E-Letter responses to:

review: Andrew Balmford, Aaron Bruner, Philip Cooper, Robert Costanza, Stephen Farber, Rhys E. Green, Martin Jenkins, Paul Jefferiss, Valma Jessamy, Joah Madden, Kat Munro, Norman Myers, Shahid Naeem, Jouni Paavola, Matthew Rayment, Sergio Rosendo, Joan Roughgarden, Kate Trumper, and R. Kerry Turner Economic Reasons for Conserving Wild Nature Science 2002; 297: 950-953 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Conservation Coin Toss

Daniel P. Faith   (27 November 2002)

The coming challenges

Ian R. St. John   (1 October 2002)

Incentives to Ruin Nature Despite the Cost

Barbara A. Ray   (15 August 2002)

Conservation Coin Toss 27 November 2002
Daniel P. Faith, research scientist The Australian Museum Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Conservation Coin Toss	Based on economic valuations of ecosystem services, Balmford et al. (Science's Compass, 9 Aug. 2002) estimated the benefit-cost ratio of a global set of conservation reserves to be an impressive 100:1. This ratio seems too large, given their case-study findings indicating that only about 50% of the total economic value of services (TEV) of intact land is lost through conversion. The benefit from new reserves therefore will approximate 50% TEV, times the fraction, f, of area reserved (1). These TEV estimates also may provide information about the potential true costs of land acquisition, and contrast with Balmford et al's low cost estimates based only on some real-world expenditures on reserves. A land-owner committed to conversion would lose extractive services estimated to total 10% TEV (1). If there is a market for extractive services, the cost for land purchase will reflect this 10% TEV, and the benefit/cost ratio will be only about 5:1 - far from the dramatic 100:1 reported. Further, if there is any market for the other 40% TEV retained by converted land (1), the ratio might move even closer to 1:1. Thus, these economic valuations, far from dramatically promoting conservation, suggest that it could approach a "coin-toss" as to whether conservation is adopted. This problem highlights the need for an alternative perspective to that of economic valuations, particularly concerning biodiversity services. I suggest that the option values (2, 3) of biodiversity are very large, and not quantifiable in dollars. If the full value of such services never can be given a defensible dollar value (2, 4), an economic rationale may better be applied to the question of how, not whether, conservation is pursued. For example, a recent whole-country biodiversity planning study in Papua New Guinea (5) used no dollar valuations of biodiversity, but illustrated how net benefits are delivered only when the allocation of biodiversity reserves properly addresses opportunity costs through trade-offs. That study's proposed 16.8% of land for reserves nicely parallels the proposed 16.9% of natural biomes area in Balmford et al.'s study. But that 16.8% of land in PNG was needed to achieve the biodiversity benefits that could have been captured, before current land-use pressures, with only 10% of total area (5). One of the strongest economic arguments for conservation action may be the anticipated costs arising from lost opportunities for cost-effective solutions. References and Notes A. Balmford et al., Science 297, 950-953, Supporting Online material. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/297/5583/950/DC1 (2002). B. Norton, in Biodiversity, E.O. Wilson, Ed. (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1988), pp. 200-205. D. P. Faith, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond., Ser. B. 345, 45-58 (1994). P. A. L. D. Nunes, J. C. J. M. van den Bergh, Ecol. Econ. 39, 203-222 (2001). D. P. Faith, C. R. Margules, P. A. Walker, Pac. Conserv. Biol. 6, 304-324 (2001). I thank Andrew Balmford for comments and discussion.
The coming challenges 1 October 2002
Ian R. St. John, Software Designer I.E.E.E Respond to this E-Letter: Re: The coming challenges	There are two basic types of economic activity. One is infinitely expandable, such as information systems. The other is limited by natural processes, such as growth rates and area. The problem is in the second part. Exploitation of the limited natural resources is well known to be a road to ruin. It was described as "the tragedy of the commons" long ago. It is less well recognized that ownership of resources (the commons, vs private ownership) does nothing to change sustainability. Nor do political systems. Whether through business decisions, smuggling, or whatever, demand will be met. And supply cannot meet it. As we run toward the "limits to growth," it is more imperative than ever that we move away from a strictly exploitive use of nature and toward a managed and science-based symbiosis, with both local and international agreements to maintain or expand the resources. And it is imperative that these agreements and regulations be well enforced. It is not enough to shrug and point to smuggling or allow stripping of forests for short-term profit by "owners" or "political leaders." Studies have shown that even putting a small part of the oceans into "fish reserves" can lead to rebounding stocks within as little as three years. As we move toward the future, we must seek to adapt and become more conscious of our dependency on nature for health and wealth.
Incentives to Ruin Nature Despite the Cost 15 August 2002
Barbara A. Ray, Public Health Analyst DHHS/SAMHSA Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Incentives to Ruin Nature Despite the Cost	Clearly, undisturbed environment has enormous economic and health benefits for the world and its inhabitants. But this is not the whole economic story. Corporations, multinationals in particular, are driven to make a profit. No profit derives from leaving anything undisturbed, because corporations must "add value" in order to sell. This incentive can be the most destructive force in nature. If a single plant cured all types of cancer, a for-profit corporation would harvest, package, and advertise the packaged version. The corporation would have an incentive to conceal or destroy the free version. For-profit corporations are inherently designed to exploit anything that is free. Because destruction of nature converts to dollars, the true value of nature is ignored. Overcoming this perverse incentive is the great economic challenge of the 21st century.