Making Nature Valuable, Not Profitable: Are Payments for Ecosystem Services Suitable for Degrowth?

Abstract

Abstract:The growth economy imposes multiple crises on humanity and the natural world. To challenge this economic growth imperative, the degrowth movement emerges as a dissident response. Although within an economic growth perspective, payments for ecosystem services (PES) have also been proposed to attenuate the negative impacts of capitalism, as a redistributive mechanism that is claimed to deliver equitable conservation and sustainability. Degrowth has notably similar concerns, although it is inclined to argue against PES traditional ideologies and practices, which lead conservation to perceive nature within economic growth and market ideologies, diminishing the relationship between humans and nature. In spite of that, PES are becoming a strong trend in environmental governance. This paper attempts to examine whether PES are, and how they could be suitable for degrowth, through the lens of its main sources. In order to integrate PES and degrowth, it could require a PES reconceptualization. Although we assert that PES are not the most appropriate instrument for conservation, we argue that maybe PES could contribute to degrowth as a transition instrument toward fostering better practices. However, it is important to elucidate how they can be used and under which circumstances they could be appropriate.

Payments for ecosystem services: a review of definitions, the role of spatial scales, and critique

“…Following this line, critics argue that monetization supports a utilitarian rationality and a pure interest in profit-maximization, which abets the view on economic agents as "homo economicus" (McAfee 2012, Kull et al 2015, Van Hecken et al 2018). Ignoring other valuation languages is said to neglect alternative rationalities such as intrinsic, fundamental, eudaemonistic, and instrumental values of nature (Muniz and Cruz 2015). Thus, the articulation of ES in exchange values undermines "the social complexity necessary for sustainability" (Allen 2018:253).…”

“…Thus, the articulation of ES in exchange values undermines "the social complexity necessary for sustainability" (Allen 2018:253). Therefore, many scholars plead for a plurality of values in the context of nature conservation (Kallis et al 2013, Muniz andCruz 2015). If value plurality is not considered, a potential crowdingout of intrinsic motivations is often mentioned as a barrier for successful nature conservation (Corbera 2012, Hahn et al 2015, Scales 2015.…”

“…Many scholars criticize PES and their neoliberal character for reinforcing social inequalities. Although PES are often acclaimed as a potential win-win approach reaching important ecological and equity goals simultaneously, various authors argue that the implemented PES programs rarely consider important aspects of https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol26/iss2/art12/ environmental justice (Kosoy and Corbera 2010, Muradian et al 2010, Muniz and Cruz 2015, Fletcher and Büscher 2017. Different dimensions of justice are mentioned in the literature, which are often unaddressed by PES schemes, such as distributional, procedural, and participatory justice as well as justice of recognition and of capabilities (Muniz and Cruz 2015).…”

Nature commodification: ‘a necessary evil’? An analysis of the views of environmental professionals on ecosystem services-based approaches

“…These all share the overarching core idea that payments for ecosystem services do not have to require commodification (Hahn et al, 2015). For example, for some authors propertization of ecosystem services does not have to mean privatization, since property rights may still be held collectively (Farely and Costanza, 2010); or that nature valuation does not necessarily need to be orientated to profitability (Muniz and Cruz, 2015) These nuances have led to proposals of hybrid (i.e. not strictly Coasean) formulations of PES that place stronger focus on the integration of equity, justice and ecological sustainability concerns into PES design (Van Hecken et al, 2015).…”

Neoliberal performatives and the ‘making’ of Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES)

“…Van Hecken et al, 2015b; McElwee et al, 2014), including the potential for alternatives to PES (e.g. Muniz and Cruz, 2015; Singh, 2015).…”