Dear Tiwari Saheb

Excellent issue to be deliberate upon. I am sure we will get various perspective for the issue ranging from anthropocentric, cultural to technological besides conservation and protection aspects. 

BC and ES are linked in variety of ways. ES is anthropocentric realisation (human centric perspective) of goods and services from biodiversity and various other components of the ecosystem. It is cumulative sum of various functions of different components of the ecosystem.

To me ES is more important, however the linkages of biodiversity with ecosystem is diverse (linear, nonlinear as well as dependence and interdependence and interactive) as well as dynamic, therefore assessing or concluding the overall question in yes or no form is difficult to answer. E.g. The degradation of biodiversity certainly affect the deliverable (to human) and functioning of ecosystem, however the full benefits of ES does not ensure high biodiversity. 

I don't mean to sound cynical, but I have the impression that ecosystem services became the "flavor of the month" buzz phrase for grant applications in the 1990s. Try to get a copy of:

F. FRASER-DARLING (1969), Man’s Responsibility for the Environment, in: F.J.

EBLING (ed.), Biology and Ethics, London 1969, pp. 117 – 122.

Biodiversity is the backbone of human civilization. It fulfils the need of food, fodder, fuel and timber requirements. In addition to this, biodiversity maintain the ecological balance, mitigate natural calamities (drought, flood etc) and check soil erosion. Therefore, conservation of biodiversity is important for the survival of human beings. Loss of biodiversity will disrupt the functioning of ecosystems, thus depriving us from ecosystem services.

Biodiversity is the planetary life support system and fountainhead of all ecosystem goods and services. Therefore biodiversity conservation and maintenance of ecosystem services are two sides of the same coin - both are equally important. If we take measures for biodiversity conservation those naturally would ensure the sustained flow of ecosystem services. But maintenance of ecosystem services also prompt us to maintain the health of habitats, land/soil, water, etc. which may apparently mean abiotic components, in fact they are systems/ecosystems including both biodiversity and diversity of habitat or abiotic factors. It's now clear that we have to take a holistic approach where biodiversity takes the centrestage. Then and then only we will be really paying equal importance- both biodiversity and ecosystem services. If we don't take proper care of our heart and head (brain) all other systems will suffer. It's equally true for biodiversity (head, heart and soul of ecosystem) and ecosystem services. 

Several studies and reports (see for example http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/ecosystem_services_biodiversity_IR11_en.pdf) show that especially from the conservation point of view BC and ES are difficult to be treated and valued separately. Biodiversity refers clearly to the functions of the ecosystems, while ES listing efforts (e.g. https://cices.eu/) deem all levels of biodiversity (genetic, ecosystems, landscape etc) as inherent characteristic of ES. As such I don't think that there will ever be an one answer to this question.    

In my opinion, the concept Ecosystem Services is dangerously replacing biodiversity conservation, through pretending to give the anthropocentric exploitation of biosphere some formal, even 'moral' coverage. Following this false ‘Anthropocene’ reasoning do many people defend a ‘new biosphere’ at the unique service of man, like a garden delivering us water, primary and secondary production and other goods. They seem not aware that the dark face of such new biosphere is the sixth biologic extinction, thus the vanishing of many ecosystems and ‘ecosystem functioning’, and then our serious extinction threat as species. A very good, lucid reasoning in this sense is the excellent book ‘Half Earth, our plantet’s fight for life’, by the great ecologist and even greater person Edward O. Wilson.

• Thank you , Josep for discussing the issue in such  good manner .

I think that biodiversity conservation is a very important topic, and I also think that biodiversity conservation is evaluated to a very large extent by ecosystem services. But if ES is a product of BD, then my greatest worry or concern is why the need for BDC when the ecosystem services is an evolving demand as a result of highly evolving world? Except if the meaning of biodiversity conservation is admonitional instruction directed to man and his activities, I think that ES may have equivalent ecological relevance as do BDC. 

I agree with Dr. J.M. Ninot's opinion

In fact some times it is difficult to differentiate between the two terms (biodiversity & ecosystem services) due to the very complex relationship, interdependence and interaction of the ecosystem components. However, unless we conserve biodiversity, how we can talk about ecosystem services?  Ecosystem services are the services/products that we expect from ecosystems. Do we get water, food,  soil, pollination... without we conserve biodiversity?

In catchment area (watershed) management for hydropower projects, PES is a mechanism whereby the project downstream pays the local inhabitants upstream for their "services" in protecting the project from pollution, sedimentation, etc. Water resources are planned and designed on the historical values for hydrology, rainfall, water quality, etc. Any large-scale degradation of the ecosystems upstream will probably affect the efficiency and useful life of the project. In theory, PES "shares benefits" with the poor and helps the project. In practice, you are paying them NOT to break existing laws. Any benefits to biodiversity are incidental, and not the primary intention of PES.

Dear Dr. Tewari, 

Thanks to bring this topic, It is also my concern as I am working on Urban Ecosystem Services.

When you analyse well,  biodiversity and ecosystem services there are much correlated  but the study intention is unevenly distributed. Much efforts are in biodiversity conservation than in ecosystem services matter. Despite uneven distribution conservation efforts is saving also ecosystem  from degradation. 

On other hand, ecosystem service should have much more important when you analyse the major  host of biodiversity. Once ecosystem services get high importance indirectly biodiversity  is getting more and more than being considered as single entity to analyse or to advance it alone.

Thank you  very much Evariste .We  are giving so much attention to biodiversity conservation and very little is heard about importance of ecosystem services . If we thought of about the importance of ecosystem services in right perspectives , biodiversity conservation will be automatically most important issue.In that case the services of ecosystem will be dealt in that manner as it should have been.Regards .

This is a very interesting discussion strand. In the UK there is now very little discussion of biodiversity conservation since the political trend is for a focus on ecosystem services. The contributors above would conclude that this is a progressive move but the reality is that the concept of ecosystem services is being promoted by some interests to reduce the level of protection for biodiversity and balance it against socioeconomic objectives. Whilst I agree that the concept of PES is very useful, it is a double-edged sort that we need to make sure is used in the right way to avoid biodiversity damage. We must always remember that there is (or at least seems to be) considerable functional redundancy in natural biological assemblages and much of our biodiversity interest lies within this redundancy. It's important to value and highlight the ecosystem services that healthy and biodiverse ecosystems provide, but avoid ecosystem services being the key societal end-point in its own right. I touch on these tensions in this paper. 

Article Developing a coherent narrative for conserving freshwater an...

Thank you very much Chris , In India every one talks about biodiversity conservation , no body gives importance to ecosystem services ,, that's why my I think there should be a balanced approach while issues related to biodiversity and ecosystem services are discussed , and R&D programmes are implemented accordingly . 

It's an interesting contrast between our countries - I would expect a greater focus on ecosystem services in India and a greater focus on biodiversity conservation in the UK, simply because the UK has a long history of protecting wildlife for its own sake and I suspect that in India wildlife protection needs to be more explicitly grounded in social and economic well-being. But there is a strong affordability factor in the relative emphasis countries place on biodiversity conservation as opposed to ecosystem services, and the contrasting economic fortunes of the UK and India in recent times may be partly behind this paradox.

But broadly I agree with you that it is sensible to highlight and use the concept of ecosystem services to promote biodiversity conservation (in terms of the services that healthy and biodiverse ecosystems provide). ES can lend a lot of weight to biodiversity arguments. but it's important for me to point out the dangers of going too far. I'm not sure 'balance' is the right word, as it implies balancing biodiversity and societal needs rather than promoting the ecosystem services that biodiverse natural ecosystems provide. It seems so easy to mi-use. mis-interpret and mis-apply the concept of ecosystem services that precision is needed in wording. I am currently wrestling with new measures for 'natural flood management', which many would see as an ecosystem service but the measures are highly engineered and damage the natural function of river systems. A balanced approach might involve partially accepting these measures, whereas I would say that we should not be seeing them as part of an ecosystem service at all.

Thank you once again , Chris . I fully agree with you .