Should we put a price on nature?
Should we put a price on nature?
KATHY WILLIS: We live in a capitalist world. Therefore, we need to put a price on nature because that is when, unfortunately, people start to value it. PAM MCELWEE: Species A is worth 50 bucks and species B is worth $10,000. It's like going to a grocery store. CAN WE PUT A PRICE ON NATURE? AND SHOULD WE? KATHY WILLIS: Biodiversity is declining in such a rapid rate. Around 25% of plant and animal species are close to extinction. I find that terrifying. THE EXTINCTION RATE IS THE FASTEST IT HAS EVER BEEN... AMPHIBIANS, BIRDS, MAMMALS, REPTILES, FISHES. AND HAS COME TO A HEAD AS THE WORLD HAS BECOME INCREASINGLY DEVELOPED. BUT AT A HUGE COST TO THE PLANET... SHARAD LELE: The root causes of the loss of wild nature are complex, But what is driving the biggest changes today is capitalism. BUT SOME ARGUE THAT CAPITALISM CAN ALSO HELP SOLVE THE PROBLEM... KATHY WILLIS: One solution to this problem is to value nature, to put a price on it, because, unfortunately, in the world we live in, once something has a value to it, people are less likely to destroy it. YADVINDER MALHI: Can these very tools that drive the decline of nature be the tools that help us reverse the process? Humans emerged from nature. We're part of the biosphere. KATHY WILLIS: It feeds us. It clothes us. It cleans our air. It provides us with fresh water. It is really important for our physical and mental wellbeing. YADVINDER MAHLI: I think it's useful to think about an ecosystem, and whether an ecosystem destroyed or harvested is worth more or less than an ecosystem intact. In many cases, there is more value in that ecosystem, and the challenge is to recognise that value. KATHY WILLIS: One of the really big issues, I think, with valuing nature is how do you do it? Under our current model, a tree only has value when it is cut down. PAM MCELWEE: When you cut down a tree and you sell it as timber, you're able to realise the market value of that timber. Whereas if that tree still remains in a forest, it's playing a lot of functional roles, for surrounding communities and even the global community. KATHY WILLIS: Look at these lovely plants! YADVINDER MAHLI: One really interesting question is, how much is the Amazon rainforest worth? How does it compare to Amazon the company? The question has an obvious answer. The Amazon rainforest is the centre of biodiversity on planet Earth - there's no way that is worth less than a company. BUT THE AMAZON RAINFOREST IS UNDER HUGE PRESSURE. WOULD PUTTING A PRICE ON EVERYTHING THE AMAZON PROVIDES HELP PROTECT IT? YADVINDER MAHLI: So if we started, for example, by looking at the carbon value in terms of climate change mitigation, the rainfall that's being generated by that rainforest existing, the biodiversity that provides lots of interactions around pollination and controlling pests, that may one day provide medical benefits for people. And then on top of that, that rainforest is ancient. It's been around for 60 million years. And that has intrinsic respect and value that we also need to consider in the equation. KATHY WILLIS: Viewing nature as an asset rather than a commodity, is absolutely essential, because an asset you always want to build on, you want to enhance, and you want to protect. BUT THERE IS ALSO CRITICISM OF THIS APPROACH. SOME ARGUE THAT IN TOUGH ECONOMIC TIMES, PROTECTING NATURE IS A LUXURY WE CAN'T AFFORD. THERE IS CRITICISM FROM WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT TOO. PAM MCELWEE: One of the big arguments is that it doesn't recognise the intrinsic relationships that people have with nature. We get senses of identity, sense of place, cultural relationships and rituals. And none of those can be properly represented with monetary valuation. SHARAD LELE: We cannot depend upon pricing of nature as the solution to problems, because we cannot price the priceless. PAM MCELWEE: I mean, the danger with putting a price on nature is that you create incentives for people to cheapen nature, because they want to make money off of it. SHARAD LELE: Communities that live close to nature, and are dependent on nature directly, are often the poorest. As a consequence, given their low incomes, the economic value of what they get from nature, the positive benefits that they get, turns out to be very low. We do not want to price out those who have very low incomes, living close to nature, but in poverty, and therefore eliminating their voices from the decision-making system. ONE EXAMPLE OF PUTTING A PRICE ON NATURE IS WHAT'S CALLED BIODIVERSITY OFFSETTING. PAM MCELWEE: In the state of California, if you're a developer, you want to build a bunch of houses, you know that your new housing complex is going to kill off breeding pairs of burrowing owls. You need to account for those burrowing owls someplace else. And so you have to then say, "I'm willing to pay $2,000 for a burrowing owl. Who out there can conserve a burrowing owl for $2,000 for me? Because that's the budget that I have." It's like going to a grocery store. BUT THOSE IN FAVOUR OF THIS APPROACH POINT TO CASE STUDIES WHERE BOTH NATURE AND COMMUNITIES HAVE BENEFITTED. YADVINDER MALHI: One of the pioneering examples of bringing nature into decision-making was the country of Costa Rica... KATHY WILLIS: ...which has gone from predominately deforestation to reforestation. COSTA RICA PAID THEIR FARMERS TO RESTORE FOREST ON THEIR LAND. YADVINDER MALHI: So Costa Rica now, by most metrics, has the highest Human Development Index, is the most prosperous and developed of the countries of its neighbourhood. SOME ARGUE WE SHOULDN'T SEE ECONOMIC PROGRESS AND PROTECTION OF NATURE AS OPPOSITES. BUT OUR CURRENT MODEL OF MEASURING PROGRESS NEEDS TO CHANGE TO INCLUDE NATURE IN THE EQUATION. SHARAD LELE: GDP is neither a necessary nor a sufficient indicator of human wellbeing, let alone the wellbeing of nature that could sustain human wellbeing over time. YADVINDER MALHI: Rethinking the fundamental structure of what a good economy, a good nation, a good life is is a fundamental part of what we need to do. KATHY WILLIS: There's not one silver bullet here, but I think this approach of valuing nature is an important one. In some ways, it is like that discussion between idealists and pragmatists. Some people feel we should not be putting a price on nature, and ethically, it's not right to do it. All of us have that idealist part in us. But we also have to be entirely pragmatic. We need a blueprint for nature that says these parts of the globe are the most important for nature, and we absolutely must protect them. PAM MCELWEE: Putting a price on nature is one way to value. It is not the only way to value nature. And so if we just recognise that monetary valuation is but one of a suite of ways, that would go a long way.