Member-only story
Why the Political Discourse on Ecosystem Services has been Misguided
A deep ecologist’s view on conservation
Over two decades ago, UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme) called for a scientific assessment of the relationship humans have with the environment. As a result, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment was published in 2005. One of its central claims was that human well-being is necessarily dependent on what scientists began to call “ecosystem services”. In short, the scientific community behind the Assessment claimed that:
“Ecosystem services are the benefits people obtain from ecosystems. These include provisioning services such as food, water, timber, and fiber; regulating services that affect climate, floods, disease, wastes, and water quality; cultural services that provide recreational, aesthetic, and spiritual benefits; and supporting services such as soil formation, photosynthesis, and nutrient cycling.” (pp. v)
The Assessment thus popularised the idea that the environment provides essential services for humanity, making humans fully dependent on nature's versatility. The term quickly became the prominent catchphrase in environmental politics, and now it is found in every textbook on environmentalism. But what is there to nag about then?
