Technocratic and Economic Ideals in the Ecosystem Services Discourse

In response to Abson & Hanspach (2013), we take the opportunity to clarify our key messages (Turnhout et al. 2013). First of all, it is important to recognize that our critique of the ecosystem services (ES) discourse does not focus on definitions of the concept but on the articulation of a new discourse about biodiversity. This discourse inherits from other discourses of biodiversity a familiar technocratic model, which promotes the production of standardized knowledge about the relevant components of biodiversity and its use in decision making, and complements this with an economic dimension. Thus, our critique of the ES discourse lies not only in its promotion of commodification and monetization, but also in its technocratic ideals about knowledge, standardization, and science–society relations, and particularly in the way it combines the two. Specifically, we argue that the ES discourse offers new conceptions of biodiversity and the categories it consists of—ecosystem services—with associated ideas about relevant knowledge and methodologies, and preferred strategies for conservation. In doing so, the ES discourse creates new alliances and affinities with implications for conservation practice. In our article, we have used the published literature to sketch these possible effects as they are starting to materialize as well as outline an alternative. Discourses, particularly new and emerging ones like the ES discourse, translate in different ways in practice. In contrast to what Abson and Hanspach suggest, we recognize that ES approaches are implemented in a variety of ways that do not necessarily involve monetization or commodification. However, when compared to other discourses of biodiversity, it has to be recognized that economic value does take centre stage. Although ES approaches do not dictate monetization or