Variations on a Theme: Valuation without Markets?

This recent post by Sally Collins on "Value Beyond Markets" at the Ecosystem Commons is concise and articulate and all that, but is also the latest version of a very long discussion.  The discussion goes like this:  "Given the limits of markets, how do we find the true value of ecosystems?"

The problem with this framing is that "value" itself is always understood to be a single, transcendental thing that market prices capture imperfectly.  This is not the case -- or if it were, we should all be Platonists.  Do we really think there's some substance out there called "value" that we perceive imperfectly?  Is it like flubber, ooblick, phlogiston or gravity? (oops, sorry there theoretical physicists!)  The time in which we posited inscrutible "essences" in order to explain things we didn't understand is for the most part over -- gravity is one of the last holdouts.  This, indeed, is the point of the Baconian tradition in science.

The second problem is that for the most part, even if there were a non-market essential value, people tend to elide immediately back into talking about dollars.  Thus we get discussions about "greening national accounts" or providing inputs into a Cost-Benefit Analysis -- neither of which necessarily involves market exchange -- as the main framework for discussing "non-market values".

Let me go waaaaay outside the box for a second and riff on a talk on an entirely unrelated topic by my friend and fellow referee Martin Foys, a medievalist at Drew University and designer of the Digital Mappaemundi environment for annotating documents (like maps) online.  He came to Kentucky last Friday and talked about how most people approach the digitization of medieval maps as a process of rectifying "inaccurate" hand-drawn maps onto an "accurate" modern graticule defined by the grid of latitude and longitude.  Sure, he says, this can be done.  But it is in a sense perverse, because it reduces the richness and complexity of the medieval map into a matter of an error term relative to a modern understanding of "location" that is assumed to be so correct that challenging it indicates some kind of mental deficiency.

Martin argued that we can still digitize the information on these maps without violating their own sense of location and perspective -- that is, without stretching and bending them to fit onto a modern grid.  The kind of "inaccuracies" present in a Ptolemaic map (to take a classical example) are themselves indicative of a different logic of locating one's self in the world, and as Martin said many of the medieval maps are basically cognitive maps.

By the same token, the question of how to value nature could be taken as one of how to rectify the awkwardly idiosyncratic and sloppy world of nature onto the coordinates of the money form.  And this assumption underlies both the discussion of how to value nature in markets AND how to value it "beyond" markets but in dollars.  What would it look like to be descriptive rather than to rectify relative to a money standard?  So yes, we could look at the "Mons Ardens" drawn on medieval maps and say "well, it's too big and not quite in the right place, and uses totally nonstandard symbology".  And then we could try to express information about it in coordinates.  What does that lose?

We can also look at a forest and say "well, there a lot of unknowns about nutrient processing and biodiversity here".  And then we could try to express information about it in dollars.  What does that lose?  What it gains is clear: calculability.

Sure, as Sally says, "the critique is easy".   But Martin's example goes beyond the critique by developing a web-based system for taking data while not imposing an inappropriate grid. What would it look like to try to use this approach to getting information about nature without forcing that information into a form that may or may not be appropriate?  This approach is less "calculable", sure, but in allowing incompatible formats to live together and inform discussion you open up a wider debate. 

I submit that the problem is not the multiplicity of Values, and the lack of any transcendental value that is not social.  The problem is that we want to calculate values and come up with a number.  But there are ways to move forward without doing so.

River Restoration Northwest

In Oregon for two weeks, learning an awful lot about how the specific regulatory and physical environment of the state and the region shape the process of trying to define credits in streams, wetlands, ecosystem services and -- well, you name it.  Temperature?  Salmonid habitat?  How many of these credits do you get for removing a dam?  More on this later, I hope, but Oregon's specific history with the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act is overlayed with the ubiquity of hydropower projects going through FERC relicensing -- this means the federal resource agencies can require them to be retrofitted with fish-passage gear, which is often less expensive than removing them entirely.  To a midwesterner, there is an absolutely shocking amount of money sloshing around the region being aimed at fish habitat improvement -- both from regulatory and granting sources.  Its true that the Clinton Administration's aggressive listing of endangered species in the region changed everything -- but it also turned on a firehose of federal and national money that has lasted and grown.

And at the River Restoration Northwest conference, at the lovely Skamania Lodge, I learned that -- as with wetlands in the 1980s, a lot of the basic science around stream restoration has yet to be sorted out.  Are standard measures of streamflow even applicable in high-gradient streams?  How can we get rivers to self-engineer by injecting 50 tons of gravel upstream and let it sort itself out?  What happens if the removal of top predators becomes a driver of river morphology because the explosion of grazing destabilizes streambanks?  (see Bob Bechta's excellent work on this).   That's right -- wolves as a driver of geomorphology.  Love it.

I can haz avoidance plz?

Ok, I've been waiting for a place to post this... and now I have a place.  Call it a LOL404.

Report on ecosystem services "stacking"

EPRI released their big report on ecosystem service stacking this week -- a long-awaited analysis of a survey for which I was involved in the initial design. 

Stacking is a topic which has largely flown under the radar -- there have been a handful of white-paper type reports, notably the one by  David Cooley and Lydia Olander at Duke's Nicholas School  last year, but absolutely nothing in the peer-reviewed literature.  But the question, to me, seems explosive in its consequences:  Can you establish more than one type of ES credit on a given piece of land? Can you, for example, sell carbon, water quality, endangered species habitat from the same site?  Currently the US regulatory answer is "no", but this is enforced by NO guidance or rule.  And with the role of REDD+ rising in the global carbon policy arena, expect to see a lot more talk about the way different ecosystem services overlay and interrelate.

Explosive, because the ability to derive many revenue streams from a single site comes into potential conflict with the ecological interrelationships between each service,  the documentation of which has vexed better minds than mine.  If you sell a carbon credit, how do you ensure that the underlying physical processes which created the carbon credit are not also intimately involved in creating other kinds of credits you might sell from the site? Could there be a more potent tension between the capitalist and ecological imperatives?  I'm going to leave it at that for the moment since I am working on a yet-to-be released paper with several co-authors on the topic.

A lot of good work here by Jessica Fox, Roy Gardner, and their crew.  Share and enjoy!

WetlandVille?

I have no time for Facebook games -- hell, I don't have time to read for fun or watch TV.  But if you do, you might enjoy this Web Thing from the University of Washington - Bothell.   It's a Farmville-type game that involves restoring wetlands... Search for "UWB Wetlands" on FB.  Grist writes it up here with more snark than I can care enough to summon.

I mean, I'm not against computer games -- I spent most of 1985 playing Wizardry and Choplifter on my Apple ][e.  But in the current era of slippage between digital and physical worlds, does this game run the risk of having players think that this actually substitutes for effective conservation measures? I think EPA/Corps better issue guidance pronto making it crystal clear that playing UW Bothell Wetlands Restoration does not qualify as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable permitted impacts to wetlands, streams or other waters of the United States under 40 CFR 230.10(a-d).  OK?

Now, what they REALLY need is a Facebook game teaching us how to apply the draft jurisdiction guidance.  But be warned, if you apply "significant nexus" to include ecological relations, Scalia will totally FB block you.

(h/t to Patrick Bigger)

All Your Ecosystem Services Are Belong to Us

 Just noticed this from the USGS:

"Beyond simple carbon markets and satellite images, we envision a sophisticated worldwide system that accounts for ecosystem service outputs using online database (for example, Google ecosystem services)."

Of course, it's only a matter of time before SkyNet achieves consciousness and takes environmental conservation into its own hands.

Ok, aside from the obvious one-world-government, black-helicopter, panopticon jokes this inspires, it's also obviously the implicit goal of most ecosystem service accounting work.  It's rarely stated in such clear, techno-topian terms, but it underlies a lot of current policy talk.  It's worth thinking about the kind of knowledge requirements and institutional capacities this would involve, and the kind of society that this consistent datalink to nature would shape.

I think a lot of folks in the ecosystem services world might have a hard time seeing what, exactly, is wrong with USGS's vision here.  The basic critique from the other side is that one person's ecosystem services are another person's conditions of biological existence, and to have them continuously monitored, valued and recorded is... unsettling.  At the very least -- regardless of the merits of the conservation actions -- it unavoidably creates an unequal power relationship (or, more likely, reinforces an already-existing one) between the monitor and the monitored.

Another Paradox: Territorial restrictions on ecosystem service credit trade

I'm tempted to name this one after Ricardo Bayon, because it came up in our conversation a few years back, but I'll spare him.  We were talking about the problem I'd seen in Chicago and Minnesota where municipalities were enacting rules that prevented wetland credits from leaving their territory -- Elgin didn't want to lose its wetlands to rural Kane County, etc. -- even though both of them were in the same Corps service area.  This was really getting in the way of local wetland bankers.

Ricardo waved off the possibility of this happening in California.  But I suggested something like this: "Any environmental amenity sufficiently valuable to sustain a viable ecosystem service credit market is valuable enough to stimulate policies restricting its flight from any territory concerned about attracting an affluent residential tax base."

Sounded smart.  No idea at all if this has happened!