ABSTRACT
Economic growth, population growth and market institutions are forces driving biodiversity loss. Therefore, the idea that economics (which generally praises the market and preaches economic growth) provides concepts and instruments for biodiversity conservation is, at first sight, surprising. We side with the sceptics (McCauley, 2006; Kosoy and Corbera, 2009; Spangenberg and Settele, 2010), but we understand the logic of those who are keen to apply money valuation and payment for ecosystem services. In a court case for damages to the environment and to human health, money valuation is appropriate, as we see in the Chevron and Shell cases in Ecuador and Nigeria. However, in a dispute on shrimp farming in Ecuador or on bauxite mining in Odisha, should cost-benefit analysis be applied, or should the relevant environmental, social and cultural values have a chance to be deployed in their own units of account as in multi-criteria evaluation (Munda, 2008)?
