When we consider the interconnected “Planetary Boundaries” that we may cross we see that they are all directly or indirectly connected to humanity's interaction with the natural world. To ensure our chances of a sustainable future it is essential that we consider our impact on the land, the oceans and biodiversity in general. It has been argued that we should put a price on nature to ensure sustainability.
In this section I will consider whether or not we can put a price on nature, what this may mean or not mean, and if so should we do so? What are the potential benefits or pitfalls in attempting this?
In 2011 Pavan Sukhdev gave an excellent Ted talk on “Put a value on Nature!” in which he discusses the “economic invisibility of nature”. He indeed makes a very good case for considering economic decisions with an increased awareness of the benefits of nature. It is well worth listening to, but why should I also consider potential pitfalls?
To ensure that humanity follows a path that is sustainable, a clear statement of goals such as the United Nations sustainable development goals (UN SDGs) is essential. I made the point in section 3 of this series that they should be based on core values and it may be worthwhile to read that section. Not everyone will share these goals and indeed some may focus on personal wealth and power. The path that we take is uncertain but we may not even agree on the need to aim for a sustainable world or the kind of world that is valued. In a previous section I discussed those that hold political views that will oppose any regulation that will distract from their agenda; namely to “move towards a more extreme political framework that allows businesses to operate without the need to consider the environmental or social consequences”. With any proposed policies that are envisaged, we must be wary of the steps that may be taken by others to undermine effective policy.
There is another issue that needs resolved about these goals:
Can we add up all the things we value that I discussed in section 3 of this series to arrive at a figure for comparison purposes?
If these goals are based on values we cannot trade one of them off for another.
These goals are not commensurable. It is like “comparing apples and oranges”. When considering the goals regarding nature, it is wise to be aware of all the “ecosystem services” that nature provides and that some of these “services” within an ecosystem can be given a price in pounds or dollars. What we must not do is say that the value of say a forest and all its intrinsic values is equal to x$. When or if we do, we risk the degradation of the forest on potentially flawed market values by those who do not share our values.
Pavan Sukhdev (link above) considers economic benefits of nature that we may have overlooked but that we are gradually becoming aware of. This will certainly improve the short term economic decisions we may make as we include the benefits of regulatory functions that say a forest may have in issues such as flood control or distant rainfall that the forest influences. This price we put on nature is one that can be measured in dollars but it is not the same as a value when considering our SDGs. This price can be used as an argument to preserve woodlands, mangroves etc by pointing out, to those who do not even value nature, that degradation of the reserve is not in the best financial interest.
However by confusing value with prices, or by compromising values through appeasement, we risk losing valuable reserves through a short term, possibly flawed economic argument that would have otherwise not have been contemplated. The pitfalls of trusting purely market solutions are described here in” The Pricing of Everything” by George Monbiot in a Guardian article.
When we look for success stories on environmental issues we can see that a combination of methods using market values is required while being aware of the limitations of market values. This occurs when we have clear goals based on values. The Union of Concerned Scientists discusses the complexities of protecting forests from around the world in “Deforestation Success Stories”. Here we see some albeit limited examples whereby deforestation is stopped and compensation for the loss of economic gain to individuals is compensated through some direct finance scheme. Being aware that success is only limited and that there is much more to do, the Union of Concerned Scientists give recommendations to policy makers. Some examples from page 56 are given here:
• “Establish moratoria. Voluntary or legislated moratoria on deforestation per se, on permits to clear forestland, or on the purchase of goods produced in deforested areas can help address the drivers of deforestation. Moratoria, even if temporary, can become parts of corporate responsibility policy that transform whole sectors and move provisional moratoria toward permanence.
• Obtain financing for action. Although the success stories in this report cannot provide a clear cause-and-effect relationship between international financing and successful results, it is notable that all the cases depended to some extent on international support. There is the potential in many other countries to reduce land-based carbon emissions substantially if financing were provided to do so. The stories in this report should bolster the political will, country by country, to obtain or provide such funding and thus contribute to the global effort to curb global warming.”
Concluding.
When we put a price on nature this can contribute to reasons for preserving natural ecosystems. We must be aware that the price only represents economic value and that this value is likely a short term price and only the price we have recognised so far. Further this price can be further devalued by irresponsible or misguided lobbyists and hence the price should not be used as an excuse for ecosystem degradation.
No comments:
Post a Comment