Though known for millennium that nature provides multiple benefits, the idea of ecosystem services and payments for these services has become more prominent in the last two decades. It is exciting to see nature’s values integrated into the market which helps people realize the full costs and benefits of production and consumption decisions.
Many ecosystem services are not bought or sold and because property rights are not well specified on them it is difficult to do so. These are considered non-market goods; no market price exists.
There are some intriguing new models to help calculate nature’s value. At a site-specific scale these may assist policy makers in making decisions at the margin. But accurate valuation is difficult and policy must address the complex interrelationship of economic and ecological systems.
A forest example can help explain. It has long been understood that forests provide many benefits from wood products and recreation to habitat, water flow management, and carbon sequestration. Historically, timberland managers focused on wood products. Over time recreation value became apparent and its provision increased. Recent policies have proposed carbon credits to preserve forests for sequestration.
Creating arbitrary prices for ecosystem services, such as carbon, however, can have secondary consequences. A 15-research institute consortium, known as CORRIM, has analyzed the life cycle of wood products and the impact of forest carbon credits. They have found that motivating more forest preservation through carbon credits can lead to the substitution of wood building products with fossil fuel intensive products resulting in an increase, rather than a decrease, in overall atmospheric carbon.
I do not want to suggest that all ecosystem valuation is harmful, it may be better than allowing environmental degradation to take place. And payment for ecosystem services is more appealing than prescriptive regulations. Valuation provides a framework for integrating these non-market goods into the market.
Markets can and do protect environmental quality given the proper institutions. It is the lack of property rights that make valuing nature so difficult.
Founded 30 years ago in Bozeman, Montana, PERC—the Property and Environment Research Center—is the nation’s oldest and largest institute dedicated to improving environmental quality through property rights and markets.
PERC’s publications, each designed to resonate with specific groups, move ideas generated at PERC to broader audiences.
Research is at the heart of PERC's work, with a focus on the question: What is the link between economic growth and environmental quality?
The goal of PERC’s programs is to fully realize the vision of establishing “PERC University,” where scholars, students, policy makers, and others convene to expand the applications of free market environmentalism.
PERC's fellowships share a common goal of exposing new scholars, students, journalists, and policy makers to free market environmentalism, as well as enable scholars already familiar with FME to explore new applications.
PERC continues to publish and present a broad range of research and discussion through podcasts, videos, and other multimedia channels.