Ecosystem Services as a Metaphor in Environmental Law

2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 525-548
Author(s):  
Justine Bell-James
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Coastal Wetland ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Intrinsic Value ◽  
Value Of Nature ◽  
Commodification Of Nature

The ecosystem services concept is a useful tool in environmental law, as it allows nature to be considered on the same plane of comparison as proposed development. However, the concept has received significant criticism, with many critics arguing that nature should be valued for its intrinsic worth. This article synthesises the ethical objections to the ecosystem services concept, distinguishing objections to the concept itself, and objections to the commodification of nature. It considers how the concept has been used in Australian environmental law to date, drawing on examples from the coastal wetland context. It concludes that most applications have not involved commodification, and have incorporated notions of intrinsic value. It concludes with some observations for future progress in this field, considering how the ecosystem services concept can be balanced with concerns for respecting the intrinsic value of nature.

Rights of Nature: Why it Might Not Save the Entire World

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien Bétaille
Keyword(s):  
Paradigm Shift ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Intrinsic Value ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Philosophical Approach ◽  
Legal Personhood ◽  
Rights Of Nature ◽  
Value Of Nature ◽  
Entire World ◽  
Wide Access

The advent of Rights of Nature (RoN) marks a new paradigm shift in the philosophical approach to nature. As such, the concept has generated enthusiasm amongst environmentalists and legal scholars. This is not surprising since granting legal personhood to nature seems to present itself as a relative easy fix for the multitude of deficiencies of “modern” environmental law. However, when critically assessed, many of the underlying assumptions justifying a shift towards rights-based approaches to nature are open to challenge. In this paper, which takes a more critical stance on the topic of RoN, it is submitted that also the much-criticized modern environmental law is moving towards a recognition of the intrinsic value of nature, puts breaks on property rights, offers remediation actions for pure ecological damage and also increasingly grants environmental ngos wide access to courts. Moreover, on a second level, it is argued that RoN are not a legal revolution and that many of the problems Rights of Nature tries to cure – such as a lack of enforcement – will simply re-emerge if not adequately assessed within this novel paradigm.

scholarly journals Practices of sustainability and the enactment of their natures/cultures: Ecosystem services, rights of nature, and geoengineering

2021 ◽  
pp. 053901842199894
Author(s):  
Frank Adloff ◽  
Iris Hilbrich
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
The Earth ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Knowledge Cultures ◽  
Rights Of Nature ◽  
Value Of Nature ◽  
The One ◽  
And Control

Possible trajectories of sustainability are based on different concepts of nature. The article starts out from three trajectories of sustainability (modernization, transformation and control) and reconstructs one characteristic practice for each path with its specific conceptions of nature. The notion that nature provides human societies with relevant ecosystem services is typical of the path of modernization. Nature is reified and monetarized here, with regard to its utility for human societies. Practices of transformation, in contrast, emphasize the intrinsic ethical value of nature. This becomes particularly apparent in discourses on the rights of nature, whose starting point can be found in Latin American indigenous discourses, among others. Control practices such as geoengineering are based on earth-systemic conceptions of nature, in which no distinction is made between natural and social systems. The aim is to control the earth system as a whole in order for human societies to remain viable. Practices of sustainability thus show different ontological understandings of nature (dualistic or monistic) on the one hand and (implicit) ethics and sacralizations (anthropocentric or biocentric) on the other. The three reconstructed natures/cultures have different ontological and ethical affinities and conflict with each other. They are linked to very different knowledge cultures and life-worlds, which answer very differently to the question of what is of value in a society and in nature and how these values ought to be protected.

The intrinsic value of nature and moral education

2007 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
William S. Helton ◽  
Nicole D. Helton
Keyword(s):  
Moral Education ◽  
Intrinsic Value ◽  
Value Of Nature

SHOULD ENDANGERED SPECIES HAVE STANDING? TOWARD LEGAL RIGHTS FOR LISTED SPECIES

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 317-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Baird Callicott ◽  
William Grove-Fanning
Keyword(s):  
Endangered Species ◽  
Private Property ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Intrinsic Value ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Habitat Destruction ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Circuit Court ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Own Name

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA) is America's strongest environmental law. Its citizen-suit provision—permitting “any person” whomsoever to sue on behalf of a threatened or endangered species—awards implicit intrinsic value, de facto standing, and operational legal rights (sensu Christopher D. Stone) to listed species. Accordingly, some cases had gone forward in the federal courts in the name of various listed species between 1979 (Palila v. Hawaii Dept. of Land & Natural Resources) and 2004 (Cetacean Community v. Bush), when the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that animals could not sue in their own name. Because the Supreme Court has interpreted its habitat destruction as the “taking” of a listed species, some have argued that enforcement of the ESA's critical-habitat-protection provision is a “regulatory taking” of private property without just compensation, contrary to the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. The courts have not agreed. The ESA citizen-suit provision appears to waive federal-court standing requirements devolved from Article III of the U.S. Constitution, creating much confusion and mutually contradictory rulings. A series of cases (culminating with Bennett v. Spear) reconciles the ESA's citizen-suit provision with the particularized and concrete “injury-in-fact” standing requirements devolved from Article III.

A meta-analysis of coastal wetland ecosystem services in Liaoning Province, China

2018 ◽  
Vol 200 ◽  
pp. 349-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
Baodi Sun ◽  
Lijuan Cui ◽  
Wei Li ◽  
Xiaoming Kang ◽  
Xu Pan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Coastal Wetland ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Liaoning Province ◽  
Wetland Ecosystem

scholarly journals Science for the sustainable use of ecosystem services

F1000Research ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. 2622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena M. Bennett ◽  
Rebecca Chaplin-Kramer
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Ecosystem Service ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Natural Capital ◽  
Sustainable Use ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Service Science ◽  
Human Wellbeing ◽  
History Of ◽  
Value Of Nature

Sustainability is a key challenge for humanity in the 21st century. Ecosystem services—the benefits that people derive from nature and natural capital—is a concept often used to help explain human reliance on nature and frame the decisions we make in terms of the ongoing value of nature to human wellbeing. Yet ecosystem service science has not always lived up to the promise of its potential. Despite advances in the scientific literature, ecosystem service science has not yet answered some of the most critical questions posed by decision-makers in the realm of sustainability. Here, we explore the history of ecosystem service science, discuss advances in conceptualization and measurement, and point toward further work needed to improve the use of ecosystem service in decisions about sustainable development.

Rolston, Lonergan, and the Intrinsic Value of Nature

1999 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore W. Nunez
Keyword(s):  
Intrinsic Value ◽  
Value Of Nature

scholarly journals Between Priceless and Worthless: Challenges in Using Market Mechanisms for Conserving Biodiversity

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-233 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin T. Reid
Keyword(s):  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Payments For Ecosystem Services ◽  
Market Mechanisms ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Market Approach ◽  
Commodification Of Nature ◽  
Governance Arrangements ◽  
Conservation Of Biodiversity

AbstractThere is growing interest in the use of market mechanisms, such as offsetting and payments for ecosystem services, to further the conservation of biodiversity. The specific needs of biodiversity mean that this approach faces significant challenges in terms of defining the units that can be the subject of the economic or market devices, of ensuring that such mechanisms do deliver conservation gains and of establishing appropriate governance arrangements. There are also ethical concerns that a market approach entails a commodification of nature which sacrifices some of the very elements which make nature valuable to us. The market-based schemes currently being operated and devised should be studied carefully to see how successfully these challenges can be met.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document