It sounds like it's possible, at least for certain services. But how widely the approach can be applied is a different issue.

I'd be interested to know how the TEEB project came up with the figure of '153 billion Euros per year' for the cost of crop pollination by bees and other insects.

Using ecosystem services as the justification for protecting the natural world is, as other commentators have said, an effective short term tool to get politicians and decision makers on board. However I believe that it's ultimately short-sighted, and reinforces the consumer culture that has got us in this mess in the first place.

If we view nature as a commodity it's value can not only go up, but down, just as every other commodity does. However unlike other commodities if the price crashes and we lose some of our assets - habitats and species -  we won't be able to get them back any time soon.

NO, nature has no price, and..... we should try and save it.

Think about it.

Some really intereting points coming up - I hope these emerge in the debate discussion. Of course we would say that nature is beyond value, but unfortunately that is often not enough to protect it in the real world as it is generally true to say that what we dont value we don't look after.

We can certainly see the spritual and heath value of nature as intrinsic, important and very difficulat to price (economists have tried to price the health value by looking for example at how people enjoy green spaces and how this improves mental wellbeing and cuts down on state medical costs). We can begin to measure the wider value by looking at its many natural services too - for example a forest provides oxygen, filters dirt particles from the air and captures the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide; the forest is a source of food and medicines, timber, fuel and fibre for local communities; the forest cover storeswater and mitigates risks of flood or drought. So when we look at the forest like this we soon see its standing value is greater than its value as cut timber.

So do set some land aside as places of natural beaty or as nature reserves because of its intrinsic value - but that is a relatively small part of nature. If we realise nature does so much more towards our economic wellbeing we will be increasingly prepared to do more to ensure its protection. For example insurance companies are getting more interested because of the costs of increased flood damage where the natural cover has been lost.

An important issue is to descrimintate between the meaning of value and price. Pricing mechanisims could mean that those who exploit nature most have to contribute more to its managment and restoration. This way for example water utility companies (who own much of our uplands) have a vested interest in protecting peat bogs and heather - as these ecosystems store and clean water which goes into reservoirs; this keeps the company's water treatment costs down, and this land management cost become incorporated in water pricing to consumers. Another big example is in carbon markets - where users of fossil fuels pay a price - a carbon tax - to restore and replace forests - which then capture carbon (as well as provide widerl natural service benefits).

Non of this is perfect, but in almost every case studied the value of natural resources, when considered in this way, significantly exceeds them being replaces by single human alternatve use of the land; forests provide more value than oil palm, mangroves provide more value than shrimp farms; forests more value than cattle grazing etc. So valuing and in some cases pricing give decision makers who care for environment a strong line of evidence, and tools to so compel politicians and finaciers to consider looking after our natural resources - nature.

Valuation of resources is a useful decision making tool but it is specific to given situations.  For a fully-rounded view of the sustainability of an eco-system, lifestyle etc. you also need to consider ecological limits.

I tend to think of limits in terms of budgets - an ecosystem has a "budget" that determines how much disruption it can absorb before falling apart.  For example, a rain forest has a specific regeneration rate and it would be best for the logging rate not to exceed this level.

In practice, the budget may be absorbed by a number of developments, each of which were decided upon via a specific price or value judgement.  However, each should be made with a view to their contribution to use of the budget.

From a different perspective, you can give yourself a carbon or financial budget and use it to ensure that the various price or value judgements you make don't together exceed the replacement rate of your budget (e.g. monthly wage).  If you spent all your annual income in January, you'll be broke the rest of the year or in serious debt very quickly!

The question should be: can we put a value on nature? This would guide us to discuss the differences between price and value. If it is taken for granted that value means price, the discussion is by default in the spider's web of 'market valuation'. A very different perspective comes up if look first at the nature of value. The basic question turns to: is every value a monetary value? Please, mind the gap.

The distinction (I think!) between thinking in terms of value compared to limits and resource use is fundamental.  A resource may be "the Brazilian rainforest" or "fresh water" or "rare earths", which can either be valued or assessed in terms of limits and sustainable usage (budgets).

As I mention in my post above, I think they are different ways of tackling the problem.  You need different information in each case and the meaning for the person/organisation making decisions is quite different.