Seeking an ecologically defensible calculation of net loss/gain of biodiversity: A critique

This paper does what it says it will, ie describe an ecocentric (or perhaps better, an ecosystem) offsetting scheme. However it does not and cannot answer the real criticisms applicable to such schemes. In effect it is just an interesting – if you are mathematically inclined – numbers game.
Firstly it ignores the monumental lack of understanding we have of how nature works. Ecologists are scientists and probably know more than most but even so their knowledge is limited. Why do I claim this? Because nearly every week I receive requests for funding to explore some very specific ecological research into, for example, the reasons for the decline in spotted flycatchers. If we don’t understand the reasons behind the decline of one member of a very popular family of animals, how can we claim to understand the inter-relationships involved in a typical ecosystem containing thousands of life forms? There are over 6,000 types of beetle alone in the UK, and over 2,000 types of moth; I doubt we have much knowledge of the vast majority of these.

I will also note, as an amateur naturalist of over 40 years, there are many questions that have hardly even been formulated. Why have whinchats declined so much in the UK last 20 years or so? Why have buzzards expanded their range so far east in such a similar short time frame? We just do not know enough about how nature works to pretend we can model it effectively. And this is what we do when we measure the loss of one ecosystem against another ‘managed’ – forecast? – ecosystem.

This leads to my second criticism. How do we decide what is a bad ecosystem and what is a good ecosystem? Further how do we decide whether a threatened fly or fungus is more or less important than a threatened bird or plant? Indeed in many instances how do we even know whether a particular fly or fungus is threatened? These are not necessarily empirical matters and relative power may well influence the discussion, thus they are more properly political matters and they are obscured when they are hidden by numbers. Examples in the UK include the development of green and brown field sites. Green field sites tend to be seen as more aesthetically pleasing and carry a higher economic value (and with it more power) yet, as many naturalists will concur, brown field sites are often more diverse.

Another more ecologically based argument is how should a site be developed, what should be conserved? In the UK the hills of Saddleworth to the east of Greater Manchester are being returned to blanket bog? Why was this ecosystem, essentially a product of human activity 5 or 6 thousand years ago, chosen over a likely pre human system of woodland? This could only have been a political decision within the conservation community.

The hidden controversies behind framing and valuing ecosystems, together with the uncertainty surrounding the science, lead to a third criticism. Not of the system itself though, but of its efficacy. It is a house built on sand and ultimately it will be easily overcome by a determined antagonist armed with strong economic arguments.

Finally I criticize it on quasi ethical grounds and aesthetic grounds. It is, at its centre, a hidden anthropocentric argument and as such another example of human arrogance. Once again we think we can know everything and have the right to treat other lifeforms as we see fit. Also it denies the beauty of Nature by hiding her behind a wall of numbers. Elegant as these numbers might be they are human creations and cannot match the artistry of 4 billion years.