Advertisement

Who Should Value Nature?

  • Dario KennerEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

There is currently a debate about whether nature should be valued in intrinsic ways or via economic valuation. By looking at the question of who values nature in countries in the global south this allows us to explore what might happen in practice when a diverse range of stakeholders are involved such as governments, companies, local communities and indigenous peoples. This chapter will argue that these are important issues that require further research because stakeholders have different agendas (valuation is not a neutral scientific process) and there are often power differentials at play. The chapter features interviews with key academics, consultants and indigenous leaders about how they value nature and their views on monetary and non-monetary valuation. The full interviews can be accessed at: http://whygreeneconomy.org/who-should-value-nature/

References

  1. 1.
    Chan, K. et al. 2016. Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113 (6): 1462–1465. Retrieved from:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1525002113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arias-Arévalo, P., Martín-López, B., and Gómez-Baggethun, E. 2017. Exploring intrinsic, instrumental, and relational values for sustainable management of social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society 22 (4): 43. Retrieved from:  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-09812-220443.
  3. 3.
    Kenner, D. 2014. Who should value nature? The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. Retrieved from: https://www.icaew.com/-/media/corporate/files/technical/sustainability/tecpln13444-who-should-value-nature-web.ashx?la=en
  4. 4.
    Great Transition Initiative. 2014. Monetizing nature: Taking precaution on a slippery slope. Great Transition Initiative. Retrieved from: http://greattransition.org/publication/monetizing-nature-taking-precaution-on-a-slippery-slope
  5. 5.
    Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 2018. Biodiversity and nature’s contributions continue dangerous decline, Scientists Warn. IPBES. Retrieved from: https://www.ipbes.net/news/biodiversity-nature%E2%80%99s-contributions-continue-%C2%A0dangerous-decline-scientists-warn
  6. 6.
    Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. 2018. Information on the scoping for the methodological assessment regarding the diverse conceptualization of multiple values of nature and its benefits, including biodiversity and ecosystem services (deliverable 3 (d)). IPBES. Retrieved from: https://www.ipbes.net/system/tdf/ipbes-6-inf-9_en.pdf?file=1&type=node&id=16522
  7. 7.
    International Institute for Environment and Development. 2013. “Land grabbing”: Is conservation part of the problem or the solution? IIED. Retrieved from: http://pubs.iied.org/17166IIED/
  8. 8.
    United Nations. 2017. World population prospects: The 2017 revision. UN. June. Retrieved from: https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospects-the-2017-revision.html
  9. 9.
    World Wildlife Fund. 2012. Living planet report. WWF. Retrieved from: http://assets.wwf.org.uk/downloads/lpr_2012_summary_booklet_final_7may2012.pdf
  10. 10.
    World Bank Group. 2013. Securing Africa’s land for shared prosperity: A program to scale up reforms and investments. Retrieved from: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/732661468191967924/Securing-Africas-land-for-shared-prosperity-a-program-to-scale-up-reforms-and-investments
  11. 11.
    Rights and Resources. 2014. Communities as counterparties: Preliminary review of concessions and conflict in emerging and frontier market concessions. Rights and Resources. Retrieved from: http://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/Communities-as-Counterparties-FINAL_Oct-21.pdf
  12. 12.
    Global Witness. 2018. New data reveals 197 land and environmental defenders murdered in 2017. Global Witness. Retrieved from: https://www.globalwitness.org/en-gb/blog/new-data-reveals-197-land-and-environmental-defenders-murdered-2017/
  13. 13.
    Rights and Resources. 2016. Common ground: Securing land rights and safeguarding the earth. Retrieved from: http://rightsandresources.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Global-Call-to-Action_Common-Ground_Land-Rights_April-2-16_English.pdf
  14. 14.
    Bullock, C. 2017. Nature’s values: From intrinsic to instrumental. A review of values and valuation methodologies in the context of ecosystem services and natural capital. National Economic and Social Council (10). Retrieved from: http://edepositireland.ie/handle/2262/82055
  15. 15.
    Hamrick, K. 2016. State of private investment in conservation 2016: A landscape assessment of an emerging market. NatureVest. Retrieved from: http://www.naturevesttnc.org/pdf/Investing-in-Conservation-2016-full.pdf
  16. 16.
    Sullivan, S. 2018. Nature 3.0 – Will blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies save the planet? Entitle Blog. Retrieved from: https://entitleblog.org/2018/02/01/nature-3-0-will-blockchain-technology-and-cryptocurrencies-save-the-planet/
  17. 17.
    Pascual, U. et al. 2017. Valuing nature’s contributions to people: The IPBES approach. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26–27: 7–16. Retrieved from:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kari-Oca 2 Declaration. 2012. Indigenous peoples global conference on Rio+20 and Mother Earth. Kari-Oca 2. Retrieved from: http://villageearth.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DECLARATION-of-KARI-OCA-2-Eng.pdf
  19. 19.
    Díaz, S., et al. 2015. The IPBES conceptual framework – Connecting nature and people. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 26–27: 7–16. Retrieved from:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.11.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Díaz, S., et al. 2018. Assessing nature’s contributions to people. Science 6373 (359): 270–272. Retrieved from: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6373/270
  21. 21.
    Díaz, S., et al. 2018. RE: There is more to nature’s contributions to people than ecosystem services – A response to de Groot et al. Science 6373 (359): 270–272. Retrieved from: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6373/270/tab-e-letters
  22. 22.
    Palomo, I., 2016. Chapter six – Disentangling the pathways and effects of ecosystem service co-production. Advances in Ecological Research 54: 245–283. Retrieved from:  https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aecr.2015.09.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Braat, L. 2018. Five reasons why the science publication “assessing nature’s contributions to people” (Díaz et al. 2018) would not have been accepted in ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, in press. Retrieved from:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.02.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Maes, J., Burkhard, B., and Geneletti, D. 2018. Ecosystem services are inclusive and deliver multiple values. A comment on the concept of nature’s contributions to people. One Ecosystem: e24720. Retrieved from:  https://doi.org/10.3897/oneeco.3.e24720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Garmendia, E., and U. Pascual. 2013. The justices and injustices of ecosystem services. Ed. T. Sikor, 161–186. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Turkelboom, F. et al. 2018. When we cannot have it all: Ecosystem services trade-offs in the context of spatial planning. Ecosystem Services 29: 566–578. Retrieved from:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.10.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Sikor, T., ed. 2013. The justices and injustices of ecosystem services. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Felipe-Lucia, M. et al. 2015. Ecosystem services flows: Why stakeholders’ power relationships matter. PLoS One 10 (7): e0132232. Retrieved from:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ward, C., Stringer, L., and Holmes, G. 2018. Changing governance, changing inequalities: Protected area co-management and access to forest ecosystem services: A Madagascar case study (30): 137–148. Retrieved from:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Berbés-Blázquez, M., González, J., and Pascual, U. 2016. Towards an ecosystem services approach that addresses social power relations. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability (19): 134–143. Retrieved from:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sangha, Kamaljit, and Russell-Smith, J. 2017. Towards an indigenous ecosystem services valuation framework: A north Australian example. Conservation and Society 15 (3): 255–269. Retrieved from: http://www.conservationandsociety.org/text.asp?2017/15/3/255/215822
  32. 32.
    Survival International. Tribes: Dongria. Survival International. Retrieved from: https://www.survivalinternational.org/tribes/dongria
  33. 33.
    Peterson, G.D., Z.V. Harmackova, M. Meacham, C. Queiroz, A. Jiménez Aceituno, J.J. Kuiper, K. Malmborg, N.E. Sitas, and E.M. Bennett. 2018. Welcoming different perspectives in IPBES: “Nature’s contributions to people” and “Ecosystem services”. Ecology and Society 23 (1): 39.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10134-230139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Anglia Ruskin UniversityCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations