The concepts we use to describe the world are not neutral. They have their own implications, histories, and often supporters and critics. The concept of “natural capital” is one such contested concept, playing a key role in current debates about the future of the natural world. For some, it is seen as a means of protecting the planet, whilst others see it as a threat to lives and livelihoods.
There is, however, one area where it is not much contested. Within the economics community in the UK, it is often simply accepted. It has also received the support of four major UK ecological science organisations.1 The term “natural capital” is mentioned 90 times in the Government’s latest statement of environmental policy, its 25-Year Environment Plan.2 This bandwagon has well and truly rolled amongst economists and policymakers in this country.
Its UK critics are largely to be found amongst the general public, and within academia amongst practitioners of the arts and humanities. It is the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) that has supported the work that led to this book, through their funding for a network to meet and discuss the issues raised by “natural capital”, called Debating Nature’s Value (DNV).
The DNV network has held two major meetings: one at the University of East Anglia, in Norwich, in March 2017; the other at Anglia Ruskin University, in Cambridge, in April 2018. One result was the commissioning of a series of papers, some of which are now included in updated versions in this book. A piece of select committee evidence was produced.3 There is also a website, including an online glossary of terms4; and there has been an art exhibition and commissioned artwork created by Rosanna Greaves. There are now hopes of following through our discussions with more detailed work with groups of specialists and decision-makers.
From the start, as organisers we wanted to avoid a simple polarised debate. We wanted to explore nuances and middle positions as well as those at each end of the spectrum. This is reflected in contributions to this book.
We also wanted to reflect the international context of this debate. Whilst “natural capital” has very strong support in the UK, it is far less popular in some other parts of the world. This has resulted in the main international forum for scientific advice to governments about biodiversity—Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES)—choosing instead to use the far less specific and more inclusive term “Nature’s contributions to people”.5 As a global organisation, it would have been in difficulties if it had based its assessments on a concept regarded with suspicion in large parts of the world, especially in Latin America. One aim of this book is therefore to draw attention to this international debate, which has a very different flavour to the debate in the UK.
The chapters in this book start from an account of the international debate about biodiversity and natural capital. Lenke Balint and Aled Jones look particularly at developments in IPBES. This is followed by a critique by Rupert Read and Tom Greaves of the single most globally influential contribution to the promotion of “natural capital” as a concept: the studies carried out by The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). After that, there is an overview of the Natural Capital Protocol by Samir Whitaker, which has taken the sorts of ideas discussed by TEEB out amongst decision-makers, particularly in business.
The next two chapters, by Rob Tinch and Tom Oliver, both set out, after examining the strengths and weaknesses of “natural capital” as an idea, nuanced positions based on taking account of both sides of the argument. Sandra Bell and Rebecca Clark then both consider the practical implications of “natural capital” in the work of Friends of the Earth and English Nature.
Practical issues of a different sort are discussed in the chapters by Victor Anderson and Dario Kenner. I discuss a series of difficulties in arriving at figures for the monetary value of natural capital, whilst Dario discusses the particular difficulty caused by different groups of people valuing nature differently.
The next two chapters, by Jenneth Parker and John Foster, discuss some of the wider issues raised in the natural capital debate, exploring ways of thinking about the natural world which challenge the whole basic approach taken by “natural capital” advocates.
In the final chapter, however, I end by suggesting that the whole debate about “natural capital” is itself a problem, diverting attention from the real drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem deterioration, which above all are the economics of land use change and the economics of climate change. This provides a different approach to what “the economics of biodiversity” might mean: not the application of a mainstream economics concept (capital) to the natural world, but an investigation of economic forces as causes of change. This chapter also serves as a reminder of the global context not only in terms of the debate about concepts, but also in terms of the devastation now happening in the biosphere.
The co-ordinating group for the DNV network consisted of Dr. Rupert Read as Principal Investigator, Dr. Aled Jones as Co-Investigator, Felicity Clarke as Administrator, and myself as Researcher. We are grateful to the many people who gave us advice as the network progressed and to the AHRC for their support for our work.
Summary
The ongoing degradation and loss of biodiversity and ecosystems have become an inescapable part of reality. Much of it is due to the ways in which humans make use of ...
