The real value of nature

Sandra Bell

08 March 2013

On Tuesday a business led task force told Ministers that we need to value nature more highly. The Ecosystems Market Task Force's new report found that business as usual - in its own words - "take, make discard' is not sustainable for the environment or the economy.

The EMTF rightly points out that "Natural Systems provide us with food, shelter, water, energy, health and air and protect us from costly floods". Also that "in many cases, nature's resources and services can provide all these dividends indefinitely, provided we look after them".

The report sets out a clear challenge to businesses to value natural resources more highly. It makes clear recommendations to Government to set the policies and incentives to enable business to changes.

But perhaps its greater importance is its clear linking of 'business opportunity' and the protection of nature - a concept that not everyone will feel comfortable with.

It is right to acknowledge that nature provides us with services and that these can be assigned a monetary value. The fact that it would cost the UK £1.8 billion to replace the pollination services provided freely by bees certainly helps to make the case for their protection. And it's great that Sainsbury's recognises the importance of red mason bees in improving the quality of the apples it sells. Or, as they put it, "providing Sainsbury's consumers with tastier British produce for less.'

But we must not forget that all which nature provides cannot be measured in monetary terms. Bees are also immeasurably valuable in pollinating the plants that we enjoy in our parks and gardens. You can't put a price on of seeing the first bumblebee of Spring.

If we try to measure nature only by the services that can be plotted on a balance sheet, we risk seriously undervaluing it - and even seeing nature as a tradable commodity.

This is where I start to have a problem with the EMTF report. It's very first recommendation is to make biodiversity offsetting mandatory. The Government is already piloting six offsetting projects across the UK.

The EMTF claims that this is not a "licence to trash nature" and that it could deliver "300,000 hectares of habitat over 20 years". But what about the habitat that is lost? In my view it is not a positive outcome for nature to lose cherished local wildlife sites and to replace them with grand restoration projects elsewhere. Nature is unique, it can't simply be re-created in a new location.

Planning for nature should involve strong local planning policies and guidance to developers that ensures local nature sites are protected and that new space for biodiversity is an intrinsic part of new developments. If EMTF needs a financial incentive for that they should look at the mounting research that shows health costs decrease and house prices increase when people have access to natural green spaces.