By Henrietta Appleton, Policy Officer (England)
It seems like a simple question, but when it comes to government policy, it’s more difficult. The current focus on climate change is mainly focused on carbon, with biodiversity playing a supporting role through nature-based solutions1. This raises the question: is biodiversity a good in itself, or is it a support service that supports the delivery of a wide range of ecosystem services (provision, regulation, cultural)?
The recent Dasgupta report on the economics of biodiversity might give us an idea. The government considers biodiversity to be a process that needs to be evaluated. This is to support the concept of valuing our natural capital (NC) alongside human and industrial capital to compensate for the negative externalities that have affected our global ecosystem and are seen as destruction of our sustainability.
At a fundamental level, biodiversity is important because it is at the basis of all our life-giving processes and, given its complexity, it is vulnerable to changes in species stocks and abundance. This is strikingly illustrated by the GWCT’s Sussex Study, which has shown that the decline in bird populations is due to the disappearance of insects in the chick diet due to the use of pesticides (which affect both the insects and the plants they feed on). But since biodiversity is embedded in our life processes, can we really value biodiversity? Should we actually do that?
If we want to “value” our natural processes (which include biodiversity), we inevitably need supporting data and an understanding of those processes to reach a conclusion. And this is where I have a problem. Some processes and data are available, but many are not, and I fear that this uneven playing field will disadvantage some aspects of biodiversity if we want to monetize that “value” instead of just acknowledging it. Furthermore, the desire for evidence to support our approach to natural capital and the application of the precautionary principle to protect what we have leads to decisions being made that are binary, while the complexity of our ecosystems requires a more adaptive and nuanced approach.
A binary approach is also enforced by considering public policy as a set of topics with accompanying strategies such as the Tree Strategy, the Biodiversity Strategy and the Peat Strategy. It is an unchanging aspect of our agricultural and environmental policy that we have a finite supply of land. We need to look at our approach to food production and environmental goods and services in conjunction and strive for balanced, adaptive approaches to achieve multiple results. In theory, natural capital accounting should do that, but we’re still a long way from creating a level playing field of data and market values for all of this. That said, the actual process of a natural capital audit focuses the mind on all the assets involved.
Our current understanding of the role of our ecosystem in our sustainability leads to a focus on the NC value of individual aspects of our ecosystems, such as a particular species or ecosystem service. This is counterproductive, in my view, because it leads to a management that maximizes one aspect at the expense of a range of other assets, processes and services. Natural capital accounting, at least for the moment, could only strengthen current perceptions, rather than encouraging a policy approach that focuses on multiple outcomes. However, a possible light at the end of the tunnel is signalled by the encouragement of land management plans in the new SFI; Is this the beginning of a land use approach?
So back to my opening question. Biodiversity IS important because it supports all our life processes; Therefore, in my opinion, its real value will never be realized if we try to attach a market price to it. Perhaps we should instead focus on valuing the outcomes – like food – in a way that reflects the costs of sustainable production? This is similar to the way in which the future ELM scheme approaches biodiversity. The aspects of biodiversity that are known to support food production are encouraged and paid for on the basis of lost income, costs incurred and a ‘reward element’ equal to the value of biodiversity. As we gain a better understanding of the impact of our activities on biodiversity, we can design production systems that protect biodiversity; However, this will cost money in the public budget, as only certain natural resources can be monetised through a combination of public and private funding.
Source: GWCT
