Conservation: Peatlands vs Pandas. You Decide.

Human wellbeing is without a doubt intrinsically linked to the goods and services provided to us from the environment, thus influencing our perceptions, value and ultimately our conservation of the nature that is inherently important to us. With the relatively new concept of ecosystem services and the science behind it taking a more leading role in conservation practice since the year 2000, it is important to look at whether this recent movement has transformed the way we value nature and conserve it. Is it easier to convince somebody to conserve something if it has been scientifically proven to benefit them in some way, rather than conserving it because it’s “the right thing to do”?

Ecosystem services (ES) are the outputs from ecosystems that contribute to the wellbeing of mankind. These services can be broadly divided into three categories:

• Provisioning services, which are provided directly to us e.g. food and timber.

• Regulating services, tend to go unnoticed but are vital for our survival e.g. carbon sequestration in peatlands to help regulate our climate.

• Cultural services, from aesthetics to spiritual enlightenment.

Science

Understanding the science behind ES is critical in the valuation of nature and the successful implementation of conservation practices. A prime example is the increased investment by the Common Agricultural Policy into peatland restoration schemes, in support of our climate change budgets. The revised schemes pay farmers to block up drains that had previously been installed to make way for new farmland. This is all happening because we now have a greater understanding of how peatlands sequestrate carbon and mitigate the effects of climate change.

However, we have to ask ourselves, has science changed the way we value and conserve nature for the worst? Nowadays, conservation is focused on species and ecosystems that provide mankind with a service. We tend to neglect the redundant, lesser well known species which may be contributing to an ecosystem service, just one that is not directly related to us. All species provide a service whether it affects us directly or not. But is a service only considered ‘important’ when it actually affects us? Shouldn’t we try and conserve as much as humanly possible?

It is clear that understanding the science of ES is critical when valuing and conserving nature, it makes our approaches more successful, sustainable and manageable. However, with an increased focus on the roles of the general public and stakeholders in conservation, it is only right we consider how culture has affected the way we value and conserve nature.

Culture

Morals and aesthetics play a huge part when it comes to valuing and conserving nature. Perceptions of the natural world vary considerably across society, e.g. worshippers of particular religions such as Pantheism or Animism will place a much higher value on nature than the modern city dweller. Nature’s effect on culture may influence conservation to a greater extent than that of scientific discovery. For example, we can convince people of how valuable and in need of conservation peatlands are, but given the choice who wouldn’t rather adopt a cuddly panda cub over a stinking acre of peat swamp? Although the panda really does very little for us in the name of science, it’s aesthetically pleasing therefore, fulfils our cultural needs.

People are more likely to support the conservation of an element of nature if it affects them on a personal level, in most cases this is a simple tug at the heart strings, cute polar bear cub anyone? This ignorance is a problem; people need to be made aware of why the polar bears are in need of conservation in the first place. We cannot conserve the polar bear if we don’t secure payments to carbon sequestration schemes which have the potential to mitigate the effects of climate change, the very effects that are causing the polar bears to be in need of help in the first place!

Therefore, scientific understanding coupled with cultural integrity needs to be incorporated into conservation practices across the globe. The greater the understanding people have for the nature around them, the more appreciation they will have for it and the higher the value they will place upon it.

Conclusion

Undoubtedly the science of ES has transformed the way we value and conserve nature. We now have a greater understanding of how nature influences our wellbeing, which in turn has affected the implementation of conservation strategies. Although scientific understanding cannot currently compete with the moral and aesthetic arguments for conservation, maintaining biodiversity is surely essential in its own right.

There is need for a more interdisciplinary approach, requiring the facts provided by the scientists and awareness of the views and opinions of the stakeholders, thus resulting in a more effective and manageable approach to nature conservation.

Futher Reading

Egoh, B., Rouget, M., Reyers, B., Knight, A. T., Cowling, R. M., van Jaarsveld, A. S., & Welz, A. (2007). Integrating ecosystem services into conservation assessments: a review. Ecological Economics, 63(4), 714-721.

Hooper, D. U., Chapin Iii, F. S., Ewel, J. J., Hector, A., Inchausti, P., Lavorel, S., ... & Wardle, D. A. (2005). Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a consensus of current knowledge. Ecological monographs, 75(1), 3-35.