Ideas about natural capital and ecosystems services have altered how some governments value biodiversity – they could also help us build back better after lockdown
IF YOU have ever heard of “natural capital” or “ecosystem services”, then it is probably because of Gretchen Daily. The Stanford University biologist pioneered these concepts, which aim to evaluate nature and what it provides us with, and factor these values into economic decision-making.
Many countries have taken them on board, including the UK government, which has a committee to advise on natural capital. Nevertheless, the idea is contentious. Proponents argue that ignoring nature’s value when planning new homes, roads and infrastructure hasn’t served wildlife and habitats well. Critics say putting a price on nature will make our degradation of it worse.
In 2006, Daily helped to launch an international partnership, the Natural Capital Project, bringing together academic and conservation groups to further this agenda. She has also developed a metric to rival GDP, called Gross Ecosystem Product (GEP), which could help countries better value nature.
Adam Vaughan: Why do you think natural capital is so divisive as a concept?
Gretchen Daily: If one has been fortunate enough to get to know nature, then nature is infinitely valuable. And it’s beyond crass to put a price tag on nature, to quantify even the value of some dimension of nature. It’s kind of like putting a price tag on human life. And I share that perspective. But most people don’t know nature. So many kids are growing up in urban contexts where they never even get their hands in soil, or climb a tree, or see the stars in the sky at night. And it’s a fantasy to think otherwise. In most arenas of the world, nature …
Source: Humans - newscientist.com
