Advertisement

The Natural Capital Protocol

  • Samir WhitakerEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

Current decision-making processes do not adequately account for biodiversity and ecosystem services, apparent in the downward trends for many global indicators of environmental health. Globally, close to half of the largest economies are companies, and an increasing awareness of how businesses are degrading ecosystems has led to a plethora of new methodologies to value biodiversity and ecosystem services as well as increasing consumer and investor pressure to better account for and manage these risks. Resistance to this pressure is waning as CEOs are seeing the value proposition: opportunities to secure supply chains, differentiate from competitors with new products, and respond to shareholder calls for more holistic risk assessment and management. With overlapping methodologies, frameworks, and guidance forming the beginnings of a crowded and potentially confusing landscape, the Natural Capital Protocol aims to serve as ‘the’ standardised framework for businesses to measure and value natural capital, providing results to guide corporate decision-making. In this chapter, I explore the history and need for the Protocol, its structure and development, and some recent criticism of Natural Capital approaches.

References

  1. 1.
    Guerry, A. D., S. Polasky, J. Lubchenco, R. Chaplin-Kramer, G. C. Daily, R. Griffin, M. Ruckelshaus, I. J. Bateman, A. Duraiappah, T. Elmqvist, M. W. Feldman, C. Folke, J. Hoekstra, P. M. Kareiva, B. L. Keeler, S. Li, E. McKenzie, Z. Ouyang, B. Reyers, T. H. Ricketts, J. Rockström, H. Tallis, and B. Vira.2015. Natural capital and ecosystem services informing decisions: From promise to practice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112: 7348–7355. Available online at  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503751112. Last Accessed 8 May 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Science for Environment Policy. 2017. Taking stock: progress in natural capital accounting. In-depth Report 16 produced for the European Commission, DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/natural_capital_accounting_taking_stock_IR16_en.pdf. Last Accessed 8 May 2018.
  3. 3.
    CBD. 2011. Aichi target 2. Avalabile online at: https://www.cbd.int/doc/strategic-plan/targets/T2-quick-guide-en.pdf. Last Accessed 15 May 2018.
  4. 4.
    Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). 2012. Catalogue of assessments on biodiversity and ecosystem services. Available at catalog.ipbes.net. Accessed 21 May 2015.
  5. 5.
    Natural Capital Coalition. 2017. Natural capital protocol development. Available online at: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/protocol/development. Last Accessed 20 Apr 2018.
  6. 6.
    Hanson, C., J. Ranganathan, C. Iceland, and J. Finisdore. 2012. The corporate ecosystem services review: Guidelines for identifying business risks and opportunities arising from ecosystem change. Version 2.0. Washington, DC: World Resources Institute.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD). 2011. Guide to corporate ecosystem valuation. Available online at: https://www.wbcsd.org/contentwbc/download/573/6341. Last Accessed 9 May 2018.
  8. 8.
    Yergin, D. 1991. The prize, 559. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schumacher, E. 1973. Small is beautiful: A study of economics as if people mattered. London: Vintage Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Missemer, A. 2018. Natural capital as an economic concept. History and Contemporary Issues Ecological Economics 143 (2018): 90–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nunes, P.A.L.D., P. Kumar, and T. Dedeurwaerdere. 2014. Handbook on the economics of ecosystem services and biodiversity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). 2005. Ecosystems and human well-being: Synthesis. Washington, DC: Island Press. Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB. Available at www.teebweb.org/publication/page/2/. Last Accessed 20 Apr 2018.
  13. 13.
    TEEB. 2010. Mainstreaming the economics of nature: A synthesis of the approach, conclusions and recommendations of TEEB, Available at www.teebweb.org/publication/page/2/. Accessed 20 Apr 2018.
  14. 14.
    Natural Capital Coalition. 2017. Natural capital protocol – History, vision and mission. Available online at: https://naturalcapital.org/who/history-vision-mission/. Last Accessed 30 Apr 2018.
  15. 15.
    Trucost. 2013. Natural capital at risk – The top 100 externalities of business. Available at: https://www.trucost.com/publication/natural-capital-risk-top-100-externalities-business/. Last Accessed 25 Apr 2018.
  16. 16.
    World Bank. 2014. Wealth accounting and the valuation of ecosystem services. WAVES Annual Report 2014, Available at www.wavespartnership.org/sites/waves/files/documents/WAVES_2014AR_REV_low_FINAL.pdf. Accessed 22 Apr 2018.
  17. 17.
    Natural Capital Finance Alliance (NCFA). 2012. Natural capital declaration. Available online at http://www.naturalcapitaldeclaration.org/. Last Accessed 8 May 2018.
  18. 18.
    Natural Capital Coalition. 2016. Natural capital protocol. Available online at: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/protocol/. Last Accessed 20 Apr 2018.
  19. 19.
    Natural Capital Coalition. 2017. Natural capital protocol finance sector guide. Available online at: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/protocol/sector-guides/finance/. Last Accessed 17 Apr 2018.
  20. 20.
    Natural Capital Coalition. 2017. Natural capital protocol application programme. Available online at: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/protocol/protocol-application-program/. Last Accessed 20 Apr 2018.
  21. 21.
    Natural Capital Coalition. 2017. Natural capital protocol yorkshire water case study. Available online at: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/natural-capital-protocol-case-study-for-yorkshire-water/. Last Accessed 20 Apr 2018.
  22. 22.
    Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership (CISL). 2017. Snapshot of government engagement with natural capital approaches prepared to support the government dialogue on enabling natural capital approaches. World Forum on Natural Capital, Edinburgh available at: https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CCI-Natural-Capital-Paper-July-2016-low-res.pdf. Last Accessed 7 May 2018.
  23. 23.
    World Bank. 2017. World Bank WAVES programme. Available online at: https://www.wavespartnership.org/. Last Accessed 17 Apr 2018.
  24. 24.
    World Economic Forum (WEF). 2018. The global risks report, 13th edition. Available at http://wef.ch/risks2018. Last Accessed 8 May 2018.
  25. 25.
    International Finance Corporate (IFC). 2016. Press release: IFC lends €106 million to CEMEX environmental programs. Available online at https://ifcextapps.ifc.org/ifcext%5Cpressroom%5Cifcpressroom.nsf%5C0%5CD73AF0C19B1756AC85257FF7004E1816. Last Accessed 8 May 2018.
  26. 26.
    Bermejo Gomez de Segura, R. 2014. Handbook for a sustainable economy, 23. Dortrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Monbiot, G. 2018. The UK government wants to put a price on nature – But that will destroy it. Guardian Online, Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/may/15/price-natural-world-destruction-natural-capital
  28. 28.
    Cambridge Conservation Initiative (CCI). 2016. Biodiversity at the heart of accounting for natural capital: The key to credibility. Available at https://naturalcapitalcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CCI-Natural-Capital-Paper-July-2016-low-res.pdf. Last Accessed 30 Apr 2018.
  29. 29.
    Corporate Reporting Dialogue. 2018. Statement of common principles of materiality of the corporate reporting dialogue. Available at: http://corporatereportingdialogue.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Statement-of-Common-Principles-of-Materiality1.pdf. Last Accessed 7 May 2018.
  30. 30.
    Goldstein, J. H., G. Caldarone, T.K. Duarte, D. Ennaanay, N. Hannahs, G. Mendoza, and G.C. Daly. 2012. Integrating ecosystem-service tradeoffs into land-use decisions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109 (19): 7565–7570. Available online at:  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201040109. Last Accessed 1 May 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zoological Society of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations