While a lot of current emphasis in conservation is focused on how to benefit humans, much of what should drive management policy is rather the objective science. The Perrings et al. (2011) article discusses the large human focus of conservation, how They categorize targets – most are socioeconomic drivers, then sustainable use, and last and least to be urgent threats to biodiversity. It brings up the question of which ecosystems have value? And how much? Is value based in the benefits humans reap, the services, or on objective scientifically derived value based in biodiversity.
The Cardinale et al. (2012) paper brings up these somewhat contrasting factors by evaluating Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning (BEF) and Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (BES). The functions explain how the system works and the services are the benefits we as humans derive from said system. Cardinale emphasizes that in order to truly understand and take advantage of ecosystem services, we must also understand the functions. When discussing ecosystem management we shouldn’t be focused solely on human benefits lest we risk over-taxing resources. Understanding BEF, and how different aspects of an ecosystem rely on each other, help to identify where BES comes from. We need to combine BES with BEF because they are interdependent. It’s the idea of looking at something as a whole, rather than just a number of parts.
This idea of function and services is mirrored in the relationship between scientists/researches and policy writers/regulators. Acheson (2006) notes the importance of scientists in his paper. When writing policy governments look to scientists so as to understand the resources they intend to manage. This places a lot of faith in scientists as non-experts lack the knowledge to challenge them. Science is highly important as it highlights what and how to regulate. Policy crafted around science, however, it should be noted that much of this science is new and as such the results aren’t always accurate. Acheson and Cardinale et al. both point out the unreliability of data collection methods.
Cardinale et al. point out that currently BES and BEF don’t consider the other in their findings, as BEF is on a focused, smaller scale, and BES is more general. However, the need of reliance of BEF and BES on each other, as well as policy and science on each other, highlights the inderdisciplinarity field of ecosystem management. We cannot rely simply on either science and ecosystem functions, or on was values we derive from biodiversity as humans. We must look more holistically as these factors all inform each other.
Sources: