Can we put a price on nature?

One from our pasture spoke at this debate at the Natural History Museum which you can watch online:

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/natureplus/videos/1485

It is the first of four Earth Debates hosted by the Natural History Museum in the run up to Rio Earth Summit 2012. For the forthcoming debates see:  http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/biodiversity/earth-debates/watch/

The title is catchy but as the speakers also acknowledged not entirely accurate. “Trying to express the values individuals place on the environment in monetary or other terms” would be more accurate but yes it is a mouthful.

The problem with ‘price’ though is that it implies a commoditisation process: markets, supply, demand…’prices can go down as well as up’.

The idea is not to commoditise nature but to ensure that its value is recognised when money related decisions are made. Yes values, as well as prices, can go down…but the current situation we have is one of zero price / zero value as seen in decision-making and all we are trying to do is to change this imbalance to give nature a fairer representation against hard cash, jobs, economic growth arguments.

The debate contains some very interesting discussions between the panellists and in response to questions received. One in particular, a type of question we often get, is worth summarising here.

A question from Ethiopia was taken during the debate about whether valuing nature negatively affects the poor.  Trying to understand the economic value of nature is not harmful to the poor – as once a value for a resource is estimated we can make those who can afford to pay for the services they receive pay while protecting those who can’t. The example given was water: it is possible to allocate an amount of water deemed to be necessary for basic human needs, then put an increasing price on higher volumes to ensure companies and institutions who can afford to pay do so, and more importantly do not waste water once it is no longer free.

Economists talk about values, monetary expression of values and so on but we are also aware that there are other components to value and hence economic value is only part of the picture. Decision makers should not ignore other values (in other words arguments in favour of nature protection) such as scientific drivers, cultural and spiritual values and so on.

While some of these issues have been discussed amongst economists for some time, it was refreshing to see such a multidisciplinary audience on the night and the hope is that the debates continue to be watched by multidisciplinary audiences.

If we have made one progress since Rio 1992, it is that now more and more people acknowledge that not a single discipline or school of thought or political persuasion can save the planet alone….as for whether we can save it if we work together, I remain positive.