Why Money Matters in Ecological Valuation

The ecosystem services movement was a reaction against nature being taken for granted in decision making. Put a value on the services that we enjoy from ecosystems and there is a better chance of showing their importance in economic and social development (Norgaard 2010). Yet there are still concerns that the monetization of these services is at best inappropriate and at worst flawed on ethical grounds and in terms of basic principles (Kapustka and McCormick 2015). Here, I argue that these views are missing the point about the need for a transparent approach to valuation

Environmentally sensitive life-cycle traits have low elasticity: implications for theory and practice

The relationships between population growth rate and the life-cycle traits contributing to it are nonlinear and variable. This has made it difficult for ecologists to consistently predict changes in population dynamics from observations on changes in life-cycle traits. We show that traits having a high sensitivity to chemical toxicants tend to have a low elasticity, meaning that changes in them have a relatively low impact on population growth rate, compared to other life-cycle traits. This makes evolutionary sense in that there should be selection against variability in population growth rate. In particular, we found that fecundity was generally more sensitive to chemical stress than was juvenile or adult survival or time to first reproduction, whereas fecundity typically had a lower elasticity than the other life-cycle traits. Similar relationships have been recorded in field populations for a wide range of taxa, but the conclusions were necessarily more tentative because stochastic effects and confounding variables could not be excluded. Better knowledge of these relationships can be used to optimize population management and protection strategies and to increase understanding of the drivers of population dynamics

The structural and functional dynamics of selected species -populations of freshwater snails:towards a systems approach

The structural and functional dynamics of freshwater gastropods at Malham Tarn are examined and detailed information is presented with regards to two littoral species, Ancylus fluviatilis (Mull.)and Planorbis contortus(Linn.), occupying a semi-isolated part of the Tarn. At all levels, from whole Tarn to micro-situations the snail populations are aggregated. Both P.contortus and A. fluviatilis are semelparous with little overlapping between generations. Their phonological details may vary from year to year depending on external conditions. A.fluviatilis is a herbivore which feeds on epilithic algae, particularly diatoms. P.contortus is a detrivore which is only able to make use of the bacterial fraction of its food. The functional ecology of these two species is considered in terms of the classical energy budget statement and indicates that mucus secretions are important elements of their function and functioning. The philosophical implications of the mechano-reductionist, energy budget statement are discussed and criticised. The relevance of Control Theory and the more generalised Systems Theory are examined in terms of the results from freshwater snails. A more realistic, holistic approach is suggested

Ecotoxicology

Ecotoxicology is concerned with describing, understanding, and predicting the effects of chemicals used by people, either from natural sources (such as metals) or from synthetic processes (agrochemicals, pharmaceuticals, industrial chemicals), on ecological systems. It provides the basis for ecological risk assessment, predicting likely impacts of chemicals on ecological systems, and is an important contributor to environmental protection legislation. ... Theoretical models have an important part to play in ecotoxicology, because it is extremely difficult to predict the likely effects of chemicals in complex ecological systems simply on the basis of observation. Ecological models that incorporate mechanistic understanding of the appropriate processes and linkages are particularly useful. An important issue to be addressed in this context is how much complexity needs to be incorporated in models to make them suitably predictive for their application in risk assessment and environmental protection. More generally, effort needs to be put into developing methods for assessing how chemicals impact ecosystem processes that have consequences for valued ecosystem services. Finally, there is as yet little understanding of how evolutionary adaptation should be addressed in risk assessment, and this needs further study

Population growth rate as a basis for ecological risk assessment of toxic chemicals

Assessing the ecological risks of toxic chemicals is most often based on individual-level responses such as survival, reproduction or growth. Such an approach raises the following questions with regard to translating these measured effects into likely impacts on natural populations. (i) To what extent do individual-level variables underestimate or overestimate population-level responses? (ii) How do toxicant-caused changes in individual-level variables translate into changes in population dynamics for species with different life cycles? (iii) To what extent are these relationships complicated by population-density effects? These issues go to the heart of the ecological relevance of ecotoxicology and we have addressed them using the population growth rate as an integrating concept. Our analysis indicates that although the most sensitive individual-level variables are likely to be equally or more sensitive to increasing concentrations of toxic chemicals than population growth rate, they are dif. cult to identify a priori and, even if they could be identified, integrating impacts on key life-cycle variables via population growth rate analysis is nevertheless a more robust approach for assessing the ecological risks of chemicals. Populations living under density-dependent control may respond differently to toxic chemicals than exponentially growing populations, and greater care needs to be given to incorporating realistic density conditions (either experimentally or by simulation) into ecotoxicological test designs. It is impractical to expect full life-table studies, which record changes in survival, fecundity and development at defined intervals through the life cycle of organisms under specified conditions, for all relevant species, so we argue that population growth rate analysis should be used to provide guidance for a more pragmatic and ecologically sound approach to ecological risk assessment

Environmental Impact Assessment for Socio-Economic Analysis of Chemicals: Principles and Practice (Technical Report No. 113)

This report describes the requirements for, and illustrates the application of, a methodology for a socio-economic analysis (SEA) especially as it might be adopted in the framework of REACH. Socio-economic analysis weighs the costs of any restrictions on the production and use of chemicals against the benefits to human health and the environment. The reasons why industry needs to understand the principles and practices of socioeconomic analysis are: (l) to carry out, where appropriate, a SEA as an argument for authorisation (this is an industry responsibility), and (2) to be able to contribute as stakeholders in socio-economic discussions with regulatory authorities when a SEA is used as a basis for justifying restrictions. The focus of this report is on the ecological impacts of chemicals rather than on their human health impacts. This is where many of the most profound ecological and economic challenges are, and the ECHA guidance for socio-economic analysis associated with both restrictions and authorisation in the REACH process identifies the need for more work in this area. The report argues for as much quantification as possible, with the ideal of monetisation so that a cost-benefit analysis can be carried out. Without quantification the ecological benefits of restrictions on chemicals (including failure to authorise) may well be presented in emotive terms that are hard to counter on the basis of the economic benefits that might be lost from restricted use or the banning of a chemical. An ecological benefits assessment involves two components. One is the extent to which ecological etlects are or may be ameliorated by restrictions on a chemical, and the other is the monetary value that is put on the ecosystems so protected. There are enormous challenges in ascribing monetary values, especially to non-marketed ecological goods or services. However, environmental economics has made great strides over recent years in developing appropriate methodologies to enable this to be achieved. This report draws attention to the appropriate sources. A substantial part of the challenge for valuation in benefits assessments is in identifying and quantifying the ecological impacts themselves in appropriate terms. The problem is that ecological risk characterisations and assessments do not express effects in terms of \u27impacts\u27 that can be valued. This report draws attention to a number of possible scenarios whereby the outputs of risk characterisations might be linked to quantified ecological impacts through such methods as species-sensitivity analysis, smart modelling, making connections to ecological quality status and using an ecosystem services approach. None of these methods is developed to the extent that they could be applied in case studies. There will be a need for pioneering efforts in these areas. The challenge of conducting a socio-economic analysis becomes even harder when only hazard criteria are available as is the case for substances of very high concern. The report takes the view that most of these chemicals will be degradable in the environment and in organisms, and therefore should be amenable to standard risk characterisations. However, the expectation is that the SEA arguments will have to be particularly convincing to allow authorisation. Finally, socio-economic analysis needs to bring together risk assessment and economic considerations. This requires that ecologists and economists, scientists and regulators understand each other\u27s needs and languages. The establishment of a forum to facilitate this is to be encouraged