversity conservation toolbox – A response to Deliège and Neuteleers
In reviewing the literature on the synergies between ecosystem services (ES) and biodiversity in conservation planning, we posited that ‘‘the inclusion of ES in conservation is likely to generate more advantages than disadvantages where biodiversity conservation is concerned’’ (Cimon-Morin et al., 2013). Commenting on our review, Deliège and Neuteleers (2014) called for caution in using the ES-argument to promote biodiversity conservation. We would like to address their concerns and also highlight the complex interrelationship among conservation approaches that may in fact be complementary. First, we completely agree with Deliège and Neuteleers (2014) that the intrinsic value of biodiversity and moral arguments should be the primary motivation for biodiversity conservation. At the same time, biodiversity conservation projects worldwide face many challenges to their implementation and success, including perpetual lack of funding and social and political support, as well as pressures related to economic development. To meet these challenges, the conservation community needs to improve the ‘‘toolbox’’ at its disposal and diversify its strategies. As we and others have suggested, ES have the potential to be a means towards the end of biodiversity conservation and surmount some of the aforementioned constraints (Cimon-Morin et al., 2013; Reyers et al., 2012). Although our review counsels caution since areas rich in biodiversity and ES are not necessarily congruent, ES conservation could foster biodiversity protection in certain contexts. One of the main concerns expressed by Deliège and Neuteleers (2014) is that the ES-argument may modify conservation objectives by targeting ‘‘useful species or ecosystems, so that useless or non-functional biodiversity can be extinguished’’. In fact, conservation objectives emerge from a society-wide debate and represent a great diversity of human values. Thus, the aim is not to substitute ES for biodiversity as the conservation objective (unless society were to decide so) but rather to consider it as a complement or an extension. Many biological features that are ‘‘ES providers’’, such as functional biodiversity, are not normally considered during biodiversity conservation assessment, while some ES originate from ecosystem functions that may be optimized under rich biodiversity. Even conservation plans that target a particular species because of its ES contribution must often include the entire associated community or ecosystem. Hence, ES could expand biodiversity conservation by contributing to the security of a wide array of species as well as their related functional diversity. In most circumstances, for example, the protection of the Catskills-Delaware watershed in the state of New York (USA), such an approach can still be less costly than relying on a technological replacement for the ES. In addition, since ES conservation projects attract new
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.009 0006-3207/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
funding sources and engage a more diverse set of funding agencies and conservation partners (Goldman et al., 2008), they are less likely to draw upon the financial resources available for important biodiversity features that require specific protection. Furthermore, Deliège and Neuteleers (2014) stated that the ESargument could damage the social acceptance of conservation because ‘‘most conservationists will not be motivated to preserve biodiversity because of its functional roles’’. However, we believe that social and, ultimately, political support are key for the effective implementation and funding of biodiversity conservation. It has increasingly been documented that actions to preserve biodiversity can be accompanied by constraints on future land use options that affect local human populations, resulting in a significant loss of economic opportunities. The strict conservation of biodiversity may also conflict with the well-being of most populations that still draw a portion of their necessities of life directly from ecosystems (e.g. subsistence uptake and other benefits), especially in emerging countries, remote regions or sparselypopulated areas of industrialized countries. Moreover, urban dwellers tend to lose their connection with nature and fail to experience the full extent of its benefits, which is likely to impede their propensity to appreciate the intrinsic value of biodiversity. ES offer conservationists a promising way to align people’s needs with conservation actions by establishing reserves that could fulfil their well-being. To conclude, the ES-argument is too often interpreted with a narrow focus on use value, markets and payments, which overlooks the aesthetic, spiritual, educational, scientific, recreational, existence and non-use values of ES (Reyers et al., 2012). As Reyers et al. (2012) have suggested, there is ‘‘an urgent need for the [conservation] community to move beyond the either biodiversity or ES debate to one that acknowledges that both biodiversity and ES are important arguments in stemming the tide of biodiversity’’. We believe that the ESargument is not an exclusive but rather a supplementary means for protecting biodiversity, especially where conservation costs are high and lack social support. Careful use of ES in conservation assessment is more likely to expand the opportunities for preserving biodiversity by diversifying the conservation toolbox. References Cimon-Morin, J., Darveau, M., Poulin, M., 2013. Fostering synergies between ecosystem services and biodiversity in conservation planning: a review. Biol. Conserv. 166, 144–154. Deliège, G., Neuteleers, S., 2014. Ecosystem services as an argument for biodiversity preservation: why its strength is its Problem – reply to Cimon-Morin et al.. Biol. Conserv. Goldman, R.L., Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Daily, G.C., 2008. Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 9445–9448. Reyers, B., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Mooney, H.A., Larigauderie, A., 2012. Finding common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 62, 503–507.
220
Letter to the Editor / Biological Conservation 172 (2014) 219–220
Jérôme Cimon-Morin Laval University, Pavillon Paul-Comtois, Faculté des sciences de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Département de phytologie, 2425 rue de l’Agriculture, Québec, Qc G1V 0A6, Canada Ducks Unlimited Canada, 710 Bouvier, Bureau 260, Québec, Qc G2J 1C2, Canada Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, Montreal, McGill University, Stewart Biology Building, Department of Biology, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, Qc H3A 1B1, Canada Tel.: +1 418 623 1650x27. E-mail address: [email protected] Marcel Darveau Ducks Unlimited Canada, 710 Bouvier, Bureau 260, Québec, Qc G2J 1C2, Canada
Laval University, Pavillon Paul-Comtois, Faculté des sciences de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Département de phytologie, 2425 rue de l’Agriculture, Québec, Qc G1V 0A6, Canada Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, Montreal, McGill University, Stewart Biology Building, Department of Biology, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, Qc H3A 1B1, Canada Monique Poulin Laval University, Pavillon Paul-Comtois, Faculté des sciences de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Département de phytologie, 2425 rue de l’Agriculture, Québec, Qc G1V 0A6, Canada Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, Montreal, McGill University, Stewart Biology Building, Department of Biology, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, Qc H3A 1B1, Canada Tel.: +1 418 656 2131x13035. E-mail address: [email protected] Available online 6 March 2014
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon
Letter to the Editor Ecosystem services expand the biodiversity conservation toolbox – A response to Deliège and Neuteleers
In reviewing the literature on the synergies between ecosystem services (ES) and biodiversity in conservation planning, we posited that ‘‘the inclusion of ES in conservation is likely to generate more advantages than disadvantages where biodiversity conservation is concerned’’ (Cimon-Morin et al., 2013). Commenting on our review, Deliège and Neuteleers (2014) called for caution in using the ES-argument to promote biodiversity conservation. We would like to address their concerns and also highlight the complex interrelationship among conservation approaches that may in fact be complementary. First, we completely agree with Deliège and Neuteleers (2014) that the intrinsic value of biodiversity and moral arguments should be the primary motivation for biodiversity conservation. At the same time, biodiversity conservation projects worldwide face many challenges to their implementation and success, including perpetual lack of funding and social and political support, as well as pressures related to economic development. To meet these challenges, the conservation community needs to improve the ‘‘toolbox’’ at its disposal and diversify its strategies. As we and others have suggested, ES have the potential to be a means towards the end of biodiversity conservation and surmount some of the aforementioned constraints (Cimon-Morin et al., 2013; Reyers et al., 2012). Although our review counsels caution since areas rich in biodiversity and ES are not necessarily congruent, ES conservation could foster biodiversity protection in certain contexts. One of the main concerns expressed by Deliège and Neuteleers (2014) is that the ES-argument may modify conservation objectives by targeting ‘‘useful species or ecosystems, so that useless or non-functional biodiversity can be extinguished’’. In fact, conservation objectives emerge from a society-wide debate and represent a great diversity of human values. Thus, the aim is not to substitute ES for biodiversity as the conservation objective (unless society were to decide so) but rather to consider it as a complement or an extension. Many biological features that are ‘‘ES providers’’, such as functional biodiversity, are not normally considered during biodiversity conservation assessment, while some ES originate from ecosystem functions that may be optimized under rich biodiversity. Even conservation plans that target a particular species because of its ES contribution must often include the entire associated community or ecosystem. Hence, ES could expand biodiversity conservation by contributing to the security of a wide array of species as well as their related functional diversity. In most circumstances, for example, the protection of the Catskills-Delaware watershed in the state of New York (USA), such an approach can still be less costly than relying on a technological replacement for the ES. In addition, since ES conservation projects attract new
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2014.02.009 0006-3207/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
funding sources and engage a more diverse set of funding agencies and conservation partners (Goldman et al., 2008), they are less likely to draw upon the financial resources available for important biodiversity features that require specific protection. Furthermore, Deliège and Neuteleers (2014) stated that the ESargument could damage the social acceptance of conservation because ‘‘most conservationists will not be motivated to preserve biodiversity because of its functional roles’’. However, we believe that social and, ultimately, political support are key for the effective implementation and funding of biodiversity conservation. It has increasingly been documented that actions to preserve biodiversity can be accompanied by constraints on future land use options that affect local human populations, resulting in a significant loss of economic opportunities. The strict conservation of biodiversity may also conflict with the well-being of most populations that still draw a portion of their necessities of life directly from ecosystems (e.g. subsistence uptake and other benefits), especially in emerging countries, remote regions or sparselypopulated areas of industrialized countries. Moreover, urban dwellers tend to lose their connection with nature and fail to experience the full extent of its benefits, which is likely to impede their propensity to appreciate the intrinsic value of biodiversity. ES offer conservationists a promising way to align people’s needs with conservation actions by establishing reserves that could fulfil their well-being. To conclude, the ES-argument is too often interpreted with a narrow focus on use value, markets and payments, which overlooks the aesthetic, spiritual, educational, scientific, recreational, existence and non-use values of ES (Reyers et al., 2012). As Reyers et al. (2012) have suggested, there is ‘‘an urgent need for the [conservation] community to move beyond the either biodiversity or ES debate to one that acknowledges that both biodiversity and ES are important arguments in stemming the tide of biodiversity’’. We believe that the ESargument is not an exclusive but rather a supplementary means for protecting biodiversity, especially where conservation costs are high and lack social support. Careful use of ES in conservation assessment is more likely to expand the opportunities for preserving biodiversity by diversifying the conservation toolbox. References Cimon-Morin, J., Darveau, M., Poulin, M., 2013. Fostering synergies between ecosystem services and biodiversity in conservation planning: a review. Biol. Conserv. 166, 144–154. Deliège, G., Neuteleers, S., 2014. Ecosystem services as an argument for biodiversity preservation: why its strength is its Problem – reply to Cimon-Morin et al.. Biol. Conserv. Goldman, R.L., Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., Daily, G.C., 2008. Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 105, 9445–9448. Reyers, B., Polasky, S., Tallis, H., Mooney, H.A., Larigauderie, A., 2012. Finding common ground for biodiversity and ecosystem services. Bioscience 62, 503–507.
220
Letter to the Editor / Biological Conservation 172 (2014) 219–220
Jérôme Cimon-Morin Laval University, Pavillon Paul-Comtois, Faculté des sciences de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Département de phytologie, 2425 rue de l’Agriculture, Québec, Qc G1V 0A6, Canada Ducks Unlimited Canada, 710 Bouvier, Bureau 260, Québec, Qc G2J 1C2, Canada Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, Montreal, McGill University, Stewart Biology Building, Department of Biology, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, Qc H3A 1B1, Canada Tel.: +1 418 623 1650x27. E-mail address: [email protected] Marcel Darveau Ducks Unlimited Canada, 710 Bouvier, Bureau 260, Québec, Qc G2J 1C2, Canada
Laval University, Pavillon Paul-Comtois, Faculté des sciences de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Département de phytologie, 2425 rue de l’Agriculture, Québec, Qc G1V 0A6, Canada Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, Montreal, McGill University, Stewart Biology Building, Department of Biology, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, Qc H3A 1B1, Canada Monique Poulin Laval University, Pavillon Paul-Comtois, Faculté des sciences de l’agriculture et de l’alimentation, Département de phytologie, 2425 rue de l’Agriculture, Québec, Qc G1V 0A6, Canada Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, Montreal, McGill University, Stewart Biology Building, Department of Biology, 1205 Dr. Penfield Avenue, Montreal, Qc H3A 1B1, Canada Tel.: +1 418 656 2131x13035. E-mail address: [email protected] Available online 6 March 2014