By Bella Richmond, PhD student at Concordia University

I recently received a text from one of my best friends, asking me: “haven’t we all agreed that ecosystem services are just colonial garbage where white people consider nature as an economic entity?”. As I read this text, an internal debate that has been going on for approximately 5 years now, restarted. My PhD thesis is largely focused on the concept of ecosystem services. I’m not a big fan of colonialism or the economic valuation of nature, so naturally, this has led to the previously mentioned half-decade of internal debate. 

Ecosystem services are defined as the benefits that humans receive from nature, and the term was widely popularized with the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005¹. I think a lot of people working in the field now would agree that ecosystem services used to be very colonial and focused on trying to put a price tag on nature. But is this still true? Certainly, a lot of ecosystem service work takes place that is not focused at all on the economic valuation of nature (mine included). Many people have acknowledged that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to quantify the value of nature, especially when discussing cultural values. For example, what is the monetary value of the memories you have climbing your favourite tree in the park near your grandparents’ house? It gets pretty hard to put a number on these things (though people still try). So, the study of ecosystem services isn’t necessarily premised on the idea of the monetary valuation of nature. But is this framework founded upon a colonial worldview? Does it perpetuate one? The easy answer? Yes, absolutely. Regardless of whether money is involved or not, the vast majority of ecosystem service studies are focused on the quantification of the benefits that nature provides to humans, with the end goal of arguing the importance of nature due to said benefits.This concept that nature is valuable because of the benefits it gives us falls under the category of instrumental values. Instrumental valuation aligns with the colonial worldview that values people, nature, and objects only when they bring the colonizer, and by extension colony, benefits. For example, the land of now-called Canada was valued by English and French colonizers not for its inherent beauty or the relationship that early colonizers had with it, but because the many resources found within brought the benefit of monetary value. By contrast, intrinsic and relational values are deeply integrated into many Indigenous peoples’ worldviews. For example, I am writing this post in Tiohtià:ke, where for thousands of years the Haudenosaunee people have stewarded their ancestral lands. In Haudenosaunee tradition, thanks to the earth, water, animals, plants, the sun, and many more entities are regularly given during the Ohenten Kariwatekwen, or Thanksgiving Address. The connection and relationships between nature and people is highlighted and honoured through this process. This is just one example which highlights the contrasting value systems of Indigenous communities.

Following this line of thought, there have been alternative frameworks suggested to build and extend on ecosystem services and integrate relational and intrinsic value systems. One of the most popular of these alternative frameworks is “nature’s contributions to people” proposed by the IPBES². Nature’s contributions to people is a framework that emphasizes the role of culture and elevates the role of Indigenous and local knowledges. It is an interesting alternative to ecosystem services, and one that I find myself thinking about often. Depending on how it is implemented, it could very well be a step away from the colonial framework that dominates the field of ecosystem services.

The argument that I hear most often in defense of ecosystem services is that we exist in a colonial, capitalist system, thus, we are forced to use colonial, capitalist tools. We know that ecosystem services are at their base colonial, capitalist, and instrumentalist but so are the people in charge. Thus, the logic follows that we must use this broken tool to play a broken game, so that we can get the money/power/influence to do what is right. This argument has never compelled me – the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house³, after all. However, I acknowledge that ecosystem services are at times an effective communication tool in our current world. This does not stop me from identifying them as colonial, nor does it stop me from envisioning a future without ecosystem services, one with new frameworks for nature that emphasize its inherent and relational values. It does not stop me from hoping and struggling for a non-capitalist, anti-colonial world that values nature in many, many ways.

I would love to hear what you think. Stop me in the hallway at Concordia or at the next QCBS event to tell me your thoughts! 

About the author:

Bella Richmond is a member of the Ziter Urban Landscape Ecology Lab at Concordia University in Montreal. They are doing their PhD on the benefits of urban green infrastructure. They love to bike, read, and take advantage of Montreal’s free public pools.

Works Cited

1. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005 
2. The IPBES Conceptual Framework – connecting nature and people, Díaz et al 2015 Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
3. The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House, Audre Lorde 1979