WEBVTT

00:00:09.235 --> 00:00:10.610
GUEST SPEAKER:
Morning, governor.

00:00:10.610 --> 00:00:13.370
As you're well aware, how
best to prevent or compensate

00:00:13.370 --> 00:00:16.370
for wetland destruction is a
crucial and contentious debate

00:00:16.370 --> 00:00:17.950
here in Oregon at the moment.

00:00:17.950 --> 00:00:21.020
However, a local watershed
advocacy group currently

00:00:21.020 --> 00:00:23.150
recommends new methodology
for calculating

00:00:23.150 --> 00:00:24.800
the value of these wetlands.

00:00:24.800 --> 00:00:26.750
I'm eager to share
what I see are the pros

00:00:26.750 --> 00:00:28.126
and cons to this method.

00:00:28.126 --> 00:00:29.750
First of all, I'll
explain a little bit

00:00:29.750 --> 00:00:32.150
about how it compares
to our current tactics

00:00:32.150 --> 00:00:33.380
that we're using.

00:00:33.380 --> 00:00:35.720
Then I'll discuss
some major critiques.

00:00:35.720 --> 00:00:38.240
And then I'll conclude and
wrap up with my thoughts

00:00:38.240 --> 00:00:40.020
and recommendations.

00:00:40.020 --> 00:00:41.750
So the current system
we have right now,

00:00:41.750 --> 00:00:43.730
we require three
acres of wetlands

00:00:43.730 --> 00:00:47.392
to be created for every
acre that's destroyed.

00:00:47.392 --> 00:00:49.850
People have complained that
this really hinders development

00:00:49.850 --> 00:00:51.558
and that there's little
room for creating

00:00:51.558 --> 00:00:53.300
these new wetlands right now.

00:00:53.300 --> 00:00:55.430
Landowners,
particularly farmers,

00:00:55.430 --> 00:00:58.460
have started a system
of mitigation banking,

00:00:58.460 --> 00:01:01.320
where they turn acres of
their land into wetlands

00:01:01.320 --> 00:01:03.440
and then sell these
acres to developers

00:01:03.440 --> 00:01:05.060
who use it as
compensatory wetlands,

00:01:05.060 --> 00:01:07.640
or essentially wetlands credit.

00:01:07.640 --> 00:01:09.050
The main problem
with this system

00:01:09.050 --> 00:01:12.590
is that it's unclear whether
these new wetlands are really

00:01:12.590 --> 00:01:14.630
functioning how they should be.

00:01:14.630 --> 00:01:17.930
Wetlands execute a number
of ecosystem services

00:01:17.930 --> 00:01:21.170
like water storage, carbon
sequestration, water

00:01:21.170 --> 00:01:23.630
filtration, services
that are particularly

00:01:23.630 --> 00:01:26.400
beneficial for humans as well.

00:01:26.400 --> 00:01:28.460
So it'd be a better approach
to look specifically

00:01:28.460 --> 00:01:33.530
at these services to recognize
what we would have to replace.

00:01:33.530 --> 00:01:35.870
So this new system
would require adding up

00:01:35.870 --> 00:01:40.070
the total value of what these
ecosystems' services are

00:01:40.070 --> 00:01:42.939
worth to humans
in monetary terms.

00:01:42.939 --> 00:01:45.230
As they aren't currently
bought and sold on the market,

00:01:45.230 --> 00:01:48.300
this evaluation process
can be challenging.

00:01:48.300 --> 00:01:51.660
But a mixture of different
processes can be used.

00:01:51.660 --> 00:01:53.750
We can use market
goods as a proxy.

00:01:53.750 --> 00:01:57.950
For example, flood barriers can
cost up to around $15 billion,

00:01:57.950 --> 00:02:00.340
while coral reefs do
this naturally for free.

00:02:00.340 --> 00:02:02.930
So it provides a comparison.

00:02:02.930 --> 00:02:05.670
We can look at
revealed preferences,

00:02:05.670 --> 00:02:08.900
like seeing people, if
they travel to x place

00:02:08.900 --> 00:02:13.160
to see nature, it gives
a sense of their value,

00:02:13.160 --> 00:02:15.560
but also using
hypothetical markets

00:02:15.560 --> 00:02:18.860
like measuring people's
willingness to pay.

00:02:18.860 --> 00:02:21.850
Using this process, Robert
Costanza and his team

00:02:21.850 --> 00:02:23.690
calculated that
ecosystem services

00:02:23.690 --> 00:02:31.190
are worth $142.7 trillion
annually in 2014 US dollars,

00:02:31.190 --> 00:02:33.050
which is a profound
number to really show

00:02:33.050 --> 00:02:37.580
how these ecosystems, or
services are of value.

00:02:37.580 --> 00:02:39.770
Of course, there are many
critiques and arguments

00:02:39.770 --> 00:02:42.730
for why this is not a
really applicable process.

00:02:42.730 --> 00:02:45.440
Critiques specifically to
the framework of method,

00:02:45.440 --> 00:02:48.350
first of all, include that
the economic assumptions

00:02:48.350 --> 00:02:50.360
are usually inappropriate.

00:02:50.360 --> 00:02:51.860
It assumes everyone
is always trying

00:02:51.860 --> 00:02:55.060
to maximize a personal
utility function

00:02:55.060 --> 00:02:57.110
and assumes that goods
are substitutable,

00:02:57.110 --> 00:02:59.044
which is not always the case.

00:02:59.044 --> 00:03:00.710
Also, there's an issue
with discounting.

00:03:00.710 --> 00:03:03.680
It's problematic to assume
that ecosystems in the future

00:03:03.680 --> 00:03:06.770
have diminished value.

00:03:06.770 --> 00:03:10.070
People also identify that
people's ability to evaluate

00:03:10.070 --> 00:03:10.899
is flawed.

00:03:10.899 --> 00:03:13.190
People don't necessarily have
a complete understanding,

00:03:13.190 --> 00:03:18.290
like what a particular
soil microorganism will do.

00:03:18.290 --> 00:03:20.277
People are also asked
to put a price on things

00:03:20.277 --> 00:03:21.860
that aren't normally
priced, and so it

00:03:21.860 --> 00:03:23.840
makes it a challenge to judge.

00:03:23.840 --> 00:03:26.480
Essentially, valuation
methods and market schemes

00:03:26.480 --> 00:03:28.640
are not ideologically neutral.

00:03:28.640 --> 00:03:30.770
It's said they're
culturally construed,

00:03:30.770 --> 00:03:35.160
so therefore, there's a risk
of having high subjectivity.

00:03:35.160 --> 00:03:38.210
Zooming out in terms of these
critiques, the quantification

00:03:38.210 --> 00:03:42.620
of nature, people will say, in
the first place is problematic.

00:03:42.620 --> 00:03:46.610
Valuing nature is arguably
a personal and social value

00:03:46.610 --> 00:03:49.040
at the level of morals.

00:03:49.040 --> 00:03:52.100
And so therefore,
no amount of money

00:03:52.100 --> 00:03:54.590
can be effectively compared.

00:03:54.590 --> 00:03:56.660
Others will also argue
that commodification

00:03:56.660 --> 00:04:00.410
induces competition, which
can be counterproductive.

00:04:00.410 --> 00:04:02.930
It basically undermines
the moral incentives

00:04:02.930 --> 00:04:06.789
of conservation by making it
about self-interest instead.

00:04:06.789 --> 00:04:09.080
Despite these critiques and
these arguments against it,

00:04:09.080 --> 00:04:12.586
I would still recommend it,
though, as a valuable exercise.

00:04:12.586 --> 00:04:16.760
Although the process itself
clearly has some flaws,

00:04:16.760 --> 00:04:18.769
by spelling out all the
different assumptions

00:04:18.769 --> 00:04:22.040
we make, we can perhaps not
reduce the subjectivity,

00:04:22.040 --> 00:04:24.170
but can at least be
transparent about the thinking

00:04:24.170 --> 00:04:25.820
that we're implying.

00:04:25.820 --> 00:04:27.735
Also in terms of the
moral implications,

00:04:27.735 --> 00:04:29.360
currently with the
system that we have,

00:04:29.360 --> 00:04:32.450
we're already using markets
for ecosystem services

00:04:32.450 --> 00:04:34.600
with the mitigation
banking procedure.

00:04:34.600 --> 00:04:39.080
The Army Corps of Engineers
has cut the cost $45,000

00:04:39.080 --> 00:04:41.600
to replace a acre of wetland.

00:04:41.600 --> 00:04:44.540
So in a way, we're already
quantifying these wetlands.

00:04:44.540 --> 00:04:46.940
Instead, we would just
be valuing the services

00:04:46.940 --> 00:04:48.770
that they provide.

00:04:48.770 --> 00:04:51.440
Furthermore, I'd argue that we
should focus on the outcomes

00:04:51.440 --> 00:04:55.580
regardless of the different,
differing ethical philosophies.

00:04:55.580 --> 00:04:58.210
Economic arguments tend
to be more salient.

00:04:58.210 --> 00:05:00.680
They fit with the ideological
and institutional structures

00:05:00.680 --> 00:05:03.500
in place, and thus have
shown remarkable success

00:05:03.500 --> 00:05:07.490
in political recognition
and spurring policy

00:05:07.490 --> 00:05:10.190
around ecosystem conservation.

00:05:10.190 --> 00:05:13.120
Currently, without valuing
ecosystems in this way,

00:05:13.120 --> 00:05:16.880
in formal policy evaluations
like cost-benefit analysis,

00:05:16.880 --> 00:05:19.850
we are effectively assigning
them a value of zero.

00:05:19.850 --> 00:05:22.640
So instead, by illustrating
the immense value to humans,

00:05:22.640 --> 00:05:24.890
the critical need to
preserve these services

00:05:24.890 --> 00:05:29.570
becomes much more salient both
land owners and developers.

00:05:29.570 --> 00:05:32.060
Although Marc Sagoff
shows how the back story

00:05:32.060 --> 00:05:34.820
or political rationale
has been misportrayed,

00:05:34.820 --> 00:05:36.680
the parable of
how New York chose

00:05:36.680 --> 00:05:38.240
to restore the
Catskills Watersheds

00:05:38.240 --> 00:05:40.170
illustrates this value.

00:05:40.170 --> 00:05:42.697
Restoring, restoration
cost them $1 billion,

00:05:42.697 --> 00:05:44.780
whereas a new filtration
plant, on the other hand,

00:05:44.780 --> 00:05:48.110
cost up to $6 billion, which
shows the great efficiency

00:05:48.110 --> 00:05:50.630
in natural ecosystem services.

00:05:50.630 --> 00:05:52.810
The greater lesson,
however, indicates

00:05:52.810 --> 00:05:55.740
that we should be seeking to
preserve rather than always

00:05:55.740 --> 00:05:56.860
restore.

00:05:56.860 --> 00:05:59.610
This can save ourself
money in the long run.

00:05:59.610 --> 00:06:01.790
As this methodology
makes this message clear,

00:06:01.790 --> 00:06:05.270
I see great utility in using
an ecosystem services approach.

00:06:05.270 --> 00:06:07.190
Although money is not
the end-all be-all

00:06:07.190 --> 00:06:09.020
and shouldn't be,
putting it in these terms

00:06:09.020 --> 00:06:11.165
creates great political
agency for conserving

00:06:11.165 --> 00:06:14.490
the ecosystems depend on.