Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Biosphere - WBGU

An attempt to rank the value categories from a global perspective H 5.6
291
tection provided that the social cost of the protection
of the biosphere does not become unacceptably high
(WBGU, 1994).
Within the context of safe minimum standards,
using the example of species conservation, this would
mean: How many potential benefits are lost to
humankind if a safe minimum of protection for
species is guaranteed? If it is assumed that every
species has a positive value, the problems of systematic
recording of the benefits are avoided by concentrating
on the opportunity cost.At the same time, the
burden of proof is placed on those who want to
exploit natural resources or prefer alternative uses
that destroy species (WBGU, 1994).
H 5.5.3
Conclusions about the applicability of the
economic valuation approach
Both the problem of non-substitutability and also the
risk of irreversibilities, linked to the uncertainty
about future benefits, reveal the limits of the economic
rationale based on individual preferences. As
a consequence, a complete determination of the
values of biosphere services by means of individual
valuations should be assessed sceptically. Two conclusions
can be drawn:
1. A determination of values of all biosphere services
that is based on individual preferences is
practically impossible. The only possibility to calculate
a monetary value is to add to the overall
economic value an ‘appropriate’ supplement that
has been determined on the basis of individual
valuations – directly via interviews or indirectly
via market valuations. However, suitable scientific
criteria for measuring such an ‘appropriate’ supplement
are largely not in place, with the result
that this supplement can only be derived qualitatively
from expert knowledge. However, the
important demonstration function of economic
valuations remains in place. The exact level of the
economic value determined does not play the
decisive role then. Instead, an approximate idea
about the extent of the problem can be created
without the determined value as such having to be
taken too seriously.
2. The inaccuracies that are unavoidable in the
determination of an economic value for biosphere
services on the basis of their character as a collective
asset and the insufficient knowledge of
ecosystemic interrelationships illustrate that economic
valuations cannot be the sole basis for political
decisions. Economic valuation methods are
thus only one of many assisting factors that can be
used to make decisions. Here, in particular, ecological
and social criteria should be included in the
weighing up process, unless they can be integrated
in an economic valuation. The results of valuation
studies, therefore, need further interpretation
within the context of the democratic decisionmaking
process, irrespective of whether monetarization
occurred, as was implied in this section
when the limits of the applicability of the economic
rationale were discussed. Furthermore, it
becomes obvious that valuation issues are always
an economic-ethical problem (Hampicke, 1991),
because the partial separation from the concept of
an individual valuation requires an ethical justification
just as much as the economic approach
itself. The confrontation of economics and ethics
in the form of a conflict does not lead any further,
anyway. Instead, economics should be understood
as an expression of certain valuation ethics.
H 5.6
An attempt to rank the value categories from a
global perspective
The large number of value dimensions clearly illustrates
that decisions for weighing them are needed.
This need for weighing them can be visualized if the
value categories are brought into a relation with the
three types of landscape use (Section E 3.3.1). The
land use types refer to three categories: Type ‘E’
means adequate protection despite intense use. Type
‘N’ means dominance of protection over use. Type
‘M’ means protection through sustainable use of
resources. Whereas with landscape use type ‘E’ (conservation
despite use) the economic benefit dominates,
with landscape use type ‘N’ (conservation
before use) mainly the symbolic value, the option
value and the existence value are very high.The functional
value is assigned special significance generally,
because it plays the decisive role with regard to the
maintenance of the dominant goal for each landscape
use type, be it that it creates the ecological
foundations for the maintenance of the economic
benefit (type ‘E’), or be it that the functional value
determines the protection requirement of a landscape
(type ‘N’). With the landscape use types, therefore,
the question arises as to which values are used
in the decision on land use – and to what extent –
because not all values can be maximized at the same
time.
However, the more value dimensions that have to
be considered in an appreciation process, the more
complex the decisions become and the more likely
there are to be distortions in the weighting, because
most people tend to perceive certain value categories
more consciously and to assess their value subjec-