How can we communicate all that nature does for us?

This article by , Professor of Conservation Science at the School of Environment, Natural Resources and Geography, was originally published on . Read the .

As a conservation professor I believe people need to understand why protecting nature matters to them personally. Appealing to human self-interest has generated support for conservation in Switzerland, for example, where the government protects forests partly because they help prevent , or among which conserve wildlife partly because of the value of trophy hunting. But this understanding risks being obscured by unhelpful arguments over terminology.

The story starts in 2005, when the  was published. This document, the result of five years work by more than 1,300 scientists around the world, demonstrated beyond doubt that global ecosystems were in decline and that this really mattered. Perhaps its most significant legacy was a  which presented the ways human wellbeing is influenced by different categories of what it termed 鈥渆cosystem services鈥�. , maintaining healthy seas is important because of the 鈥減rovisioning services鈥� provided to fishing communities, while mangrove forests may provide 鈥渞egulating services鈥� protecting people from coastal storm surges.

The ecosystem services idea has since been hugely influential in  and there are now degree courses,  and  framed around the concept.

Jump forward 13 years and another global scientific effort has produced another . This time it鈥檚 IPBES: the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. In a  senior scientists representing its consortium of 129 countries have replaced the term ecosystem services with what they argue is a new concept: 鈥淣ature鈥檚 Contributions to People鈥�.

IPBES was one of the global initiatives set up in response to the success of the ecosystem services concept, so for scientists there to reject the term has caused quite . There are two questions to answer: Is the concept of Nature鈥檚 Contributions to People substantially new? And, secondly, is it helpful?

Same thing, different language

First, is it new? Proponents of the Nature鈥檚 Contributions to People concept argue that while the ecosystem services idea was readily taken up by ecologists and economists, it has failed to engage a range of perspectives from the social sciences and humanities.

For them, there is too much emphasis on services which are easy to quantify, such as the value that insects contribute to agriculture through pollination and pest control ( in the US alone, apparently). This has resulted in some world views being sidelined in policy debates. It is certainly true that a number of South American governments  which they consider commodifies what are better seen as gifts from 鈥渕other earth鈥�.

My sister Katherine Jones works in communications for RSPB Scotland. She agrees that while the term 鈥渆cosystem services鈥� can be useful in discussions with British policy makers, it has never resonated with the general public. 鈥淲hen talking to ordinary people鈥�, she told me 鈥渋t is much more effective to appeal to their innate passion for nature than suggesting that nature provides a service, like a utility company or a bank鈥�.

However, the editor of the journal Ecosystem Services responded to the IPBES publication with  in which he argues convincingly that far from being new, Nature鈥檚 Contributions to People is simply a non-technical explanation of the same thing. He, and , suggest that in trying to mark clear water between the two, the authors of the latest paper are wilfully ignoring both the large body of work which addresses issues such as commodification, and the success of ecosystem services in generating political interest in the environment.

Just a fad?

The second question concerns whether it is helpful. Prominent conservation scientist Kent Redford, and colleagues, pre-empted the recent debate when they  some years ago that conservation suffers repeatedly from fads. Concepts or approaches are enthusiastically promoted for a few years then dropped only for a new concept to be introduced 鈥� which looks substantially like the old one but with a snappy new name. The risk they highlight is that by regularly , the conservation community fails to learn the lessons from the failures of previous approaches as they view the new concept as so completely new that old issues don鈥檛 apply.

If Nature鈥檚 Contributions to People can help bring more actors to the table and address some of the limitations of ecosystem services, this will be helpful. However, problems and challenges will remain. Take the feeling of wellbeing many people get when they , for example. 鈥淐ultural services鈥� such as these have often been given less prominence because they are difficult to value 鈥� but it is not clear whether framing the issue around Nature鈥檚 Contributions will help solve this.

If you have read this far, then you may be wondering why this rather semantic argument should interest you. However, I would suggest that there are few issues more important than communicating to society at large why nature matters. If we need a new concept to keep this point fresh and alive in the minds of politicians and the general public then so be it. But let鈥檚 not argue. To paraphrase the classic number sung by Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers: you say 鈥淓cosystem Services鈥� and I say 鈥淣ature鈥檚 Contributions to People鈥�. The point made by both is that destroying nature ultimately harms us all.

Publication date: 27 April 2018